China, Russia, other countries to attack USA

[Lady Luck]

My prediction. Bank on it. Iraq will ask the UN to do something about the invasion & assassination attempt of a leader of a country on the UN Security Council. China & Russia have already condemned the USA's actions. Since basically every nation on the UN Security Council is AGAINST the USA's policies regarding this war, there will be NO problem getting enough votes to authorize use of force against the USA. After all, the US DID violate the UN by invading/ attacking/ attempt to assassinate elected leader.

:neutral:

[M4A1]

China and Russia won't be able to come as one to attack US. They have similar political views and are good trade partners, but there are many differences that set these 2 nations apart from being absolute strategic allies. The only way for that to happen, is for us to be stupid and attack both of them at the same time. So the likelihood of having both of these nations attacking us as some sort of an alliance is nearly impossible.

First of all, China is increasingly getting more involved in free trade, they are turning more capitalistic by seconds. More and more Chinese businessman and so called "communist" leaders are getting more wealthy and start to own lands. When that happens, they do not want to lose their wealth and status. They'll seek to it that no future events will take those things away from them. So why fight a bloody war, when they can live in huge mansions with 10 mistresses while foreigners keep coming to China to open factories and utilize the excess labor force?

Russia, altough good friends with the Chinese, has had disputes with them in the past. After fall of the Soviet Union, China is actually doing more well in economics. They kept their iron grip on the population while slowly opening up its doors for free trade.

Plus both of these nations have their own shares of violations. China has the worst human rights record. Russia is ruthless in dealing with Chechens. If either of these nations were put in our place, they would not be so considerate about war-- like how we try to minimize casualties both on civilian front and military front. You saw in Tiananmen square in 1989 where the Chinese just "rolled" over college students, shredded them with bullets. If they have no remorse in doing something like that to their own people, you can just imagine what they would do when dealing with people that's not from their country-- especially if that country has an inferior military.

Anyway I don't think countries will pass a resolution to attack us. Just that some nations will probably not listen to us or the UN in the future when they are doing their own things.

[TankgirlyC]

The UN is not the source of permission to bomb or declare war. For the US that would be congress.
As for China and Russia I dont know what they need for them to make that decision.....I need to read up on this.

However...the UN is in place to KEEP peace and for leaders of different countries to get together to talk about what they should do as a collaborative force.

If it was the case that China and Russia wanted to come and bomb us or declare war....the UN isnt going to let that happen. They have NO reason to harm us....we havent done anything to their countries.

Now as for the war in Iraq....yes we are taking a leader out of power...but he is a DICTATOR....so its on the same level as us taking out Hitler, Fidel Castro or any of the other Dictators.
I should also note that we have 35 COUNTRIES backing our force in Iraq.

[purpledance]

I've been watching the news but I'm not sure who these 35 countries supporting the US are. Does anyone know for sure or this propaganda?

As for the an attach on the US, it is unlikely because there is little international support for conflict. However, the question of the international response to the US invading Iraq, is certainly a question for debate. When Iraq invade Kewait (starting the last Gulf War), the US was quick to respond. Now they take the same action the condemned before. This sounds a hypocritical to me.

[klo1335]

I have been looking online to find a list of the countries that are supporting Bush but can't find a list. All the articles say are 30 countries support Bush but only mention Great Britian and Australia. I will keep looking throughout the day.

[pisces2473]

I heard that some of the countries are little teeny ones that (no offense) really don't matter on the large global scale. Their populations are probably the equivalent to the numbers of troops in our armed forces. Sure, the number 30 sounds great, but if the countries are little and don't have much of an army of their own, how good will their support be?

[TankgirlyC]

They obviously arent going to release a list because it could endanger these countries for their support....Australia, Britain and the US..are the BIG HONCHOS so their names are going to stand proud.

[Kasia]

I would not be surprised if these countries were bullied into saying they support the US. Remember, they are not backing up that support with troops, money, aid, or even their own names. If you were the leader of oh, I don't know...Belize...and Bush called you up on the phone, what would you say? So many smaller countries depend largely on the US for trade/aid. Interesting that we can't find a list of these countries, though, isn't it?

[Benwa]

I've said in other posts to keep an eyeball on China. Don't for one second think they aren't thinking of how to use this war to their advantage. They are, in my opinion, much more shrewd than USA. They lay low and hide, then all of a sudden they pounce. You can tell when America's coming and we are very predictable.

China has been preaching for a long time how there shouldn't be a huge super power to rule the world. They point to historical examples like Roman Empire. They say the only way to get rid of this empirial like rule is if China is in charge. this is obviously a bunch of bull and I'm sure they would pull just as much crap as we do. But it is clear they have designs on us.

If there is a huge war, they could give us a run for the money. Or they might slide in without firing a single shot. They are that slick. So sit back and watch the fun. It would be interesting to see how they run the show. Imagine, for the first time in ages, a non-white country will be in charge.

[M4A1]

They say the only way to get rid of this empirial like rule is if China is in charge.

Ben I don't where you get that idea from.

They are a pretty diverse group of people. They are good in certain department that we aren't and are bad in many departments which we excel at. Have you been to any parts of China? or studied their history or culture? They are certainly interesting. But I don't think they are more shrewd than we are.

... and especially when you say "we", who is "we"? there are plenty of Chinese Americans here. Aren't they helping out to cancel certain disadvantages?

[LittleLady23]

You all ask what are the countries supporting the war with Irag? You can't find who? Nobody big supporting it?

Well if you go on Yahoo and type in "Countries in support of war" it came right up.

15 do not want to be identified (which experts say they are China's leaders, a few of Russia's leaders and Canadian leaders who do not want to come forward and "piss" off their own country)

And the 30 that are Identifying themselves are: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, Uzbekistan and the United States.

I think there more "power houses" involved in this War than whats being led on. Just look above.

[pisces2473]

And the 30 that are Identifying themselves are: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, Uzbekistan and the United States.

Some of those countries are sooo tiny and/or have recently had war in their country/region. The Balkan nations listed above (Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia) have had their share of problems with the breakup of Yugoslavia (and yes, I know that only Macedonia was ACTUALLY in Yugoslavia, but the other two listed were pretty close). The former Soviet republics are still dealing with economic problems (Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan) as well as Chechnyan refugees trying to enter their country. The African countries totally speak for themselves--ETHIOPIA??? They've been starving for YEARS! The European countries listed are probably our best bet...

[dakotagopher]

At the end of the day, it wouldn't have mattered if not a single other nation supported the USA on this issue-the USA would be proceeding in exactly the same manner as it is now proceeding. The Bush administration has become convinced that establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq is the best long-term strategy toward defending our nation from terrorists-and since we cannot allow other nations to dictate our defense strategies, the UN was a moot point from the get-go. Whether you agree with the rationality/means of the Bush objective is up to you and is obviously open to much debate. What I am glad to see is a president who appears to be willing to do what he feels is principled/right even though it may not be popular (and in this case, I feel Bush's strategy is a good one, though very challenging and expensive). Bush is betting his second term on this war, and it can go bad in a hurry from a PR standpoint. I think something like 20-30 of "our" soldiers were killed or captured today. How many more Iraqi lives were lost? Horrible, absolutely stomach-turning. However, if this strategy prevents a 9-11 type attack using WMD (which would result in unthinkable deaths), history will judge Bush as the best president since FDR. Of course if the war goes badly or drags on a while, Bush will have blown his legacy along with his second term.

[roxchris]

I'm not sure that the US will attack any other countries. If this war is successful it will show other countries that you don't mess with the US -->I think that this is Bush's objective. What do you all think about the Russians company helping Iraq against US sanctions? And France also being linked to breaking trade regulations against Iraq? Also I was watching Frontline on PBS and I just couldn't believe that this Iraq problem and US relations began in the 1980's during the Carter administration. Why didn't the first Bush just finish him. He wanted to. And one thing I don't understand is that Clinton wanted to take out Sadam and actually dropped bombs on Iraq, but decide to save face because of his problems with Monica. I just don't get people. I am actually pretty pissed that this began in the 1980's and we put the Baath party in charge with the help of the CIA. The reason I am pissed is because my youngest brother is a Marine over there and he was born in 1980. Where were the protest from people, how come no one knew, why do we always assume that some people are nice, and when did we start accepting the lesser of two evils? Obviously, we trusted our diplomatic friends who assured us that the Baath party was good and Sadam a nice guy? I know that this is a lot to swallow. I was so outraged when I learned this trail to Iraq began a long time ago. Because the little I knew was from the first Gulf War when my older brother served. That is why when I see older protestors, I wonder why they weren't paying attention before. So many journalists were on this. I don't mean to piss anyone off. I really just wanted to vent.

[Benwa]

roxchris is right that we've been involved with this iraq deal for much longer than the public knew. We put him in power for gods sake. We sold him some of these weapons of mass destruction way back. How is it we are so sure he has the weapons if we can't find any evidence. France and Russia sold him stuff too, so it isn't all on us. I saw on CNN they were having "breaking information" that Iraq is using tanks sold to them by Russia. This fact has been known for a long time. Maybe its just a feeble attempt to stir up more hate in the American public for those who opposed us.

Theres alot of talk now about how ruthless he is to his people. He was ruthless even when we were on good terms with him. We knew about him gassing, killing and torturing his people. We only stepped in when he disobeyed us. Our rulers said he could fudge the Kuwait border and either he misunderstood (most probable) or ignored it and completely invaded Kuwait. You can do what you want to your people but just don't disobey your red, white and blue daddy.

I wouldn't mind seeing democracy over there, but a true democracy. Not like the one here in the states. They need a system where the people can decide for themselves. Our rulers are going to put in a system which will be easy for us to deal with. The Rulers want to make a good return on their war investment. It costs alot of money to kill them brown people. Too bad you can't take a dead brown person to a center and get a deposit back like a pop bottle. True freedom for the Iraqi people is of little or no concern. It makes for a good way to get the public to back you, flout some high moralistic cause. Because who would argue something that seems moralistically obvious. In fact it makes you look like a real horrible person if you don't want to fire up the jets and go in there. It looks wonderful on that CNN graphic too.

We are in dire need of a new revolution over here. The people need to have a say. It's rather embarassing that it may be thought that this war represents the american people. Support it or not, I doubt you handle your life situations the same way the rulers are handling this one. Even if you support us being over there, which you are entitled to, can you honestly say that those actions truly represent you. Do you kill people who disobey you? No, otherwise you'd be thrown in jail or be killed yourself. Why are the rulers immune to laws?

[klo1335]

Benwa...

---"We knew about him gassing, killing and torturing his people. We only stepped in when he disobeyed us."---

I totally agree with you. Isn't this the same thing that happened in Afghanistan? We knew all about how the treatment of women was over there. However, it didn't become a "popular thing" until after 9/11. The documentary made "Beneath the Burka" couldn't even be sold until after 9/11. And then after 9/11 it was on tv all the time and people were talking about the horrible treatment of women. I don't understand how the government can sit back and let things happen to people and don't do anything. Yet, when something directly affects us...all of a sudden the reason for us attacking them is to help the people! This really confuses me???

[pisces2473]

It confuses me too. THe ironic thing is that Oprah did some shows about what it is like for women living in patriarchical countries prior to 9/11, and with the power/draw of Oprah, NO ONE took a stand? That's amazing. It was only after thousands were killed, "Oh yeah, maybe we should do something." And I thought Oprah had a much better command over her audience....

[Benwa]

klo, I understand your concern. The answer is simple, but rather scary. They don't care about people. Human rights violations and near genocides make wonderful trump cards to keep in your back pocket. These incidents alone never seem to be enough to warrant action, but when other reasons for action are found, they make for great justification to the public.

the important thing to keep in mind is how much in bed with business our government is. Corporations have more legal rights than individuals. They live longer than individuals. They aren't accountable for their mistakes. What happens when a industrial area pollutes the environment, it is a public issue that is addressed with tax dollars. But profits from the business is always private. And the scariest thing in my opinion is that these entities that have so many rights and power don't have a soul. Corporations can't have a soul. Impossible. It is possible to have conscious people running them. But when accountability is negligible and benefits are high, people tend to drift towards the corrupt side. They eat and eat, with little concern of where or who their sh*t lands on. This is true with any gov't administration we've seen recently, it ain't all on W.

So when your main concern is making money and maintaining power, the masses aren't a factor. This war makes very good financial sense, at least for the rich. For the commoner it sucks. I still think what Saddam did to his people and anyone for that matter is wrong, but I don't like how its being used to win support. It then becomes our patriotic duty to "liberate" these poor people. And if you don't agree with the effort, then you must believe partially that gassing people is OK. This causes conflict in the population and fierce beliefs in who is right. While we're busy bickering with eachother, we aren't looking at what we should be looking at. They also throw in 9-11 which is a completely different issue involving completely different people. They are both brown and live in a desert, and sadly thats enough for most americans. "They all wear them there towels on their heads". Bin Laden is probably loving this war because he hates both US and Saddam. Why bring up 9-11, because it elicits an emotional response. Fear for safety and thoughts of revenge. This again helps win support for a war. We're being manipulated.

[klo1335]

Another thing that concerns me is the fact that we are always willing to help other countries people yet we never look internally. I am sure the people who live in North Philly have living conditions that aren't very good though not similar but just as bad as people who live in under-developed countries. Could someone explain this to me?

[M4A1]

There's a doctrines of "God will help you if you can help yourself". We do have some programs setup but the poor folks need to get motivated and help themselves-- which is exactly where the problem is. Poor folks are often immersed in this self-defeating culture and environment it's like a vicious cycle that they can't get out of.

Wealthy people often think in one way that noone else can relate to. They make rules thinking that if people are motivated as they are these other folks can make things happen too. Which is true in some sense for that there are those who are self-motivated in nature and do break out of it. But they are the minority. There are also those born with certain talents that cannot be denied like some music artists and athletes.