Arguments for war

[billvon 3,008]

Rather than keep going on a rapidly deteriorating thread I thought I'd just list the reasons I see for going to war. There are some that I think have validity.

First off, my assumptions. I believe that we should plan for the future security of the US, not just for the next election. Any action we take should take both the near future and the far future into account, as best we can.

Secondly, we should not assume that we will always be the world's only superpower. We were once a nothing little country on the edge of an unexplored continent; less than a generation ago we were one of two superpowers, both quite capable of destroying each other. There will come a time when another superpower rises, and we will not be alone at the top again.

Finally, I strongly believe that we should treat other countries as we wish to be treated. That is a basic philosophy in my life that I apply to other people; I expect my government to apply it as well.

----------------------------------------------------

So first off, some very poor reasons to go to war:

1. To punish Hussein for 9/11. There is simply no link, despite what I think is a very clever campaign to imply that. I hope most people are not so foolish as to buy into such a bogus sales pitch.

2. To help prevent terrorism against the US. A war against Iraq, from every analysis I've read, will INCREASE terrorism against the US, as it "proves" to splinter groups that we really are out to destroy all arab countries. Getting UN support before we go to war will significantly reduce (but not eliminate) that increase.

3. Oil. I don't for a minute believe that we are going to war purely for oil; however, I also don't believe that oil has no influence on our decision. Our economy currently runs on cheap oil, and all our plans for the future will increase our usage of it. We are even promising the spoils of war in the form of oil to our potential allies. The money spent on war could be spent much more effectively on reducing our need to buy the stuff from our enemies.

4. Because Iraqis are suffering. Killing 100,000 of them to "end their suffering" is the worst kind of political doubletalk, and most of the suffering in Iraq has come from our (US/UN) sanctions. We could solve their suffering tomorrow by lifting the sanctions and no one would die in a war. We may choose not to do that for other reasons, but that does not mean we are not contributing to their suffering.

Another part of this is the mantra "but he used WMD's against his own people . . . his own people . . ." He did, but we supported him while he did that. There is a now-famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein _after_ his use of chemical weapons in the field; Rumsfeld had already received the UN report showing he had used them.

5. Because Hussein is a bad man. He is a very evil guy; so are half a dozen other men throughout the world. Other men (Kim Jong Il) are as evil and have much greater means to harm us. We have proven we can live in peace even with bad men - Castro is one example - while at the same time pressuring them to change their ways. We might not be successful, but that's a risk of diplomacy, and far fewer people die from words than from bombs.

6. Because Hussein is going to destroy the Middle East. He may try to attack nearby countries in the future, as he has done in the past. However, in the present and immediate future he simply is not a threat, and will not become a threat again without our noticing.

7. Because Hussein supports terrorism. He does, but then again, so do a dozen other countries including us. Pakistan is selling nuclear weapons technology to "axis of evil" countries. We give arms to Kurdish terrorists, and we have a long history of supporting terrorists who are willing to kill our enemies.

Some reasons to go to war that have some validity:

1. Because Hussein has WMD's and he has shown that he will not disarm without the threat of force. There is sufficient evidence to show he has at least chemical weapons, and that the only reason he has even begun to admit this is that we are threatening him with war. This is both an argument for war (since he is still dragging his feet) and an argument for keeping up the pressure (since it's working.)

2. Because a new government in Iraq will bring stability to the region in the future. This is possible, but must be handled very, very carefully. If we try to install a US-backed government, we will quickly find ourselves in a mess that will reduce, rather than enhance, stability. For example, what do we do when the Kurds attack Turkey, once they are freed of the oppression of Hussein's government?

The alternative may not be any better. Do we hand over government to his sons, who are far less sane than he is? Do we allow elections but "approve" the people's choices? Such a government will almost certainly be more humane and democratic than the government of Iraq now, but it may not bring more stability to the region unless we're very careful.

3. Because we can get an international consensus that we should go to war. This is absolutely critical. There will come a day when we are not the strongest country on the planet. We are currently one of the most hated countries on the planet; if we are still hated when we lose our supremacy, the UN is all that will stand between us and the aggressors who would harm us. On that day, we better pray the UN is strong enough to make war a last resort instead of business as usual. Our support of international consensus will help ensure that.

[wmw999 2,460]

Quote

We are currently one of the most hated countries on the planet; if we are still hated when we lose our supremacy, the UN is all that will stand between us and the aggressors who would harm us.

I think the statement is too general. However, I think that among the people who hate us, the hatred is very very intense. And it only takes one guy who really really hates you to shoot you.

People who think we're the most loved country in the world are delusional. Yes, there are plenty of people who still want to come here. But by no means everyone.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Do we hand over government to his sons, who are far less sane than he is?

Colin powell has already stated that that would not be acceptable, emphasizing that we would be after REGIME change. Which includes Saddam & all his top people.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Some reasons to go to war that have some validity:

While I might not have supported a war five years ago, at this point, I believe that it is our best course forward. We cannot climb down without serious consequences--consequences that are, in my mind, far worse than the war being contemplated.
The biggest reasons for war are all negative. In other words, what will be the impact on world peace and stability if the United Nations backs down, after threatening "serious consequences" (that's UN-ese for war) in a unanimous Security Council resolution?
Here are some probable consequences of a failure of the UN's collective backbone.
1) The UN loses massive credibility. Dictators the world over (do you suppose Mr. Kim is watching this from Pyongyang?) will hear the message loud and clear: "If the UN demands that you disarm, feel free to ignore it. It will lose all resolve, and self-destruct in bickering, before those 'serious consequences' ever materialize". I believe that you, Bill, argued that maintaining the UN's credibility is important to our future security.
2) Saddam Hussein emerges a hero. Iraq, currently none too popular amongst the other mid-east states, will gain a "David and Goliath" reputation. Mr. Hussein will be toasted, feted and honored in capitals from Damascus to Tunis (and, of course, Pyongyang). Not only will this be a major boost to an avowed enemy of the U.S., it will also be a major blow to the multi-lateral world order represented by the U.N. Another clear message: "If you defy the U.N. (or the U.S.), you will be a hero. You will retain your power base, you will be able to continue your domestic "programs", and you will be courted by regional and world leaders."
3) Iraq continues to research and build increasingly effective weapons of mass destruction. Encouraged by Iraq's victory, North Korea does the same. If we are _very_ lucky, they may even collaborate on some new weapons systems. As a result, not only the middle east, but also the far east, is plunged into a deepening arms race. Massive resources, that might otherwise be devoted to improving life for billions, are devoted to regional arms development. Governments from Tokyo and Seoul to Teheran, Riyadh and Jerusalem begin militarizing, in anticipation of upcoming wars, or at the very least in fear of their newly strutting neighbors in Baghdad and Pyongyang.
The long term peace and security of the world will be best served by military action. I would prefer that the U.N. Security Council bless action in North Korea. In my opinion, they have already blessed action in Iraq, but I'd love to see a re-statement there as well. However, failing that, I think that the U.S. will be doing a great service to the future prosperity of the entire world (and not least, to the safety of our children) by taking decisive and overwhelming action. And by doing it soon.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,008]

>The long term peace and security of the world will be best served by military action.

The long term peace of the world will be best served by Iraq's disarmament. That can happen either via military action or via voluntary cooperation. Cooperation is unlikely, but I think it would be wise to remember that our objective is disarmament, not war.

>In my opinion, they have already blessed action in Iraq, but I'd love
>to see a re-statement there as well.

I would like to see a resolution based on Blix's checklist, that calls out specific dates and requirements, and details the results of non-compliance (i.e. war.) That will eliminate the endless arguments over what "serious consequences" means, and over how long is long enough for inspections to complete. Once that's passed, then we will know when war is likely to start, and Hussein knows concretely what he must do by what date to avoid war. If he doesn't do it, there will be no question about his cooperation.

I hope we engage North Korea soon to slow down their nuclear development program, but with Seoul within range of N Korea's nuclear weapons, I doubt military action will be considered.

[Guest]

Good points, but you've overlooked something very critical.

The Iraqis we've been trying to get on our side since 1991 (when we didn't support them like they expected as they tried to overthrow Saddam) are counting on us. We've now got to prove to them that "we really mean it this time".

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>The long term peace and security of the world will be best served by military action.
The long term peace of the world will be best served by Iraq's disarmament. That can happen either via military action or via voluntary cooperation. Cooperation is unlikely, but I think it would be wise to remember that our objective is disarmament, not war.

I am not certain that I agree with you. At this point, I believe that any solution that does not involve a regime change (and a complete and open divestiture of weapons of mass destruction) will be counter productive. I do not believe a regime change is possible without military action.
(Note that I do not favor a complete disarmament of Iraq. Creating a big, soft, vacuum in the center of the middle east is not going to lead to stability.)
I just don't see that kind of solution happening without military action. I can't see real cooperation coming from the current Iraqi regime. Any solution that involves leaving Saddam Hussein in power will have pretty much all the same negative consequences that a climb-down would.
At this point, it looks to me like the best option is to go, go now, go hard, and go fast. Further hesitation will only serve to embolden those who are watching from the wings (and those on center stage).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Guest]

I agree that every alternative should be exhausted, but when push comes to shove, it'll be time to commit, and when that happens, I for one will be glad. Not of war, but of the end of the waiting and uncertainty.

All that crap about "Arab / Muslim Brotherhood" really doesn't mean much in most places, either.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[rgoper 0]

BillVon:

i agree with 98% of what you said, except we do not have the right to monitor his weapons the same as he has no right to monitor ours. would we tolerate it? and if we really wanted to, we could assinate sadaam, and his cohorts and be done with it, more than one nations leader has been assinated in the past, 1963 is still fresh in my mind. and in that era, rather than face a foe we didn't want to confront, we ignored it with the "warren commission" investigation...what a joke.

Tom:

bear in mind this has been going on for 12 years, the UN has failed, "we the people" have failed by not insuring our elected officials were doing their jobs, and it wouldn't be addressed now if not for 09/11. i'm all for dissarming iraq, but it must be with full consensus of the UN. if we go it alone i shudder at the tragic events that will follow. there will be no safe planes, buildings, cars, neighborhoods, schools, etc...we offered turkey 30 BILLION dollars to let us use their failities and they refused, couldn't this money be better utilized stabilizing our economy, feeding the hungry, educating our children? it just seems to be a waste of time, emotion and effort because in the end, we "the people" will pick up the bill.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 3,008]

>I agree that every alternative should be exhausted, but when push
>comes to shove, it'll be time to commit, and when that happens, I
> for one will be glad. Not of war, but of the end of the waiting and
> uncertainty.

I think if it saves lives, waiting and uncertainty is a burden we must bear. We all talk about supporting our troops - surely living with uncertainty for whatever time we need to is preferable to risking their lives for our peace of mind.

In any case, we are down to either weeks (one extreme, Bush's proposal) or a very few months (Blix's proposal.) We can deal with the uncertainty until then.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

and if we really wanted to, we could assinate sadaam, and his cohorts and be done with it

From everything I've read about Saddam, I don't think we could just go in and assassinate him. I think he may have taken a few minor precautions against assassination.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,008]

>except we do not have the right to monitor his weapons the same as
>he has no right to monitor ours.

Ordinarily I would agree with you. However, Hussein consented to the monitoring as part of the agreement that ended the gulf war - a war he started. He's obliged to live up to that agreement, just as we would be if we agreed to such monitoring (which we didn't.)

[rgoper 0]

no one is "untouchable" there are people in iraq, maybe an unsavory lot, but a few the US might just know, that for the right amount of $$ you could take him out.

BillVon:

i'll give you that point, but we should have never allowed the 12 year time lapse, 4380 days, thats a long time.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

the UN has failed

What I fear is that the world (and history) will share your judgment. I do not think the U.N. has failed, _yet_. I'd prefer that we help it to succeed.

Quote

i'm all for dissarming iraq, but it must be with full consensus of the UN.

Which is more important? Another Security Council Resolution, or the diarmament of Iraq? While they can hopefully both be achieved, I believe that disarmament and regime change in Iraq are both more important goals than yet another U.N.S.C. resolution.

Quote

if we go it alone i shudder at the tragic events that will follow. there will be no safe planes, buildings, cars, neighborhoods, schools, etc...

What leads you to this conclusion? I, honestly, anticipate approximately the same amount of terrorist reprisal regardless of whether we "go it alone" or not. Do you honestly anticipate that the insulted French, Germans and Russians will start a suicide bombing campaign in the U.S.? Or are you just hoping that if they get dragged along, the suicide bombers will spread their attentions evenly (which I doubt), and we'll be able to share our pain with the Europeans?

Quote

turkey 30 BILLION dollars to let us use their failities and they refused, couldn't this money be better utilized stabilizing our economy, feeding the hungry, educating our children?

The world is fairly interdependent these days. The question you ought to ask is: "Is our $30 billion better spent domestically, or internationally? Which of these two uses will best ensure future peace and prosperity?"
The answer is most emphatically _not_ a definite "spend it at home." Ignoring international affairs to concentrate on our domestic well being is, in political science, called "isolationism." In broad terms, it has been a leading factor in the causation of several very negative international events (like World War II), which had major repercussions on domestic well being.
International and domestic prosperity are inextricably linked. We cannot ignore the world, and expect everything to just go along fine at home.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,008]

>Do you honestly anticipate that the insulted French, Germans and
> Russians will start a suicide bombing campaign in the U.S.?

No, but Iraqi war refugees in Syria who watched their children die in the first days of the US "shock and awe" campaign just might.

>Or are you just hoping that if they get dragged along, the suicide
> bombers will spread their attentions evenly (which I doubt), and we'll
> be able to share our pain with the Europeans?

That will happen to some degree but it will be a minor effect, compared to the new enemies we create during our attacks.

[wmw999 2,460]

Quote

I, honestly, anticipate approximately the same amount of terrorist reprisal regardless of whether we "go it alone" or not.

One thing to think about with this assertion is that if we didn't go it alone, then we are much more likely to have cooperation and proactive warnings from other countries. If we go it alone, then there will be more of a "you got yourself into this, get yourself out" attitude.

It was the cooperation part that resulted in almost no public brouhaha over our bombing a car with an Al-Qaeda terrorist in another country.

If other countries are more cooperative, then we have a lot fewer "fronts" to think about, because our friends will be helping watch our backs. We piss off enough "friends" and they say "fuck it, it's not my back."

Wendy

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Do you honestly anticipate that the insulted French, Germans and Russians will start a suicide bombing campaign in the U.S.?
No, but Iraqi war refugees in Syria who watched their children die in the first days of the US "shock and awe" campaign just might.

Um, yes. But they are equally likely to do so whether or not the French, Germans and Russians are participating in (or have given their approval for) the campaign.
I wasn't really questioning whether military action would lead to an increase in terrorist incidents. The issue was whether international approval would effect the rate of such an increase. I doubt that the war refugees you are referring to will know or care whether or not the Russian ambassador to the U.N. approved of the campaign.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,008]

>But they are equally likely to do so whether or not the French,
> Germans and Russians are participating in (or have given their
> approval for) the campaign.

I think it more likely that they will go after the French, rather than the Americans, if it is a French soldier who kills their children. Even if it's hard to tell where the soldier was from, they might just realize that France is a lot closer than the US - if they know that France was part of the attack.

>I doubt that the war refugees you are referring to will know or care
> whether or not the Russian ambassador to the U.N. approved of the
> campaign.

I think they might take more than a passing interest in who was responsible for the deaths of their children. Some people take such things quite seriously. If they learn that France vehemently opposed the war, they might just consider them allies rather than potential targets.

As an example - do you think people in the US knew or cared whether the Taliban supported Al Quaeda? Do you think they cared that Pakistan supported us after 9/11? I suspect most did, and I suspect war refugees will seek out similar information. They will have a far more personal stake in the issue than most of us did.

[MC208B 0]

Bill, what have you been smoking buddy?

You come up with the weirdest shit!

You want us to treat other countries like we would like to be treated? The Golden Rule? And you're worried about when we're not on top anymore that the UN will be the only thing between us and doom?

We treat other countries much better than we are treated Bill. The gov. sends tons of money and aid all over the planet and doesn't stop even when those same countries shit on us. Of course, if you are a country involved with slitting the throats of women on airliners and flying them into property here in the states, you're toast (as it should be).

As for when we are no longer THE superpower, that's not going to happen Bill. The United States will never stoop to any other nation ever.

Let me pose a question to you Bill. If the US and USSR had somehow wound up opposite at the end of the cold war, do you suppose the Soviets would observe the "Golden Rule?

Perhaps you should head on down to the beach, assume the lotus position and chant to your higher power. Might help keep you from your anti American rants. Mike

[harryskydives 0]

I would like to see a resolution based on Blix's checklist, that calls out specific dates and requirements.
_______________________________________________
Good request. I do not believe Hans Blix wants specifics. Job Security ect. They wanted to interview 58 Iraqi scientist, but after 4 months they have interviewed 3. Then after we move 250,000 troops and equiptment to the gulf they interview another 7. Blix says they will not get candid interviews until they talk to these scientist out of country. If Saddam was making any effort to comply: these scientist would have been in New York city on day 2.

Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time...

[billvon 3,008]

>We treat other countries much better than we are treated Bill.

Often we do. Sometimes we don't. We sure didn't treat Venezuela very nicely after their latest temporary coup, for example. And note I did not say "treat others like we are treated" I said "treat others how we WANT to be treated." You may not agree, but that's the basis of my philosophy.

>Of course, if you are a country involved with slitting the throats of
> women on airliners and flying them into property here in the states,
> you're toast (as it should be).

Of course; we should stop sponsoring terrorism as well, even if the women's throats they slit are enemies of ours.

>As for when we are no longer THE superpower, that's not going to
> happen Bill. The United States will never stoop to any other nation
> ever.

Now that's funny! We'll last longer than the Greek, Roman and British empires? Empires have risen and fallen, but that won't happen to us because we're different? I suggest you read up on your history. Even now, the best students in our colleges are foreigners, and they are returning to their countries with that knowledge and those skills. They are the future.

>If the US and USSR had somehow wound up opposite at the end of
> the cold war, do you suppose the Soviets would observe the "Golden
> Rule?

If capitalism had fallen in the US and communism had taken over (i.e. the opposite of what happened to the USSR) then yes, they would have been ecstatic. They would have been proven right, and they would have been happy to help the new communist states of North America, just as we are happy to help the new capitalist states of the fomer USSR. (At least, many of them.)

>Perhaps you should head on down to the beach, assume the lotus
> position and chant to your higher power.

Is that really the best you can do in terms of intelligent discussion?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

1. To punish Hussein for 9/11. There is simply no link, despite what I think is a very clever campaign to imply that. I hope most people are not so foolish as to buy into such a bogus sales pitch.

I have heard no direct "blame" against Iraq for 9/11. Where have you heard it? If it's not on BBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC or one of the major newpapers, I urge you to reconsider your source.

Quote

2. To help prevent terrorism against the US. A war against Iraq, from every analysis I've read, will INCREASE terrorism against the US, ....

Why? If Iraq has no ties to Al Qaeda or isn't linked to 9/11, why would Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian or Syrians mind about Hussein? You purport that terrorism will increase, but that Iraq doesn't have ties to terrorists? The geopolitical spectrum cannot be validated via an engineering configuration tool. It is wholly fluid.

Quote

3. Oil. I don't for a minute believe that we are going to war purely for oil; however, I also don't believe that oil has no influence on our decision. Our economy currently runs on cheap oil, and all our plans for the future will increase our usage of it. We are even promising the spoils of war in the form of oil to our potential allies. The money spent on war could be spent much more effectively on reducing our need to buy the stuff from our enemies.

I agree with principle you're advocating here. But the switch you are talking about would cost 100x more if the current oil supply is not stabalized. You need an economy that is running smoothly and inexpensively to make that change in technology happen.

Quote

4. Because Iraqis are suffering. Killing 100,000 of them to "end their suffering" is the worst kind of political doubletalk, and most of the suffering in Iraq has come from our (US/UN) sanctions. We could solve their suffering tomorrow by lifting the sanctions and no one would die in a war. We may choose not to do that for other reasons, but that does not mean we are not contributing to their suffering.

Where do you get 100,000 from? Lifting sanctions enables Saddam to freely pursue his ambitions, rebuild his military, and buy another nuclear reactor from France. Is that what you're advocating?

Quote

There is a now-famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein _after_ his use of chemical weapons in the field; Rumsfeld had already received the UN report showing he had used them.

I believe that picture is from 1983, I can't verify that though. If correct, that would be some 5 years before Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds or Iranians.

Quote

5. Because Hussein is a bad man. He is a very evil guy; so are half a dozen other men throughout the world. Other men (Kim Jong Il) are as evil and have much greater means to harm us.

Bill, you contradict yourself, you say in one thread that DPRK doesn't have the means to reach us and then you speculate on another about untested missiles. Even if the Taepong 2 or 3 stage missiles work, that does not mean a reliable platform for delivering an untested WMD design.

Quote

6. Because Hussein is going to destroy the Middle East. ...

No argument with this one.

Quote

7. Because Hussein supports terrorism. He does, but then again, so do a dozen other countries including us. Pakistan is selling nuclear weapons technology to "axis of evil" countries. We give arms to Kurdish terrorists, and we have a long history of supporting terrorists who are willing to kill our enemies.

Who do we, the United States of America, currently support as terrorists?
Where is Pakistan's weapons proliferation activity documented?

Quote

1. Because Hussein has WMD's ... ... This is both an argument for war (since he is still dragging his feet) and an argument for keeping up the pressure (since it's working.)

34 dismantled Al Samoud missiles is hardly disarming, especially if Saddam still has blueprints. If you read Blix's remarks carefully, you'll notice that the quarterly report issued today was in accordance with RESOLUTION 1284 (1999).

Quote

2. Because a new government in Iraq will bring stability to the region in the future. This is possible, but must be handled very, very carefully. If we try to install a US-backed government, we will quickly find ourselves in a mess that will reduce, rather than enhance, stability. For example, what do we do when the Kurds attack Turkey, once they are freed of the oppression of Hussein's government?

I agree. If the kurds decided to attack Turkey, I hope that we would stand by our obligation under NATO.

Quote

The alternative may not be any better. Do we hand over government to his sons, who are far less sane than he is? Do we allow elections but "approve" the people's choices? Such a government will almost certainly be more humane and democratic than the government of Iraq now, but it may not bring more stability to the region unless we're very careful.

That is why the policy is "regime" change. That means Saddam, his family, his deputies, aids, maids, janitors, bodyguards, body-doubles...

Quote

We are currently one of the most hated countries on the planet; if we are still hated when we lose our supremacy, the UN is all that will stand between us and the aggressors who would harm us. On that day, we better pray the UN is strong enough to make war a last resort instead of business as usual. Our support of international consensus will help ensure that.

Not bad logic there. Unfortunately, the hatred is not stemmed from our policy, it is stemmed by the policies that others would have their citizens believe. The average Egyptian probably doesn't care much for the US. Do you think he knows that the US is Egypt's biggest aid provider?

I don't think that day you speak of will come...at least I hope not.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Tasadin 0]

One for the melting pot..... how do you deal with a guy who says he has no WMD's but has given his local commanders authority to use them if they see fit if the allies invade!! and dont ask where i got my info.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[AndyMan 7]

I don't think most people hate America.

I do think that most people are scared of America. People like the Swiss, the Italians, the Spanish, the Canadians, the Mexians, and even the English - are afraid of the US.

Many people in the world are starting to look to the US in the same light that some of the older people here remember looking to the Russians. They see the US as the single biggest danger to world peace.

This is earth shattering. I hope that very soon the US takes the opportunity to reflect upon the opnions of its former closest alies.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Even now, the best students in our colleges are foreigners, and they are returning to their countries with that knowledge and those skills.

Absolutely correct. Anyone that doesn't worry about this is a fool.

JK
(Professor of Engineering)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.