Don't take this as an attack on you because what you have said is right, but I can't for the life of me see how Bush/America could see Iraq as a threat (or any country for that matter). On the contrary I bet many countries see the US as a threat, (and rightly so as it spends as much money on military as the rest of the world combined). This is why it is very important for whatever wars the US starts/takes part in to be conducted carefully and with the utmost of responsibility. All the US is achieving with Bush's "Don't mess with America" attitude is making other countries more nervous and causing them to wonder if they are going to be next on his list for a democratic makeover. IMO what Bush should have done after he got rid of Saddam was to hand the Iraq over to one of the plethora of organizations that speciallise in rebuilding countries.



One more request - please think about what you are saying before you state that such and such a country should be nuked - would you think if you saw a load of people on some Iraqi forum saying the same thing about America?



Mark

 

Iraq, with Saddam in power, was an absolute threat, not only to his own ppl but to neighboring countries (@ war w/ Iran for an extended period of time, as well as Kuwait), and with a nuclear program that has been in various stages of completion throughout the last 3 decades he would almost certainly pose a world threat.



Maybe it isn't such a bad thing, to have other countries that have had a history of harboring terrorists, to look over their shoulder at the U.S., I don't know about you guys but I could go the rest of my life without seeing commercial airliners being flown into buildings as well as all the other hideous acts of terrorism around the world.

 

Well said Mark, good to see other opinions from non-US citizens!

 

well, defprun said earlier that canada only sees war nessecary if a country is posing an immediate threat of invading yoru country, or something similar. well, what if a country was commiting a social genocide (like germany did) but they werent invading other countries, would that mean if the rest of the world followed your policies we would have to let them do as they may because theyre not going to invade you? and since i THINK you were also involved in sending troops during ww2, you might wanna rephrase what you said next time you talk about it.



and either colin or defprun said that we shouldnt focus on how other people treat their citizens (i think the example was the electric chair vs. rifles) but the difference is, do we put people in the electrical chair if they criticize the presidents ideas, or if they are going to run against him? we only put peopel in the electric chair when theyre convicted of a crime that has the chair as a punishment. so for you to compare the two of them, wouldnt they have to be under similar circumstances in which they were both used?

 

Germany was different, the U.N. let them get away with invading a handful of countries before anyone decided to actually do anything about it...Auchwitz and all that didnt come into play until a later in the war.

 

If people talk **** about Suddam in Iraq, its against their laws, therefore as punishment they are shot on sight. Dont talk **** and you dont get shot.



Seams pretty straight forward.

 

Eric



Bust out your sport goggles and start reading



Learn about us



http://archives.cbc.ca/300c.asp?id=1-71-659

 

The rest of the world did let it happen. They only reacted to the invasions.



And if you want to play policeman to genocides, about 1/4 of Africa has had that problem in the last 15 years, yet only Somalia and Rwanda have drawn a reaction.

 

The congo or whatever the hell its called now switches presidents on a regular basis...



As learned in the movie "congo"

 

The UN wasn't around until after WWII. Please do your homework before commenting on the US and it's policies.



http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/un/un.htm