One of the headings at this site is Games. I find large-scale simulations – where each player controls an empire and has to make diplomatic, economic, and military decisions – to be intellectually stimulating and entertaining. One of the nice things about playing turn-based internet games is you meet people from all over the world.

I know the U.S. perspective(s) on the upcoming conflict quite well, but it is much more difficult for me to understand the perspectives of those from other cultures. So I emailed some fellow gamers from “o’er there” and asked their input. Over the next few days I will be posting a sampling of their responses as they arrive. Now, these people obviously don’t speak for their country any more than I speak for all of America – but their perspectives should be enlightening.

I do not go to politics much, but I know sometimes you got to make up your mind about something. To me its all the same if U.S. and Iraq beat one another to pulp, but then you also got to take in the consequences that might arise out of this. What kind of mass-destruction weapons is hidden in Iraq, only nuclear or the more insidious kind, the biological?

And if they use these? Which I believe they will if a true war-state is reached between the U.S. and Iraq, what then will be the side effects of the usage of such weapons to the rest of the world. Do we have a similar episode as in some movies, like the 12 Monkeys or some older cheaper movies about nuclear-holocausts and such? I wish I knew and I know one thing, I sure as hell do not wish to find out, I like my life just as it is thank you very much.

Finlands been, from what I've seen from the news, pretty much neutral not really wanting for war. Finlands last war with the Russians or Soviet Union at that time, was bad enough and the effects still linger here. What the actual policies and thoughts are I cannot vouch none other but for myself and I know that sometimes all that helps are to do thought things and hard things and one often has to chose from two bad things. I personally try to go after the least of the two bads. As for Iraq it self, its obvious it has no love for the U.S. but also since its letting the UN officials in and check things out under the pressure from the U.S. shows that it something is happening, either stalling or that Saddam truly fears for his position if the U.S. attacks into Iraq which it surely will lose if the U.S has learned from its previous mistakes in wars, and I hate to bring this up but one must, Vietnam was a disaster from what I understood. Hopefully the U.S. has learned from this one. Only time will tell us if Saddam is delaying or not.

- Jani

I'm not surprised about hearing from angry americans, who don't understand why most of Europe denies Bush its allegiance in this point.

Saddam proved uncounted times his will and ability to endanger his region and the environment (ie. the burning oil-wells). He developed, concealed and used weapons of mass destruction. He keeps his people in poverty and illness while building palaces for him and his family. He tortured and killed many thousands of people including some of his own relatives. He started his career as common assassin. There is no doubt that the world would be much better without Saddam in power (this is true for several dictators in the world). The US will probably remove him soon and I welcome this. I hope this war will end soon successful with a minimum of lost lives and shelters. But I would prefer a UN involved solution of the problem. Attacking a sovereign country with armed forces is an action, that should be difficult to legitimize these days. The present Iraq is a threat, but I'm not sure if it is (especially to the US) big enough to legitimize a full scale assault. This question is even more important since the UN has not legitimated a martial solution, yet(?).
I understand the fears of many people that the US may attack unloved countries at will in the future. I don't really share this view, but it worries me, too. However, the clear statements of France and Germany against any military actions don't help a diplomatic solution either. Saddam has to feel force to change anything in his realm. When the US and their allies attack, the french and german will assist at least in some small ways, I think. I heard of german Airvax(sp?), Patriot systems, anti-ABC tanks (Fuchs) that will be in action including the german crew. German soldiers guard US barracks in Germany, yet, and the US forces will use german airports and air space. So the wish of a british soldier leaving Germany with destination Iraq, who asked for only one german soldier to join with them is granted already. I hope the best.

Thriyon – a 28 year-old student

Iraq is a problem. If weapons of mass destruction are found, Saddam must be eliminated. If there are not weapons, there should be no conflict. If the US has documents indicating the Suddam has massive destruction weapons, they should reveal the location of the weapons to the UN, everybody will agree to attack, and there will be no problem.

If for some reason the US does not provide the evidence, and the UN does not find weapons, then there is no reason to attack Saddam.  Saddam is a dictator and oppresses his country. However, he is not the only one, and it would be very wrong to attack everyone for this reason. For example, the US has helped a lot of South American dictators, and they have always been OK with that.

Saddam has done nothing menacing towards the other countries for the last 10 years, so why attack him now? For example, North Korea is a much greater threat to the world, and nobody (even not the US) attacks them.

If Saddam does what the world (the UN) tells him, and no weapons are found, there is no reason to attack him. Israel for example does not follows the UN resolutions, and they are not attacked for that, countries like the US even help them.

I live in Andorra, a very little country between Spain (pro attack) and France (anti attack). Here people like America a lot but they do not like wars. I am not sure what my country will do if there is no proof of weapons presence, but they will probably do like France even if we are closer in culture with Spain.

For my wish, I prefer that countries do not attack and do as they wish even if they have reasons and the power to do that. I would like to have one day a very powerful UN above all states, who would rule and do what is best for the world as a whole and not for countries in particular. The US would do better to spend the billions of dollars they may spend on a war with Iraq in productive ways such as implementing the decisions of ecology decided in Kyoto, or helping the US economy by reducing its deficit, or modernizing old structures, et cetera.

Wars should only be done when there are very good reasons. In this case, the discovery of weapons of mass destruction would be a good reason.

Best regards

Marc