It does not matter If you are for war or not. France, Belgium and Germany did Turkey Wrong!

How dare the French and Belgians forget the alliance we share in blood, and to openly stab Nato in the back when protection of Turkey was vetoed by those arrogant three. Even if the have a different view on the possiblity of war they should not deny Turkey protection. Turkey is one of the original members and probably one of the most important. I donot blame the people of these nations but there near sided Eurotrash leaders who want to try claim some world power... For there own greedy designs (well they used us as a good model)

By " granting protection" to Turkey when Iraq attacks them (if that ever happends) as a result of the US invation of Iraq, means that they would be giving green light to an invation of Iraq by the US. Because " granting protection" implies using Turkish territory for an eventual land invation against Iraq.

So no, this is not backstabbing anybody, this is standing with what they have been saying all along. There are no evidence that prove Iraq is a threat to it' s neighbohrs and nothing that justifies a war against them, and until then they should not be forced by anybody (specifically the US) to support an invation of a sovereign nation under weak and baseless acusations.

And if you look a little further into the news, you' ll see that they are more than willing to grant that protection in case that Iraq does attack them or pose as a REAL threat to them.

PEACE...

ORIGINAL: garrettk
How dare the French and Belgians forget the alliance we share in blood, and to openly stab Nato in the back when protection of Turkey was vetoed by those arrogant three. Even if the have a different view on the possiblity of war they should not deny Turkey protection. Turkey is one of the original members and probably one of the most important. I donot blame the people of these nations but there near sided Eurotrash leaders who want to try claim some world power... For there own greedy designs (well they used us as a good model)

France, Germany, and Russia are the nations to which Iraq owes the most debt, sells the most oil, and conducts the most business. You can connect the dots.

How myopic of them not to realize the economic juggernaut a truly Democratic Iraq could become... their debt could be paid in full with interest, and trade could go through the roof. But nope, they are SO resentful of America and blind to the reality of Saddam Hussein' s nature that they are openly straining against the bonds of their NATO alliance.

from the BBC

" The three countries opposing the move argue that sending Nato military equipment to Turkey would imply that diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq and avert war had already failed."

" In response to their veto, Turkey invoked Article IV of Nato' s founding treaty."

The second paragraph should never have happend, if you donot understand the severity of it, I suggest you take sometime to study what NATO is, and what from its begining has accomplished. No NATO nation (ecspecially founding members!) should ever turn a cold shoulder to the other.

link to article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747443.stm

I' m really kinda puzzled by this too - is granting NATO protection to a country really a sign of supporting a war? It' s purely defensive and will preempt any attempts by Saddam on Turkey. Hussien lobbed SCUDs at Israel during the last Gulf War when they weren' t even part of the coalition forces, so what' s to stop them from doing it to Turkey this time?

I think all three France, Germany, and Belgium should not be part of NATO if they don' t follow what the purpose of NATO is.

It' s stabbing Turkey in the back, why should there be conditions when we should be defending NATO nations? Thats utterly ridiculous. To be in NATO you must fit certain criteria, and part of that is an acceptance of what NATO is.

Hussien lobbed SCUDs at Israel during the last Gulf War when they weren' t even part of the coalition forces, so what' s to stop them from doing it to Turkey this time?

Saddam was trying to create a much more large scale war, hoping that Isreal would retaliate against them and bring other Arab Nations to war.

Turkey wouldn' t need to be defended if there was no war. But there is, and it' s supported by plagiarized evidence, so why not?

Turkey wouldn' t need to be defended if there was no war. But there is, and it' s supported by plagiarized evidence, so why not?

Turkey be defended during war or not has NOTHING to do with it, the FACT is NATO is to defend fellow NATO Nations in matters of SELF DEFENSE. For countries to be playing political games with in NATO in regards to defense is completely wrong, and this angle they are using is a perverse distortion to what NATO is suppose to be about. They should remove France, Germany, and Belgium from NATO if they do not act if Turkey is attacked.

Turkey will only be in danger if the US attack Iraq. So who' s the aggressor and causes the threat, really?

Oh yes, it does very much matter if you are for the war or not! As SymphonyOfDreams has correctly stated, Turky will not be imediately threatened by Iraq unless the United States will intervene militarily! And that' s just for the record: All three nations-France, Belgium, and Germany-will not deny Turky military assitance when it comes to a war; they are all saying that they will act in accordance to their NATO responsibilities - if it comes to a war. They argue, however, that NATO should not begin taking serious steps as long as a peaceful resolution to the conflict is not yet impossible. By starting the NATO machinery to roll, all three nations say, one is inevitably slipping into a war logic that is most likely not to be stopped. And that' s their point, and it seems very logical to me. All you warheads out there, I' m sure, will not be convinced by this cuz you probably have some shoot' n' to do w/ your shotgun in the backyard!

But seriously, if you ask experts for public international law (even Americans), the majority and most recognized will tell you that UN Res. 1441 is not to be interpreted the way it is by the Bush government. Since three of five permanent members of the SC would not have supported a resolution explicitly calling for a war on Iraq unless it fully complies with the UN, Res. 1441 should not be interpreted as if it were a legitimization for a war! And it is STILL the UNSC that is the only recognized body on this planet to authorize a war. The US were once the initiatior of this very body and swore to comply with its decisions. Not very much is left of this, if you ask me. The Bush government says it would support a new resolution - BUT it is not necessary for them to fight Saddam. Goddammit, fucking Iraq still is a souvereign country and invading it at this very point without a CLEAR mandate is just fucking unjust!!!

And garrettk, what' s the thing about those

ORIGINAL: garrettk

Eurotrash leaders who want to try claim some world power... For there own greedy designs

???
Well, you don' t seem to be too satisfied with your country' s policies either, at least to some degree (" well they used us as a good model" ). But leeme just give you a couple of questions I would ask you to give me a convincing answer to:
1. Why do the US not support the ICC? What are they afraid of?
2. Why do the US not support the Kyoto Protocol?
3. Why does the Senate not finally approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on ABC weapons as originally promised by the US?
4. And WHY Iraq? Why Now? Why not, say, North Korea? And what after a war on Iraq? Have you ever imagined what the effects on the whole Middle East will be? It is very likely that terrorism will blossom after an US invasion in Iraq!

Check out " Global Attitudes" by the Pew Research Center published last December. You' d be surprised by the demise of peoples' attitudes towards the US all over the world since Bush came to power. And let me give you an interesting literature tip. Check out " America’s Imperial Ambition, in: Foreign Affairs, 81:5 (Sept./Oct. 2002), p. 44-60" by US professor of Political Scinence G. John Ikenberry of Georgetown University. Read that and we' ll discuss the issue again!

One last thing: Don' t make this serious issue so cheesy by adding such an out-of-place picture at the beginning of your thread, please! Do you want people to " weep just like a baby" or what?

PEACE!

ORIGINAL: Mike Bahr
France, Germany, and Russia are the nations to which Iraq owes the most debt, sells the most oil, and conducts the most business. You can connect the dots.

Oh please! In one thread, you accuse me of posting non-credible propagandist articles, yet you don' t bother to read the source data and make your own assessement. And here, you go right ahead and post a spin line without even providing proof of your sayings. How can you even make an assessement of reasons behind these countrie' s leader' s choices?

What about Belgium? What is their reasons? And why would Iraq be selling oil to Russia when we damn well know that Russia (thanks to Chechnya) is the biggest oil producing country right now?

I had you pinned down as a good debater but this, my friend, took you down a few notches.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010711/2001071144.html

If France was really after the oil, I think it would be logical for them to support an invation to topple a regime who has given them problems to adquire oil. Yet... they dont, ask yourself why.

PEACE...

Not sure if you guys/gals seen this already but I thought this was funny as hell.


" Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

russia isnt the leading oil producer, saudi arabia is.

ORIGINAL: Perot

ORIGINAL: Mike Bahr
France, Germany, and Russia are the nations to which Iraq owes the most debt, sells the most oil, and conducts the most business. You can connect the dots.

What about Belgium? What is their reasons? And why would Iraq be selling oil to Russia when we damn well know that Russia (thanks to Chechnya) is the biggest oil producing country right now?

I had you pinned down as a good debater but this, my friend, took you down a few notches.

Bla bla bla... say what you want about me. You lost all credibility in that last thread where you failed to acknowledge the most basic rudiments of fundamental editorial slant (meaning: the reason behind the presentation of the data to begin with), and based on what you' ve said then and in the past, I have no respect for you whatsoever. Like Phylum Tardigrada before you, this is the last time I will address one of your posts with a reply. I dislike idiocy, whether it comes from the right OR the left.

I have found that a good way to judge the worth of a person is by who their enemies are, and what the characteristics are of those enemies. This filter works for me, and it works for President Bush. Make of that what you will.

To that other guy: the reason the USA does not participate in the Kyoto accord et al. is because those were written and designed from the beginning to benefit other nations directly at America' s expense.

The three countries opposing the move argue that sending Nato military equipment to Turkey would imply that diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq and avert war had already failed.

Isn' t the issue currently just about planning the deployment? What I don' t understand is why NATO can' t discuss contingency plans. Just because a plan is made, it doesn' t mean that it has to be used.

ORIGINAL: roburado

The three countries opposing the move argue that sending Nato military equipment to Turkey would imply that diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq and avert war had already failed.

Isn' t the issue currently just about planning the deployment? What I don' t understand is why NATO can' t discuss contingency plans. Just because a plan is made, it doesn' t mean that it has to be used.

The reason it' s a big deal is because they expect it to take 30 days or so to actually deploy the various NATO defensive implements to Turkey. Nobody is expecting good news from Blix on Friday, and Britain is set to request a " it' s go time" resolution from the UNSC, so this would be about the right time to start beefing up Turkey' s border... IN CASE there is a war.

There still need not actually BE a war. It would be fantastic if the weapons inspectors were presented with the full cooperation Hans Blix and resolution 1441 demand from Iraq, so that they could destroy the chemical and biological weapons via IAEA/UNMOVIC procedures. In the meantime, prudence would suggest getting things moving and planning for the worst while hoping for the best. This move by Fr/Ge/Be and the vocal opposition of Russia is really sort of pointless... unless those countries have a magic " compliance wand" they can wave upon Saddam, nothing they say will materially affect what happens on the ground in Baghdad for the next week or so.

Anyway, we just have to remember - in the long term, the correct actions are rarely popular, and the popular actions are rarely correct.

Sending international help to Turkey is not the issue. Germany sent patriot missiles to Turkey and still opposes the piece of paper presented to them. It basically said three things. One was discussing the protection of Turkey, to which nobody in his right mind opposes. The other two articles basically said: the US way, or the highway. It would inevitably lead to the full scale war on Iraq. There still are other options at hand. War is not needed yet. Currently, there' s no need to defend Turkey because there is no war (although Turkish military is already in Northern Iraq, like they have been for a couple of years now). NO WAR, let' s keep it that way. That' s what France, Germany and Belgium are saying (along with 80% of European public opinion).
I for one think it' s pretty despicable of the US to force Turkey into such acts (the amount of lobbying between the two of them has been tremendous the last few months), only a week BEFORE the UN inspectors send their report. The US is forcing everybody into a war with NO SOLID PROOF, and in the middle of a peace making process. If there is a real threat for world peace, it' s the US.

ORIGINAL: Mike Bahr


The reason it' s a big deal is because they expect it to take 30 days or so to actually deploy the various NATO defensive implements to Turkey. Nobody is expecting good news from Blix on Friday, and Britain is set to request a " it' s go time" resolution from the UNSC, so this would be about the right time to start beefing up Turkey' s border... IN CASE there is a war.

There still need not actually BE a war. It would be fantastic if the weapons inspectors were presented with the full cooperation Hans Blix and resolution 1441 demand from Iraq, so that they could destroy the chemical and biological weapons via IAEA/UNMOVIC procedures. In the meantime, prudence would suggest getting things moving and planning for the worst while hoping for the best. This move by Fr/Ge/Be and the vocal opposition of Russia is really sort of pointless... unless those countries have a magic " compliance wand" they can wave upon Saddam, nothing they say will materially affect what happens on the ground in Baghdad for the next week or so.

Anyway, we just have to remember - in the long term, the correct actions are rarely popular, and the popular actions are rarely correct.

You want to deploy a full scale war (because that is what the paper implied) on expectations and propaganda from your country? I promise you this: if the US attacks Iraq, expect a lot of terrorist intent from the Middle East towards the US, not in the lost from Saudi Arabia.

BTW - Nice ending sentence. Does that imply the US has no regrets whatsoever of the A-bombs, or is that your personal opinion?

ORIGINAL: DawnOfNone

ORIGINAL: Mike Bahr


The reason it' s a big deal is because they expect it to take 30 days or so to actually deploy the various NATO defensive implements to Turkey. Nobody is expecting good news from Blix on Friday, and Britain is set to request a " it' s go time" resolution from the UNSC, so this would be about the right time to start beefing up Turkey' s border... IN CASE there is a war.

There still need not actually BE a war. It would be fantastic if the weapons inspectors were presented with the full cooperation Hans Blix and resolution 1441 demand from Iraq, so that they could destroy the chemical and biological weapons via IAEA/UNMOVIC procedures. In the meantime, prudence would suggest getting things moving and planning for the worst while hoping for the best. This move by Fr/Ge/Be and the vocal opposition of Russia is really sort of pointless... unless those countries have a magic " compliance wand" they can wave upon Saddam, nothing they say will materially affect what happens on the ground in Baghdad for the next week or so.

Anyway, we just have to remember - in the long term, the correct actions are rarely popular, and the popular actions are rarely correct.

You want to deploy a full scale war (because that is what the paper implied) on expectations and propaganda from your country? I promise you this: if the US attacks Iraq, expect a lot of terrorist intent from the Middle East towards the US, not in the lost from Saudi Arabia.

BTW - Nice ending sentence. Does that imply the US has no regrets whatsoever of the A-bombs, or is that your personal opinion?

Wow, did you even read my words that you quoted? I said " There need not even BE a war... if the weapons inspections are successful" , to summarize.

That ending sentence was a quote from one of the Roosevelts IIRC - FDR or Teddy.

The dropping of the A-bombs saved three million lives while costing thousands. Even the most conservative estimates from nations that had no love for the Empire of Japan OR the United States estimated that the Americans would lose a million soldiers in an invasion of Honshu, and the Japanese would lose twice that many defending it, before Tokyo finally would fall and Japan would be defeated.

We grieve, and very sadly so, for the thousands that did die. It must have been a crushing decision for Truman to make - to order the bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I' m sure the blood stains on his hands haunted him to his finald days. Yes, thousands died. Ironic that the three million people whose lives were saved might never truly comprehend the tragic and terrible sacrifice of those thousands. In the long view, it' s hard to argue that using the bombs was anything but correct, though, given the facts of the matter.

As for the terrorist intent toward America, IT ALREADY EXISTS. So the United States loses nothing by refusing to yield an inch to the terrorists.

I' m not talking about a few dozens of Muslims wanting to sacrifice their lives to hurt the US. I' m talking about thousands.
I' m willing to agree that more lives would be lost, without the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it least no unsuspiscious civilians.
Don' t try to tell me the intentions of the US are peaceful at the present time.

ORIGINAL: DawnOfNone

I' m not talking about a few dozens of Muslims wanting to sacrifice their lives to hurt the US. I' m talking about thousands.
I' m willing to agree that more lives would be lost, without the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it least no unsuspiscious civilians.
Don' t try to tell me the intentions of the US are peaceful at the present time.

Perhaps not " peaceful" in the purest sense. The American intentions these days are *defensive*. More to the point, *proactively defensive*. You may not have noticed, but there' s this big gaping hole in the ground in lower Manhattan that' s a few thousand people shortstaffed, and the lesson the United States has taken from that event is that it might be a good idea to find the next likely threat source and neutralize it in advance. Right or wrong from an egalitarian perspective, it' s easy to see why the American government does not want to sit back and wait for the next big terrorist event. The key to Iraq' s presence in the crosshairs right now is the question of their ability to supply WMDs to terrorist groups, moreso than Saddam' s likelihood of striking out in advance on his own with them.

Of course, North Korea is a pretty uncertain place right now. I wouldn' t mind at all if the Bush administration turned a bit more of its attention somewhat north and east of where it is currently directed.

Iraq is no threat to the US. NO THREAT. If you really want to protect yourself against terrorism, go after the international terrorist movements. Not the Iraqi people (who will be the victims of this war). If these terrorists would want to use WMD (which is unlikely, because some flight diplomas and plastic knifes sufficed the last time), they could steal it from a country of choice, not in the least Russia. They won' t buy a thing.

ORIGINAL: DawnOfNone

Iraq is no threat to the US. NO THREAT.

The U.N. disagrees with you. In 1998 they confirmed that Iraq has the VX nerve agent, among other things. That' s some deadly shit. Iraq has not confirmed for the inspectors where the VX canisters are today. Hans Blix has been very specific about this, and still no cooperation.

All it takes is one bottle of that stuff released in a major city, and it could kill *millions*. This is a threat to everyone, everywhere in the world... American or otherwise. A terrorist could release VX in Tokyo, London, Paris, Los Angeles... or Brussels. Believe it, because UNMOVIC (the inspectors) confirmed it five years ago. This is not speculation - this is reality.

This threat can be directed at 100% of the populated areas on this planet.

well, hi everybody..
First, let me introduce myself.
I' m french, 26 years old and, of course, a big fan of Dream Theater and Portnoy especially.
This is my first message, so, excuse my english. I' ll try to speak as well as i can ;)
I just wanted to post a message in this topic ' cause i think i disagree with some persons..
I' m not a pure pacifist or a coward (like some US newspapers said) but in my mind, i think our country has taken the good decision in this Conflict.
Here is my convictions ( sorry if u don' t agree)
1 - i think Saddam Hussein is a real dictator and has to be defeated as soon as possible
2 - i don' t understand why US want to attack Irak right now and not a country like North Korea which is more dangerous in my mind.
3 - NO, we don' t forget what US did for france during WWII (u can be sure that we will be grateful forever)
4 - France isn' t against war in Irak, France try just to avoid a war..if it' s possible.
5 - I think there' s a huge propaganda in UNITED STATES for a war in irak : in fact, Bush isn' t well considered in France.. in our opinion : He wants to invade Irak for the good of US economy and not for Irakian people.
6 - i hope a lot of american realize france isn' t a coward country . We just try to avoid a war which represent a bad end.
7 - well, that' s all:)
Sorry for my english..:)
And the most important : don' t let newspapers have influence on your ideas. French people and US people aren' t different i think... but there leaders are.
Take care

The people aren' t all that different, but the media are.

Just noticed, funny how we have people from Germany, France and Belgium arguing in this thread.

ORIGINAL: Kyo

Just noticed, funny how we have people from Germany, France and Belgium arguing in this thread.

Funny how we have one particular person from Germany wanting to argue in every " non-music" thread.

well, u know:) i just don' t understand this stupid francophobia which is beginning in US newspapers..
I just don' t understand cause i' m so fan of US cities like New York.
Well, wait and see

You mean like the " Porcupine Tree recommendations" one? Or the " New Derek Sherinian" one? I happen to think that I contribute enough to music related topics.

If you' re trying to make a comparison to that other thread I complained about - In contrast to crap like Wrestling, this topic is actually something that does mean something, will make a difference and should be read and discussed by absolutely EVERYONE. Because whatever happens, it WILL change the world in some way.

And warped views of other countries' world political decisions like some uttered here must be corrected. There' s just way too much propaganda flying around that' s based on nothing but wrong information. Like " Germany, France and Belgium won' t help Turkey" or even " say ' Let Iraq attack Turkey' " , as I' ve read today on some US website. That' s just sick.

ORIGINAL: Mike Bahr
Bla bla bla... say what you want about me. You lost all credibility in that last thread where you failed to acknowledge the most basic rudiments of fundamental editorial slant (meaning: the reason behind the presentation of the data to begin with)

Mike, I posted the data, and I posted an analysis on the data. From then on, I expect intelligent debaters to do their homework and refute the conclusions. Funny how up to now, NOBODY has done anything on the data but dismiss it without even proceeding to their own analysis.

and based on what you' ve said then and in the past, I have no respect for you whatsoever.

You have no respect for me? Lemme guess. I have a viewpoint that' s different from yours and can take you around the block once or twice in a debate right?

You never engaged me in a proper debate to date so that kind of assessement from you means nothing to me. Truth of it is, you' re probably scarred shitless you' d look like a fool. You pride yourself on saying you are unbiased, neither leaning right nor left when the reality is far from it. Your first comment in this thread is indicative of this.

Like Phylum Tardigrada before you, this is the last time I will address one of your posts with a reply. I dislike idiocy, whether it comes from the right OR the left.

Oh? So now I' m an idiot? Nice to see you stooping down to name calling. I must be quite a challenge to you. Tell you what, try starting a business without running to bankruptcy all the while cheating many PAYING people out of boots and then you' ll have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling people idiots.

Now, if you' re done being insulting and actually want to address arguments presented to you, debate them and see where it goes, go ahead but you don' t need to be a dick to me simply because you don' t want to bother being challenged on your obviously biased views by someone that can actually be a challenge to you.

ORIGINAL: Perot
try starting a business without running to bankruptcy all the while cheating many PAYING people out of boots and then you' ll have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling people idiots.

You forgot to mention the fake tracks exclusively featured on some of the boots. " Here' s me, er I mean John Myung playing guitar, here' s a new piano demo from, uh, Kevin Moore ..."

Yeah nice fuckin memory Belgium!

well, i don' t think this kind of picture has any relation with the situation today...

I am exhausted after reading through this thread. I just wanted to say something about how this whole thing is making me feel as an American. It can be summed up in one word: HELPLESS! I do not like this feeling of unease. I don' t like the fact that my governments leaders are willing to jump into a war with little support from our allies. If they really have good reason to be acting quickly, they need to show more solid proof. As an american citizen I can accept that certain intelligence needs to kept secret for defense purposes, but it beyond out of control. I do not like being in the dark! I also do not like the non-choice the American people have been given in regards to this war. I will always support the men and women that defend our country, but right now I feel that they are being used for a select fews' purpose. The facts are: if we invade Iraq, many people will die. They will not be in just the battlefield, but also at home. If our country was really conserned about peace they would be working to reduce oil dependancy, thus reducing any need for our interaction with these troubled states. IF they are determined to kill each other over a spot on the beach, I wouold rather not see our country get involved in it, because of financial issues. I am very troubled to see that so many countries are not supporting this war, not because I think they should support it, but because there is something inside of me that says " hey, all these people think it' s a bad idea! They all have individual sources of intelligence and they all could stand to gain something from Saddam being removed. If they oppose war this strongly there must be something wrong with the way things are going down." Right now I believe the US government is hiding behind a veil that says democracy, but I do not believe that they are practicing it behind that veil. A true democracy is an incredible form of government and over time I believe it' s appeal would spread naturally and many countries would try the idea, but there is far to much danger in trying to force people into our way of life. Should we defend ourselves? ABSOLUTELY!!! Should we promote democracy? OF COURSE WE SHOULD!!! Should we force people into our way of life? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! I know this post was more emotional thatn factual, but I am very disturbed, by what is happening in the world right now. [:' (]

BSTONGE, I hope more people will see things the way you do now. Not necessarily " believe the other side" . But " think for yourself" and " question authority" . That' s what should be the very basis of Democracy. The farther this develops, the more I also get the feeling that it' s not really about Democracy in the US anymore, with all the black&white images used. " If you' re not with us, you' re against us" and the ever-popular " if you don' t like it, leave it" are about as weak and troubling as it gets in times of a possible war.

ORIGINAL: BSTONGE
I am very troubled to see that so many countries are not supporting this war, not because I think they should support it, but because there is something inside of me that says " hey, all these people think it' s a bad idea! They all have individual sources of intelligence and they all could stand to gain something from Saddam being removed. If they oppose war this strongly there must be something wrong with the way things are going down."

Oh how I wish more americans, would stop for two seconds and think this way. I mean, if an overwhelming majority is standing against the US in this, doesn' t it stand to reason that maybe, just maybe hte US might be wrong in it' s approach? Seems to me that line of thinking is very logical which leads me to thing that if the current administration persists in it' s current path, it' s because they' ve got another agenda they' re not sharing with the rest of the world.

Should then, the rest of the world stand idly by and do or say nothing and let said agenda go forth? I think NOT! DO past alliances mean anything when the country you are supposed to be supporting is going against every moral edict you stand for? Nope. Sorry, but alliances should be formed through moral objectivity and moral common grounds, not by who you think is going to come out on top. I don' t give a rat' s ass about whatever goods the US might have presented in the past. This war in Iraq is WRONG and it will remain WRONG until a MAJORITY of countries decide otherwise.

ORIGINAL: Kyo

Not necessarily " believe the other side" . But " think for yourself" and " question authority" . That' s what should be the very basis of Democracy.

I agree! It' s sad that WE THE PEOPLE have let things get this far out of hand. When I say this I blame myself along with other Americans, for inaction.

The farther this develops, the more I also get the feeling that it' s not really about Democracy in the US anymore, with all the black&white images used. " If you' re not with us, you' re against us" and the ever-popular " if you don' t like it, leave it" are about as weak and troubling as it gets in times of a possible war.

This philosphy IS troubling! Even if the US has a solid reason for us to be defending ourselves, it does not mean that all our allies will line up. Especially with no real proof. I don' t understand why the Bush administration thinks other nations should just take their word for it? Our Allies have their own identities as much as we do and they are right to question decisions that involve their security as well as their allies. What I have seen over and over is a request for solid proof before action is taken. Any denial came after little or no proof was provided.

What he said!