@mickey,
Parts of your post is offensive to almost all Europeans here.
so let me understand this, it's okay to slander america and its citizens but no one else?
My grandfathers both been in the resistance against the 's. One of them was captured, d and send to a destruction camp. He survived and got a whole box of medals, for bravery, courage,... But he died before I was 1 year old. Ppl say he was a broken man when he returned from the camp. They also say he waited to die till he had seen his first grandson (me) couse that's what he been fighting for. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />
Also, you forget all those other countries who fought against the 's. The British (who had to suffer the "blitz" for years) Australians, Polish (who got famous for attacking pantzers on horses),... the list is very long.
And to get the facts right. There's a very big chance the USA would never have been here in WWII. If Japan hadn't attacked the USA and involved the USA in WWII. Before Pearl Harbor, the USA was only watching...
yeah, i admit some of what i said could have been worded better but i was in a bit of an aggravated mood to come on here and see anti-america comments. i apologise if i offended you.
and, yes the US was watching up to that point, but most of europe was getting its butt kicked up till that point. i'm not saying americans saved everyone else's , i'm just saying that america was the straw that broke the camel's back.
anyways, to get to what i wanted to post.
Iraq's leadership is crumbling into dust and it's people being liberated.
Despite constant assertions by the anti-war crowd that Saddam did not have banned weapons - he has been documented as using them against our forces last night and today. So far, they have only been SCUDs - hopefully the conflict will be over before he gets a chance to finally reveal where he's been hiding all of that Anthrax, Saren gas, and the nuclear campaign that Iraqi defectors have been warning about for over a year.
The coalition against Saddam's regime has grown to over 40 nations - despite claims from detractors that we were acting alone. More and more are coming aboard as they begin to see that Saddam really is THAT crazy.
Iraqi civilians that have alredy been liberated have been practically humping our soldiers in the streets. They have vehemently displayed their hatred for Saddam (despite the fact that he won 100% of their votes in a recent "election") and are obviously excited about the enventual liberation of the entire country.
The U.S. led coalition has set amazing precedents in noble attempts to limit not only civilian casualties but even Iraqi military casualties! We've spent enormous amounts of time and money making sure that soldiers in Iraq are aware that they do not have to die for Saddam. One of the biggest logistical concerns of our military in this conflict has not been the destruction of the Iraqi people, but rather the protection of their civilians from their own government and the safe surrender of the fighting forces.
Why then, are there still people who are against this operation?
Is it because they feel that Hans Blix and his teams should have been given more time? Despite the fact that most naysayers still don't realize that Blix and his people were NOT there to find banned weapons - people still think that he should have been given more time. Blix himself also recently expressed no regret or outrage that Saddam had chosen war over simply handing over his weapons.
People are now saying (as was predicted by the more thoughtful of journalists) that Saddam is now somehow justified in using the weapons that he was not supposed to have. How does this work? Are these people trying to say that it is better for Saddam to actually use these weapons on people than to simply give them up peacefully? Do people really believe that if Saddam were willing to go to war with the most powerful military coalition ever devised simply because he wants to keep his weapons that he would somehow have been open to letting U.N. inspectors find them? Anyone willing to risk their lives, their country, and their people's lives would certainly not let a few inspectors stumble across a few weapons. Let's step back into a reality for a bit.
So what is it? Again, I'm at a loss. Is it because of the loss of life? Well, I've already pointed out that this campaign is more "life-friendly" than any campaign devised of it's size in history. Also, it's a fact that Saddam is responsible for YEARLY more of his own people as were killed in the ENTIRE Gulf War 1. Imagine that - Saddam kills more Iraqis in ONE YEAR every year than a U.S. led coalition did in outright war 12 years ago in which Iraqi casualties were NOT such a big concern. In liberating Iraq, we are saving lives - so that can't be the reasoning.
So? Why are people still against it? Well, in actuality - most people support it. In recent polls, the vast majority of peoples support the U.S. President in his actions and agree that the U.N. had failed miserably. To add insult to injury, more and more countries are signing up daily to become a part of what is now the beginning of freedom and new life for the Iraqi people.
Why are people still against it? I really can't say - other than to say that these people are REALLY against Bush and are simply using this war as an extension of him to . To those people I would like to offer this thought: You may our President - you may even us. I hope you realize, however, that we are bringing to the Iraqi people the gift of freedom and a new life away from a terrible dictator whom they've lived under in fear for about 30 years. You can go ahead and Bush and the U.S. - but, please - look at what you're REALLY against here.
The regime is shutting down and soon the Iraqis will be free. Be happy for them, if nothing else.
