image causing a "stir"??

[John Burns]

You really need to apply for a position with the UN. They are the champions of finding understanding by not digging too deep.

You do not have to dig deep to
understand that Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with Bin Laden,
respectively the kind of terrorism that is a real security risk for
US citizens at home and abroad.

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography

--
John

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

You must choose one or the other ... the UN was unable to help,

Nonsense. Just simple, plain nonsense.

Andi

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

Saddam is scum... entirely unjust, caring nothing for the veneer of
civilization, and there's nothing grey about it.

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein was heavily supported by the US and a lot of other other countries?

The entire WofMD cannard was a waste of breath. This war is all
about 9-11. Bush looked around the globe and asked 'Who gives the
greatest aid and comfort to these plane crashing animals?'
Afghanistan? That's a godforsaken sinkhole, a place to send money
indefinitely, never to be seen again. Even Al Queda knows that.
Saudi Arabia came up top of the list, but as an 'ally' we can work
them diplomatically and economically. After that, Saddam's name
came up most prominently. So, adios...

If this is really the foundation of US international politics, then it's very easy to understand that the rest of the world is protesting and that Bush won't be able to have a majority at home. People are not as stupid as you think.

That said the immediate next step in this crusade should rightfully
be... Israel.

So the US is on a "crusade"... ...wonderful...

From now on, we suggest you
middle-eastern idiots find a way to live together, because frankly,
we’re sick of the whole lot of you.

Not everybody who does not share your sick views is an idiot.

You’ve all collectively proven
yourselves to be utterly miserable human beings.

"Collectively proven"... ...I like that one; that's probably the best totalitarian & nationalist slogan I've heard in a long time.

As I have over and over again - I am deeply ashamed.

Andi

 

[Rune Moberg]

I just can't buy that anyone thinks conversation(any appeal to
reason, i.e. "brains") is the answer to a sadistic murderer like
Saddam. (And "conscience"? give us a break!)

1. There are other sadistic murderers out there that are as bad or worse than Saddam. (and some of them have interesting weaponry too)

2. US&UK are virtually alone on the battlefield. Most of UN doesn't share George's vision of Lebensraum for the american people. UN does not seem to believe that Iraq masterminded 9-11. Most of Europe was fooled by Hitler when he stated he wanted extended power in order to better counteract terrorists attacking the German reich. (a dead communist was blamed for torching the Reichstag: http://www.weyrich.com/political_issues/reichstag_fire.html )

3. Saddam invaded Kuwait. So what? Israel still occupies a good portion of Syria (or where-ever, who cares, right?). Kuwait wasn't a democracy, nor is it a democracy now despite promises being made to the US/UN. UN should've let Iraq's neighbours deal with this, or atleast wait until public opinion in those Arab countries wanted to get rid of the threat.

4. The broad perception in the Middle East that USA only supports anti-Arab interests is what breeds terrorists. Not Saddam's failing regime.

Best of luck to you all (including young americans who are now on, for the moment, a relatively calm and controllable battlefield -- let's hope their losses will remain record low)

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

...into "personal'" areas,(not just yours and mine,

Depends on the level of abstraction the people discussing can bear. For me, these discussions have nothing personal and I do not make the mistake of automatically assuming that your (or the opinion of other people here) are representative for the US citizens in general or even for "offical" US politics.

Of course I don't mean the US "alone", ...it sounded to me as
though you questioned the "defending" as inaccurate history. I was
trying to contrast those (all) who saw the need for/took ACTION to
stop Hitler, et al,...and those who thought conversation
(appeasement) would work.

Good. It took indeed a very broad coalition to win WWII military, and it took even more not to repeat the mistakes of WWI again and build up peace in Europe. When reading a lot of postings here, I got to impression that a lot of US people think its's them alone who are responsible for the military victory over the Nazis and it sounds like a lot of people seem to believe that the military victory alone brought finally peace to this continent.

It's also not very difficult to see that WWII has not much to do with the current US aggression in Iraq. So I'm actually surprised that WWII is mentioned so often (and not other conflicts, which have much more similarity to the current US war in Iraq).

Speaking of history, ...wonder what a "knowledge of history" would
say about the WWII era had all the allied powers had the Swiss
philosophy?

That's a rather useless question.

Is it?

Yes, a tiny little country like Switzerland behaves OBVIOUSLY different in international politics than a large (population-, military-wise and economically) country like the US.

I think reflecting on it sheds some light on the concept of
necessary action(at times) vs. the concept of anything BUT action.

You obviously lack information reg. Switzerland's role in WWII. Swiss politics didn't do "nothing" back then (they did "good" as well as "bad" things; that would be worth another debate). Also in the current US-Iraqi war, Switzerland's neutraliy doesn't mean "doing nothing". Swiss foreign policy is currently very active, and in my very personal opinion, they are actually doing a pretty good job - for once!

As I said before - there is lots of information available an Swiss history in WWII, and I wouldn't mind discussing that with you. A good English source of information of what's going on over here right now is http://www.swissinfo.org

IMO your labeling such reflection as "useless" is a convient
"dodge" which evades a difficult-to-counter point.

Call it "nonsense" then.

I don't know anyone who thinks the US has a clean record, ... Does
ANY country?

Probably not, no.

...Does switzerland?

Definitly not, no.

Nazis... "depositers" in Swiss bank accounts, "neutrality"
that keeps the peace in some places.

Again here - you lack information. I also don't understand the point you want to make. My opinion that the US war in Iraq is a mistake and a shame for Western Societies does not depend on hoe much Iraqi or whatever money is in Switzerland. It also doesn't depend on how many refugees Switzerland harbored in WWII (or on the refugees that were sent back at the border, for that fact...). The arrogance and barbarian behaviour of the Bush administration doesn't have anything to do with WWII or the slavery issue in US history, for that fact.

My impression of your position is that it might be somewhat
different from the position of those Swiss I would describe as
"courageous".

LOL! Do you honestly think the US aggression in Iraq (or Afghanistan) is "courageous"? Do you further think there is anything "heroic" about war in general??

But each of us is one segment of the "collective"
national-attitudes of our respective nations,

As stated elsewhere, I do not share these "collective" ideas - be in socialist or nationalist ideology.

...and being seen as
"representative" (whether we are or not) is difficult to avoid in
forums such as this.

That's not my problem, but the problem of other people. Given the feedback I receive in public and by email, I think there are more than enough people who are actually able to make that diffrerence.

My last thought on "neutrality": It MIGHTsave the neutral party,
...it will NOT save anyone else. (This relates to my previous
remark concerning response(-)ability)

I know you would laugh about this statement as much as I do if you would have the information of what you are actually talking about.

Adi

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

Then go see a doctor rather than wasting Phil's money.

I wasn't so much talking about myself.

Andi

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

Over here (US) many of us still tend to condemn inaction in the
face of brutality/oppression, by those who are ABLE to RESPOND.

Switzerland's neutrality has nothing to do with inaction. It wouldn't take a lot to get information about that if you were interested.

We call that sort of behavior an act of a coward

LOL! Sure - a super-power attacking a country under international sactions, monitored since about ten years with the help of insepctions on the ground and air surveillance and after three bloody wars (2x Iran, Kuweit) and civil unrest is really sooooo brave.

Further (and much more important), do you honestly think that there is something "heroic" about war in general?

And the people of the US are willing to step up to this plate of
responsibility.

LOL! You mean like Richard Perle?

Andi

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

Stop with the condescension and put forth your argument or
please be quiet.

Wrong. I will never stop raising my voice against nationalists preaching war.

Andi

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

I am pretty sick about being told by idiots that this war is 'about
oil' or 'about GWB's wish to avenge GHWB' or other such nonsense.

When did I say that?

They refuse to acknowledge that there is good and evil.

Correct. I refuse to analyze the world in these terms only.

That way they don't have to do anything but cower and tell us
how bad we are.

Who's "they"? If you talk about me - yes, I condemn US Iraq politics. But as stated dozens of times, this has nothing to do with condemning the American people.

Not supporting the US aggression has nothing to do with being a coward or supporting Saddam Hussein. Is this really so difficult to understand???

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography

 

[Mike Price]

In principal I'm against violence (and war) but there are times when it is my duty to use violence.

If you saw your neighbour beating and raping his 10 year old daughter, which is the correct action for you to take:
1/ Intervene
2/ Turn away - "I'm neutral"

3/ Call all the other neighbours together and hold a debate to decide whether an agreed representative should talk to the bad guy?

To me, option 1 is the US/UK choice, 2 is the Swiss choice and 3 is the UN choice.

So now let's debate the accuracy of the analogy.

Over here (US) many of us still tend to condemn inaction in the
face of brutality/oppression, by those who are ABLE to RESPOND.

Switzerland's neutrality has nothing to do with inaction. It
wouldn't take a lot to get information about that if you were
interested.

We call that sort of behavior an act of a coward

LOL! Sure - a super-power attacking a country under international
sactions, monitored since about ten years with the help of
insepctions on the ground and air surveillance and after three
bloody wars (2x Iran, Kuweit) and civil unrest is really sooooo
brave.

Further (and much more important), do you honestly think that there
is something "heroic" about war in general?

And the people of the US are willing to step up to this plate of
responsibility.

LOL! You mean like Richard Perle?

Andi

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

You being ashamed, means we're doing the right thing.

Who is "we"? The US Army? The people on the streets of NY? Michael Moore, Dustin Hofman & others.? The Klu-Klux Clan? Richard Perle and the rest of the Nixon-clan?

Please wake up and start discovering the world you are living in. It's actually a bit more interesting than you dared to think.

Andi