Jessie

I suggest you read up on your political knowledge, friend... As a politics major, I have learned over and over that there is a fine line between -Hitler (national socialist, or fascist) -Mao (communist) -Stalin (communist) and Mussolini (militarian fascist leader) none of these leaders were truly socialist.... do you know what socialism even means??

Aisa, Static brings up a valid point that citizens of developing nations have been alienated and must work more to gain such a subsistant amount of pay. Perhaps these people you have seen in Indonesia line up everyday in order to find work... but once they become employed, they are exploited and are forced to make inadequate pay and must feed their family with this. It's great that you have contributed your opinion and approve of sweatshops, but in no way should they be supported if the corporations hiring the workers are not willing to pay them adequate money for their long hours of work. Here's some proof to the inequalities going on in the world regarding wealth.... United Nations statistics... http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/we...bution1999.html Such sweatshops are also found off the coast of Florida, in Haiti, and these people are forced to work in such poor conditions to make subsistent pay. Also, they are treated poorly by the managers of the sweatshop, who are paid far more for doing less than the workers themselves... don't believe me? Here's a good read that will fill you in on all of the details behind sweatshop labour.... "Students against Sweatshops" -Liza Featherstone... Published by Verco, in New York and London By the way.... why is this industry called "sweatshop" anyway??? Why not just a shoe making factory or clothes making factory if the industry was so fair to its workers... By the way, Aisa, I have held several jobs

good argument ... definately a researcher, what i like to see!

A souce from rotten.com??? Perhaps if the source was a little more academically thought out this point would be more thought out. If you are gaining informatin from such a website on political issues, you are looking in all the wrong places.... how about some government webpages?

At least back you opinion up when stating it... this contributes nothing, but an uneducated opinion... All I was doing was clarifying what Static had written... nothing else

Communist states have been run by highly authoritarian leaders in the past (i.e.- Russia... 1917-1991)... The arguement at hand is not how "communism" failed in the past.... but how "socialist" ideas can, in some cases, be more equality-based when implemented than many capitalist ideas. There is a fine line between Marx's socialism and communist regimes.... here's some info to help educate you on this subject.... http://www.usd.edu/honors/HWB/hwb_l/comvssoc.htm

My favourite Ayn Rand book would have to be We The Living....

One can, however violate 'rules' that do exist... If an Iraqi were to speak up about their thoughts on Hussein, they would be killed, just as people who openly disagreed with Hitler were punished...

The problem is Saddam has forbid people to state their thoughts, and they have not "allowed" him to do this, but he has forced them to submit themselves to oppression since if they do state their thoughts, they will be killed. If they were to all state their thoughts I would have no doubt in my mind that millions would die under Saddam's regime.

Halley, Many of your points are irrevalent, in fact many of your opinions are irrevalent as well... You are not welcome here if your points are simply to argue that you are right... Some educated insight would be nice instead

Any irrational person would consider it their own duty to overthrow the government when they already know that the penalty for this would be death... Any rational person would realise that in putting their life in danger in order to defeat an authoritarian government, they would get nowhere, as the government is so powerful and emotionless that by killing people to avoid defeat is nothing new to authoritarians. I mean, perhaps the Iraqis would be seen as "honourable" for attempting to do this, but it is possible that many would see this as another life lost.... And the American's first priority when going into a country that is not theirs should be the preservation of civilians, and then follows the abolishment of the government.

I hope to God such a person as Richard halley, with such degrading and one sided thoughts never has the opportunity to become president.... haha, then America would have more enemies than they ALREADY have peace in the middle east, i'm outta here Jmac

Richard Halley, WHY do they want every American dead?

Richard Halley... As a Canadian, viewing this situation from another perspective than you, the vast majority does not like what Bush is doing in Iraq... Our Prime Minister even failed to agree with Bush's intervention in Iraq. We are not alone with our dislike of the Bush's military action.

Old Salt, If you would like answers that are not thought out, take a look at the posting with a picture of bombs!? In no way was I intending to agrue with you specifically, but to state some facts and arguements for those who have been writing as though "the US knows best" and will show Islam that through military action.... It is sad....

Hello, I just happened to find this webpage today, and would also like to share some input on the situation in Iraq. In order to fully understand the concept of Islam, Iraq, and the Middle East under the context of US opinion, it is completely necessary to first, go back in history and try to understand the present political and religious dispute. If you have done that already, you will know that when the Ottoman Empire fell after WWI, Britain and France, because of their victory, took on the job of 'sectioning' off the Middle East into various territories, which is now their sovereign nations, but failing to take into consideration the various ethic, religious, and racial differences that the Islam world possesses. Instead, they separated the land, based on their resources in order attempt to gain from them what they sought out. Because they were the world 'superpower' at this time in history, their orientalist thoughts ruled over their common sense... As superpowers, they felt that their attempt at colonizing and sparating the Middle East was in everyone's best interest, which was not the case. Thus, we are left with a situation where religions clash, not because of their differences (incase you do not know this 97% of Iraq is Muslim, but of different forms, just as Christianity may be protestant, roman catholic, anglican, etc.) These different forms of Muslim are predominantly Shiites and Sunni, who don't conflict with each other because of religious differences, but because of the discrimination and poor living standards one (Sunni's) were given over the other (Shiites). And who alloted the wealth of each section of the Muslim faith? The British after WWI... Now, as for the political scene, it is far too ethnocentric and stereotypical for one to group the WHOLE Iraqi nation as one. Saddam Hussein's authoritarian power in Iraq allocated all of the nation's wealth to those who were his relatives and the Baathist militia (Hussein being a Baatist military figurehead as well). After decades of manipulation, and interrogation, the Iraqi people have lived in fear and without freedom, forcing themselves to comply with Hussein's power and secret police, for fear of their lives. In order to speak of the Iraqi people, it is more useful in arguing to group them differently than as one people. Perhaps the military (Hussein's followers), the Sunni, the Shiites would help distinguish the people, since the majority of them have been oppressed by Hussein and are not followers of them. They simply would be killled if they rose up against him. A good example of this would be Hitler's totalitarian regime in Germany from 1939-1945. I would like to finish my argument by enlightening you WITHOUT a "one sided" opinion on why the Americans have not been well recieved by the Iraqi people, whether they are followers of Hussein or, usually not followers at all! To put this simply, the Islamic people, dating back to the first world war, have had no sovereignty at all. Not only did the Brits and French split the Middle East up, but the US, since they have become the new economic superpower, have taken over the old superpower's role of going into a nation (where obviously western thought has not been well recieved since WWI) and have attempted to once again, place western ideals on a nation that is clearly not interested in becoming part of the west. They have a right to not wish this, since they have been exploited by Hussein, the Baathist, the French, the British, and the US in regard to oil. Just try to put your perspective at a more international level... The US are tryin to maintain peace, abolish Hussein's militia, and mainly, democratise the Middle East. Clearly this would have been a job that the UN would be responisble to take on, but unfortunately, Bush's administrative was too trigger happy and unable to compromise completely and work solidly with the UN. If you would like to find more resources on how Bush was concieved by the various country representatives within the UN, feel free to do so, and you will notice that he wasn't liked at all by some. Another note to add would the media's domination of the US people... and in case you don't know what I mean by this, I mean the television's broadcast of the "war on Iraq"... they failed to uncover how many Iraqi civilians have died, but made a clear atttempt to portray the American soldiers that were killed.... the ratio of innocent civilian deaths to US/UN/Canadian military this is tantamount... there is something wrong with this picture.... ladies and gentlemen, this is propaganda at its best in YOUR backyard. Cheers, Jessie