Seriously though, I think it's meaningless to discuss whether or not the US has the "right" to invade Iraq. A great power can do whatever it wishes to do, no matter how ethical the matter at hand is. Not all invasions has to be justified; after all, the US has the strongest military in the world. And you know that the US military is extremely loyal to the president. What are YOU going to do about it? Besides, the Bush administration really wants to win this war to get a better position, namely against North Korea. Leaders do whatever is the best for the interests of their nations.
If I may say so, France, Germany, and other anti-war nations know very well that they will be much better off without Saddam and his Iraqi missiles. What they are worrying about is the US dominace; when Bush wins the war, he'll have a greater influence, and therefore more control over global affairs. If I were a French I would be worried about that too.
But think about how the US helped them all in the two world wars. We supported the Allies and helped rebuild Germany, all the while containing communism. Even today, the US is very important to all of them in terms of economy and politics. So... I think the French are being a little snobbish here.
The only way this war will be averted, I think, will be if Americans stop supporting the campaign. That is, domestic protests. Nobody will be interested in a protest in Indonesia. Recall that during the Vietnam War, Bush senior was forced to call it off because the public no longer supported the war.
Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that war will erupt. I guess when Saddam realizes he will be defeated, he will unleash everything he has. At that point, whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction will be pretty clear.
Honestly, I'm kind of pro war. It's because without the war, things would be worse. So say Bush calls off the whole thing. Saddam goes, "Hmm, well! That wasn't so bad!" and every terrorist group in the world will gain enough confidence to launch attacks on US mainland. Then the US would have no choice but to go through Afghanistan again in retaliation and se defendendo; my point is, the US will fight sooner or later. But say we go to war now and end the Iraqi threat, along with al Qaeda and everything. It's actually a load off for everyone. I admit this war is unpredictable, but I think delaying the war would cause even more problems.
However, I don't think this war against Iraq is going to weed out all terrorists. Survivors will conduct attacks against the US like September 11th, something the US security can't keep up with, I think.
It's regrettable that the United Nations is losing its grip on things, just as the League of Nations did nothing while Hitler took Austria, etc. Bush is almost ignoring the UN and the rest of the world: "I'm going to war by myself!"
By the way, about those suicide bombers - what are they thinking? I wouldn't question their rantionale because they were brought up that way. Rather, common sense - don't they ever think about the violence they commit against harmless pedestrians? Why don't they fight the "infidel" soldiers face-to-face and earn victory or die trying, like true warriors? By blowing up bombs in the streets and thinking they scored a point, they're just being cowards. They're not going to heaven. If Bin Laden asked me to go blow up myself, become a martyr, and go to heaven, I'd say to him, "Well, you want to be a martyr too, right? Why don't you go?"
I have something to say to Elegans: Degree of anger is certainly an influential element of argument. This country is run by the people, and if people express anger, they'll do something about it. When the people are angry, politicians notice, and they make decisions accordingly at Washington. Not true every time, but it happens a lot.
What I am really worried about is that we might be making a mistake we made years ago in Vietnam. Say we bomb Baghdad and everything. What is Saddam going to do? His soldiers will scatter north and south to blend in with the populace and wage a guerilla war against the US, the same thing that caused so much difficulties for the US during the Vietnam War. Or take Lebanon, for example. It took two months for the US to clear out the rebels from the city because each building had to be destroyed by artillery or rocket, one by one. It takes long, costs a lot, and weakens resolution. As I said, when the US backs off, it'll cause more problems.
Sorry, I said too much and I really don't know what I'm taking about. I hope I didn't offend anyone and pray that this crisis works out peacefully so everyone can go home and you guys can stop arguing.
