who is the biggest war criminal?

[Carrera]

Correct. Plato wrote the Republic, the purpose was which to apply philosophy and logic to the State. Athens was a centuries old version of the U.S. (although far more democratic) and Sparta was neo-communist.
So, what you had was a cold war going on where Athens would try to install democracies in surrounding Greek states such as Corinth and Sparta set up pro-Spartan oligarchies.
My personal view, however, is that other nations never understood democracy and have been abusing democracy for centuries, just as religion has been twisted and distorted. I have little doubt that Plato would have laughed at the system we have over here that is somehow called democracy. What we have, in actual fact, is a system in which a remote, pampered elite claim to represent their populations of voters and take decisions over their heads, mainly based on their own personal interests or the interests of financiers and corporations. It has nothing to do with the kratia of the demos or sovereign rule of a sovereign people over their own affairs. Likewise the so-called democracy in Iraq can't be taken seriously. You can't create something abroad that you don't have at home.

Didn't Plato script "The Republic" ?

 

[Carrera]

Seems to me that the predicted is already happening. Bush basically overthrew secularism in the Middle East (Iraq) and you have a knock on effect of Islamic extremism resurfacing in Iran. Seeing as the West has always relied on religion as a means of keeping the masses quiet at home and abroad, I wonder whether Bush's advisers knew all along this would happen.
Think about it. An evangelised, God-fearing population of Americans are easier to control than thinking, educated Americans. Fundamentalist Arabs are perhaps more likely to be debating religion than worrying about foreign oil companies. Religion is the new medium whereby people can be kept passive and under control.
It was the same in Tsarist Russia where the peasants were kept ignorant and taught the Tsar was God's appointed leader. Education at university was considered dangerous. This was why the communists closed down all the churches.
The only reason Bush went to war in Iraq was due to an imperialist agenda and he didn't like the way secular Saddam was threatening to sell oil to Russia, China and France. It was never about protecting Americans from terrorism or forwarding human rights. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric as people have been well and truly conned.

Reason's to exit Iraq. Too many to list. Bush really fecked up on this one. It is ironic that our own president is a threat to our national security by decimating our military in a war of choice thereby leaving the "real instigator's" of destruction (N. Korea, Taliban, Iranian Conservatives, ect... free to do as they please. Nice going George

 

[roadhog]

Your country is seen as occupiers

I agree that we are currently viewed by a majority as occupiers.

(and were never viewed as liberators, even by friendly Iraqi's and Muslims) of Iraq.

This, however, is definitely not true. There was sheer jubilance all over the country in April and May of 2003 as I flew over the entire area every day at low altitude. I'm talking about people climbing to the tops of trees and to their rooftops to get closer to us to wave and cheer as we flew over. I will never forget the first time I flew over a portion of Baghdad in daylight in April 03. It seemed every citizen of the neighborhood we passed over was outside. I have never seen so many people on the streets of any city. These people were jubilant. No question about it.

Of course this feeling does not remain (at least in most areas - go to the Kurdish north and we are still rock stars), and they are experiencing an outcome they did not expect - as are many of us. I am not arguing otherwise, simply pointing out the feelings of the place at the time.

 

[limerickman]

Seems to me that the predicted is already happening. Bush basically overthrew secularism in the Middle East (Iraq) and you have a knock on effect of Islamic extremism resurfacing in Iran. Seeing as the West has always relied on religion as a means of keeping the masses quiet at home and abroad, I wonder whether Bush's advisers knew all along this would happen.
Think about it. An evangelised, God-fearing population of Americans are easier to control than thinking, educated Americans. Fundamentalist Arabs are perhaps more likely to be debating religion than worrying about foreign oil companies. Religion is the new medium whereby people can be kept passive and under control.
It was the same in Tsarist Russia where the peasants were kept ignorant and taught the Tsar was God's appointed leader. Education at university was considered dangerous. This was why the communists closed down all the churches.
The only reason Bush went to war in Iraq was due to an imperialist agenda and he didn't like the way secular Saddam was threatening to sell oil to Russia, China and France. It was never about protecting Americans from terrorism or forwarding human rights. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric as people have been well and truly conned.

Now we're getting to the nub of the issue :
Bush overthrew what was a secular, but totalitarian, regime (SH).
Iraqi society was very secular : women were liberal (certainly by Middle eastern standards and indeed almost proximate to Western standards).
They could go to university and work and go out and they could wear whatever clothes they wished.
A lot of this has now started to reverse, especially in Shia areas. (the Shia were terrorised by SH - how ironic).
Women are being forced back to a more secondary role in Iraq since the invasion.
How ironic.

 

[Wurm]

...The only reason Bush went to war in Iraq was due to an imperialist agenda and he didn't like the way secular Saddam was threatening to sell oil to Russia, China and France.

I would say it was that, and the hope of having a "war president" in office for the '02 Congressional elections (coattails) in order to win a majority and shove the rest of their agenda down America's throat.

But really, why argue with the likes of CR, connie, and cohen? It's obvious that they're completely happy going along as sheep to the slaughter.

 

[limerickman]

.

This, however, is definitely not true. There was sheer jubilance all over the country in April and May of 2003 as I flew over the entire area every day at low altitude. I'm talking about people climbing to the tops of trees and to their rooftops to get closer to us to wave and cheer as we flew over. I will never forget the first time I flew over a portion of Baghdad in daylight in April 03. It seemed every citizen of the neighborhood we passed over was outside. I have never seen so many people on the streets of any city. These people were jubilant. No question about it.

Of course this feeling does not remain (at least in most areas - go to the Kurdish north and we are still rock stars), and they are experiencing an outcome they did not expect - as are many of us. I am not arguing otherwise, simply pointing out the feelings of the place at the time.

OK : in the immediate initial aftermath of the over throw of SH, I'll grant you
that the US were regarded as liberators within parts of Iraq, notably the Shia.
I will certainly concede this point, RH.

In the wider Middle East, the USA was never regarded as liberators.
No one outside of Iraq in the Middle East could, or would, view the US presence in Iraq as anything other than occupiers.

 

[davidmc]

Seems to me that the predicted is already happening. Bush basically overthrew secularism in the Middle East (Iraq) and you have a knock on effect of Islamic extremism resurfacing in Iran. Seeing as the West has always relied on religion as a means of keeping the masses quiet at home and abroad, I wonder whether Bush's advisers knew all along this would happen.
Think about it. An evangelised, God-fearing population of Americans are easier to control than thinking, educated Americans. Fundamentalist Arabs are perhaps more likely to be debating religion than worrying about foreign oil companies. Religion is the new medium whereby people can be kept passive and under control.
It was the same in Tsarist Russia where the peasants were kept ignorant and taught the Tsar was God's appointed leader. Education at university was considered dangerous. This was why the communists closed down all the churches.
The only reason Bush went to war in Iraq was due to an imperialist agenda and he didn't like the way secular Saddam was threatening to sell oil to Russia, China and France. It was never about protecting Americans from terrorism or forwarding human rights. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric as people have been well and truly conned.

I am aware of this. It was an invasion of a secularist, albeit masochistic, regime w/ the minority controlling all of the upper governmental positions. This area of the world is the current "hotbed" of terrorist export-Damascus, Iran, N. Africa, ect... We could do as europe wished & laughed all the way to the bank or attempt to do something. This admin. did something. Right or wrong, it was done in concert w/ British intelligence. Whether or not Blair knew it was flawed is moot at this point. His constituency can determine that at a later time if they wish. I'll point out, for the 11th time-"SH financed suicide bomber's in Israel. Israel is the linch pin to the entire area. SH was a destabilizing factor in the region." Invade now, invade later. It'll just be more expensive in money & lives if you wait. Criticize all you want but SH & his entire cadre of inner circle thugs was a ruthless mass-murderer/rapist. I await other forum member's defense of SH (Lim ) Incidentally, as many are aware, I voted for Kerry & am a Progressive Independent (e.g.-if it works, do it.).

 

[davidmc]

Now we're getting to the nub of the issue :
Bush overthrew what was a secular, but totalitarian, regime (SH).
Iraqi society was very secular : women were liberal (certainly by Middle eastern standards and indeed almost proximate to Western standards).
They could go to university and work and go out and they could wear whatever clothes they wished.
A lot of this has now started to reverse, especially in Shia areas. (the Shia were terrorised by SH - how ironic).
Women are being forced back to a more secondary role in Iraq since the invasion.
How ironic.

You missed the point that women are guaranteed, what , 20% of governmental position's. That's a larger portion than ANY country I am aware of True, they could go to University, work, & go out as long as they didn't cross path's w/ Uday & Qusay

 

[Carrera]

David, what gives politicians in your country or my country the right to judge Iraq? And what right do they have to upturn peoples' lives in this country and fill it with foreign terrorists and suicide bombers?
Why don't politicians look a little closer to home and judge before taking on airs and butting into Iraq? This is what I fail to grasp.
The U.S., for example, has become a sphere of major concern over human rights abuses that have shocked Amnesty and other human rights organizations. It is one of the few countries to have a death penalty yet preaches to all who care to hear on the subject of abortion. I fail to see how the right to life suddenly disappears once a person is born. I find much of this reasoning in America puzzling.
The U.S. may well decide to follow through with this policy of intervention but people will have to understand they will be stuck with the consequences that follow it. That means far more instability and a far bigger terrorist threat. Any stability Iraq had has been lost due to this present policy and Bush must truly be a God send to Islamic extremists since he's given them exactly what they were seeking - a strong foothold in Iraq and Iran.
The reason the French and Germans want a strong Europe is clearly because the U.S. is leading the rest of the world towards a future of terrorism, instability and globalisation. This is not the vision the Europeans want nor Bush the leader they seek to see in power. They want to see reasonable policy directed towards complex problems not a gun-tooting Texan swaggering around the Middle East with a hand grenade.
I don't think Europeans are so much pacific as the fact they had many many wars and have hopefully learned from the conflicts.

I am aware of this. It was an invasion of a secularist, albeit masochistic, regime w/ the minority controlling all of the upper governmental positions. This area of the world is the current "hotbed" of terrorist export-Damascus, Iran, N. Africa, ect... We could do as europe wished & laughed all the way to the bank or attempt to do something. This admin. did something. Right or wrong, it was done in concert w/ British intelligence. Whether or not Blair knew it was flawed is moot at this point. His constituency can determine that at a later time if they wish. I'll point out, for the 11th time-"SH financed suicide bomber's in Israel. Israel is the linch pin to the entire area. SH was a destabilizing factor in the region." Invade now, invade later. It'll just be more expensive in money & lives if you wait. Criticize all you want but SH & his entire cadre of inner circle thugs was a ruthless mass-murderer/rapist. I await other forum member's defense of SH (Lim ) Incidentally, as many are aware, I voted for Kerry & am a Progressive Independent (e.g.-if it works, do it.).

 

[Carrera]

Yes and Iraqis were possibly the most educated of Arabs. Iraqis are intelligent, hospitable people on the whole. Saddam's dictatorship was probably no worse than that of Franco in Spain yet nobody bombed Spain. Then again, Spain isn't rich in natural resources.
Personally I think that if Iraq ever stabilises it will be as an Islamic State and very anti-western. I see now real hope of Iraq ever becoming a pro-western democracy after all Iraqis have experienced.

Now we're getting to the nub of the issue :
Bush overthrew what was a secular, but totalitarian, regime (SH).
Iraqi society was very secular : women were liberal (certainly by Middle eastern standards and indeed almost proximate to Western standards).
They could go to university and work and go out and they could wear whatever clothes they wished.
A lot of this has now started to reverse, especially in Shia areas. (the Shia were terrorised by SH - how ironic).
Women are being forced back to a more secondary role in Iraq since the invasion.
How ironic.

 

[limerickman]

I am aware of this. It was an invasion of a secularist, albeit masochistic, regime w/ the minority controlling all of the upper governmental positions. This area of the world is the current "hotbed" of terrorist export-Damascus, Iran, N. Africa, ect... We could do as europe wished & laughed all the way to the bank or attempt to do something. This admin. did something. Right or wrong, it was done in concert w/ British intelligence. Whether or not Blair knew it was flawed is moot at this point. His constituency can determine that at a later time if they wish. I'll point out, for the 11th time-"SH financed suicide bomber's in Israel. Israel is the linch pin to the entire area. SH was a destabilizing factor in the region." Invade now, invade later. It'll just be more expensive in money & lives if you wait. Criticize all you want but SH & his entire cadre of inner circle thugs was a ruthless mass-murderer/rapist. I await other forum member's defense of SH (Lim ) Incidentally, as many are aware, I voted for Kerry & am a Progressive Independent (e.g.-if it works, do it.).

Dave - I cannot defend SH nor would I ever attempt to.
But that doesn't give the USA carte-blanche to go around invading countries
without motive.

Look at Zimbadwe : I know your country hasn't been covering what's going on there, so let me give you a quick summary.
Robert Mugabe - the top man in Zim - is currently involved in ethnic cleaning of whites and those blacks who oppose him.
People are starving in the Zimbadwe - the breadbasket of Africa.
Mugabe is a dictator.
The same type as SH : he puts his political opponents in prison and starves them.
A white MP Alan Bennett has just been released after 8 months prison and hard labour : he's lost 75% of his body weight.
Mugabe bulldozed his home and took all his possessions.
When will we expect the US troops in Zimbadwe ?

SH financed terrorism in Israel ? I don't know if he did or not to be honest.
There have been so many lies put about, what you say about Israel could be another myth.
(I'm not saying it is - there is a possibility though).
Bush didn't say that Israel was a factor in the invasion of Iraq.
He didn't use Israel as an excuse because the rest of the world would tell Bush where to get off.
I am not going to tell you to get off - but I am going to ask you to get real.

The invasion of Iraq was based on a tissue of lies.
SH was no threat to the USA - no more than Mugabe is.

 

[limerickman]

David, what gives politicians in your country or my country the right to judge Iraq? And what right do they have to upturn peoples' lives in this country and fill it with foreign terrorists and suicide bombers?
Why don't politicians look a little closer to home and judge before taking on airs and butting into Iraq? This is what I fail to grasp.
The U.S., for example, has become a sphere of major concern over human rights abuses that have shocked Amnesty and other human rights organizations. It is one of the few countries to have a death penalty yet preaches to all who care to hear on the subject of abortion. I fail to see how the right to life suddenly disappears once a person is born. I find much of this reasoning in America puzzling.
The U.S. may well decide to follow through with this policy of intervention but people will have to understand they will be stuck with the consequences that follow it. That means far more instability and a far bigger terrorist threat. Any stability Iraq had has been lost due to this present policy and Bush must truly be a God send to Islamic extremists since he's given them exactly what they were seeking - a strong foothold in Iraq and Iran.
The reason the French and Germans want a strong Europe is clearly because the U.S. is leading the rest of the world towards a future of terrorism, instability and globalisation. This is not the vision the Europeans want nor Bush the leader they seek to see in power. They want to see reasonable policy directed towards complex problems not a gun-tooting Texan swaggering around the Middle East with a hand grenade.
I don't think Europeans are so much pacific as the fact they had many many wars and have hopefully learned from the conflicts.

Yeah, the consequences of the action in Iraq is that the issue of Afghanistan
was put on the back burner and a second vacuum was created in Iraq.
Neither country is secure and arguably life for the unfortunate citizens of both countries is worse, in tangible terms since 2001.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the USA is deliberately using other territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan to fight what is a struggle of their own making.

America for whatever reason is seen to be interferring in regions where it has no right to interfer.

Maybe by deliberately starting wars in these territories the USA hopes to keep their enemies at a safe distance from the USA.
if this is it's policy, I think it will in time be shown to have failed.

 

[Wurm]

...The U.S., for example, has become a sphere of major concern over human rights abuses that have shocked Amnesty and other human rights organizations. It is one of the few countries to have a death penalty yet preaches to all who care to hear on the subject of abortion. I fail to see how the right to life suddenly disappears once a person is born. I find much of this reasoning in America puzzling...

As I've said on many occasions:



http://www.democracymeansyou.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/stk-hypocriTe-300.gif

 

[Carrera]

The truth is power always corrupts. The Brits, if anything, may have been worse than the Americans and in Latvia they have a war museum that testifies to abuses carried out by the Russians.
The Athenians were also extremely nasty, interfering busy-bodies who tried to impose puppet democracies on surrounding neighbours. They invaded other countries and butchered the males, selling women and children into slavery.
Always the story is the same. Power leads to corruption and abuse of power and the abuses finally undermine the super-power. Take the Russians: Russia is now paying the price of the way it treated allies such as Poland, Romania and Hungary. All these countries recall the past and the Soviet tanks.
Under Clinton America had it all, a booming dollar, a decent image abroad, a strong army and new markets opening up. But maybe the fall of the USSR and rise of China has thrown a spanner in the works. The trouble is America now finds itself still the most powerful nation but in a world it can't understand where everything is sort of upside down. They try to solve complex Middle Eastern problems by banging the area hard with a hammer as you would do with a TV set. But, like it or lump it, the Middle East and Israel have been unstable since the times of the Romans.

Yeah, the consequences of the action in Iraq is that the issue of Afghanistan
was put on the back burner and a second vacuum was created in Iraq.
Neither country is secure and arguably life for the unfortunate citizens of both countries is worse, in tangible terms since 2001.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the USA is deliberately using other territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan to fight what is a struggle of their own making.

America for whatever reason is seen to be interferring in regions where it has no right to interfer.

Maybe by deliberately starting wars in these territories the USA hopes to keep their enemies at a safe distance from the USA.
if this is it's policy, I think it will in time be shown to have failed.

 

[Carrera]

The truth is power always corrupts. The Brits, if anything, may have been worse than the Americans and in Latvia they have a war museum that testifies to abuses carried out by the Russians.
The Athenians were also extremely nasty, interfering busy-bodies who tried to impose puppet democracies on surrounding neighbours. They invaded other countries and butchered the males, selling women and children into slavery.
Always the story is the same. Power leads to corruption and abuse of power and the abuses finally undermine the super-power. Take the Russians: Russia is now paying the price of the way it treated allies such as Poland, Romania and Hungary. All these countries recall the past and the Soviet tanks.
Under Clinton America had it all, a booming dollar, a decent image abroad, a strong army and new markets opening up. But maybe the fall of the USSR and rise of China has thrown a spanner in the works. The trouble is America now finds itself still the most powerful nation but in a world it can't understand where everything is sort of upside down. They try to solve complex Middle Eastern problems by banging the area hard with a hammer as you would do with a TV set. But, like it or lump it, the Middle East and Israel have been unstable since the times of the Romans.

Yeah, the consequences of the action in Iraq is that the issue of Afghanistan
was put on the back burner and a second vacuum was created in Iraq.
Neither country is secure and arguably life for the unfortunate citizens of both countries is worse, in tangible terms since 2001.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the USA is deliberately using other territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan to fight what is a struggle of their own making.

America for whatever reason is seen to be interferring in regions where it has no right to interfer.

Maybe by deliberately starting wars in these territories the USA hopes to keep their enemies at a safe distance from the USA.
if this is it's policy, I think it will in time be shown to have failed.

 

[Carrera]

The truth is power always corrupts. The Brits, if anything, may have been worse than the Americans and in Latvia they have a war museum that testifies to abuses carried out by the Russians.
The Athenians were also extremely nasty, interfering busy-bodies who tried to impose puppet democracies on surrounding neighbours. They invaded other countries and butchered the males, selling women and children into slavery.
Always the story is the same. Power leads to corruption and abuse of power and the abuses finally undermine the super-power. Take the Russians: Russia is now paying the price of the way it treated allies such as Poland, Romania and Hungary. All these countries recall the past and the Soviet tanks.
Under Clinton America had it all, a booming dollar, a decent image abroad, a strong army and new markets opening up. But maybe the fall of the USSR and rise of China has thrown a spanner in the works. The trouble is America now finds itself still the most powerful nation but in a world it can't understand where everything is sort of upside down. They try to solve complex Middle Eastern problems by banging the area hard with a hammer as you would do with a TV set. But, like it or lump it, the Middle East and Israel have been unstable since the times of the Romans.

Yeah, the consequences of the action in Iraq is that the issue of Afghanistan
was put on the back burner and a second vacuum was created in Iraq.
Neither country is secure and arguably life for the unfortunate citizens of both countries is worse, in tangible terms since 2001.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the USA is deliberately using other territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan to fight what is a struggle of their own making.

America for whatever reason is seen to be interferring in regions where it has no right to interfer.

Maybe by deliberately starting wars in these territories the USA hopes to keep their enemies at a safe distance from the USA.
if this is it's policy, I think it will in time be shown to have failed.

 

[Carrera]

The truth is power always corrupts. The Brits, if anything, may have been worse than the Americans and in Latvia they have a war museum that testifies to abuses carried out by the Russians.
The Athenians were also extremely nasty, interfering busy-bodies who tried to impose puppet democracies on surrounding neighbours. They invaded other countries and butchered the males, selling women and children into slavery.
Always the story is the same. Power leads to corruption and abuse of power and the abuses finally undermine the super-power. Take the Russians: Russia is now paying the price of the way it treated allies such as Poland, Romania and Hungary. All these countries recall the past and the Soviet tanks.
Under Clinton America had it all, a booming dollar, a decent image abroad, a strong army and new markets opening up. But maybe the fall of the USSR and rise of China has thrown a spanner in the works. The trouble is America now finds itself still the most powerful nation but in a world it can't understand where everything is sort of upside down. They try to solve complex Middle Eastern problems by banging the area hard with a hammer as you would do with a TV set. But, like it or lump it, the Middle East and Israel have been unstable since the times of the Romans.

Yeah, the consequences of the action in Iraq is that the issue of Afghanistan
was put on the back burner and a second vacuum was created in Iraq.
Neither country is secure and arguably life for the unfortunate citizens of both countries is worse, in tangible terms since 2001.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the USA is deliberately using other territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan to fight what is a struggle of their own making.

America for whatever reason is seen to be interferring in regions where it has no right to interfer.

Maybe by deliberately starting wars in these territories the USA hopes to keep their enemies at a safe distance from the USA.
if this is it's policy, I think it will in time be shown to have failed.

 

[Carrera]

The truth is power always corrupts. The Brits, if anything, may have been worse than the Americans and in Latvia they have a war museum that testifies to abuses carried out by the Russians.
The Athenians were also extremely nasty, interfering busy-bodies who tried to impose puppet democracies on surrounding neighbours. They invaded other countries and butchered the males, selling women and children into slavery.
Always the story is the same. Power leads to corruption and abuse of power and the abuses finally undermine the super-power. Take the Russians: Russia is now paying the price of the way it treated allies such as Poland, Romania and Hungary. All these countries recall the past and the Soviet tanks.
Under Clinton America had it all, a booming dollar, a decent image abroad, a strong army and new markets opening up. But maybe the fall of the USSR and rise of China has thrown a spanner in the works. The trouble is America now finds itself still the most powerful nation but in a world it can't understand where everything is sort of upside down. They try to solve complex Middle Eastern problems by banging the area hard with a hammer as you would do with a TV set. But, like it or lump it, the Middle East and Israel have been unstable since the times of the Romans.

Yeah, the consequences of the action in Iraq is that the issue of Afghanistan
was put on the back burner and a second vacuum was created in Iraq.
Neither country is secure and arguably life for the unfortunate citizens of both countries is worse, in tangible terms since 2001.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the USA is deliberately using other territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan to fight what is a struggle of their own making.

America for whatever reason is seen to be interferring in regions where it has no right to interfer.

Maybe by deliberately starting wars in these territories the USA hopes to keep their enemies at a safe distance from the USA.
if this is it's policy, I think it will in time be shown to have failed.

 

[Carrera]

Sorry about the triple posting. I'm finding I can't send messages and nothing will happen. I keep clicking and zilch.

 

[davidmc]

David, what gives politicians in your country or my country the right to judge Iraq? And what right do they have to upturn peoples' lives in this country and fill it with foreign terrorists and suicide bombers?
Why don't politicians look a little closer to home and judge before taking on airs and butting into Iraq? This is what I fail to grasp.
The U.S., for example, has become a sphere of major concern over human rights abuses that have shocked Amnesty and other human rights organizations. It is one of the few countries to have a death penalty yet preaches to all who care to hear on the subject of abortion. I fail to see how the right to life suddenly disappears once a person is born. I find much of this reasoning in America puzzling.
The U.S. may well decide to follow through with this policy of intervention but people will have to understand they will be stuck with the consequences that follow it. That means far more instability and a far bigger terrorist threat. Any stability Iraq had has been lost due to this present policy and Bush must truly be a God send to Islamic extremists since he's given them exactly what they were seeking - a strong foothold in Iraq and Iran.
The reason the French and Germans want a strong Europe is clearly because the U.S. is leading the rest of the world towards a future of terrorism, instability and globalisation. This is not the vision the Europeans want nor Bush the leader they seek to see in power. They want to see reasonable policy directed towards complex problems not a gun-tooting Texan swaggering around the Middle East with a hand grenade.
I don't think Europeans are so much pacific as the fact they had many many wars and have hopefully learned from the conflicts.

Iraq was constituted w/, primarily I believe, British influence (League of Nations?). Hell, you even drew thier boundary lines for cryin' out loud & installed thier 1st leader. Do you now have no interest in thier future Sure it's expensive BUT what was the alternative & do you believe that it would've been cheaper to deal w/ the thug at a later time Us baby-sitting him for another 10-15 yrs.