Reading null's journal

So many posts, and still no answers! I still have not got any answers to the questions like

"Why nuke Iraq (that is the latest from D.C. - that they are going to use nuclear weapons too in the Iraq War) and not nuke North Korea?"
(HawkEye once mentioned in his post that North Korea is co-operating, and Iraq is posing to cooperate. Well, I don't see any evidence of North Korea cooperating With UN. They are infact blackmailing UN and US; OTOH, I can clearly see that Iraq is co-operating by allowing the inspectors to do their jobs without any hinderances.)
"If pre-emptive wars against any country that has WMDs and has used them in the past is the right thing to do, then what's wrong if Iraq announces a pre-emptive war against the US, as Iraq's sovriegnity is challenged by US, which also has WMDs, and has used them in the past?"
"Should any country strike their potential enemies just because they believe that their enemies have WMDs and can use them against them, even if they can not show any evidence for it? They keyword here is "potential" and "lack of evidence". Isn't it double standards in policy, as a country, which is also an axis of evil (North Korea) which *HAS* nuclear weapons, and has openly talked about declaring war against the US and the UN is dealt with differently?"
"What is the proof that Saddam Hussain has any ties with Al-Qaida and can sell his so-called WMDs to them anytime? If he has them, Al-Qaida probably already has it! Why is the War against terror not being handled right now with top priority, what ever happened to Bin Laden? Again, just recently, North Korea had sent a shipment of weapons to Yemen, a country known to have ties with Al-Qaida. Why is that not a bigger threat then Iraq?"

Well, I hope that someone reads my questions and replies to them, instead of throwing the discussion on a tangent. I don't want to hear anologies, I need honest replies. Hopefully, we can discuss these things without getting angry. At least we can try to think. These questions are very important, as the world's economy, geography, human future, everything depends on the current crisis. I am afraid, it looks like the myopic vision of the US government is pushing the world into the third world war, and its sad to see that people are still blindfolding themselves and don't want to see beyond a point!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Beautifully put. Thanks, RCD.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Would someone please explain to me the difference between good and bad nuclear weapons? Who and what gives any nation the right to interfere with any other nation under the veil of fighting Evil? The only nation who ever used nuclear weapons is the US. The only nation who openly threatens other nations with use of nuclear weapons is the US (well, besides Pak and India). Everything else we hear as so called facts are only speculations, matters of believe, almost like a religion.

In my view the most important question is not why Iraq and not North Korea, but why is the whole world accepting the US as the true sentinel over Good and Evil? Noone seems to question US' legitimation in the first place. Even the UN bends under the pressure of the US. Last night I heard in the news that the US has more than 35.000 troups stationed in South Korea. I wasn't aware of that. I think it would be a most interesting sight to see a map of the world, with all nations in the same colour where US troups are stationed. Wonder how that map would look like. Without long thinking about it I know at least 25. Do you honestly think this is "normal"? You bet, it would make many more people think once they see such a map.

I'm sick of hearing this same old blabla about the, ooh, so great threat any individual is for the citizens of the United States of America, ....oh, sure, and the friends and allies who keep their mouth shut and stand in line as well. Lets face it, the US again is about to begin an attack-war, the why does not interest me at all, its the second within 2 years, and God knows how much during the last 50 years. There is no justification whatsoever to start an attack-war against any other nation and still the resistance is only slowly growing. Why? Because automatically you're making yourself a target once you raise your voice and start questioning those deeds (see Rumsfeld vs. France/Germany). Why is the international law, the law of nations not valid for the US? Because only the strong ones makes the rules.

No discussion whatsoever will change anything about it, only time, ...and deaths, millions of deaths. Welcome to the 21st century.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

I think the only thing that would really change something is a war on American ground, and/or one in which the US would suffer devastating losses. See it this way - the USA are one of the very few nations always at war while none of their own territory is under attack. 9/11 was the first 'live' war-like experience for a long time to many Americans (and absolutely not like that cool Desert Storm show, if I may add that!).
In an ideal world (according to me of course :-P ), all pro-war people would be forced to live in a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there, before being allowed to give their vote. This doesn't only apply to the US but to any country.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

all pro-war people would be forced to live in a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there, before being allowed to give their vote.

Who are "pro-war people"? Strife is a condition of the human race. As for placing "pro-war people" in "a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there", what do you mean? Israel and Palestine have been going at it for quite some time right "among the normal people." What, by the way, are "normal people". People who sit at home and wish they could use a nuclear weapon on a foreign country's leading official? I'm just guessing here.

Who are "pro-war people"? Strife is a condition of the human race. As for placing "pro-war people" in "a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there", what do you mean?

Beeing purely hypothetical, I'd love to place Shrub, Rumsfeld, Blair and all their lackeys somewhere at Baghdad the moment the first US troops strike. A nice extra would be if they had to explain everything to the soon-to-be-killed civilians.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

I think it would be a most interesting sight to see a map of the world, with all nations in the same colour where US troups are stationed. Wonder how that map would look like. Without long thinking about it I know at least 25.

This link might interest you:
From A to Z -- Australia to Zimbabwe -- U.S. troops were sent to 100 nations in '97

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

No discussion whatsoever will change anything about it, only time, ...and deaths, millions of deaths. Welcome to the 21st century.

No, my friend, welcome to the human race.

As a US citizen I fear war. Historically speaking, few wars ever brought positive change. But I believe in war, as I believe in peace. I am in no position to judge Iraq or North Korea; I have only information supplied by the media. I am intelligent enough to see blatant propaganda, but not informed enough to know the facts. This leads me to believe that most civilians in every country worldwide suffer the same conundrum. When I see generalizations posted on forums such as this I am greatly disheartened and left with no real hope that humanity shall ever break out of its self-destruct mode. Why would anyone wish to use a nuclear weapon? It is true that the US used them during WW II, but not without the terrible guilt of doing so; can you imagine the burden of making such a decision? I cannot.

As for the position of the US in current global affairs, try an experiment: visualize the world without US influence or interference. Place my country in a bubble, if you will. Remove all US troops from foreign countries. Remove our media, technology, politics. Now watch world events unfold. Would Iraq be placated? Would North Korea decide to forego nuclear arms? Would the world unite in peace? If you need help answering these questions consider that the US is a very young nation. What was the state of world peace prior to the US?

I am not proud of everything the US has done in the past. And I know there will be decisions made in the future that I will disagree with. But despite that, I believe in my country and its representatives. I believe the US strives for and toward a better future for the world as a whole. As I believe we all should . . . in our actions, and especially (in this ever-growing world of textual-communication) in our words.

I guess you got the right attitude (at least that's my opinion). If everyone would think like you, our planet would be a better place to live.
But sadly that's not how the world turns. As long as people are motivated by greed for power and wealth (and that's how reality looks like), there will be no peace on earth.
I figure that's what always motivated us humans in general; even "taking over" america in the first place...

I believe the US strives for and toward a better future for the world as a whole.

Better from whose point of view? The people of the USA and their representatives?
Is there an universally valid right way to live™?
Note: No offence meant at all, I'm anxious to see your answer.

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

As long as people are motivated by greed for power and wealth (and that's how reality looks like), there will be no peace on earth.

The cynic in you is prevalent, and well it should be. The cynic within us keeps us from believing all too quickly in what "truth" we seek. But greed for power and wealth do not motivate me, my friend. Do they you?

I figure that's what always motivated us humans in general; even "taking over" america in the first place...

There is no doubt that expansionism (or greed) was the prime motivator for exploiting the Americas initially, but that eventually turned into groups of people fleeing religious and social persecution. Of course, an entirely new debate might be started when you consider the early Europeans treatment of Native Americans . . . A record that is regrettable, but should never be forgotten.

Better from whose point of view? The people of the USA and their representatives?

Excellent point! I was hoping someone would note the ambiguity in my words. (To be honest it was a leading statement, and I am so pleased that you questioned me on it the way you did!) Cannot different views live side-by-side without major conflict? I believe that peace can be achieved and is quite acceptable at the cost of certain arguments and compromises. Note that in the US we have a sample of many cultures, and, yes, we deal with discrimination and persecution for everything imaginable . . . but we DO persevere and stay united. Why can't this be recognized globally as an example of "agreeing to disagree"?