FEB
5
2003

KDE in Iran

An informal group called LIGLUG (LinuxIran Gnu/Linux User Group) yesterday finished its work on a customized live CD based on
KNOPPIX. GNU/Linux and KDE being widely unknown in Iran, this live CD, which is called "Shabdix", will be used to promote GNU/Linux and FarsiKDE in Iran. It will be released to the public as Shabdix 0.7.

Shabdix has, compared to KNOPPIX, made some major changes, such as upgrading KDE to KDE 3.1, and removing non-free packages and OpenOffice.org (since it is not possible yet to type Farsi in OpenOffice.org). The default KDE language and keyboard are set to Farsi. And some changes regarding fonts (like the use of anti aliasing, and Xft) have been made.

Due to bandwidth and space limitations the .iso image is not being made available to the public through the Internet. Arrangements are being made to possibly distribute the CD through computer magazines. The group hopes to be able to distribute the CD in schools, universities and governmental organizations as well.

Comments

What can you say... Kool


By KDE User at Wed, 2003/02/05 - 6:00am

Excellent work and kudos to the team - or should that be teamS! I wish all the best to LIGLUG in their quest to evangelise Linux and KDE in Iran. This is another example of the enormous flexibility of free software, and its ability to make a "local" impact all over the world. Of course, a special thank-you is also due to Knoppix for their excellent live CD distro, and to the ever-awesome efforts of the KDE team for the magnificent 3.1 release.


By Alastair Stevens at Wed, 2003/02/05 - 6:00am

i offer a hearty second to that sentiment!

a fellow in the Calgary LUG has created a Knoppix mod with KDE3.1 and branded with the Calgary LUG logos and information. the result is very slick, though nothing as important or momentus as Shabdix. =)


By Aaron J. Seigo at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

It would be better to talk about teamS. Only one team worked on Shabdix, but what we did, which was not really much, would have not been possible without the achievements of KNOPPIX and KDE, specially 3.1, that we love so much!
Special thanks to Aryan too, who actually did it!


By Arash at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Hi Arash,

I just wann appreciate you about you hard working
to provide Farsi in Linux. I hope a day, all persian
pepole use Linux as the best OS with excellent Farsi
environment.

I have written/Translated 2 book about Redhat Linux in
Iran and hope&will to improve it as some profecional Linux
books and more introduce this perfect OS to people, when I
have come back to Iran.

keep your good working on it.
Thank you & good luck
Ashkan.


By Ashkan at Thu, 2003/02/27 - 6:00am

the only thing missing is "K".
Sorry, I coudn't resist.


By kavanaugh at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Does this mean that KDE will be part of the "axe of the evil" from now on?


By thefrog at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

i am not sure, if you mean "axe of the evil" ironic, but anyway we are talking about iran and not irak


By cylab at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Cylab,

Iran is on the axis of evil:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1814659.stm

bobbob


By bobbob at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

But most of the people on this world are not evil. This applies to Iran, USA, France, Germany and every other country. It's about people and life. Most of the people want peace. And there can't be a better way to show than to actually talk/work with each other. Bushs "Axis of evil" is not at all my axis of evil.

Norbert
(who is not happy with his government but happy to live in "Old Europe" and happy not to take a gun a walk to a foreign country to kill)

Bruce Springsteen (1985):
"(war) means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
[...]
War What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord there's gotta be another way
That's better than War"


By Norbert at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Whould that be a part of old Europe that Thousands of Americans died liberating in WWI and WWII? How short your memories are.


By MikieG at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

that the US did not even declare war on Germany when it had conquered half of Europe and had started to kill millions of innocents.

In fact the USA only entered the war, after Germany declared war on the USA.

I can't remember that the Iraq has attacked anyone after Kuwait and I can't remember a declaration of war against the USA or anyone else.

So in WW2, the USA defended itself, now it is attacking former allied tyrans to get oil. That thousands of innocents will die is of no importance to the Bush regime.

And don't get me started on the racism a German friend of mine is encountering at the moment when all he wants a visum for the USA. The guy is a highly qualified M.D. with German citizenship and a grant for research in the US. But he was born 30 years ago in Afghanistan. "Too bad, fucking terrorist."


By Moritz Moeller-... at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Okay, history lessons all around...

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on Japan. Because of Japan's alliance with Germany, this also meant declaring war on all of the Axis powers.

Furthermore, the reason why the US didn't get involved was that the populace was quite literally sick and tired of the tribal like fueds that Europe kept getting itself into. Especially considering the ill concieved Treaty of Versaille which virtually guaranteed a sequel. You need to also recall that the US was in the depth of an economic depression at this time. Throwing American lives at yet another European war wasn't exactly a popular notion.

Moving along to Iraq. Following their second defeat in attempting to invade Kuwait (the first in 1967, the second in 1991) they signed an agreement with the coalition forces to end the hostilities. This agreement included weapons restrictions, no-fly zones, and regular inspections. Since that time they have fired on US and other nation's aircraft in the no-fly zone, continued to purchase weapons THEY agreed not to posess, and forcibly removed all the UN inspectors from their nation. In breaking the agreement they are essentially saying they wish for hostilities to continue. Everyone, including the "Bush regime" would much rather have Iraq live up to it's agreements rather than having to once again deal militarily with it. What we'd ALL like to see happen is having the US troops now stationed in Saudi to come home. That can't happen while the Iraq situation is left unresolved.

As to the bit about the US attacking Iraq for oil... sorry, try again. The US doesn't purchase ANY Iraqi oil, nor do we want it. Their oil doesn't burn clean like the Saudi crude, which we do purchase in great quantities. Iraq's customers include mostly 3rd world nations, France and Russia. France in particular has a number of financial interests in that country, and an extremely large Algerian population. It's not difficult to see why they've consistently opposed actions against Iraq.

I am sorry about your friend. Stuff like that happens when a few wackos decide to kill an estimated 3000 innocent people. Since the bulk of the planning for 9/11 seems to have happened in both Afghanistan and Germany, your friend simply has run into some serious bad luck.


By Michael Collette at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

As to the bit about the US attacking Iraq for oil... sorry, try again. The US doesn't purchase ANY Iraqi oil, nor do we want it.

Yes you do. Through "Oil for food" program governed by the UN.


By Jo Øiongen at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Which, btw, is right up there with the whole Europe, Africa, and Diamonds mess in the "morally repugnant" department.

Sigh. I can still feel proud to be an American. But only if I ignore all foreign policy since the end of WWII...


By Rayiner Hashem at Tue, 2003/02/11 - 6:00am

I am sorry about your friend. Stuff like that happens when a few wackos decide to kill an estimated 3000 innocent people. Since the bulk of the planning for 9/11 seems to have happened in both Afghanistan and Germany, your friend simply has run into some serious bad luck.

If you are implying that Germany is involved in any terroristic attacks, then this discussion is finished. Germany has shown great solidarity and we lost almost 60 people in the attack as well. Germans fight side by side with US troops in Afghanistan today. Germany has deployed almost 10000 men to restore a peaceful Afghan nation.

My friend is no danger at all to anyone. Therefore I call the American behaviour towards him racism. To discriminate by heritage is racism. I do not think that terror against our civilization is a good reason to abandon it. The least thing they could have done is ask him to come to the embassy and check him out personally. Instead, they simply let him wait forever.


By Moritz Moeller-... at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

>Following the attack on Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on Japan. Because of Japan's alliance with Germany, this also meant declaring war on all of the Axis powers.

If your assertion is valid (hypothesis), it is nonetheless meaningless. This would just be valid for a four days period!

Simple historical facts/dates:

1) Pearl Harbour took place on December 7th 1941
2) Germany declared war to US on December 11th 1941
3) war started when germany invaded Poland in September 1st 1939
3) Great Britain and France declared the war on Germany on September 3rd 1939

So the sentence of Moritz "that the US did not even declare war on Germany when it had conquered half of Europe and had started to kill millions of innocents." is actually not contradicted by historical facts.

Conclusions:
1) USA did wait more than 2 years after the beginning of the war to physically enter the war.
2) USA did not take the initiative to physically enter the war.


By oliv at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

No disagreement over your conclusions. By and large, the United States wanted no part of yet another European war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

There was even a fair amount of sympathy for the German point of view concerning the conflict early on. Mind you, the information hitting the US press wasn't the most accurate telling of what was actually happening. Sympathy or not, the American populace felt pretty screwed over by the end of the first war. From this side of the Atlantic it looked like those crazy Europeans are at it again!

Since Japan and Germany had formed a military alliance, declaring war on one meant declaring on both. I don't believe either of our posts is wholly inaccurate, though I do thank you for providing the dates of when these events took place.

It should be noted, since the parent post seems to allude to it, that nobody outside of Germany knew what all was going on with mass killing of Jews and other ethnic groups. It wasn't until after the war and the liberation of the death camps did the world truly get a glimpse at the horrors that were going on. In all fairness, even if we knew it probably wouldn't have hastened the US entry into the war due to a variety of logisitics issues.


By Metrol at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

> Since Japan and Germany had formed a military alliance, declaring war on one meant
> declaring on both. I don't believe either of our posts is wholly inaccurate, though I do thank
> you for providing the dates of when these events took place.

Not true. For example the Soviet Union was at war with Germany/Italy/Romania, but not at war with Japan until, IIRC, 1945.


By Sad Eagle at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

By the way, as you mention the Holocaust, another figure is interesting here: Between December 41 and May 45, only 21.000 jews refugiees were accepted in the US. Gavras excellent movie of last year mentions similar reluctance to accept jew refugies (from neutral scandinavian countries) by the US during the war (in the movie, the "official" reasons given are logistical). Even Switzerland who has often been depicted as a bad example for it strict policy has acutually accepted more jews than the US during the war (of course, geographically, the two cases cannot be 100% compared).


By oliv at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Just 2 points:

1. Israel have mass destruction weapons including chemicals, and it's defing UN more than Iraq, killing medics and nurses, attacking scholls and ambulances, destroing houses... MAN! Didn't they learned nothing grom their history? They think it's cool if god kill all Egypt's primogenits, they think it was horrible to being pharao's slaves, they where killed by thosands in second war but... anyway...

2. If Iraq does violate lots of things, others do as well. You know, the flying zone exclusion exists, but there is NOTHING about flyings of USA/England on those zones, so it's air space violation, that is a thing that can by internacional agreements a cause for war declaration....
(or do you think that a loaded MIG in new yourk won't cause one?)

You know, war sucks, and if we can start justificating war with anything it's good to start bombing everywhere until no human is left at once.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

"As to the bit about the US attacking Iraq for oil... sorry, try again. The US doesn't purchase ANY Iraqi oil, nor do we want it. Their oil doesn't burn clean like the Saudi crude, which we do purchase in great quantities. Iraq's customers include mostly 3rd world nations, France and Russia. France in particular has a number of financial interests in that country, and an extremely large Algerian population. It's not difficult to see why they've consistently opposed actions against Iraq."

I might agree on France and their reasons.

Yet, it is not true that Iraq oli is worse than Saudi Arabia's. iIn the contrary: it is almost the best quality oil in the world, and what makes it even better is that it is very near the surface and thus easy and cheap to gain. And the remaining supllies might be even bigger than S.A.

But what is even more important:
S.A.'s oil is not very secure any more. 15 of 19 attackers of 9/11 come from S.A.
Usama ibn Ladin (or Osama bin Laden) comes from S.A.
In S.A. there are more than 4000 princes who live in unbelievable luxury.
E.g. one came to the Geneva car exhibition with a suitcase full of 1 Million US$ as deposit for 20 (twenty) Maybach cars, 375000 US$ each - for his / somebody's wedding guests.

They spend so much money on such things that even S.A. got into money problems.
And the people outside the royal family starve (relatively). This - together with the presence of the US army in the land of the most holy Islam sites - brought the Islam extremist in S.A. to some power.

That's why the US want to attack Iraq to gain access to the second (or even first largest) high quality oil resource in the world.

Regards,
Harald


By Harald Henkel at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

"As to the bit about the US attacking Iraq for oil... sorry, try again. The US doesn't purchase ANY Iraqi oil, nor do we want it.

Don't buy NOW, soon will get for free ;)
And about not wanting it, why high officials defend getting it as compensation for war?
- anyway, can someone explain why Iraq should pay for a war they are not starting? (they are paying for the guld war, that is right and ok)


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Sorry, I replyied in the wrong place, should be one above.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Wow, where to start with all this...

First off, I've been to Saudi myself. 1st TAC Fighter Wing stationed in Daharan. Spent all of Desert Shield there, plus a fair amount of Desert Storm. I can tell you first hand that citizens of Saudi live in anything but abject poverty. In fact, their citizens ALL get a welfare check from the state. Folks who are actual citizens are doing pretty nicely.

The folks living below poverty levels are those immigrant workers living there from other Arab nations, India, and a mix of south east Asian nations. As nasty as their living conditions are, it's generally better than where they came from. They wouldn't be there otherwise!

Next up, we don't control ANY oil wells in that region. Britain does. There's a rather large British population in that region due to this. Officially, Saudi's wells are owned by Saudi, but they're all run by Aramco, a British company.

I still don't see how our enforcing an agreement that Iraq signed is tied to the US wanting to move in and take over oil fields. The United States has no wish to conquer any nation in that region. We got into the mess due to Kuwait being invaded and the very real threat Iraq presented to Saudi. In every action the US has taken in that region the focus has consistently been to defend the stability of the nations friendly to us. If the United States truly wished to conquer territory in that region through military force, we would have done so years ago. Do you honestly believe that any of the oil rich nations there could stop us if that truly was our aim?

Only in the vehement search for evil purposes could one even begin to argue that the United States wishes to make territorial claims anywhere in that region. What we want, what the Saudis want, and what the Arab world in general wants is for US forces to leave that part of the world. That simply cannot happen so long as there is a Saddam controlling the still formidable military of Iraq.

As much fun as this thread has been, it's gone a bit long for this forum. I'd like to close with what I actually think about what all is going on, rather than simply banter various tid bits back and forth.

First, I would love nothing more than to have us avoid a conflict with Iraq, or any other nation. I do not believe that is possible so long as Iraq refuses to live up to ANY of their agreements they entered into with the world. Either the security council's resolutions are relevant or they're not.

Secondly, though I came to Saudi's defense to some extent here, I'm no fan of any monarchy. Far as I'm concerned, what I would love to see is a world that doesn't buy a drop of oil from anywhere in that region. The entire world needs to move on to some other form of energy, and quickly. I was encouraged to hear Bush propose serious investment in hydrogen and other alternative fuels in his State of the Union speech. Now to hold him and the US Congress to task on this point!

Lastly, getting off the oil addiction would mean that the Arab world has to also move on to something else. The easy cash that oil provides them has actually held that region back, in that they're respective economies don't require any kind of innovation. I'm encouraged to see this Iranian distribution of Linux, and any other entry into where the rest of the world is at. I very strongly believe that the Arab world can contribute so much more than mucking with oil prices. I just can't imagine that happening so long as they're living on the oil addiction as well.


By Metrol at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

"First off, I've been to Saudi myself. 1st TAC Fighter Wing stationed in Daharan. Spent all of Desert Shield there, plus a fair amount of Desert Storm. I can tell you first hand that citizens of Saudi live in anything but abject poverty. In fact, their citizens ALL get a welfare check from the state. Folks who are actual citizens are doing pretty nicely."

I didn't intend to say, they are really poor. Only in realtion to the elite, who can afford to spend 7 Million US$ on wedding guest presents.

But what's more important than this relative powerty ist the fact, that the living style of the royal familiy is seen by extrmistic Islamists agains Islam, as "western living style". And this they hate the worst. And if those extremists get a lot of followers - and 9/11 showed they do, especially from S.A. - the pro-western political system there is in big danger. And since S.A. is one of the biggest oil exporters in the world this will affect the US, whether they purchase oil from there or elsewhere.

[SNIP]

"Next up, we don't control ANY oil wells in that region. Britain does. There's a rather large British population in that region due to this. Officially, Saudi's wells are owned by Saudi, but they're all run by Aramco, a British company."

Tell me, how is the Arabian American Oil Company "Aramco" a British company ?
It was for 56 years an American company and was made in 1976/80 an 100% S.A. company. And you tell me, it's now controlled by Britain ?

Even if it is. It wouldn't make any difference. It's not about who owns it.
It's about price. And if S.A. gets instable or even anti-western, prices might increase greatly. Extremists don't need so much money as the S.A. princes do.
Look at Osama, child of a very rich family in the building business. He prefers living in Afghan caves.

"I still don't see how our enforcing an agreement that Iraq signed is tied to the US wanting to move in and take over oil fields."

Again, it's not about taking them, it's about securing them and keeping prices low. High oil prices are the killer for the US and most other economies.

"The United States has no wish to conquer any nation in that region. We got into the mess due to Kuwait being invaded and the very real threat Iraq presented to Saudi."

Well, Sadam told the US ambassador back then, that he would invade Kuwait, because Kuwait - at least he claimed such - took oil from wells near its border to Iraq. He thought it was Ok with the US, after all they were almost good friends back then. But the ambassador didn't understand and told the US gov, everything would be Ok - never mind the fact, that the Iraq army was already in position. He must have been competely surprised to see himself attacked by the USA.

"In every action the US has taken in that region the focus has consistently been to defend the stability of the nations friendly to us. If the United States truly wished to conquer territory in that region through military force, we would have done so years ago. Do you honestly believe that any of the oil rich nations there could stop us if that truly was our aim?"

I never said that was US's aim. See above. The aim is to secure the oil sources and its price.

"Only in the vehement search for evil purposes could one even begin to argue that the United States wishes to make territorial claims anywhere in that region. What we want, what the Saudis want, and what the Arab world in general wants is for US forces to leave that part of the world. That simply cannot happen so long as there is a Saddam controlling the still formidable military of Iraq."

If the US had done the job right the last time they were down there, Sadam wouldn't be thre anymore. But they didn't, because their aim was not to remove Sadam, but just secure Kuwaits oil wells. Same reason as above.
And they didn't do it right for another reason, of course. Because it would have meant the loss of a lot of US soldiers - and this is counter productive for any president, who wishes to be re-elected.

"As much fun as this thread has been, it's gone a bit long for this forum."

Fun is something different in my opinion, but I agree on the last part.

"First, I would love nothing more than to have us avoid a conflict with Iraq, or any other nation. I do not believe that is possible so long as Iraq refuses to live up to ANY of their agreements they entered into with the world. Either the security council's resolutions are relevant or they're not."

That they don't is just a claim, IMHO.

Today I read that the British report on Iraq's weapons is >50% a 100% copy of a document written by an US student, including all its spelling and grammar errors. The student claims, that this document, which he published 9/2002 is based on documents from 1991.

It doesn't contain any information relevant to after the last war and the Iraq resolutions of the UN in effect. Yet, the British gov claims the contrary.

This reminds me of the claim back then, that Iraq soldiers killed ill Kuwait babies in a hospital, ripping them from their life support systems.
This claim gave a push in internationl opinion towards a war against Iraq.
Some months or years after the war it was proven and/or admitted to have been a lie.

"Secondly, though I came to Saudi's defense to some extent here, I'm no fan of any monarchy. Far as I'm concerned, what I would love to see is a world that doesn't buy a drop of oil from anywhere in that region. The entire world needs to move on to some other form of energy, and quickly. I was encouraged to hear Bush propose serious investment in hydrogen and other alternative fuels in his State of the Union speech. Now to hold him and the US Congress to task on this point!"

After decades of wasting oil without limit...
The problem is, this is future technology. And Germany, I think is way ahead in this development. Increasing oil price would affect the US economy NOW, and it's already not quite up, why GWB wants to push 500 billion US$ into it in the coming years.

"Lastly, getting off the oil addiction would mean that the Arab world has to also move on to something else. The easy cash that oil provides them has actually held that region back, in that they're respective economies don't require any kind of innovation. I'm encouraged to see this Iranian distribution of Linux, and any other entry into where the rest of the world is at. I very strongly believe that the Arab world can contribute so much more than mucking with oil prices. I just can't imagine that happening so long as they're living on the oil addiction as well."

Well, at l(e)ast one paragraph, where I do agree 100%.

Regards,
Harald Henkel


By Harald Henkel at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Dear Sir.
Aramco is the acronym for the Arabian American oil company IT is NOT british, PLEASE!


By j.r.salazar at Sat, 2003/11/01 - 6:00am

im a saudi living in khobar/dhahran,my dad worked for aramco for 42 years my mom for 15 and my brother for about 6 now,
1-aramco stands for ARabian AMerican oil COmpany
2 the first 3 or 4 presidents were american
3 the aramco compound looks like a chunk of american suburbia.not the yorkshire dales
4- up till the 80s the the ratio of ownershhi[ was over 50 % to the american and the rest to the saudi gov
5- there IS abject poverty ,the eastern province where you were is a bad example since its where the oil is but even there child beggers can now be seen,it is certainly hasnt reached the mass starvation level but its amazing with all the recources that we havent turned it into a scandanavian like welfare nation
6-i beleive the cause is a-our own failure of addressing the corruption of the government, and b the US for propping that gov in exchange for an ally(saudi has never fought a war with israel unlike most arab countries there ) and the area and a steady flow of oil,


By mohammed al-kabour at Sat, 2004/03/06 - 6:00am

Maybe the U.S. are not purchasing Iraqi oil at the moment, but they will have to do so in the future because their own oil resources will be used up in approximately ten years. That's why Bush wants to colonialize the middle east and why he -- as an oil maniac -- announced to invest lots of money in the research of hydrogen cars.
And you cannot deny the fact that the Afghani President Karzai was an employee of an oil company and that America promised the Taliban several months before (!) 9/11 either a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs... coincidence?

Do you think Iraq is the only target? Governmental documents of the U.S. talk about regime changes in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt!

The wars of the 21st century will not be fought for justice but for resources.


By a voice from th... at Sun, 2003/02/09 - 6:00am

> Maybe the U.S. are not purchasing Iraqi oil at the moment, but they will have
> to do so in the future because their own oil resources will be used up in
> approximately ten years. That's why Bush wants to colonialize the middle east
> and why he -- as an oil maniac -- announced to invest lots of money in the
> research of hydrogen cars.

First off, America is not running out of oil. We have plenty of oil right here, waiting to be used. The fact that we rely on foreign oil is a matter of basic economics -- it's currently cheaper to buy oil from foreign sources, in raw dollars amounts.

Your views are just insane and defy all logic. If Bush is simply an "oil manaic" there are much easier ways of getting it than colonizing militant countries halfway around the world. As mentioned above, we have lots of oil ourselves. It would be a hell of a lot easier to push aside environmental regulations than invade Iraq. If Bush must invade a country for oil, Veneluza is a much riper target than Iraq. Finally, if Bush must have Iraqi oil, he can lift the oil embargo tomorrow. Wouldn't that be a much easier way to get the oil? Perhaps?

You cannot think clearly -- you illogical anti-American views are totally guiding your thinking and are preventing you from thinking straight and using simple logic.

You are also misreading the hydrogen car push by Bush. While half a billion US dollars may see like a lot to Europeans, it is a miniscule fraction of the over 2 trillion US dollar American federal budget. Bush is just throwing a bone to environmental groups; unforunately he's just wasting his time and my money. If there is a real need to replace oil, the free market will do it for us. Do a little research and find out who is on the cutting edge of fuel cell and hydrogen car research. You might be surprised.

I'll be surprised if you actually bother looking at all. Your illogical views appear so set in stone that it would take a miracle to fix them.

> And you cannot deny the fact that the Afghani President Karzai was an employee
> of an oil company and that America promised the Taliban several months before
> (!) 9/11 either a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs... coincidence

I can't deny it, because I have no proof either way. Prove it. By the way, how much oil is in Afganistan? Or did we Americans steal it all? You are so blinded by hatred that you are not making any sense.

> Do you think Iraq is the only target? Governmental documents of the U.S. talk
> about regime changes in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt!

Such as? Hot talk does not represent proof. Let's see some of these supposed documents. And if they do exist, so what? I bet all of our respective governments have eqivalent documents. Get real people.

> The wars of the 21st century will not be fought for justice but for resources.

Wake up stupid! Wars are _always_ fought over resources. Land, access to seas, oil, this is nothing new. This is a world with limited resources, and our entire civilization is based upon distributing these resources as needed.

You European types need to reevaluate your positions in regard to America. Please do us all a favor and take the time to document your hatred, and see how it contradicts both itself and reality.


By An American sic... at Sun, 2003/02/09 - 6:00am

Your views are just insane and defy all logic. If Bush is simply an "oil manaic" there are much easier ways of getting it than colonizing militant countries halfway around the world. As mentioned above, we have lots of oil ourselves. It would be a hell of a lot easier to push aside environmental regulations than invade Iraq. If Bush must invade a country for oil, Veneluza is a much riper target than Iraq. Finally, if Bush must have Iraqi oil, he can lift the oil embargo tomorrow. Wouldn't that be a much easier way to get the oil? Perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>
Look. It takes 5 minutes on CNN to hear talk of how going to war with Iraq will lower oil prices. Sure we could attack Venezuala, but that would be political suicide. Iraq, on the other hand, now that's a convenient target. They've done something very wrong. While most of the world doesn't think that what they've done wrong justifies war (and indeed, much of the US population is against the war) one can still make a case. International politics is all about exploiting these delicate balances to your own gain. The Europeans do it as well, but they're not nearly as aggressive and ham-fisted about it as the Americans.

I can't deny it, because I have no proof either way. Prove it. By the way, how much oil is in Afganistan? Or did we Americans steal it all? You are so blinded by hatred that you are not making any sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html
There is no doubting that Afghanistan is a strategic location for oil. Are Americans going to steal it? Of course not! Does it help to be on friendly terms with those running the country? You bet.

Such as? Hot talk does not represent proof. Let's see some of these supposed documents. And if they do exist, so what? I bet all of our respective governments have eqivalent documents. Get real people.
>>>>>
Why do you think the US has any interest in the middle east whatsoever? Why do you think we're "allies" with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Why do you think we ever got involved in the shit that happend in the 1980's in Iraq and Iran? The US imports about 5 billion barrels of oil per year. Contrary to previous posts, about 600,000 barrels a day come from Iraq (in comparison to 1.2 million from our #1 importer, Canada). The US economy is intricately tied to the price of oil. The US is the drain down which 26% of the world's total energy production flows. Oil is the one and only reason we have any involvement in the Middle East.

PS> I take offense to your implication that just because someone is against US foreign policy, that they have some sort of blind hatred for the US. Chill. I love the US. I love Thomas Jefferson, I love the Constitution (and unlike most Americans, I've actually studied it!), hell, I even love Starbucks. But humanity as a whole sucks ass, and there are particular things about the US, namely it's foreign policy, that suck ass.


By Rayiner Hashem at Tue, 2003/02/11 - 6:00am

What kind of crap is this, do you really think a president of the united states would risk political suicide for a bit of oil which even if they could get their hands on it wouldn't be able to use for at least ten to twenty years. Due to the fact that all the equipment needed for pumping it is almost non existant in Iraq, and would take the above mentioned time to build up to full levels useful for exploitation. If they really wanted the oil that bad they could sign an agreement tommorow with Iraq to get the oil from them for next to nothing. The Iraqi's can't sell much of it anyway.

And talk about Europeans, the only reason why the French don't want to go to war with Iraq is the simple fact that they have oil contracts worth close to six billion American dollars or more in Iraq. Now who's really interested in oil, well!!!!

Unlike you damn Europeans America realizes what it takes to gain and give freedom, the fact is America has freedom and Iraq doesn't so why not give them some. The Americans have always freed the oppressed, I as an Australian am proud to say that we have fought along side the Americans in every conflict since WW2, and we've done this because of the friendship they gave unto us to preserve our freedom in defeating the Japanese and driving them from New Guinea.

The Iraqi's want freedom they tried to gain in 1991 but the World didn't support them and hundreds of thousands of them died nows the time to take action and free them. Every day we wait another couple innocent Iraqi's die, do we really want their blood on our hands! It's time to stop our selfishness, the problem in the world is that no ones willing to give something up for others. If we just put our lives on the line like countless others before us who gave us the opportunity to be free and do the same then the world would be a much greater place.

And don't give me that bull@#$% that the Iraqi people like Iraq and his regime just because that's what they say when their questioned or interviewed. The realization that they know perfectly well is that if they even say one word critical of Sadam Hussein or his regime they will be killed for certain. And don't worry about Sadam will find out they said it he has informants everywhere.

War is the path they have chosen not us and it's time we give them everything we've got. People talk about peace but there's a clear difference between freedom and peace. You can be at peace and still not have freedom. Freedom is like telephone service (for want of a better example) You pay the first bill for the freedom of being able to use the line and speak to others but you don't just pay the one bill you've got to keep paying the bill replenishing it continually. Just like real life. War is that bill we have to pay and must continue paying it to uphold our freedom and others. "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war." -Thucydides

Sadam Hussein is a desease that needs to be erradicated, like a cancer we can keep taking tests (tests being the weapons inspectors) on it that take months but it doesnt change the fact that it's a cancer and the longer you wait the worse it get's. It's always been a cancer and it won't become something else. The only remedy is to destroy it and wipe it from existance before it get's you.

The time for talk is over, we've been doing it for more than a decade they wouldn't comply then why would they comply now. The UN isn't the way there's to many nations with there own interests, ie. Russia, Germany, France, China etc. Sadam would be laughing right now as we play into his hands as a divided community. It's like a bad movie and Sadam is the victor and the UN the comedic relief. Enough's enough he must be deposed his regime destroyed and peace and freedom restored to the region. Or else America and the UN will be seen as a ball for kicking around by every dictator and evil villain wourldwide. If their evil now there sure as hell going to be evil in the future.


By James Wood at Sat, 2003/02/15 - 6:00am

Dah! its not a war against Iraq or for Oil. Its the war against Terrorism, Its a war against those who destroyed the WTC and killed more than 3000 Americans in a single day. Its a war against the evil forces of the world.

Why the world care, when American City, Values are destroyed. Why we should care what the world cares. Its our city its our people and its our values the terrorist destroyed and tries to target in future.

I support 300% for the cause of the war against Terrorism. It may be Afghan yesterday, It may be Iraq today and it may be France tomorrow.

God Bless America and the value which we try to preserve.


By samsu at Mon, 2003/03/10 - 6:00am

what the fuck you're thinking....see what happen now in iraq...damn you say this what saddam had done...it's you and some....i mean some of those fucking bastard in pentagon and the oval...we are seen a lot of kill in the past 7 month...and for the sake of humanity are you sick enough to say this is freedom? i don't about your values of a human...you are worst than human though...your talking about 400 reported G.Is i believe innocent and far more than 4000 innocent iraqi civilliian lay dead...are you stupid enough not to realize that that son of bush had already done far greater damage than what saddam had done in ten years after the 1990? for the damn bush only in his office not more than 3 years compare to three decade of saddam? bush already manage to killed innocent afghan....iraq...and a thousand or so around the world?


By Hans Chen at Mon, 2003/11/17 - 6:00am

You guys are so dumb. Its amazing how the media brainwashes everyone. The U.S would never go to war unless there is an economic benefit. If this were the case, they could have "freed" a lot of other countries. They could care less for freedom or justice.


By notyetbrainwashed at Wed, 2003/04/30 - 5:00am

Who ever thinks or beleieves that USA has come to iraq to free the iraqi people they are wrong. I AM IRAQI and NO i hate saddam, as a matter of fact i and my family are victim to his regime, as are 90% of the iraqi population. All please ask yourself these questions who baught saddam to power?, who was saddam's # ally in the 80's?, who gave iraq the green light to enter kuwait in 1990?, who ordered saddam to move the iraqi army towards the saudi border preperation for attack?, who triggered the 8 year war between iran and iraq whome 2 million people were killed? etc etc... who ever has any common sence then the answer would be USA. The middle east is a firm owned by USA and the employees are the arab state leader. And as all rules in firms are the same saddam has been issued with more than 1 warning and what happend in 2003 is firing saddam. So to whome may say USA has come for oil, or whatever all you people know is what you see on TV. I am iraqi i see facts not rubbish on TV. USA is number 1 enemy to iraqies wether the americans like it or not. The poor things think that if they free the majority shia they will gain public dominace. Iraqi people will never fall for taht nonsence. They lostt eh sunnies as allies by knocking saddam over and now they lost the shia'ts because shia'ts know who killed them in in 1990, USA not saddam. GOD BLESS IRAQ ps. USA will withdraw, their history tells us so hhhhhhh.


By 7aMoOoDy at Mon, 2006/08/07 - 5:00am

Do some research...
The countries denying war for the us have billion dollar investments in Iraq. They rave about No war for oil. They cheer these senseless slogans because they hold agreements with this tyrant.

Don't forget the rights you have by just posting this message.
If you brougt any of this up in Iraq...
OFF WITH YOUR HEAD...
AND your families too...


By Argives at Mon, 2003/02/17 - 6:00am

FOR STARTERS... YOU POMPOUS AMERICAN ASS... I AM AN AMERICAN, BORN HERE, RAISED HERE AND SEEN THE WORLD FROM THE INSIDE OF THE AMERICAN CAGE AND LOOKED AT AMERICA FROM THE OUTSIDE-IN AS WELL. I GREW UP WITH A PERSECUTED PUNK ROCK CROWD, PERSECUTED FOR OUR SUPPOSED "ANTI-AMERICAN" VIEWS. ONLY, WE WERE MERELY POINTING OUT HOW CORRUPT THE GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME AND WE WERE LABELED AS COMMUNISTS, AND OUR MUSIC HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE FCC AS AN ACT OF SEDITION IF PLAYED OVER PUBLIC AIRWAVES. WE HAVE BEEN SCREAMING FOR YEARS ABOUT THE 12 YEAR CIRCUS OF THE REAGAN-BUSH ADMINISTRATION, BUT NOBODY LISTENED. THEN 8 YEARS LATER YOU MORONS PUT ANOTHER PSYCHO-PATH INTO POWER, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED... WE ARE BACK AT WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND WE WENT FROM AN ELIMINATED DEBT TO TRIPLE THE THREAT. WHO LOOKS LIKE A DUMBASS? THOSE WHO HOLD THE BURNT CHARRED REMAINS OF AN AMERICAN FLAG STILL WAVING IT IN YOUR OWN FUTILE ATTEMPT TO UPHOLD YOUR FOOLISH PRIDE. THE FACTS ARE AS SIMPLE AS LOOKING BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN ROME FELL. THE INITIAL POLITICS OF ROME WERE "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE." THEN A FEW GREEDY POLITICIANS CAME IN TO POWER AND RUINED IT FOR THE REST, THUS ALLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VISIGOTHS TO RUN RAMPANT THROUGH THEIR GREAT NATION. NOW ASK YOURSELF... WHAT IS OUR "DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC" MOTTO? "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE." AND WHAT HAS EVERYONE SAID FOR THE LAST THIRTY TO FIFTY YEARS IN THIS COUNTRY IN REFERENCE TO OUR POLITICIANS? THAT THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH CORRUPTION FOR ANY GOOD TO BE DONE.... ARGUE THAT YOU IGNORANT, LAZY, UN-AMERICAN. IT IS THOSE WHO ARE FOOLISH AND SHEEPISH ENOUGH TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BUILDING A MASSIVE PRISON AND ENSLAVING YOUR MINDS SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A QUICK BUCK THAT FUEL THEIR FIRES AND ASSIST IN BURNING UP THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCE THAT WE HAVE.... OUR HABITAT, MOTHER EARTH. AND I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION OF YOU, THE MAN WHO DARES POINT THE FINGER AT THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR BEING ANTI-AMERICAN. THE NEXT TIME YOU HOP INTO YOUR $40K SUV, START UP YOUR $2K NAV SYSTEM, AND IMMEDIATELY "REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE" ON YOUR $500 BLUETOOTH CELL-PHONE WHILE DRINKING YOUR COFFEE AND LISTENING TO MIND-NUMBING PROPAGANDA ON YOUR MEDIA BLITZ RADIO TALK SHOW (YOUR DAILY ROUTINE ON YOUR WAY TO A CORNER OFFICE)... ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION... "WHAT HAVE I EVER DONE FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF? HAVE I EVER GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO HELP CHILDREN STARVING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY? OR HAVE I EVER GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO CUT BACK ON MY FUEL CONSUMPTION BY TRYING ANOTHER FORM OF COMMUTING TO WORK?" I'LL BET YOU START TO FEEL GUILTY WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR EACH DAY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'LL BET YOU WILL WELL UP WITH TEARS. IF YOU DON'T.... THEN YOU ARE JUST AS WORTHLESS AS THE REST OF THE SO CALLED BLUE-BLOODED AMERICANS AND THE FASCIST REGIME THAT YOU SUPPORT BY VOTING A TERRORIST INTO POWER. NOW PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!


By SPACE JIGALO at Wed, 2007/02/28 - 6:00am

AND IN RESPONSE TO THE "HOT TALK" AND GUILT PROVING DOCUMENTS THAT "EVERY GOVERNMENT" HAS IN THEIR POSSESSION.... IF THEY HAVE SAID (WHICH WE ALL KNOW THEY HAVE) AND ALL THE GOVERNMENTS ARE INVOLVED.... DOES THAT NOT TELL YOU SOMETHING? IT SHOULD BE SAYING TO YOU THAT THE CORRUPTION IS EVEN WORSE THAN FOREMENTIONED. THAT ALL THE GOVERNMENTS IN POWER ARE UPO TO NO GOOD..... MAYBE IT'S TIME TO FIND OUT IF WE STILL HAVE ANY POWER AS THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, THE SUPPOSED GOVERNING BODY (WE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO GOVERN OURSELVES), POSSIBLY BY CALLING OUT THE TERRORISTS THAT WE HAVE EMPOWERED IN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AND FORCING THEM TO ANSWER THE BURNING QUESTIONS WHICH WE HAVE YET TO BE ANSWERED. BUT THAT WOULD PROBLY BE CONSIDERED AN ACT OF TREASON BY THOSE WHO GOVERN AND YOU DAMNED SHEEP WOULD PROBLY AGREE WITH THE SERPENTS FILTHY WORDS AS THEY STICK THE KNIFE IN DEEPER AND TWIST A LITTLE FURTHER. WAKE THE HELL UP YOU IDIOTS!


By SPACE JIGALO at Wed, 2007/02/28 - 6:00am

AND TO 7aMoOoDy AND ALL THE OTHER IRAQI'S, IRANIAN'S, AFGHANI'S, SAUDI ARABIANS, AND SO-ON AND SO FORTH.... I AM SORRY. SORRY FOR FAILING YOU AS AN AMERICAN. WE AS AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE TO PROTECT YOU FROM THESE ASSHOLES AND WE WERE NOT.... WE AS A LARGE GROUP ARE SHEEP... BLIND TO THE TRUTH BECAUSE WE LET OURSELVES BE LED AROUND BY A LEASH.... THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED ON SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT AND WAS DESIGNED TO BE A VERY GOOD THING..... I AM SORRY TO HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE LOST SIGHT OF WHAT MAKES US AMERICANS.... AND WE HAVE LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY TO THE POINT WHERE IF IT ISN'T IN OUR OWN BACK YARD WE JUST DON'T GIVE A SHIT. SO ONCE AGAIN I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WORTHLESSNESS OF OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY... I ONLY HOPE THAT YOU AND ALL THE REST OF THE MIDDLE EAST WILL GREET PEOPLE LIKE ME WITH THE COURTESY OF A HUMAN BEING WHEN I AM FINALLY ABLE TO VISIT YOUR ONCE BEAUTIFUL COUNTRIES THAT YOU CALL HOME AS I HAVE THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN YOUR LANDS... YOU HAVE DEALT WITH EVER SO MUCH TURMOIL, MOSTLY CAUSED BY US... THE U.S.A.


By SPACE JIGALO at Wed, 2007/02/28 - 6:00am

funny how all u fucking idiots are afraid to retort to the truth....


By SPACE JIGALO at Fri, 2007/03/02 - 6:00am

the one thing america forgot is how to use it's coined catch phrase properly... and the emperor of america proved it on national t.v. wake up america and remember how to tell tyrranical government officials these crucial words..."FUCK YOU!"


By SPACE JIGALO at Fri, 2007/03/02 - 6:00am

I'll answer this:

> Everyone, including the "Bush regime" would much rather have Iraq live up to it's
> agreements rather than having to once again deal militarily with it. What we'd ALL
> like to see happen is having the US troops now stationed in Saudi to come home.
> That can't happen while the Iraq situation is left unresolved.

as an American who thinks war will be counterproductive. The Bush line has been to sell resolving the situation, war, and replacing Saddam's regime with one to our liking as an inseparable package. They are not.

Nobody can argue with Saddam's noncompliance, his monstrosity, or that the world would be better off with him outta there. The question is how to do it while preserving the international order that we, the US, have worked so hard to create. Think about what happens in China invades Taiwan under the terms we are laying down now.

We can certainly support regime change without installing a regime through war, and we can certainly disarm Saddam's regime without an invasion that replaces.

See this column by a real scholar of geopolitics (rather than us hacks) for a better picture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42716-2003Feb7.html

These are much slower processes, order of 50 years, they will work. War _might_ have temporary positive effects (like eliminate a nasty dictator), but but true civic order takes a decades to cultivate, and that's the key to stability. No mention has been made of that process anywhere here. What _do_ you do with a semistable country with it's finger on the pulse of the world oil market?


By Eric E at Sun, 2003/02/09 - 6:00am

Fifty years? So you are fine with the idea of Hussain selling VX nerve gas to a terrorist cell which will lauch it on an American City because were we waiting for a political solution? This is okay with you? Appeasement is not the answer.

It's the lion's claws and fangs that keep the jackals from attacking and not pieces of paper or intentions or summits.

And in the words of Ayn Rand

"The truly and deliberately evil men are a small, very, very small minority. It is the appeaser who unleashes the evil men on mankind. It is the appeasers' intellectual abdication that invites the evil to take over.

When a culture's dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes."


By 50 years?? at Sun, 2003/02/09 - 6:00am

"Fifty years? So you are fine with the idea of Hussain selling VX nerve gas to a terrorist cell which will lauch it on an American City because were we waiting for a political solution? This is okay with you? Appeasement is not the answer."

Nice the US is realizing this.

Saddam was politically and militarically active since mid 50s, is in the Iraqi government since late 60s and President since '79.
That he's an evil asshole was known long ago. Yet, he was good enough to be sold weapons in the fight against Iran, by US, especially by Mr. Bumsfeld who was shaking hands and talking with him like a friend or at least good business partner back then.

What do you call this ?

And what do you think, where he got the toxic gas and/or technology to produce it from, he used on Iran and Kurds ?
I know, there were German companies involved, but we were not alone.

Regards,
Harald Henkel


By Harald Henkel at Mon, 2003/02/10 - 6:00am

Try history. Iraq did not forcibly remove the UN inspectors from Iraq. Read the inspectors reports. If the planing of 911 came from Afganistan and Germany why do we attack Iraq. Yes we buy oil from Iraq and we really cannot tell where all oil comes from. Iraq had no air defense so we bomb them, Iraq had no army yet we cannot safely leave the "Green Zone", there has been over 15,000 Iraquis killed in conflict with the U.S. What have we gained?


By Martin Weber at Mon, 2006/06/19 - 5:00am

Now I have to call bullshit. The US was supporting Russia & England through the "Lend Lease" program since the beginning of Hitler's adventures. The isolationist congress would not support an actual declaration of war so Roosevelt had no choice but to limit support to materials rather than soldiers.

Your German/Afgani friend is probably full of crap as well. Being a US citizen of anglo decent I have a good friend named Yama Atta who came here from Afganistan (through Germany) several years ago. I'm proud that Yamma is my friend and in fact he tells me he's seen no racism since he left Germany to come here. His German experiences where not good.

While I am NOT a supporter of Isreal and it's policies towards the Palastinian people I do understand that Iraq's open support for suicide bombers is probably what led to Hussien's demise. And no, for goodness sake, it's not about oil. It would take over 40 years of the USA getting all of Iraq's oil for free just to break even for the cost of the war.

I fully beleive the war was about support for terrorists, revenge for the Iraqi assassination attempt on Bush's father and the desire to see an Arab democracy in the middle east.

Go ahead and get yourself started my German friend. Your own government is trying to find a way out of their position on this one. And please, don't talk of racism in the USA. Germans havve been known for generations as the most racist people on earth.


By Jim Tinner at Sat, 2003/04/26 - 5:00am

Hmm, sorry but I have to bite........

First of all, the US entered late into *both* of the world wars. Further, by many accounts (al least initially), their troops were basically cannon-fodder: cocky and inexperienced. Obviously that didn't last, but the idea that America "saved" Europe is a horrid misconception. More like, the Allies (including America) defeated a common threat. I'm not going to say that thouasands of Americans didn't die, or that that was insignificant in any way, I'm simply disagreeing that they weren't the "big tough army that came in and saved everyone". America-the-superpower developed as a result of the world wars, and indeed they were not necessarily the best troops in either (well, they definitely weren't in the first anyway). Britain's military dominance ended as a result of the wars, and the US became a world superpower.

So, that over with, your second misconception is that European countries somehow must support all of the State's foreign policy because of their involvement in the world wars. I'm not even going to get into the "I gave you a favour so you have to support everything I do even if you think I'm completely in the wrong" aspect of your argument. I'll just reiterate that just because the Allies all fought together then does not mean that should have to agree on everything now.

As for short memories, few Americans seem to have a historically accurate conception of the world wars. Their knowledge is mostly limited to Hollywood-processed propaganda in which Americans are substituted for real-life characters that were often from other Allied countires. Historical fiction indeed.


By optikSmoke at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Let's bring a little Hollywood misconception into play here.

World War I was fought for years without the US getting involved. During that time the war had just about stalemated. Neither Germany nor the Allied powers were making any ground on eachother. Pretty much it was a mutual depletion of resources and human lives.

The entry of the United States into the war DID bring a change to the outcome of that conflict. It was over 6 months after the US entered. Cannon fodder indeed.

World War II again was fought for quite a while prior to the United States getting involved. What happened prior to that? Hmmm, did anyone other than Germany enjoy any major military victories? Poland? France? Russia? Who stopped the tide? Which nation coming into the conflict managed to once again liberate every nation in Western Europe, and subsequently stick around until this very day to insure further hostilities didn't once again break out?

There is little doubt that soldiers from the European nations did fight and die on those battlefields. There is also little doubt that the United States alone could not have changed the tide. What you seem to be forgetting is that neither of these wars involved the United States directly, though we still came to Europe's aid in time of need. Each time the US involvement did change the outcome. This is true all the way through to the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Empire.

None of this means that European nations have to agree with US policy all the time. It SHOULD mean that our motives for wanting to defang a murderous dictator with weapons of mass (as in millions being killed) destruction aren't as suspect as they are made out to be.


By Michael Collette at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Did any one other than Germany enjoy any major military victories?

Try Soviet Union. Ever heard of the Battle of Stalingrad? That was the battle that turned the tide in the Eastern Front, and quite possibly of the entire war.

And please, don't use "us" to represent the entire American People. Your views sure as heck don't represent me, and millions of other Americans.


By Sad Eagle at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Pages