I loved ‘still’, the last NIN stuff you were talking about. I listen to parts of it just about every day. I especially like the last two tracks.
I really hope they’re doing some nice instrumentals for the new album. Although in the few statements about the new album they said it was going to be more raw, aggressive and electronic. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but I just hope there are some quiet pieces on the album, too. 
Fabi
Fabi wrote
My point is, and will be, a clear and equal representation of the facts.
Thats all. 
OKie Dokie, I think i understand the complication now, and i understand the opinon of what you were saying at that time.
Well NIN always has some quiet moments on almost every ablum, so i think we might get one or two. 
O-yeah…War Sucks 
So that is what that little red guy is saying.
I Thought it was oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.
good one. 
Lot’s of good points.
I think one of the things that accounted for so many civilian deaths were side effects of a nucelar attack that we weren’t aware of at the time. The main concern about deciding whether to invade or nuke Japan was the the amount of american deaths. An invasion would result in a massive loss life for America. I guess the government was more concerned about the american soldiers than the japanese civilians. It’s arguable about who needs more protection. At the time, a lot of people thought all the japanese were evil (i.e. the internment camps) so the decision was pretty one-sided.
The reason we are trying for diplomacy in North Korea and not Iraq is because it has a better chance or working in North Korea. We’ve tried talking and the inspections in Iraq, but very little progress has been made from it. Last I heard about North Korea was that they and South Korea have been trying to get back together for a long time (That’s why they participated in the 2002 Olympics under the name Korea). That would be a much better solution than war and it’s also realistic. All the talk about North Korea contemplating attacking America is because the North Korean leader (I forget his name) is extremely confrontational and very afraid that North Korea is next after Iraq.
Oh yeah, congratulations everyone. This is probably the first thread about international conflicts i’ve seen on the internet that didn’t immediately turn into an argument with people bashing and slandering eachothers countries.
Yes i think it’s very civilized. I go on a bus to school and there are about 30 people with about 15-20 different nationalities. (i go to a very multicultural school) and i am surprised at the amount of rasism is said to one another (they don’t say it too harshly and the people only take it lightly). I think its sad that the world can’t just work out their differences rationally and peacefully.
Yeah. The US should leave Saddam alone. They should have left Hitler alone too. After all, Hitler never attacked the U.S. until after we attacked him. Oh, and while we’re at it, the US should never have pursued S.D.I. (and therewith brought about an end to the Soviet Union) because hey, the Soviets never attacked the U.S. either.
Okay, now for my real thoughts…
Unfortunately, the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. It is a horrible, sad fact. If the men and women who love freedom do not present a unified, capable military front, then the despots of the world will aggressively seek to rule the aforementioned. Saddam proved it by attacking Kuwait, the Soviets proved it repeatedly. Hitler proved it blatantly and repeatedly. The old Japanese Empire proved it. Militant and Radical Islamic Jihadists prove it even now. Despots throughout history have proven that the enemies of freedom will always put power before humanity.
Some have said that the US should have a pacafist president. Pacafist comes from the root ‘pacify’ which means to appease. Those who sought to appease despots such as Hitler (remember ‘Peace in Our Time’, the wonderful treaty Hitler signed just before attacking Europe?) were proven wrong, and if given the opportunity to succeed, those who seek to appease Hussein will be proven wrong. Appeasement has no effect on a despot because a despot has one goal: domination at any cost. A despot does not value human life. The countries in which most all of you live are more or less free. Your governments, for the most part, value human life. Which of you has lived under the ravages of a madman such as Saddam?
Is Bush 100% just, forthright, and honest? I don’t know. Maybe not. He wasn’t my first choice for US president, to be sure. Has the US made some stupid diplomatic choices in the past century? Absolutely. But at this point in history, is it worth the risk to sit back and wait, hoping that Hussein won’t attack anyone or give chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons to Al Quaida? I think not.
Two years ago I would have been completely against any military action against Iraq. But two years ago I lived in innocence, and had no idea what it meant for my friends and neighbors to be senselessly killed by terrorists. But even if Saddam were never going to give his weapons to terrorists, and even if he never attacked Israel again (a humorous ‘if’) and even if he never again attempted to ‘annex’ Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, I would still be for removing him. Why? Because I have recently started to learn what is happening to innocent Iraqis every day at the hand of Saddam’s regime.
But, you might say, what’s worse? getting killed by Saddam or getting killed by a US bomb? When my country was in it’s infancy, Patrick Henry, one of our founders said, “I know not what course others may follow, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” And even if some would choose life over liberty, I can all but personally gaurantee you that the US will not kill 2 million innocent muslims as Hussein has already done.
I don’t want a war. I wish Saddam Hussein would simply leave or disarm, and take away any pretext for a US attack on Iraq. I hope it still happens. I PRAY it still happens. But if it does not, I pray that the loss of innocent life is minimal, and that the battle ends quickly so that the people of Iraq can taste freedom for the first time in most of their lives, and so that we, the evil, wicked, oppressive americans can rebuild that country with our money and allow it’s people to thrive and breathe free air as free men and women.
I honestly believe that many world leaders want the US to fail because they are resentful of the fact that the US has not yet converted to socialism. I believe that in the case of the French and Russians, they want Saddam in power because of their multiple billions of dollars in oil interests in Iraq. I believe the Chinese want the US to fail because they envy the US position as a superpower, and want to join the US in that status. Are any of these bad or illigitimate reasons? Perhaps to some degree, perhaps not. But summarily dismissing the US position as being ‘all about oil’ is crass. Is oil a factor? Absolutely. Is it the major factor? Well, ask the poor, enslaved, oppressed, often tortured Iraqi people whether they give a damn WHY they have been freed once it’s all over.
It’s easy for us to sit in front of our computers in our first world, rich countries and pontificate about the evils of war. I wonder how easy it is for the oppressed to live from day to day wondering whether they will be killed for merely offering a viewpoint that opposes Saddam Hussein.
I respect all opinions, and I know that both sides are passionate about theirs. If you disagree with me, thank GOD IN HEAVEN (if you believe there is one) that you have the freedom to do so.
Just that made me upset, The Usa should of Left Hitler Alone!, I cant belive what people think these days. So are you all about burning people too?(just to keep in Mind, wasnt Hitler going for Black people next??)
You do know that the UN (and thus the US) is partly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of in iraq due to their sanctions, right? Saddam is far less dangerous now, than he was when the US supported him during his atrocities.
Do you really think the US want peace and democracy? Why then did they wage a terrorist war on Nicaragua, why did they go into Vietnam? Just so I am not being misunderstood here, I am NOT talking about ‘mistakes’. Those were deliberate and deadly choices, and the ‘intervention’ in Nicaragua for example has never been regreted. People are still just as proud of it as ever.
Of course I agree that Saddam is probably as evil as they come, but I doubt that the US have any interest in the people of Iraq. They didn’t care about them till now, even charged people who brought much needed medicine into Iraq, what does that tell you? I am not even generally against helping the people of Iraq by use of force, but I am really not convinced.
Fabi
He was being sarcastic.
Except when Saddam invaded Kuwait we did present a unified front, and now he no longer presents a similar kind of threat. I think the comparison to Hitler is weak, Hitler invaded Poland, France, and pushed through Europe. Iraq has been militarily impotent for the last decade, crippled by sanctions. There is nothing to suggest that Iraq suddenly poses a danger now that he hasn’t for the last twelve years.
We simply can’t have a situation where pre-emptive strikes against any state is justified on the basis that they might pose a threat at some point in the future.
Al-Qaida, not Iraq. No link has ever been proven and so they should be treated as separate ‘threats’, otherwise there’s a danger of lumping any undesireable international situation under the title ‘War on Terror’ in order to facilitate action in the wake of 9/11.
The UN estimates as many as half a million civilian casualties due to a war in Iraq. Half a million! In a country where more than half of the population is under 15 years old.
Of course there’s no ultimate difference in being killed by Saddam or the US, but the latter would be on our heads, it’d be a result of needless military action on our part.
And no, 2 million innocent muslims wouldn’t die, but is that really a good justification for war? “We wouldn’t kill quite as many people as he has”?
The world is full of dictators, full of countries in which people are oppressed, or tortured for speaking out against the regime. But we, the West, are not the world’s policeman. We can’t stride round the world knocking everyone into shape, denying anyone the right to create weapons that we’ve had for decades, we have to use diplomacy to alter regimes we object to, military action should only be applied when there is a specific threat to us or where major international instability is threatened. Pre-emptive strikes against Iraq fall into neither of these categories.
Although that’s precisely what you’ve done with the position of the French and Russians.
So who’s next after Iraq? North Korea? Syria? Sudan? Any of the other right-wing dictatorships who aren’t threatening us but potentially could do in the future?
I completely agree that the situation for the people of Iraq is deplorable, Saddam is a cruel dictator and his exile should be called for, I simply don’t believe that invasion is warranted.
I must say, Davion, I absolutely agree with your views.
It’s just too bad we can’t all just get along, and that there has to be all this senseless loss of innocent lives. But I guess greed, power, hate, jealousy, etc. drives many people now-a-days.
Well ppl I first want to Compliment all by behaving so respectful to eachother 
Then I want to say…one reason why we will experience this all from our own point of view, is because we all have our own point of view.
I mean for the Americans after what happend at 11 september it will be a total different experience then for ppl from other nations. I mean 11 september was a real shock at all emotional levels for the Americans. And i can understand that yes!
Second you can say many things for or against war, against Saddam and Iraq…really!
I was in chatrooms and ppl in favor for removing saddam say…
PPl against it say;
So it aint that easy at all…to bad though… 
Further i wanne say that it also drives america away from the rest of the world and that is a big price to pay, even for the Americans.
I say a to big price! United we stand devided we all fall.
Look at france…they are in a sort of light boycot with their products but what if france does the same back…no winners all sides lose in fact.
Were trust desolves in distrust and anger all will lose.
I end with my telling that it aint so clear what is the best to do here…really.
We all want that because then we are at the good side.
I think history will show here as usual who is right and who is wrong later.
And were you stand yourself, well follow your own heart and respect the choice of others in this. The main thing you do by talking about it is to learn the other persons perspective when you listen to them 
I hope what ever happens we learn from this and i hope the Americans as well as the rest of the world give eachother a little respect
Thats even more important then the Iraq topic.
Jeff
Now i think of it…wouldnt it be grand if we had a super matrix like computer program of the world and its situation…
So we could c what action would have what consequence if we took it…So we would be able to c whats the best way to do in every situation!
All pure fantasy of course, but i find it a nice one lol 
Jeff
Ha, that would be pretty cool, kind of like predicting the weather.
Anyway, none of us want to have to go to war, so what is the best alternative? The inspections don’t seem to be getting us anywhere because of Saddam refusing to fully cooperate. And lets say we do find a nuclear arsenal as a result of the inspections, but Saddam refuses to give them up? Wouldn’t that result in a war too? Fighting would be needed if we wanted to overthrow Hussein’s regime because there is no way we are going to talk them out giving up their dictatorship. Assassinating Saddam wouldn’t accomplish a whole lot because he’d just be replaced with someone just as evil. Supporting a revolution by the Iraqi people would also involve fighting and I’m not sure how successful it would be as Saddam isn’t afraid to use chemical weapons on his own people or torturing anyone. A constant occupation of Iraq would be very expensive and again Saddam wouldn’t let us go anywhere we want inside Iraq.
Any other ideas? 
Yes, I did oversimplify matters with France. They are not only interested in oil, but they also supply Iraq with nuclear reactors and other tools they need to build WMD’s, as does Germany.
As for whether the US will attack the PRNK, Sudan, Iran, others… I don’t know. But consider this… Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement and has not abided by it. The UN and US have given them 12 years and 17 resolutions to come into compliance. If the same longsuffering is given to other nations, it will be a LOOONG time before we find out whether the US will ask the security council to take military action against anyone else. LOL!
As for their being no evidence of any WMD’s, I quess I’ll put it like this… if we know they had them, and we know Hussein is anal retentive about keeping records, then why didn’t Iraq state that they were destroyed in the Dec. 7 declaration? It was as if they existed one day and now they don’t. Furthermore, here is some evidence for WMD’s two Iraqi scientists IN CHARGE of WMD programs have recently defected and talked about them. And finally, on one hand Saddam claims he has no WMD’s and then later he warns that if the US invades he will use WMD’s…
As for things the US has done wrong in the past, well I don’t run the country. I believe that many mistakes have been made. And I also believe that if you name for me any other major power in the world, I can within 10 minutes write a report that makes them look just as bad or worse. Every country has done bad things - period. Whether others are proud of the evils they’ve done, I can’t say. I am not. One big difference between the US and some other (not all) places in the world is that we tend to correct many of our problems. Take slavery for example. The americans ended slavery, and with any luck we will have a black president soon (Powell, if I get my wish.) But on the continent of africa, slaves are still kept today!!! Are the conditions exactly the same? Probably not in many cases, but a slave is a slave. I know someone will say ‘It’s not as bad.’ But if you do, you miss the point. Start from the top of the paragraph again.
The main point of my first post was to state that we should help the Iraqi people. I don’t care whether the US government is sincere. I don’t care why they want to go to Iraq. I know that the result will be that the Iraqis will be helped. For 13 years I have hoped for the demise of Hussein, thinking it would occur via uprising or assassination. I am not mainstream, and I am not the government. I believe he will never go unless killed or forced out, and I think someone has to do it.
The UN says that .5 million Iraqis will die. They also said that the US would fail in Afghanistan. Having a little bit of a military strategy background, let me just say that it is very difficult to kill .5 million people on a battlefield, much less .5 million people scattered throughout cities. The US would have to ATTEMPT to kill that many to succeed. Go back through your history books and see how many people died in all of WWII. That is not to say that some people won’t die. They absolutely will. Perhaps thousands will die. I guess the difference between my viewpoint and the viewpoint of others is this: what is better? to save the lives of 1000 or more and keep millions people enslaved for decades or longer, or to free the masses by ending the tyranny of an evil men.
Nobody having this discussion wants the Iraqis to be harmed. The problem is here that we all want EXACTLY the same thing, but we disagree in how to acheive it.
IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS**
The appeasers (France, Germany, Russia) believe (or so they say) that diplomacy and containment is the way to acheive an end to the trouble in Iraq. How many people has Saddam Hussein killed, raped, tortured (side note: saddam has professional rapists on staff. nice, huh?) in the last twelve years while we’ve waited for diplomacy to work? How many times has he been given a last chance? How successful has this strategy been? In that he hasn’t tried to invade anyone yet it has been fairly successful. But it has been an utter failure when it comes to disarmament and providing any aid to the Iraqi people.
BOTTOM LINE FOR ME: how many Iraqis have suffered in the last twelve years? an @$$load.
The UK/US/Spain view is basically that Saddam has had long enough. We will go get him and free his people. People will die. Both americans, Iraqis, British, and others will die.
BOTTOM LINE FOR ME: how many will die during the conflict? How many will be FREED for years to come as a result?
I believe that fewer will die as a result of the conflict, and certainly the results of freeing those people can’t be quantified mathematically. Moreover, there will be no madman running the country to constantly kill, rape, torture, and enslave. But for the love of God, why can’t the appeasers see that there are some things worse than death?
THE SADDEST THING… in all of this is that none of it had to happen at all. Because George H. W. Bush, former president of these United States was a FOOL and didn’t change the Iraqi regime when he had the chance (and I lump the same disdain upon the other member nations of the security council for joining that decision) the Iraqis have suffered 12 years longer. G. H. W. Bush could have stopped this all before it started, but he was to weak-minded to do so.
The last thing I have to say is this: It doesn’t require a long look for me to come to the conclusion that the UN itself, while not a military threat, is the enemy of the United States, and the enemy of any nation wishing to retain it’s sovreignty. In that respect, I quietly agree with the Chinese. The world needs to be more unified, and we need a more homogenous form of government. Indeed, eventually I believe a single worldwide fedearation will become a reality. But the current so-called world governing body is a joke to me. They are full of platitudes, devoid of action, and lacking in merit. And 18th, 19th, 20th, or even 30th resolution telling Hussein to disarm will be just as meaningless as the first 17.
If someone else has a better idea, I would like to hear it. Since we all agree on the need, but disagree on the cure, we should discuss alternatives. Seriously, if there’s a way to rid Iraq of Hussein and his ‘toys’ that doesn’t involve the loss of innocent life, let’s figure out what it is.
I am personally all for assassination. Any thoughts on that?
Hi Davion, Yeah i like Powell to for president and i am not even an american! You are right that you could probably easy make a list that not only would make america look bad but also any other nation or country Lets just Say politics is still much about power and ego end selfishness. Because America has a big influence it just is much more in the picture usually then a small country. I would say, better then to point our finger, is to look how we can be constructive in all situations. I think much has to do with we still have (to dare) to experience the reward of working together then against eachother. This world makes progress but very very slowly and not at all places world wide with the same speed lol.
Yes your right, after the first gulfwar it would have been better if they ended Saddams power right away…then using sanctions and changing nothing at all. So many ppl in Iraq died for nothing because of the sanctions and because of saddam.
I myself dont believe anybody can say how many will die in a war because no one knows the tactics that will be used or how soon iraq ppl will surrender. Hard to say.
Yeah it sucks… I myself hope that the Americans in favor for war dont judge the part of the world to hard that chooses not to be in favor for war!
(And visa versa of course)
Because like i said…ego will only backfire at us all, even for American economy its handy to dont be an isolated island. I heard some Americans in a chat say “Let america drop the whole world” but i say that would backfire at america to…Ego doesnt know a bit about respect or modesty.
And respect and modesty is what this world needs most in our contact with eachother.
Jeff
I had a thought recently that is slightly possible, that Bush could be doing everything he has done up until now just to put pressure on Hussein and not actually going to go to war. If this is the case, I would commend him. But, of course i think we all would think that he will go through with a war. (good acting or true intentions?)
As for alternatives to war: I say let the inspectors do their job and give them as much time as needed. If they find WMD or if they find weapons breaching the UN then the UN could authorise disarmament by force. Not war, but going into Iraq stealthly and destroying them.
Or a very huge attempt to take Hussein out of power. Not necessarily by assasination, but by perhaps capturing him and taking him to another country. As for a replacement, a country could help Iraq set up a system in which its people could vote for a leader. A panel of Iraqis could be selected to go through nominations/applications for people to be a leader. Then the Iraqis could vote for one of these people. This should not take more than 2-3 months.
I suggest putting an Iraqi in power because from what i know the Iraqis disapprove of an American occupation. Putting America in charge of Iraq will just cause riots and disorder.
I have never heard this. I have only heard him say that he would be ready and willing to fight if necessary. Does anyone know what he said?
As for your paragraph about saying the differences between the US and other countries. Just as you say that you do not run the US, every individual in Africa does not run their own nation. I don’t thinkn this issue should be about what countries have done what in the past and what countries haven’t. I agree, every country has soumthing bad about it and every country has done something wrong in the past and we can’t bame the present people for those actions.
If the US is going to use those new weapons (not sure what they are called) or even nuclear weapons like people have speculated about, then it would be very easy to kill half a milllion civilians.
I know you want what’s best for the Iraqis, but perhaps killing them is not what’s best.
Finally about Bush’s dad not continuing… i think it was the right choice at the time, it is right to give a nation a chance, only in heinsight can we see that the leader of Iraq didn’t seize the oppurtunity to do what’s right.