Well, seeing a sEreklich has posted this in several places, I thought I might as well put my answe rup here as well, to see what comments it spawns....
WARNING: Very long post ahead, do not read unless you are prepared to put down some time
Well, I'll take the easy bit first, the SC2 comparison. I do think people would join up behind an alliance if they were told that the alternative was enslavement. Most nations wouldn't want to give up theri independence ture, but they'd all be forced to back the UN on this issue, lest they get overthrown by scared and angry mobs in their own countries. And once a foundation like StarControl is founded, and given the right to appropriate resources "for the good of humanity", it would be very hard for any nation to withdraw their support for the project. Perhaps some would stay outside for a while, but not for long I think. at the very latest, after the first few battles involving "earthlings", everyone would join the ranks. Even though SC2 says the humans are united, it doesn't specify which way. I thibk it's very possible that the nations remain in cooperation with the UN, and that the only thing we are unanimous about is really the fact that we wsih to have the opportunity to expand into space, whcih we can't if we are enslaved. Also, xenophobic as most of us are, a threat from outer space would have a better uniting effect than any human adversary could produce.
Now then, to your real question. I assume you wanted mine and GM's opinions because we are european? Or is it just because you consider us intelligent? Before I go any further, I would like to state that this is the way I feel and think, how I percieve reality, and that I can't speak for anyone else. Europe is a large place, with many different opinions, ranging all over the scale, just like america. We're not any more united here than you are over there (in fact, porbably much less).
Now then.....
I don't believe that everyone is good at heart. II don't trhink very many really do that. And I don't support the Iraq goverment in any way, it is a corrupt and tyrannical regime, and one the world could do without. I am however, not what you would call pro-war. I realise that as a last resort, a war may unfortunately become a necessity, but I do not believe that we are close to that point as of now. War is hell, someone once said. Now, why do I believe this? Let me elaborate:
1. The threat argument. There are no evidence to show that Saddam is a threat. Sure, he has weapons, just like lot of other nations, and some of them are potentially dangerous. However, we cannot invade a sovereign state because we suspect something. If we do that, where do we draw the line? Can we invade Pakistan beacuase they have nuclear weapons? Can we invade Britain, because they are as of now a threat to EU unity? Of course not. Saddam is clearly unreliable, and weapons inspections need to continue to make sure he is kept in check, but unless he commits an agressive move, the rules don't allow us to interfere. This rules may seem silly, but hey are the ones civilized countries have agreed upon, and if we break these rules, we are no better than the enemy. We will have become what we opposed.
2. The morality argument. This one actually carries some weight that most bleeding hearts don't really think about. invading Iraq will mean a lot of casualties, including civilians, the number depending on the way the war turns. However, people are suffering every day in Iraq as it is now. Can we really claim to be moral if we have the ability to stop this suffering, and choose not to act? Great power brings great responsibilities. However, if we oust this one dictator by force to free his people, we need to take a good long look at ourselves. Because if we do this, we cannot stop there. The North Korean are starving, and they are researching nuclear weapons. Musharraf has nuclear weapons, and he is not in the least bit democratic. Mugabe starves the opposition in his country, and has created a famine in a country that was once one of Africas most fertile. The list of dictators who treat their people wrong, and who are either sponsored by the west, or ignored by them is quite long. We cannot simply oust one. By doing this, we commit ourselves to decades of war before we are done. And that battle we may not win.
