[tw]

Let's ignore the fact that an 'irrelevant nation' called Germany will chair the Security Council in a bizarro world that was peaceful because of that institution. A world that settled conflict when enemies of the world unilaterally attack. IOW the bizarro world worked. Let's forget that other irrelevant nations such as Japan, Canada, and India also have been represented on the security council - or do we continue to call the world bizarro. Advocated is that the US should unlaterally attack any nation in the world because 'rule of law' is irrelevant and because the US should feel free to violate those principles. Bizarro is the opinon of our mental midget president and his right wing extremist advisors who even advocated and almost got us in a shooting war with China.

Therein lies a real danger to the world and to the US. But then unilateral attacks on another sovereign nation by America only makes the world more dangerous and more expensive to be an American. Funny how lesssons of VietNam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, 1948 Germany, and Kuwait are irrelevant because an extremist and naive president and his adminstration emotionally hate Saddam Hussein - logic be damned.

This naive adminstration cannot even prove that Saddam is a threat to the US. They have no proof - as demonstrated by nations who are the source of that mythical proof. A shortage of facts is challenged by virtually the entire world, including Canada, France, India, and so many other irrelevant nations.

Yet some would prefer to make Americans the #1 target of Saddam. Some rationalize the man is a maniac - to justify the emotional opinions of George Jr and company. Bull. Saddam has a clear and specific agenda. He has ruthlessly and meticulously working towards that objective. That agenda makes him an immediate threat to the region - and not to the US. Instead George Jr must declare Saddam a maniac so that George Jr can justify his emotionally based and anti-American actions - a unilateral and unlawful attack on another sovereign nation.

Of course those who forget lessons in VietNam and Somolia will advocate that we must protect those regional nations that will not worry for their own safety. Wrong again. If the local nations are not worried, then the worst thing the US can do is defend those nations that don't want to be defended. Stick our nose in something where not enough people have died, then the US becomes - the big bully - a threat to independence of regional nations - the #1 target of every radical faction in the region. Did we forget the lessons of Lebanon? Did we forget how we turned a potential friend and ally in southeast Asia into an enemy - a decade long wasted war?

Simple lessons from Kuwait and Bosnia - first enough locals must die before our efforts will ever be appreciated. If we attack Iraq now, then we make the US a number one target of every Arab and Central Asian terrorist group. A unilateral attack on Saddam will have decades of negative consequences in that entire region. Already the common man in the region fears Pax America just from the massive American military base construction from Bulgaria to the China border. Let Saddam first attack one of his neighbors and the US becomes a most cherished nation on earth. Exactly the lesson from Kuwait and Bosnia.

The naive would have us spend hundreds of billions of dollars to attack a conniving, power hungry, and silly despot. Are we that stupid, like in VietNam, to think Americans have unlimited pockets? Are we so emotionally fearful that we see boggy men in every closet? Do you forget how difficult making a living was in the 1970s because we thought it necessary to attack in direct contradiction to facts? In the Gulf War, we spent almost nothing on a war because the entire rest of the world - the entire UN - agreed with American use of force - and paid America to fight that war. The entire world even provided logical support and information above and beyond what they were paid - including intelligence information that we otherwise would have never had. They also - even in France - gave Americans a whole hardy welcome not seen since the attack on Libya.

The reason why the Gulf War was so successful was because we waited until the entire world saw the threat to world stability. As a result, we received support that few will provide if we follow George Jr's Pax America policy.

If and when to attack makes all the difference. Who is being attacked must first prove to the world that he deserves same. Saddam has demonstrated no threat to anyone in the world except his neighbors - that from all current intelligence.

Attack now and WE become the nation led by a despot. Attack now and we understand why George Jr is so naive as to outrightly attack Democratic Senators as unpatriotic. This is not an intelligent man this president.

Of course world nations understand that. Hang on for a few more years during the tough times and George Jr will eventually be gone. The world really does not have a gripe (yet) with Americans. They are appauled at one of the worst American presidents since WWII. How naive is this president? Germany ranks right up there with Australia, Britian, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and Canada as American's closest friends. Only this president has been able to destroy that relationship. After 10 presidents, only the eleventh has so harmed relations with Germany. When the 12th arrives, Germany will get back to being a close US friend - assuming the next president is educated and does not use only right wing extremist advisors.

When America honored rule of law, honest world nations lined up to support and befriend the US. Even the CIA had an easy time recruiting spies because of principles so advocated from the common man right up to top goverment leaders. Do right wing metalities forget why Americans can walk the globe with admiration and why American were threatened in certain locations and time? Do Americans forget the devestation to American safety and prestige because some silly president decided to unilaterally attack Lebanon with aircraft and the USS New Jersey? Do Americans want to be targets of international terrorism or be regarded as the nation the world most respects for its principle and respect of international laws?

Notice how one president has so soured US relations with virutally every nation in the world - so that America was even kicked off the UN Commission of Human Rights. Its not the world that is irrelevant. It is this current US president and his open denial of reality that is the problem.

Lets get something straight. The US is poorly regarded in the world only because of and since this current president. Read the international press. Most Americans don't understand how badly this president is regarded throughout the world. The difference between Clinton and George Jr is night and day. The previous president was given an unpresidented 5 minute standing ovation in the UN because of his respect for human rights, rule of law, the international community, and an American respect for opinions throughtout the world. Back then we were the 800 pound gorilla that respect the world - that did not force our opinions down everyone's throat as this current administration is doing.

A unilateral attack on Iraq without Security Council approval and without regional nations stating a need is destructive to American reputation, American international business, the stock market, world oil prices, the necessary respect for international law, and even a worldwide view of American intelligence and principles. That is not even disputable. An attack on Iraq would have negative consequences far beyond the loss of two buildings in NYC.

But then we have a silly president who is even trying desperately to connect Saddam with the destruction of those two buildings. He actually thinks Americans are that stupid.

But then I too once agreed with a few presidents that advocated unilateral attacks against multiple nations because they advocated decisions in direct contradictions to the facts and to world opinion. Back then I had little appreciation for the lessons of history. Apparrently I am now but the few who remember wars fought only because of presidental personal biases - facts be damned - Johnson and the most despictable Nixon. They too acted and advocated and unilaterally attacked other nations in direct contradiction to facts. It took the Pentagon Papers and a resulting fear of a potential 'gestapo government' to let Americans understand why we unilaterally attacked nations. Ahh... but it has been over 30 years. How quickly the young must relive history to finally learn its lessons.

From the Economist of 21 Sept 2002

Despite deep Arab opposition to an attack on their neighbour, an undercurrent of opinion has begun to see the possibilities of gain. "There could be nothing better than getting rid of Saddam", says Samir Kadi, a Lebanese engineer, "it's just that, until now, America has seemed to want to make enemies of everyone."

That's right. George Jr seems to want to make enemies of everyone which is the point made in that news report.

Saddam will go when he finally convinces his neighbors of his real intentions. Intentions not to attack the US - which would be contrary to his specific and ruthless goals. His intentions are a clear threat to his neighbors - to the region. Until the regional powers and citizens realize that threat, Saddam's neighbors should be left at risk so that they all will again welcome another American rescue - paid for by the rest of the world. The most expensive method - the most destructive to American reputation - is to have the US launch unilateral or surprise attacks on Saddam. That made so obvious in history. There were three presidents more interested in personal gratification and exercise of power than in the long term interests of America - Johnson, Nixon, and George Jr. They all advocated unilateral attacks on sovereign nations because they 'feared' facts not in evidence. A unilateral and unprovoked attack on Iraq would only result in widespread damage to American business, principles, world influence, credibily, diplomatic integrity, and finances. Did we not learn the downsides from VietNam and Somolia. Did we not learn how much smarter it is to wait, as demonstrated by Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, Haiti, Panama, and Afghanistan? Principles such as rule of law and respect for international law are why the US has such great influence and respect. Our undereducated and naive president with his right wing extremist advisors (who almost got us into a shooting war with China) don't seem to understand anything about history.

As Robert Kennedy once said when another administration considered unilateral actions based on real evidence (whereas George Jr claims evidence based only upon conjecture):

I now know how Tojo felt when he was planning Pearl Harbor.

Just how is an attack on Saddam any different or any more justifiable? Stop letting a mental midget president manipulate your opinions. First present facts. Where is Saddam a current threat to the US? No one has yet defined that threat - except by stating personal fears. Those who are the source of George Jr's evidence say the evidence does not exist. Sounds just like VietNam all over again.