That's not the issue here, I only wanted to state that Belgium voted against too.
Americans are patriots. period. Everybody knows that.
No matter what, you guys support your president. No matter how stupid he is or how stupid his actions are. And you've proven that again the last days.
Don't you know the whole world wanted a peacefull solution? (Apart from some countries). Before you say that only 3 countries voted against, that's true, but there is more then one way to a peacefull solution. But if I say something like that to an American, I allways get the same answer:
Maybe you should, ever thought about that?
9/11 was because some idiots hated you guys really really hard...
Don't mean to be rude either

Well Donald Rumsfeld was in Bagdad when Iraq was gassing Iranians and didn't seem to have much problem with it then.

And his grandfather was certainly associated with the Nazi's. See: http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html for a nice short flash movie documentary on that subject. The song is priceless.

Nope, I don't recall him doing that, either.

However he's willing to keep up the "good
work" that has been done in the last gulf war
and use depleted uranium for both tanks armor
and tank-breaking shells.

Besides the handy effect of it breaking tanks
easily (way heavier than lead, self-sharpening
as transgressing through a tanks hull, high
density, thus pretty robust against common
ammunition) it has the unpleasant side-effect
of being ground up and/or evapourated in the
process, being in the atmosphere for quite a
while, easily respired by humans.

And besides it being toxic as such (like any
other heavy metal) it also has all three common
types of radiation (alpha, beta & gamma) and a
half-life of 4.5 billion years, which in my not so
humble opinion prohibits ANY kind of usage...

The rates of cancer in the regions where US
tanks & artillery have done some cleaning in
the last war are higher than average, which of
course must be an unlucky coincidence.

Strangely enough it's also much higher in US
soldiers that have served in DU shielded US
tanks ...

Cheers,
Tink

hehe They are going to have to change this places name to www.liberalanswers.org . I really like the last three responses. We have an internationalist, an extremist, and an environmentalist.

iceman47 I know you want to put your stake in the ground and make the point that your country is also against this war but lets be honest here, you follow Frances footsteps.(Oh I know that one is going to get some feedback)

fsbooks it good to see someone using very credible sources like the link you gave. Keep up the good work!

Tinkster your right. But I don't think pollution is our big concern here. Talk to Europe about pollution.

As I said before, we could have easily side stepped the UN, as Clinton did, and go out on our own avoiding this international media frenzy. But we didn't. We gave the UN a shot and they dropped the ball.

By the way does anyone know if Mandrake is a French company?

Extremist???
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not against the US, I just don't approve the way the US deals with problems.
And btw, yes Mandrake is French

Thanks. I thought that Mandrake was French but I wasn't sure.

How would you deal with these problems?

Yes, I am an environmentalist, and a pacifist,
and anti-nazi, pro multi-cultural, .... call me a
hippie that was born 10 years too late :D

I think that radiation should be everyones concern,
and wiping ones apron, pointing at somebody else's
cause it's got two specks more is an attitude that makes
me want to throw up, preferably over the person that ;)
indicates:"I'm not that bad, that guy over there is much
worse!"

The big difference between the States and Europe is
that the States have more territory, or, less people
per square meter. I would assume that the production
of rubbish over there is higher than in Europe (per head).

Cheers,
Tink

Okay so I won't use styrofoam anymore. You know I dabbled in pacifism once, not in Nam of course. (Name the movie)

I agree. Their is a big problem with the way a lot of governments deal with the environment. I think there is this attitude that it won't happen when they are alive so they don't worry about it. That is just wrong. We all should be worried about it.

Your not trying to pin this whole environmental thing on the US are you?

I'm not some diplomat, but I find it hard to believe we can't all work together to find some solution.
US don't approve the decision of the UN and therefor they don't have to respect it, that's just wrong.
We should all be working together, everybody knows Iraq is a problem.

I'm not surprised that we all can find the same solution. Every nation has its own agenda.

We went to the UN because we we're assured by your buddy Chirac that they would support a war if Iraq did not disarm. As we all know he did not disarm and we went back to Chirac and he pulled an about face on us.

We can discuss that all night (or day), but that's part of the arrogance of the US towards any other country. Believe it or not, but you guys really need Europe, as we need the US. We talk together about problems, the US just goes to the UN because 'buddy' Chirac said they would support a war. Can't you see yourself that something isn't quite right in that?
On another note, the US fights in Iraq without the support of the UN, but the UN members are good enough to pay for humanistic help and for the rebuild of Iraq afterwards.
Anyway, I'm going to bed.
I just hope no civilians are being killed and the US get what ever it is they want really really fast.

Well we finally agree on something. I just hope our crazy president does not want to take over Belgium.

Reply to this and you'll have 1000 posts
edit: too late lol

I need someone to explain this to me. Many people say we are going to war because Saddam may (emphasis on may) have nuclear weapons or could be planning on building. Well guess what. Lots of countries have nuclear weapons. Take for example North Korea, we know they have them and they have even shown a willingness to use them. Shouldent we be concentrating on dissarming him?

Some people say his is a horrible evil dictator. This is true, but you know what, there are many horrible dictators out there even more evil than Saddam. Again, pointing to North Korea, Kim Jong II is about as evil as it gets. He turns away doctors that want to help the thousands of starving children that live there, if you can call it living. They have no bread. All stores carry is alchohol. He blasts propaganda across the nation, convicing the people that the US is the root of all evil (true?) His people are'nt even permitted to use the Internet. *GASP* could you imagine that? No internet? And why are'nt we attacking them instead? Simply because they are freinds with China. Simple enough?

What I'm saying is, if this war is about getting rid of the evil regime that resides in Iraq, we should also try in get rid of all the rest of the evil dictators out in the world too. And that will take a long, long...time. So why Iraq? Why out of all the evil countrys Iraq? There has to be some kind of reason if its about freeing the people?

Its about oil really. For years we have been holding his hand after the "cease fire" back in 91. That way he keeps selling oil to us. Then bam. 911 happens. If the Bush administartion could somehow link 911 to Iraq it would be a perfectly good excuse to go in and steal all of his black gold. So thats exactly what they did. A poll showed that 90% of americans thought that Iraq had something to do with 911. But he didn't. Saddam and Osama are actually enemies.

Can you remember the last time the name 'Osama Bin Laden' was spoken on the news? We never killed him, and he is the one responsible for the pain and suffering of so many familys. So why have we lost so much interest in him? Is it on purpose?

And you wonder why we have no support from the UN and other countries. Now is not the time for war, if there ever is a time.

--Fingel

Who has the most oil?
#1 Saudi Arabia
#2 Iraq
#3 U.A.E.
#4 Kuwait
#5 Iran

Who buys Iraq's oil?
#1 US
#2 France
#3 Italy
#4 Canada
#5 Netherlands

Most nations were against immediate war not any war. Including France, Canada, Mexico, and just about everyone. France is not against the US. They just wanted more time, in fact they submitted a formal UN plan to go to war at a later date, if the inspections did not work,which the US said no to. We just could wait. France quotes experts who say that more weapons were found by the inspectors and destroyed by them, then the US destroyed in the whole first gulf war.