[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost There could have been a war regardless of who was in power. I dont think it would have happened in reality, but it still is not the fault of Mussharaf, solely. He happened to be in power when the threat became real.

Do you have anything to contribute here, other than blind rationalizations?

Quote by: The Black Ghost I count only 12 different countries on those charts, and I can find little evidence to any major arms shipments to many nations. I suppose its possible, but I dont see where you got that from.

Maybe you didn't understand the link. You apparently haven't understood a single link I've provided thus far, so it wouldn't be anything new.

Quote by: The Black Ghost We should not have an economy based on many things: consumerism, exponential scientific progress, credit, etc....

That is given as a response?

Quote by: The Black Ghost We cant really stop what exists without tearing all of society apart. We can only change the future... so reducing global arms shipments probably would be good, but still there are needs of nations to defend themselves. Someone has to supply weapons.

If you're using the coercive power of government, or government ideology to restrict freedom
and liberty, then yes, all of your statements directly above are accurate. That aside, there is NO credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack or that they were a significant threat the the United States.

Quote by: The Black Ghost I think that many of them, especially those that run them, are steryotyped by a number of scandals and problems, and by popular culture. There is the "everyday worker" and the "big evil boss". For big companies, it is the lowly worker and the evil monopolist CEO, who is overweight and carries a cane and wants to take over the world. The reality is that some people have values and some do not. Some companies do whatever they can to help the people, some are in it only for money... those are the ones we hear about most. Many, however, are good people. and their companies are not just out to control people.

Well, they do want to keep people as lowly workers. People with power tend to abuse it quite frequently. It can be a CEO or some religious leader. Rev. Jerry Falwell, for example, once said
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our
country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have
taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a
happy day that will be!" That's not a far cry from what a number of power-seekers wish to approximate in their own fields of interest. Christians tend to hate atheists and the rich tend to only care about others to the extent that they can charge them fees. All of this can be proven rather easily everyday.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Relationship with the Taliban? Our relationship was that the government in Afghanistan that we helped to install during the 80s was overthrown by the Taliban and Al-Queda bombers. Foolishly, when this happened, we did nothing. Goes to show how policies can differ from administration to administration.

Administration after administration has not been allowing facts, or basic and decent principles, to inform policies.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The Iraqis killed were overwhelmingly killed by terrorist cells and Islamic Extremists of different sects. The US forces did everything in their power to eliminate civilian casualties, even though that is impossible in war. However, in a revolution, people know they might lay their lives on the line to bring freedom to their people. Contrary to popular opinion, the invasion was sidelined to a sort of revolution against Saddam, which enjoyed popular support, but did not have unification. Everyone hated Saddam and numerous attempted rebellions were quelled over the years. As expected, most people were happy to get rid of Saddam and set up a new government. Had there been no insurgency, or terrorist attacks, I think this debate would be very different.

You say this because you simply want US responsibility hidden before it could start. I'm sure you would justify US support of people like Suharto (Remembering A Shared History - Suharto and the U.S.) for similar reasons. And you constantly fail to see the irony of Bush's statments. He promised to spare - "in every way we can" - innocent Iraqis. But he also said, "If war is forced
upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail." That is actually quite a blatant contradiction, and now especially we know that, if we indeed want to avoid civilian casualties, we should not start a war. Look at history. If the US really cared about the people of Cuba and the risk of someone like Castro coming into power, they wouldn't have supported Batista (for that matter, Batista arguably wasn't any better -- very few people said, "Bye Batista, we'll miss you!). The point is, you never know what can happen when you support thugs, or see people torn to shreds by the US bombs. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, other than your possibly being brainwashed into supporting virtually anything the US does, or could do.

Quote by: The Black Ghost 'Glowing' is hardly the way I would put it. Every nation on Earth calls itself the best, but actions are what seem to show more than words. The United States actions, more than most other nations, show that there is a moral compassion and at least value placed on life and freedom. There have been exceptions, but generally, this is what I would expect from any politician in the United States, adminstration, and president. I watch carefully to see who's real and whos a faker. There have been fakers, and there have been good people.

Most of our nation's actions do nothing to indicate "moral compassion" and a "value placed on life and freedom." Even the best actions are undertaken for cynical motives to keep people in line and under the rule of authority. The very premise that an entity exists called "The United States," that is a part of all of us on "its" soil, is rather diabolical. History will judge the United States, but the judgment will never be accurate until we shed this premise and look at what the deluded masses have done in its name. In largescale politics, it's not that we have a run-in with this faker or that. The masses themselves are the fakers.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The war was neccessary because of the reality of the situation in Iraq, and because of the history of events leading up to it. The cause was there, the long-term support was not. Most of that came from the lack of WMds found in Iraq, which was perhaps one of the greatest flaws in intelligence. However, the war was neccesary regardless, as I would say our action is neccesary in other nations as well--Somalia, North Korea,Sudan... we just dont have a valid excuse to do anything about it... because unfortunately, "helping others" is not a good enought reason to go to war in the eyes of the international community. Shows the kind of world we live in.

Britain had plenty of justifications for their projects in India, too. However, putting your "reality" (your kind of thinking, or not thinking) aside, this has been a counter-productive and undemocratic war, even with the Iraqi elections. Democracy is not something you can impose by a foreign occupation. Let's go back again to when Saddam was in power, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds and is receiving direct help
from U.S. foreign policy. Where was the "democracy" then? It was a mirage, pretty much like it is now. And it was just a small part of what made us one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. That perception alone tests your theory in a rather significant way, I would think.
After all, the Bush administration had been very straightforward about wishing to hijack the US government and military for their rather fascist goals, and Obama is apparently not entirely different.
Somalia may be the next target, but simply because they have oil.