Matzi

They are skilled in diplomacy. Look at Israel and Palestina. The US diplomacy really made a great job down there.

Actually, I think diplomacy started to work shortly before you went to war. Diplomacy is based on negotiation and negotiation is connected to time. If you had waited some time longer you would not have lost anything (the opposite: no killed soldiers etc.).

For a few years? In case of Japan it's almost 50 years. What about the relationship between Japan and other countries (I'd say especially yours)? What about Japan's role in the world's economy, industrie, science etc.? You really want to loose all this at once just because they draw some declaration back without any kind of aggresion? I mean, in case of Iraq, this might be different, but I got the impression you would attack every country regardless of any of the consequences as you stated in your post in regards to Japan.

I. e. you would accept this as justification for war? One question: How many not necessary wars do you want to fight? I mean, haven't there been enough by now?

Man, that's history. This does not justify an attack now (even if you say you are just a bit late).

I have not forgotten that. WWII started differently: Germany attacked Poland first. This, as I think, justified a military action against Germany.

At the moment I'd say not yet. I mean what is going to follow for the rest of the axis of evil? Just some interesting link: This is a list of military involvements of the US after WWII. I think this one is long, too long. (Sorry, it's in German, but I think most of it clear)

The answer to this question is certainly clear. But this is no reason for making war on Iraq. There are many other means and it just shows incompetence to start such a war.

I think there are many reasons. But none of the ones presented to us by the American government is the real major reason. I think it's mainly the profit the US might have from this war and the advantage Bush gets from this.

Says who? I think we have already a quite intense relationship with spain and what does Germany have do with Iraq when it's ineterest is (if it were) about France. That's just nonsense.

Me too. I mean, how will this situation change when those who state the UN is a joke don't do anything about it. I have the ipression that the UN does not mean anything for some countries and this not because of the selfish interests of these countries.

Interesting... Germany's interest in Iraq... I can't think of one. But have me updated. Besides, I think the US have an interest in Iraq as well. I mean, what is going to happen after the war. What about the bidding for oil stuff etc.? (Actually I think that's one major reason why this war is going on. Saving national security is really ridiculous.)

Just add every country. They all can be dangerous for the US's national security.

what an argument... This does not mean you are informed. You do not rank a country by its number of TV channels. Or are you trying to justify a war with this? Countries with less than 5 channels suffer propaganda --> killing the people and invadind the country is justified. Nonsense. Innocent Vietnamese children and women. This does not justiy an attack on them either. I've seen different things as well. Or didn't they mention the bombs in a civilian house 150m away from a hospital? Or of the hotel bombed on your 550 channels?

I think many of those stating the facts justying a war are mostly not proven (me included) watch news. My news have failed to account for any link with Al Kaeda and this also concers other "facts" of this discussion. You can state again and again that people disagrreing with you might be stupid, ignorant, naiv or whatever. However, this is not what a discussion ought to consist of and does not make us step foward. I mean, if there is evidence, we might have missed it. So just give it to us. Give us objective, reliable and confirmed evidence. You really think you are alone on earth?

Hussein did not either. This is still just speculation. This still has not been proven. Sure? I mean, what is this? Sometimes I really think Bush is leading to a holy war for Christianity. Sure? I mean, how can you prove that? This morning I actually saw (on CNN, so I don't take this for granted) battles going on around Umm Quasr. Your government reported this city was already under full control on Friday. This seems to be a great misinformation for me. It's just an example, but don't belive your media too much. Media are always not that trustworthy, in Iraq, in the US and everywhere else. But you make war on Iraq without UN approval. You don't accept an international court because it might as well sue American war criminals. By the way, the arguments you have all been bringing forward aim only at killing or removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. That is an aim which would be great to reach and I would not have anything against such a removal, I would even like to see something like this. But by this means... Actually, your general or whatever he is ranked as who organizes your whole strike on Iraq said this morning that the course of the war would not be changed when Hussein's death was announced and confirmed. The war would go on. For which aim? Can you tell me this. Besides, why does your country bomb houses of civilians? I think a removal of Hussein and regime is absolutely justified but NOT by this means.

See atinymonkey's post. That's the way I see it and that's the way my conscience copes with that. And to fafalone: I think there has to be as few blood shed as possible. This war killing thousands of people could have been prevented. I think, glider is right. I mean, tell the Iraqi soldiers and civilists that you rescued them from Saddam before you kill them. They will certainly be thankful.

Yeah, I gotta buy someones myself...

8 hours a day? For what? I mean, if you want to do so. But watching TV and searching the web for additional information does not make you an absolutely informed person. It's all relative. By the way: When watch TV on Iraq for 8 hours a day, why don't you go to Iraq yourself and try to find the weapons you accuse Iraq of having not disarmed.

Ah, ok, that makes me feel safer...

Your points are mostly the one's of your government meant to justify the war, right? Then I think this should go the other way round. We do not have to prove your arguments to be wrong, but you have to convince us. It's like in court, I think. You are innocent till the opposite has been proven.

Yeah, sure, he has used them once (or maybe some more times). That is bad and I can only critizice this. However, this is more than a decade ago. How long are you going to bring this argument any more? I mean, your ancestors have killed thousands of native Americans. That's more than a hundred years ago. Don't you think things can grow old and be forgotten? Besides, I think - as does Radical Edward - that an attack with biological or chemical weapons by Iraq is very unlikely. I mean, Hussein is not stupid and is certainly in knowledge of the impact this might and will have if he uses these weapons. Otherwise you can - with your justification for this war - attack many countries, including your own, which have these weapons as well and will - hopefully - never use them because they known what that would mean for them and the rest of the world. Anyway, your answer was a perfect example for what Sayonara mentioned. You cited my first two lines but never said anything about my main argument (the one with terrorism). Don't you want to justify your opinion? I wonder whether you have read the rest of post. I mean, this is your right not to do, but would just persuade me of some kind of ignorance and incompetence of discussion (again, this was meant as observation, not as attack on yourself, fafalone. Please don't misunderstand me)

Ah, ja, sure. So why disarm Iraq? They have not done anything bad and they won't. You really think it's not about terrorism? I think it was - among others - exactly you who stated that Iraq's possible links to Al Kaeda are one reason for an ultimatum. So, this does not have to do with terrorism? If this had not to do with terrorism, your wish for disarmament of Iraq whould be really a great joke. I mean, just disarming a country possibly in possession of abc weapons would certainly be great. But there are actually other countries which have these weapons for sure, including your country. SO WHY NOT DISARM YOUR COUNTRY (if it was not about terrorism)? Sure, Saddam is a dictator, but that's no argument in this case as well. By the way, Bush's behaviour does not seem very wonderful in my eyes either. But instead of really trying to disarm the world, you break up with Russia which actually as Putin stated has bad effects on negotiations on further disarmaments of Russia and the US. So, terrorism, besides money and oil, is what this is all about. Your government is using 9/11 to make you panic to make you agree with an hostile movement against Iraq. Your government uses this argument of national security (YOU mentioned this earlier as reason for war as well, so don't tell me it's not about terrorism) in order to satisfy you people (in order to lie at you, I could say as well, which would be a bit more radical). What their real aims are, that's what they don't tell you. And don't tell these aims are reaching humanity and freeing these people in Iraq. That's really ridiculous, especially regarding thier means. So, stating the war in Iraq is not about terrorism, is really a joke and just persuades me (and certainly others as well) of the arbitrainess by which you choose your arguments for war. It's really sad.

No, the US should not have attacked Iraq and they should not invade the country. Yes, the US is - in my eyes - power hungry (but not only since today). That's my opinion, though, I think this won't change anything. No one can stop them anymore. Sad.

And your country does not? Your country always states only the truth. That's just ignorant. Every government (and especially yours) do certainly lie to their own citizens and to the rest of the world. But can you justify an attack just because of a lie? Anyway, it's all too late by now. Apparently, Iraq was attacked tonight by American bombs. They will have been certainly victims tonight and there will follow more in the following days, weeks, months. Still, I do not see any kind of justification of this war. I mean some people have tried to convince those not persuaded of the need of an attack but they have failed, at least regarding me. An argument based on facts and not on misinterpretations, speculations, interpretations still has not been mentioned.