[Aluscia]

A - The problem with looking at World War II as an example is that it is largely (if not solely) a product of World War I imperialism. Hitler wouldn't have existed if the Treaty of Versailles (a document all about greed and removal of sovereignty) hadn't been written. I guess what I'm trying to say is that WWII was almost inevitable, because England and France allowed Germany to be punished for all the accumulated sins of the war. This isn't the case this time. The US is attacking a soverign state because it believes that its leader doesn't have the right to rule. They are dictating instead that the nation should be thrown into turmoil in hopes of having some living people left to inherit the land and begin a "democracy," according to US influence. So, by and large, comparing WWII to this war is like comparing Watermelons to Cherries.

B - How about disarming the nation and encouraging them to peace by giving them international support? You can only take so much away before you kill any hopes of kindness or fairness. It's obvious that embargos only hurt the poor. How is this war going to be any different? If a nation doesn't have any need to conquer, then war can be avoided altogether, can't it? It's just a matter of removing the need to conquer. Yes, Saddam needs to be cast down. Yes, he should have been removed after the last war. However, this war is going to hurt everyone else in that nation before hurting Saddam. He'll make sure of it.

C - (Although unrelated, as I support the global anti-terrorism work) If I were the President of the United States after September 11th, I would have done the same thing with Al-Qaida that has been done. I would have worked at beefing up my own country's defense, and I would have worked on sweetening my international rapport, and worked on building more bridges with the Islamic community to avoid the kind of sentimentality that lead up to the attack. If it were known that the US was an ally to Islamic people around the world, then it would be difficult for extremist groups to operate because the fringes would be at least partially fond of them.

As I have stated since Bush was elected, his international policies have made enemies of a lot of people. While there's no way to tell what could have been avoided if he were even half the international man Clinton was (and the amount of peace that we've lived through since the Gulf war is a testament to that), I do know that nothing that has happened in Bush's reign has been helped by his lack of worldliness.

I'm sorry that I don't support a war. I'm sorry that it's easier to defend a war when your nation has the most powerful army in the world. I refuse, however, to be swayed by American jingoism, especially relating to this war, when I believe in peace and love, in the working out of problems by talking and compromising, as opposed to demanding and conquering. I bow out of this forum now. I'm tired of being the only one who doesn't support this war, or any for that matter.