quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Re-reading this, rather than amend what I've written, I should add that I do appreciate your comments, Cowgirl Jack. Rob has told me before that I can sound snide, and I do get carried away with the slow venom drip.
dave is good people.

yeah, his opinion may occasionally seem snide or even (blindly) anti-american at times, but... its not. certainly not intentionally, anyway. and more than likely on the same level as my (blindly) pro-american rhetoric.

at worst, his opinion helps to see the other side of things, or perhaps more aptly, the "outside view"

good stuff.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I admit the French are acting in a Gaullist tradition of seeing themselves (as the leader of Europe) as being a "natural" counterbalance to American influence, and that this is tainting their views, to their discredit.
personally, i feel this is the entire issue. if france had a point, its merit was lost long ago. i think, more and more (especially with chirac's attack on smaller european powers) france is doing their best to flaunt the fading power they have left.

this whole ordeal and their entire stance has completely lost all regard for what it should be focused on. france is so busy trying to make themselves look big and/or combat the US that they've otherwise forgotten about saddam being a ruthless dictator, the millions of poverty-striken innocents in iraq, the defense of a close ally in turkey, and/or the defense of a post 9-11 world.

thats both embarassing and globally unfortunate.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
something something OIL something
(no specific quote i wanted to highlight -- justa general commentary)

the anti-american oil issue is silly. america uses saudi oil, not iraqi. if we were to invade iraq again, our goal is not to steal all of the oil. in gulf war 1, one of our missions was to prevent saddam from burning all of it away -- we had our opportunities to take it then, and did not.

contrarily, as far as i know, countires like france and germany do use iraqi oil. if anything, this shows that they have oil-related motives in this ordeal.

and the thought that america would invade simply to steal or take control of iraqi oil (and, thus, take it from the french, or what have you) is also a silly one, considering powell went on a very public record, both in front of all american governments and the UN, promoting that an american-led regime in post-saddam iraq would ensure the people of iraq got the oil and/or the value of the oil (something they currently have never seen).

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
smart bombs cannot prevent the famine, infant mortality and disease that will follow an invasion. {snip} I really respect the fact that the US military and policy-makers has sufficient humanitarian concern (a cynic would say an eye on the TV-watching voting public) to use smart bombs. But no amount of munitions will stop the predicted deaths from the destruction of public infrastructure.
thats true. innocent deaths and loss and destruction are an unfortunate and substantial casualty of this entire conflict. yes, the US's newer war tech is amazingly accurate and effective -- the first gulf war is an incredible testamant to that, with the casualties incredibly minimal. however, 99% is not 100% -- there's no way to completely remove the casualty factor, and were we to invade, there will be unfortunate, accidental deaths and victims.

i dont want to sound cold or careless, so i hope i dont come off as such with the following, but....

if 1000 innocents are lost due to the horrible actions of war... isn't that still lightyears better than the treatment the country's people is receiving now? i mean, which is worse? the condition the iraqi people currently suffer through? or one 2 years from now, were america and other allies to lead a regime?

how many thousands of people in iraq are currently suffering because of their "elected" official? how many are currently starving, living in poverty or famine? how many have been put to death unnecessarily over the years? how many reporters have documented saddam's higher ups, and even his own brother, systematically raping and murdering innocent women at their leisure?

further, america would fuel the newly growing, newly democratic economy with millions or billions of dollars to rebuild (something the country has done in most every war situation they've ever been in). infrastructure would be rebuilt infinitely stronger than it was before (than it is now).