Its not DSM related, but I do believe it belongs in the announcements section.... read on.

Daily Mirror (newspaper in London)

No matter what your views on President Bush's statement of upcoming war,
this, from an English journalist, is very interesting. For those of you
not familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror, this is a notoriously left-wing
daily that is normally not supportive of the Colonials across the Atlantic.

"Tony Parsons" Daily Mirror September 11, 2002
ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -- the
mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless
cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there, with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so
calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one
thing -- nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.
But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's omeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year.
There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country -- too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to
me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are
bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago,
thousands of ordinary men, women and children -- not just Americans, but from
dozens of countries -- were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics.
Are we so quick to betray them?
What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some unborn.
And these people brought it on themselves?
And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the
Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.
The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.
Remember, remember. Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning
their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.
Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.
Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.
Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one
of the planes with her mum.
Remember -- and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray?
Pass the Kleenex...
So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired
their semiautomatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe
next time they should stick to confetti.
AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.
That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination.
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that -- and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the
most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism."
A real war.
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if
America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.
The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.
But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched
countries.
How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand-assuming you
haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.
But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh.
Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be -- rich,
free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.
Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.
To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street.
Save me the orange center, oh mighty one!
Remember, remember, September 11.
One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.
No, do more than remember. Never forget.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Live by the Sword,, Die by the Sword,, Saddams day is comming fast...........
Pass the Kleenix

Mark

Very well written.

I agree totally. I was very shocked and surprised that the US didnt wipe most of the middle east off the map. I am glad they had the restaint.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked the US retaliated hard. Much fewer people died in Pearl Harbor compared to WTC, The Pentagon, and the 4 jumbo jets etc, so why didnt the US retaliate and hit hard? Only the decision makers will know for sure.

I remember the feeling in the pit of my stomach, the painful feeling, while watching live TV news as the second tower collapsed. I will remember that feeling from the tragedy of 9/11/01 to the day I die.

JA

The current political situation is too volatile and Bush right or wrong is pushing himself into a corner...and the only way to save face is military action by the U.S. backing down now is not an option. The contempt the U.S. draws upon itself from the world comes from years of meddling in the affairs of other countries for political and economic gain. Also some of what comes across as contempt is really jealousy by have-nots. This is not a case of good versus evil and is not black and white. Granted Saddam is a stinking piece of sh.. and if he and every one in Iraq fell on a sword and died today they would not be missed ..certainly not by me. Did the people in that plane and in the towers deserve to die..no..but neither do the millions that die every day. The U.S hands are far from clean and have been pulling strings trying to control and or influence this region for years. Where do you think these countries got the weapons and technology from...the rocket launchers that Osama threatens to use on U.S. aircraft are Made in the USA. Supplying weapons to countries to fight against the soviets...in south america and south korea. The U.S. is reaping what is sows...but up until this point they were the biggest boy on the block and no one had the abilty or technology or resources to do anything about it until some clown who gets kicked in the head by a camel one days says hey lets crash a plane into a building. So the end result is what does Bush do ...well he has to spend billions and scorch the earth and make it absolutely clear that screw with the U.S and you will die...period. He will win and to the victor come the spoils which is writing history in their favour. If Hitler won we would all be speaking German right now or if Japan won...well you get the idea.

How could it be differnt? ...simple...all the countries that are threatening to start WW III exclusive of oil have insignificant economies. Pull the plug on the demand for oil...take away their revenue source for weapons, armies, scientists and nuclear reactors and these countries will revert to powerless insignificant agriculture based economies whose only struggle will be to feed themselves. Iraq and the Arabs nations are deserts for christ sakes...without oil revenue they would collapse in a matter of months. The U.S supplies more than half of North Koreas annual oil requirement and keeps them on a leash..without it the country would shut down and freeze...why bargain or negotiate? Just stop the shipments.

If Saturday Bush said instead of instead of feed the multi-billion dollar war machine I will give every american a hydrogen powered car by monday every house converted to solar or geo-thermal the demand for oil would nose dive. The world stocks of oil would turn from gold to lead over night. Is this realistic in a day or a week or even a few years...no. Is this a gross exaggeration? Yes but could this be a reality if it had been implemented over the last 10,15,20 years ..sure it could. So the U.S has chosen its path as have the G7 countries. So what do we do now the damage is done....we clean up the mess but continuing on this track will only lead to more of the same. These countries have nothing to lose. They have nothing and the few rich are incredibly rich and the poor are incredibly poor..throw in religions that they are willing to die for and we are screwed. If its a choice between us or them then i choose us but dont sugar coat it with its right or just cause it aint its survival of the fittest and might is right..period. Im sure this will piss someone off but hopefully you will take it for what it is ...an opinion a right i was given by some dead people who killed some other people for. Im pretty sure Bush doesnt drive a Talon so he wont be taking my advice.

I agree with you Jerry, as I think your points are valid.
I also feel though, that since the US IS is the "strongest kid on the block" that they are in between a rock and a hard place. While it is true that the US has gotten intermingled with other conflicts for political and/or economic gain, it can also be said that there is a certain sense of obligation the US has, to help.
If the US did nothing at all to help, they would be hated for doing nothing; if they intervene, they are hated for their strength.
This volatility of this issue is compounded by the religion factor. Thousands of people died on 9/11 by the hands of an Islam extremist. However, if we retaliate, all of a sudden we are blatently targeting Muslims, and the "discrimination" card once again gets played.
In regards to the oil issue, yes, it's very true that the US needs the oil, but so does CANADA. Personally, I think the fact that the oil in question just happens to be in the middle east, is cooincedental to the issue. Saddam is a threat, and a very big one, and he needs to be dealt with. If this tyrant was located anywhere esle in the world, then the focus would be there.
It just so happens that the middle east is the playing ground, so it's easier to play up the "US only wants to help because it wants the oil...."
Don't want to contradict you TOO badly, Jerry
Again, good arguments

Regards:
Dan

All the peacenicks yell it's only about the oil. Well they said that last time too and they were wrong.

It is about the oil but not how they think. It's entirely about not allowing any one person control the oil in the middle east... especially a murdering dictator bent on domination. Any single person controlling that amount of oil for a few years could easily propel themselves into a world power. By developing Nuclear weapons and ICBMs they could do it that much faster.

Hussein would not have stopped with Kuwait. Fortunately the world learned a few lessons from it's opening move blunders with Hitler.

Don't kid yourself, Hussein is a serious problem for the world... yet at this point in time he can be dealt with. If we wait until he has nukes it's a whole new story.

It's also not about stunting Muslim power in the world it's about stopping a radical extremist dictator from fufilling his dreams of domination.

Hussein has shown his hand already with Iran and Kuwait. He has had an active nuclear weapons and chemical weapons porgram since he agreed not to in his surrender.

He may not have the army to launch conventional war at this time but once he has nukes he can use that in his chess game to start building again.

We have all seen in Rwanda what the France's unwillingness to act can lead to.

I do wish he would capitulate to the worlds demands and give up his aspirations, however, why should he when he knows France will veto any war action by the UN. He knew the UN was a paper dragon. Now all he has to do when the US comes is draw Isreal into the conflict to really mess things up.

Just my opinions on the subject, which under the blanket the the free society I live in, I am allowed to voice. A blanket in great part provided me by the United States of America.

p.s. I suggest every have a look at what is happening in Korea lately. I would not be the least bit surprised if the North invades the South in the next little while. All the writing is on the wall... the only question is wether or not they are bluffing.

To play on one's emotions by mentioning the suffering and hardship after 9/11 is a little much. The fact of the matter that this goes on every single day in the middle East. Thousands are dying over there every day. Some due to US imposed embargoes, some not. Either way, us as living in a N American society are so blind. We see the one view. We see the 'religious fanatics' They are in the 1% of the population over there. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.

Norht America will only continue to see the one side of this. We commit atrocities everyday without the public knowing.

I am not a hippie, a peacemonger, a green peace, make love not war person. I simply look deeper inot what's going on, rather than what I see on CNN or what Bush tells us. In doing so I'm sure that I see a lot of reverse propagandha but I learn to filter that that too. To look deeper.

Things are not always what they seem. I feel for teh 9/11 victims, I ws not there, did not know wanyone there, it did not hit me nearly as ahrd as it did hundreds of thousands of others. It broke my heart to see taht footage. But on the other hand, deaths like this happen all the time. Deaths worse even. Have you ever seen a starvation victim up close? Have you ever witnesses death in someone's eyes as they are stiull physically living and breathing. I'm not guilt tripping anyone, justposing a second side. US imposed embargoes are not hurtign Saddam one bit. They hurt teh people. Most who have no loyalty whatsoever to him.

As far as firing onto a wedding party as tehy fire their weapons in celebration...sure it may not be something we're used to here, but that's howthey do it there. Can yo imagine in engaging in celebration activities and having a religious zealot fire upon you as he's suspiscious of your raucous behaviour? TO be as callous as to say, "Who cares" or "So what" to a death of any kind, American, or not. :rolleyes: is the prblem here.

Are North Americans the only lives worth saving? That's what seems to be the picture here. Or the broader view, only the Democratic countries should be allowed to subsist. What about all the innocents involved in the other nations? Contarty to common belief, all Afganhis are not terroists, are not killers are not zealots. Same goes for N. Korea and Iraq.

I don't have the answers of what shuld be done. I dind't go as deep as could have. I can email more info if you're interested, but I just wanted to throw out a couple of points.

I don't have the solution, I am opposed to war though. I am opposed to Bush's actions. I am opposed to the narrow view that we get of the rest of the world. There are other ways, embargoes, false sanctions and flexing of military might is not the way. It's not good that I don't have a solution, at least Bush seems to think he does.

Maybe it's time to bring God back into the picture.

After all, an American life is not worth more than anyone elses. REMEMBER THAT. It's the truth. I've heard some really callous things from N. Americans about all other Middle East nations. That mentality will drive us to an unecessary war. An uneducated war.

I appreciate the fact that I have the freedom to "bite the hand that feeds me" I do support the US people, not the existing government's choice of actions.

We in Canada owe the US for many things. Not this though.

Not what? And why do you feel that way.

Having a free mind comes with the responsibilty to use it. Examine all the facts and make up your mind. Don't jump on bandwagons or the easy answer. I'm not saying you are by the way. I just know that when no explanation is given for an argument it's usually because that person hasn't put due thought into it and has made a decision more on feelings and immediate reactions rather then reason and thoughough analysis.

Again this isn't directed at you it's directed at how most people forfeit their right to free choice by being a slave the their emotional reactions. It takes a concious decision to step back and anylise a situation. Most people don't do that.

Be wary of the speech or article that riles you up. People are stupid, an individual may be smart but people are stupid and easily swayed through emotional means. Both sides play on this, both the government and the peacenicks... you must put all that sh!t aside and have a look at the facts and make up your mind. That is your duty as a free person.

Hey Ronnie great reply but I was wondering why you only commented on only the Middle east part and not of what happened in WWII ?

(I'll add in my two cents to what ronnie didnt comment on )

When millions of Americans & Canadians (and other nations) gave their lives and or a few years of their time to defended most of the world from thoses Nazi bastards. For years the "UN" looked with a blind eye, while Nazi Germany built up their weapons and did nothing about it when they all knew it was going agains that arms treaty (the name of that treaty is escaping my mind) Till it was almost too latefor all of us but the Nazi germany army had already killed millions of people (of all back grounds)mostly Jewish people. and almost got all of Europe until the USA & Canada stepped in. & I think the USA is owed a lot and the same with Canadians aswell. For defending man kind as a whole and defeating the Nazi's!

IF you look back at history, the US doesnt want a repeat from WWII, they want to go in and remove all the weapons and Saddam. Before this mad man gets any real nukes. If he did, Kuwait and other nations around the area would be toast, & the people of Kuwait would be subject to the same BS they got back in 1991, when their women were rapped by soilders, infants babys only days or weeks old were left on the floor while they stole the beds and other hospital equipment were taken.(just bring up afew things that came to my mind) Right down to the last ditch effort to blow up all the oil wells as they left. Because Iraqis look at Kuwait and want there life style They're is still tens of thousands of ppl still missing or killed or kidnapped by the Iraqi amry... Did anyone all forget all that ?

Everyone wants to see an end to all this but no one wants to get theres hands dirty... this is where the U.S. steps in because they have balls/guts... France is a joke because they dont have any real clue on anything... just look at them in WWII (enough said..)They have been like that ever since. And Russian.. they cant handle the fact they lost the cold war againist the U.S. (in my eyes) and ever since then, they have always disagreed againist the U.S. for that reason with almost everything.

If the U.S. waits for the U.N. to act it may be to late. I hope for all of us that they go in and secure that area. because if a fallout happens over that area of the world either it be chemical or nuclear, the whole world as a whole will suffer.

these comments above are my own opinions on this matter. Some of you may think I went to far. so be it, tough ,too bad.. but this is my Canadian right to do so! I look forward to read your thoughts on this matter.

This is exactly why I posted this on the DSM board.
The intelligent arguements presented here show me that this board can communicate intelligently and completely respect others opinions.

I am personally on US's side, maybe not 100% but something must be done.

Keep it going guys.

I gotta say fellas, this post is refreshing, compared to the Tiffany post. That's an hour of my life I will never get back.

I too like to look deeper into issues than the 15 minute news blurb that most people catch a day. My question is this... What does Sadam have to do with 9/11? Absolutely nothing! Bush has deflected his hunt for Osama into a controlling stake of oil. Remember the whole "axis of evil" b.s.? That was the beginning of the switch from the hunt for Osama to this. Everyone has totally forgotten about him now. Why? Because George Dubya can't find him. So did he fail? Well, not if nobody asks. Why won't anyone ask? Cause, everyone has forgotten about him.

Is Sadam a bad-ass? You bet, there's no debate there. But, someone mentioned North Korea. They've blatantly stated that they are starting up their nuclear program again and if the U.S. tries to do anything about it, there will be hell to pay. What does the U.S. do? Nothing? The hidden fact here is that atrocities that equal what is happening in Iraq are happening in N. Korea too. The exact same sh!t. Why doesn't the U.S. mobilize 200,000 troops? Because they don't have any oil. It all comes down to that.

I could easily go on and on, but my fingers are getting sore and my lips are tired from reading.

My $.02

Geoff

Mike-

What I meant was that I don't want to owe my freedom to a threat of war. This in itself is a contradictiona s we know freedom comes at a price. It doesn't have to be that way, human nature dictates it that way though.

I'm not jumping on the band wagon, most protesters do not know what is going on at all. I..on the other hand is waht is known as the proverbial 'fence sitter' this is even worse. By doing nothing I am perpetuating this crap. I can't take a stance, all I know is that I am against human conflict, especially when it comes to loss of life.

I just wish that people would be a little more educated in this, rather than jump on a band wagon, for or against. The facts, (or what we know as facts) are out there. Read them, research them, make up your own opinion. If we rely on the mainstream newsapaers, how do we tell?

North America has their own media, so do all other continents, at teh end of day, they are all biased towards tehmselves.

I am not an activist of any sort, I jsut wish and hope that we can learn to value human life above north America.

AW- I didn't mention Europe, becasue that's another whole can of worms.

Life is valuable, if we have to fight for freedom, so be it, there are other ways though. Sanctions, embargoes, war are not the way. I don't know what would work in int his day and age anymore...maybe money. Money can buy 'freedom' apparantley.

I'm not a scholar, but I do base my opinions a little on emotions AND FACTS, we all do, jsut don't get ruled by emotions alone. The problem is that most people who scream for war, (who have no idea wha'ts going on BTW) are reacting upon emotion. SAme way as those who scream for peace.

Hehe I didn't realise the post above your short one was you too at first . I see you have put lots of thought into this.

What does Sadam have to do with 9/11? Absolutely nothing!

Well not entirely true. They have similar agendas. Husseins only way to get power again enough to resume his conquering efforts is to get the US to get it's big nose out of it's affairs. The onyl way for the other extremists Muslim groups to gain more power is to do the same. This was the goal of the Sept 11 attacks. They gambled that the damage to the US economy would wake the Americans up and have the people focus more on thier continent to avoid future such incidents. They wanted to make the American people feel accountable and through that make them play less of a role in international affairs. They've lost the gamble so far.

Saddam may not be able to lauch a conventional war to threaten the region a this time but he is currently a huge potential resource for any terrorist group with the common goal of getting the US out of his way.

A roque extremeist state with nuclear weapons is everyone's worst ngihtmare. Especially one in the middle east bent on dominating that area... willing to do anything to accomplish that.

It's good to see some real discussion in this country guys. Andrew nice post.

But, Mike... I too would like nothing better than for the U.S. to get their asses out of the Middle East's back yard. By your line of thinking, I am just as responsible as Sadam. Sadam had nothing to do with the planning, financing or execution of 9/11. Bush has shifted the focus because it is in his best interest.

Sadam has the capability to launch an attach similar to 9/11, but never has and has never threatened to. He may or he may not have chemical weapons, but if he wasn't constantly given reason to use them, why would he?

With the exception of the physical location of the United States, that description applies to the U.S. too, no?

G

I first want to say that this discussion has been a great read so far...keep the facts and opinions rolling, its great to see.

With that being said I want to say my $0.02. Ronnie Fung really said a few things that I believe in strongly. to quote he said:

"Are North Americans the only lives worth saving? That's what seems to be the picture here. Or the broader view, only the Democratic countries should be allowed to subsist. What about all the innocents involved in the other nations? Contarty to common belief, all Afganhis are not terroists, are not killers are not zealots. Same goes for N. Korea and Iraq"

It really upsets me when I see a nation make thier suffering seem greater then the suffering of others. No one should deny the right of Americans to mourn their loss but what about the nations who suffer even greater losses and we dont even give them any recognition? The events 9/11 are very sad when you think about how innocent these people were to perpitrators. They really did not deserve this. It was clearly an act of terrorism. But how about the nucular bombs America dropped in WWII? How about those victims? The reprecussions of that event were felt long after with radiation poisoning, and the death count was great. Were those victims not innocent? Was America not commiting an act of terrorism? I know many of you think I am comparing apples and oranges but the bottom line is inoccent civilians of all ages lost their lives due to one extremely violent act in both these examples.

My last comment. If any other nation decided to make a military prencence in the USA to "monitor" their acttivity do you think USA would allow it? Then why does USA think they have that right?

When I discuss oil with regards to this issue it is not that the U.S needs to control Iraqs supply. The relevance of oil is that without oil these countries would not have the economic resources to be of any global significance. I am no peacenik but i am a realist and make my decisions based on various sources of information not just CNN in the past year or so. The U.S is not obligated to DO anything they only involve themselves if there is some benefit perceived or real. The U.S. sat back in the first two world wars saying it wasnt their place to become involved...thats was until there was a risk that the "Good guys" might lose or that their interests where attacked. But once again the victors put their spin in the history books and their movies. Dont get me wrong many countries benefit from the U.S with Canada being high on the list so more power to them. Our standard of living and wealth are directly linked to American success or failure so im all for them kickin ass and taking names. The only problem is that all things being equal and Saddam was killed today he would simply be replaced by another power hungry sadistic bastard who might even do a better job. One journalist in that region believes, and I tend to agree, that given the current environment in that region with all the factions and fighting that only an iron-handed dictator could hold it together. I really dont think the U.S. people have the stomach to do what has to be done and having the U.S trying to build/support a replacement government will be chaos for many years to come. The U.S had its shot the first time it defeated Iraq...they screwed it up and now they are paying for it.

" But how about the nucular bombs America dropped in WWII? How about those victims? The reprecussions of that event were felt long after with radiation poisoning, and the death count was great. Were those victims not innocent? Was America not commiting an act of terrorism? I know many of you think I am comparing apples and oranges but the bottom line is inoccent civilians of all ages lost their lives due to one extremely violent act in both these examples"

Then what about umm Pearl Habour ? no war was delcare PERIOD ! back then "NO ONE" knew what nukes could really do other than destory everything in a certain range. Both those targets where bomb because they mostly had factorys that built ships etc..to armor for there boats etc.. But they left the City of Tokyo alone because of the civilian population. Sure the U.S. could've gone and done that but no. They were after source of they're miltary might ! You may think its a act of terrorism. But if you think about it, if they bombed the capital city, then yes I would call it that.

Civilians were lost in both cases, but the twin towers, they lost their lives at a time of peace. When the U.S. drop their two bombs over Japan, it was a declared war then.

Just add my two cents in, keep them coming..

OK I am no WWII expert but I thought the bombing of Pearl Harbour was an American Military post? I may be wrong, not sure. Regardless 2 wrongs dont make a right. I am sure that before USA dropped the nuclear bombs they wer pretty sure of the reprocussions...and if they wern't, shouldn't of they been more responsible about it? Its not exactly wise military descision to use a weapon of mass destruction and not be aware of the reprecussions IMO.

Andrew terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Just aggression is just to the victorious. As I indicated earlier if Hitler won we would all be speaking German...this may seem flippant but not really. If the Germans were victorious and dominated Europe and all surrounding countries the development of the world as we know it would be very different. If Germany were the big boy on the block and the U.S started developing weapons of mass destruction like say long range nuclear weapons do you thing it would be "allowed". Would any dominant power allow their position of strength to be compromised, no I dont think so because that would be bad for business. At one time Americans tried to invade Canada but they were pushed back and the rest is history. Rule by conquering and strength is the history of the world as we know it from the Greeks to the Romans to the British Empire to the U.S.A. Im with the U.S. because I would rather be on the winning side but there has to be a fundamental change in thinking if there is any hope of change in the future.

I just wanna point out something to the folks ignorant of these facts...

The USA alone produces 3 times more oil than Iraq. North and South America combined produce more than 6 times the amount of oil Iraq does.

The USA is only second (in oil production) to Saudi Arabia, and produces three times as much oil as any other country in the middle east. Iraq is responsible for 5% of the oil in the USA, whereas Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico are responsible for 55% of the oil found in the USA.

So please, before you state that this is a war for oil, read into the facts a little deeper and realize that this, for once, just may not be about money.

Darko...you have to read the whole thread. It isnt about control Iraqs supply of oil. I spoke of Iraq and the Arab nations which are major suppliers to the world and the U.S is NOT self supporting.

RANK COUNTRY RESERVES IN MILLION TONNES
1 Saudi Arabia 35,700 Yes
2 Iraq 13,400 Yes
3 Kuwait 13,300 Yes
4 United Arab Emirates 12,700 Yes
5 Iran 12,000 Yes
6 Venezuela 9,300 Yes
7 Former USSR 7,800
8 Mexico 7,100
9 Libya 3,900 Yes
10 USA 3,700
11 China 3,300
12 Nigeria 2,800 Yes
13 Algeria 1,200 Yes
14 Norway 1,100
15 Canada 900
16 India

So yes Darko you may want to get the facts b4 posting and calling others ignorant. Do you recognise some of the names on the top of that list...have any of these had any problems with the U.S in the past few decades? It aint about the production it proven reserves. U.S is depleting viable reserves at an increasing rate...as is Canada. If oil were worth $1 a barrel what do you think would happen to the players on the top of this list?

The rank you are discussing is this
RANK COUNTRY MILLIONS OF TONNES PRODUCED

1 Saudi Arabia 426.5
2 USA 382.5
3 Former USSR 355.3
4 Iran 182.8
5 Mexico 151.3
6 China 149
7 Venezuela 146.4
8 Norway 139.9
9 UK 130.3
10 United Arab Emirates 112.8
11 Canada 110.9
12 Kuwait 104.4
Total world production 3,252.40

You stop being a number 2 producer if you dont have any left.

I wasn't targetting anyone in this thread specifically. Im just laying out the facts before even more people jump on the oil bandwagon.

The issue today is war on Iraq, on Saddam specifically. That's one country out of 15+ in the Middle East. This is NOT a war on the middle east, this is a war on Saddam.

Does the US depend on the middle easter region for oil? Yes. Does it depend on Iraq for oil? No. The Americas produce just as much oil as the Middle East, its a surprising piece of information to some people. Then you take into account the fact that Russia, China, and the UK produce almost as much as the Americas, things become more clear.

The Middle East isn't this big giant goldmine the world absolutely depends on... and furthermore, the USA doesn't have a problem with the Middle Eastern region, it has a problem with a few select leaders of factions and countries there.

To say that oil in any way shape or form drives this war on Iraq is silly. That's the way I see it anyway. There are bigger more pressing issues here than oil... there are always possibilities for alternative fuels, and sooner or later they'll have to be explored.

I would like to think that people have learned from past mistakes (WW1 and 2) and are applying some of that knowledge to avoid another major conflict.

Darko please read the posts b4 replying to it. Is this about control of oil ...sure it is and has been for the past 50 years. Look at the names Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mexico, the Arab emirates...can you remeber any headlines involving the states and these countries in your lifetime. My point was that if oil wasnt such a valuable resource then the list of all these terrorist evil (major oil reserve nations) wouldnt be a factor period. Just call me silly...its okay i have been called a lot worse. Do a google search and find out what George senior and junior did to make there cash b4 becoming president

Jesus man stop going on the defensive and taking sh!t so personally. I responded BEFORE you editted your post.

The big picture here is that world oil reserves are all peaking within 50 years of eachother. Is 50 years a long time for you? Because when we're all old men, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East will be in the exact same position the USA is in today. That my friend is the fact here. We're all producing max capacity, and we're using it up like there's no tomorrow. In 50 years the oil production around the world will have past the peak and we'll be left dry.

Darko the post i was referring to you reading was higher up on the page but no matter. The reason that the two lists...production versus reserves are different is because not all countries are producing to the MAX. OPEC controls pricing and supply by controlling production of oil. Darko from your posts on the board i know you are intelligent and arent afraid to speak your mind...i just think you dont have all the facts. No one makes up my mind ....well except for my wife (refer to my website JerryRoseIsAnAss.com )...but other than her i base my decisions on the widest available information and logic.

I do have the facts, and I never stated that we have larger reserves than the Middle East. I was basing my argument on production, and the fact that any way you slice it, peak production AROUND THE WORLD will occur before 2050... even sooner considering domestic oil supplies are dwindling. Everybody knows this, and looking at the big picture, 50 years is NOTHING in our future. Fuels will come and go as technology advances.

I firmly believe that there is more to this crisis than one single issue, but oil isn't in the lead. Would it be nice to privatize the production of oil in the Middle East? Yes and no... some pros, some cons. Will that oil last any longer than 5 or 6 decades? Not bloody likely, especially if its privatized! I sincerely HOPE that our governments are looking further ahead than just 20 or 30 years, because if they're not, we're all in a lot of trouble.

Darko..first of all I am not taking anything personally as this post was started as a forum for discussion. The 20 posts before yours had a variety of ideas as well as differing opinion without any judgemental statments. You entered the discussion with "I just wanna point out something to the folks ignorant of these facts" and "So please, before you state that this is a war for oil, read into the facts a little deeper and realize that this, for once, just may not be about money.". Your statements werent opinions they were judgements and it was obvious that you had not read all the posts because many other issues besides oil had been discussed.

Since you opened the door I was more than willing to debate on the facts. Differences in opinion are fine but incorrect information is not. Oil production in Iraq is low because the reserves have yet to be tapped that is what Russia is negotiating to do.

My point is not and never was that U.S. depends on Iraq for oil I said " Pull the plug on the demand for oil...take away their revenue source for weapons, armies, scientists and nuclear reactors and these countries will revert to powerless insignificant agriculture based economies whose only struggle will be to feed themselves."

You seem to focus on production for some reason so ok " The USA is only second (in oil production) to Saudi Arabia, and produces three times as much oil as any other country in the middle east." Actually U.S. only produces slightly more than twice as much as Iran

The Facts:
RANK COUNTRY MILLIONS OF TONNES PRODUCED
1 Saudi Arabia 426.5
2 USA 382.5
3 Former USSR 355.3
4 Iran 182.8

Your analysis is flawed in that production is only important today while reserves are going to determine the future of a countries abiltiy to sustain itself. The middle eastern countries including Iraq have 75% of the worlds known reserves and they are producing far below capacity. So your statment that " Saudi Arabia and the Middle East will be in the exact same position the USA is in today" no actually they wont if they rationed it keeping the majority for their own use it would last for hundreds of years. The middle eastern countries also do not use oil like the States does...these countries are net exporters the States is a net importer and massive consumer.

You said "The big picture here is that world oil reserves are all peaking within 50 years of each other" Oil reserves are by nature static they dont peak, the only thing that changes is the technology which allows for cost effective extraction of oil that was once untouchable and not included as a viable reserve.

But anyways the point here is people, politicians and DSMers even take fragments of info and make it fit into their truth. So my point is that USA is not going to war to get Iraqs oil...if Iraq played nice and quietly tortured and killed it own people the States would leave it alone. But since Iraq could potentially destabilize the entire region and/or take control of this region with the weapons it was developing that is why the states is willing to go to war. Darko you have to step back and look at the big picture sometimes....as per Mike Jackson "Having a free mind comes with the responsibilty to use it. Examine all the facts and make up your mind...I just know that when no explanation is given for an argument it's usually because that person hasn't put due thought into it and has made a decision more on feelings and immediate reactions rather then reason and thorough analysis....again this isn't directed at you it's directed at how most people forfeit their right to free choice by being a slave the their emotional reactions. It takes a concious decision to step back and anylise a situation. Most people don't do that."

I apologise for the length but I feel it is necessary for people to argue based on reason and logic....Darko you may be Prime Minister one day and I would hope that you would weigh a variety of opinions and information with an open mind and not make knee jerk reactions. I may be totally wrong but my opinion is based on an analysis of fact and is neither ignorant nor silly only different than yours.

By the way if this isnt about oil and money then what is it about. Could you see a country whos foundation is profit and the bottom line spend billions half way around the world just to further the greater good? I think not. They are investing in their future which is just good business....selfish but good business.

Darko when you get your new engine we can go head to head and when you beat me I will buy you a coffee and finish our debate

Coffee? Damn, your wife really does have ya whipped! Car stuff gets resolved with BEER, that's like a universal rule.

Anyway, you're right, the reserves are plentiful over there and most of the world is running short. I don't believe that the Middle East will be able to ration their share out. You can't ration out something so vital and expect it to last too long. It has been predicted that they will peak their production and reserves by around 2030.

So let's assume this war really is for oil, and the whole world is watching... what are the prime objectives here? What exactly is the goal?

When people bring oil up into this discussion, Im under the impression they think the US wants to take control over the oil reserves in Iraq, and that's all its about. In my opinion, what they really want to do is eliminate a hostile leader, kill the chances of a repeat Kuwait, and destroy his opportunity to kill more people with weapons of mass destruction.

Is this about the US wanting control of Iraq's oil? Absolutely not. This is about the world eliminating one more unpredictable dictator from his role of power in the Middle East. The world doesnt NEED control of their oil. It'll run out, no matter what. What we need is to know that there aren't any single sick people in control of these reserves... but Saddam can't last forever. There are more pressing issues than what happens with the oil in a few decades. The guy isn't afraid to kill his own people, let alone his neighbours. If he's making womd and biological weapons, I can only hope that the government will put that at a higher priority than oil. Technology will take care of oil shortages, but it won't bring back millions of dead people from the next big conflict in the Middle East.

It boils down to Saddam having too much power for anyone's good. He has shown himself in the past, and everyone knows what he's capable of. Get rid of him and set the country back on course with a real government. Thats what I think the goal here is.

Some interesting reading:

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000031.htm

One thing that is for sure is that the actions of the US, their foreign policy, their propaganda and opinions are structured around the preservation of the american society and way of life. They have a fundamental right to do so as does any society have the right to preserve its quality and way of life.

What happened on Sep11 was a direct violation of the peace and security of the american people and George Bush and the US security organization needs to retaliate to save face and to re-assure the american people that their democaracy will be defended and their livelyhoods preserved.

I must admit that we have it really really good here in NA. We can speak our mind and do as we please in so far that we respect the laws that govern our nation. We do have it good and for that I am gratefull.

I am not one that bites the hand that feeds me and my primary responsibilty and concern in preserving my way of life here in NA. That having been said, the events of Sept11 do not surprize me one bit. A short time after the attacks, Bin Laden made a statement that the attacks were a direct result of the US's unwillingness to release high ranking members of the Al'Qaida organization and their unwillingness to intervene in the palestinian struggle. Neither one of those requests will ever be honoured so it can be safely assumed that we can expect more attacks in the future from Al'Qaida regardless of the US's actions towards Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that the US needs to eliminate those organizations that pose a threat to itself and its allies, especially Israel in the ME, namely the countries that have nuclear and biological weapons and whom are ready and willing to us them.

In doing so, the US engages in actions that threaten and destroy the livelyhoods of millions of innocent people worldwide especially in the ME. BTW, approximately 1000 Iraqi children die everyday from malnutrition and lack of medecine. So every 3 days, more children die in Iraq than did in the Sept 11 attacks.

The question that I leave you with is, how much Arab blood must spew before we are satisfied that our national security and way of life is no longer threatend?? HOW MUCH BLOOD?

Everyone seems so concerned about going to WAR in Iraq, get serious, it wont be a war it will be a massive air strike followed by American and allied forces collecting all the surrendering soldiers. They might break a sweat chasing the really quick ones. It could be over in a matter of weeks or Saddams men will simply hand him over so they have a chance a keeping their jobs and/or lives. It will be closer to the latter im sure. Bush and Saddam are in a staring contest and Saddam blinked...he is a self serving coward who has no aspirations of becoming a martyr unlike Osama. The war is not the problem it the ripple effect of the repercussions like the series of terrorist attacks to follow or the escalating tensions in that region that will require a lifetime of political damage control to fix. Then the wingnut in North Korea thinks crap im next and starts up with threats of military action and pre-emptive strikes.

Bush needs to make the call and get the war machine rolling to cover up for the fact that he screwed up the whole Osama thing. He needs someones head on a pike for all that time money and effort right? If he cant get Osama..remember the guy who ordered the 9-11 attack..oh yeah...him the guy who started all this. Smoke and mirrors, damn Bush is good.

If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he will use them (he does and will). It won't be as bloodless as before for the States.

Look in the past at all the other Empires and how they treated the rest of the world. Whenever there was such a single 'super power' it was an age of direct and brutal conquest, death and assimilation. I think the States has to the most part show a great deal of restraint and maturity since 9/11.

Also look at the moves of Franace and Germany. France has been making every effort in the last number of years to create a 'Europe only' NATO equivalent organization. They want to lead this new organization. Well to do that they'll have to get rid of NATO first.... seems they are trying to do that right now. Make NATO an indicive joke and it will fall apart. Turkey desperately demands protection, France and Germany block it, the States provide it outside of NATO and the whole thing falls apart. France gets what it wants... though it will likely have to share the throne of control with Germany now.

This is my take on the situation with Iraq:
If the US really wanted to get Saddam out of Iraq, they would have in 91. The reason they didn't is they would have suffered huge casualties. Not only that, when he gets cornered as he was during the Iran/Iraq war he will launch biological weapons at the enemy, even if that enemy are his own citizens. This will bring a number of new players into the equation, namely Israel. Basically the start of WWIII. So the few remaining cenarios to removing Saddam would be for his own people to take him out(not likely) or his death.

In the mean time, every decade or so, the US and its allies will undertake a "war on Iraq" and basically minimize the chances of Iraq strengthening its chemical and biological arsenal. This applies to not only Iraq, but any other nation not allies with the US.

The same reason the US did not launch a ground offensive to remove Bin Laden. Too many ground casualties.

And the saga continues until someone has the guts to launch a nuclear attack, GAME OVER.

this is a touchy subject and no matter who you talk to they will all give you a different opinion and that's fine
as for America saving the world's freedom in WWII thats part true the Russians made a HUGE sacrifice during WWII they lost more soldiers and civilians than any other counrty I think it's even more people than the US and Britain put together and if Hitler had gotten his hands on the Russians resources then the war could have gone on for many more years the Russians new this thats why when they were retreating the burnt down their own farms and buildings so that the Germans couldn't have them

the whole "the US wants the oil thing" is just bullshit that the peacewanters made up to have a legitimate arguement not to go to war if the US wanted oil that bad wouldn't they have taken it during the Gulf War or at any other time they felt like it who can stand up to the US? certainly not our country we rely on the US for our protection they could walk up here at anytime and take our counrty over with the snap of a finger
the US isn't like that though they have control and they know when to flex their might and when not to yeah they have mad some poor decisions in the past but what country hasn't? the US isn't alone in their war campaign though why don't people bitch about Britain and Australia? they want to go to war with Sadaam aswell but you don't hear no where near as much crap about it people just hate the US for what they are they're the richest the most pwerful and maybe even the happiest jealousy can cause many problems and lots of countries are jealous of the US
I'm not sure if war is the answer to the American's problems yeah Sadaam has to be stopped but thousands of Iraqi's don't have to die just because their leader is a frickin moron I'm sure there are other ways to get Sadaam out of power I don't know them but I'm sure someone must

these are just my thoughts

"as for America saving the world's freedom in WWII thats part true the Russians made a HUGE sacrifice during WWII they lost more soldiers and civilians than any other counrty"

Russia was invaded and almost conquered. Prior to that they were on an evil mission on conquest of their own. Germany did not invade USA, USA (and Canada) helped out for the greater good of the free peoples of the world. Everything they/we sacrificed was for other free people. That is a far greater sacrifice then saving your own skin.

This war won't last six months, or six weeks. It will be over in six days. I agree, it will air strike, then a cleanup. The issue to be resolved lies in France and Germany. The UN and NATO should be in on this otherwise the USA will just increase the negative perception that the world has of them. My 2 cents.

The US military has never had a 6 day operation in the history of time.

Afganistan that was supposed to be quick and dirty, nope, drawn out for months.

Iraq will be the same, they'll linger there for 6 months to a year guaranteed.

Just my own counterpoints. Long..... :rolleyes:

"Not about oil"

Iraq has the largest known oil reserves of any country on the entire planet.

USA is the worlds largest consumer of oil.

USA's economy is sTinking, and one thing that could help is cheaper oil. Currently Venuzuela is experiencing a strike, thus curtailing oil production. As we all know, oil prices are rising, and this is not entirely due to the current tensions in the Middle East.

Iraq is only allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid under the current regime. Change the regime, and then Iraq could sell as much oil as it wanted. This would lower the cost of oil worldwide. This would help USA the most.

"9/11"

No-one has proven conclusively that Iraq has helped in that attack in any way. Iraq has a secular (non-Muslim) government, unlike Iran.
Using 9/11 as a justification to attack Iraq is a poor argument.

I don't think that Saddam can be trusted. However, I don't think that justifies invasion to remove him.

USA cannot be trusted either. Our country has signed a free trade agreement with the USA. Do you think that trade is "free"? Just ask the out of work loggers where I live what they think of the tarrifs and duties USA has unilateraly slapped on our forest products.......

Don't buy the argument that USA is doing ANYTHING for the good of the world, including involvement in WWII. USA only has its own interests at heart. USA had a lot to gain by keeping Europe non-communist.

Think about it.

Lets look at North Korea. They probably only have one Nuke, and they have TOTALLY threatened to use it. If they had oil, there would be some aircraft carriers steaming that way right now.

In conclusion, the Middle East is an important supplier of oil for the West. We need stability, not another war. I think another war will further justify (in the minds of terrorists) more terrorism towards the west.

Look at Israel and Palestine. Once it starts, it can't stop. I don't want to live like that here.

PS I didn't have time to read everybody elses comments, so I understand if you don't have the time to read mine.

There is only one question you need to ask yourself... why is Saddam trying to obtain nuclear weapons?

He has almost every peice of the pie and has been trying desperately to obtain the last peice.

Why?

North Korea has not invaded it's neighbours lately. If North Korea did invade it's nieghbours it could not gain control of a huge chunk of worlds oil supplies. Any single person controlling Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is something to worry about, when it's a ruthless dictator it's the worlds worst nightmare. When do you stop the person trying to gain all of this? After he has nukes? Would the world have jumped in so fast to free Kuwait if Saddam had nukes back in 91?

He has lied. He has continued his nuclear weapons program, he has probaly continued both his chemical and biological weapons programs, and he has not accounted for large amounts of chemical weapons already proven to exist (VX gas). What do you do?

There was an alternative to war. It was made clear what that was in November by the UN. The only alternative to war was for Iraq to fully account for those weapons and activities and to fully cooperate with inspections. So far they have gradually scaled in cooperation and have not acounted for many of the chemicals and weapons still missing.

Iraq has failed to avert war, not the UN. The only question now is wether to follow through on the threat or to move the line in the sand back a bit to allow (for the umpteenth time) more time for Iraq to come around (adapt and continue to play it's games).

What do you do?