This seems to me the more appropriate topic.

That so many are lining up to support a war that has absolutely no foundation in reason amazes me.

That we are about to change US world policy by becoming the empire that patrols the world, attacking whom ever we feel we don't like for personal reasons seems insane to me.

The lack of political or idealogical consistency should be a big warning sign, but it fails to be recognized by many.

That is my opinion.

Please elaborate on yours.

[ September 30, 2002, 14:23: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

With all due respect, I think you continue to skirt the fact that the current regime in Iraq rules via murder and torture. That the current regime is one built upon genocide. That the use of weapons of mass destruction is a tool of that government, one that has been used on the Kurds to the North.

You quickly gloss this over in your other post, ignoring the 100,000 murdered in the Anfal, in a rush to attribute nefarious motives to the American leadership.

You ignore my point of: who cares what Bush's motives are? Even if they are bad, a regime which has committed genocide deserves to be toppled, just like we did in Kosovo. You didn't answer my question of how what Hussein is doing is any less deserving of action than what occurred in Kosovo, where the world demanded action.

I think you are resorting to name calling. And I don't think that is particularly reasonable on YOUR part.

In the other thread I thought I made an argument clear, and left links should you choose to go to independent sites to see what has been occurring. You ignore the arguments and essentially call anyone who disagrees with you unreasonable (not far off from calling me stupid.) All the while, I fail to see you respond to how the murder of 100,000 isn't sufficient to seek a regime change. I keep hammering that home for a reason.

I've agonized over this. I've traveled many places in this world, and while I haven't been to Iraq the time I spent in Israel, Turkey, and Egypt was wonderful. I found most of the people there to be wonderful and I am sure that the people of Iraq are the same. I think you believe any who disagree with you are simply warmongers who want blood without thought. I think I am irritated at being continuously branded as violent and bloodthirsty because I think that what I truly believe to be a despicable regime, which I have supported with independent facts elsewhere, needs to be ended.

I think you are being close minded. I think that this didn't need a new thread.

That is my opinion.

Don't worry Laches, you're not the only one who notices that all the reasonable arguments are simply ignored and the same old tirades are paraded over and over again with nothing to back them up.

It irritates me as much (or perhaps moreso) as you, so I have decided to stop rolling the boulder (as Tal put it to me ;) ) up the hill any longer. They will not listen to reason; their minds are made up and will not be unmade.

[ September 30, 2002, 14:32: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I think the argument is not so much here whether we'd like to see Saddam Hussein overthrown or not; he just doesn't have that many members of his fan club. The real issue here is whether the US has the right to attack a sovereign country just because it's ruled by a psychopathic dictator.

I can see the UN doing this, possibly. But the US alone? What does that mean, exactly? What's the next step, can the US now perform unprovoked attacks on any country that doesn't appeal to the american lifestyle?

We cannot allow one country to police another country. International politics are messy at best right now, but if the world's richest country, the world's largest democracy, if that country starts ignoring the basics of the UN, we will have anarchy. The law of the jungle, and noone wants that, believe me. Not even the US.

I would have to disagree on that last point- that countries are not allowed to police other countries. I believe it is the DUTY of world powers to utilize that power to uphold and protect basic human rights in all countries. If it is within the power of the United States to do said things, that is topple a rogue regime, and preserve the basic human rights of it's people, and it did nothing- I would find this to be irresponsible. I do understand that the UN is more prone to delegation and less violent means of regulation, but it grows more and more apparent on the world stage that Saddam is not willing to comply with the UN's sanctions. All the while he oppresses his people into a blunt submission and furthers military research. How can the world sit idly by, knowing full-well what he is doing, and be purposefully blind to his subversions?

I could be wrong, but I believe it is the place of those in power to prevent these things. I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that the methods being used presently are inadequate. As such, action must be taken up a step.

Amon-Ra

...to the American people if it is a warped shadow of the language in it's former glory. Do you get beat up by people with cockney accents a lot?

When you speak out the word, "C-O-L-O-U-R" do you bask in the former glory of the English language?

Does it bring a tear to your eye?

Talk about blind patriotism, you dislike an entire country of people for defiling your language. Odd though, if you went back to your old English (sorry, "Ye Olde" English), before it mutated into the gross monstrosity that you English people speak today (digusting truly), you probably wouldn't understand half of what they said.

Good show chap! Cheerio!

Actually Z-Layrex. You and i both know well that what this newbie says IS in fact the general consensus of the British public. But not nessisarily yours. (and not totally mine either)

ha! BTA is the reincarnation of sisyphus. :p

On the subject of political insanity: "You show me ten men who cherish some religious doctrine or political ideology, and I'll show you nine men whose minds are utterly impervious to any factual evidence which contradicts their beliefs, and who regard the producer of such evidence as a criminal who ought to be suppressed."- H. Beam Piper

The case against Iraq is certainly growing, now that Bush's warclub is taking the time to try to explain its motivations to the general public. I am starting to come around to the idea that the United Nations should do something about it. But I strongly, strongly disagree with the idea that a powerful country acting alone should play God with another country that has not made overtly aggressive overtures towards it, and particularly with the notion, "If it is within the power of the United States to do said things, that is topple a rogue regime, and preserve the basic human rights of it's people, and it did nothing- I would find this to be irresponsible." This assumes that the powerful country (i.e. the United States in this case) is led by ethical, moral people- which isn't so far off the mark, right at this point in history. But what if the United States, powerful as it is, was led by, say- the Taliban. Would it then have the right to topple "rogue regimes" such as countries that violate a man's basic human right to enslave or kill his womenfolk? Who defines human rights, anyway? God forbid it should be ANY one country. If you have any faith in the principles of democracy, you have to conclude that the United Nations, or any organisation representing multiple countries, would represent the values of the world better than any individual country and its leader.

On a personal note, I live in a country that opposes capital punishment but is much more relaxed about marijuana, prostitution or legal drinking ages than the United States. I have read editorials by American writers strongly recommending taking military action against countries that do not represent American moral values. Does this represent a fringe minority? I sure hope so, but I don't live in the States so I don't really know the zeitgeist. One article suggested nuclear strikes were appropriate for a country that refused to follow America's example about capital punishment. So if you follow this "might makes right" argument to its conclusion, today it might be Iraq whose regime is toppled, what's to say that tomorrow it might not be Britain or France because of capital punishment, or Canada because of drugs?

Hmm, well I normally support the USA in everything they do.. and don't get me wrong, I want to invade Iraq, but i'm not sure on the exact reason for the USA doing it. They say to get Saddam out of power and destroy the nukes, but what happens once it's all over... who takes over rule?

There was an interesting panel discussion on CH4 last night. All about whether people were with Bush or not. Most e-mails were from people who didn't want to. There was an Iraqi on the show. He said that the Arab hate has spread to the UK now, as it inevitably would. But the hate is so strong in some parts of the middle east that people spit whenever they hear the name 'America' (according to him). All I know is that Blair wants to attack and i'll trust his judgment.

Also one more thing, apparently Bush said something last week that pissed alot of people off, what was it?

Someone should yell in Bush's little ears:

Ask FIRST; kill LATER!

But then again... he always does things backwards.

Scarampella,

check this out:

Not in Our Name (http://www.notinourname.net)

I got the flyer today at ucla.
It seems that resistance is still there. How strong it is and whether it will have any impact remains to be seen. But I am at least happy that there are people that don't buy the government propaganda.

In any case, the REAL question we should be asking is: How close are we getting to an Orwelian future?
The guy is already proven true on one of his works:
'Animal Farm': 'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others' (which are the 'more equal' is left as an exercise to the reader). How far are we from proving him right in his other seminal work, '1984' ?

-thanos

With all do respect Laches, YOU are not being respectful. Why don't you take some of your own advice and stop calling others closed minded. I don't see your mind open to anything.

I'm glad there are a few who are willing to look at the bigger picture. I have not entered into this argument about whether Saddam deserves to be ousted or not because that is irrelevant to the question of changing US policy. I don't like the pre-emptive strike idea, and I don't like the US operating on its own without the UN unless we are directly threatened.

The Bush administration has not made its case against Iraq. The thousands of people killed, his policies toward his own people nor the Kurds have been brought up by the Bush Admin. as the reasons to invade. The public is not being invited into this discussion rather the opposite: anyone who questions Bush is labeled un-patriotic. I have a serious problem with that. Talk about name calling.

Arte, even though I agree with you completley, why get mired down in the same stupid discussions over and over?

Haven't you learned that you're always wrong, and they're always right? People with open mouths and closed minds are always "always right".

I learned. I'm wrong. Often, when I look at a thread that I'm tempted to reply on, I'll stop myself, because I just know I'm wrong. For what ever reason, I'm wrong.

There is no thoughtful exchanging of ideas, here, as politely disguised as they may be. There is only, "I am right and you are wrong".

I'm quite sure, someone will inform me that I'm wrong, here too.

Hmm, I forgot to add this earlier... This is a factor that noone seems to consider: time. Saddam Hussein is about 75 years old now, did you know? His regime has shown very few signs of aggression since the Gulf war, and just to add to that, it is heavily guarded by UK and US airforce. You ever read those little third page notes in the papers saying that US forces took out a radar base? Saddam is in no position to pose a threat to the US right now.

The entire case against Iraq is about the threat the MIGHT pose, eventually, if they, for instance, develop nuclear weapons. However, that is not something you do overnight. The case against Iraq is that they have TRIED to get hold of uranium and the necessary machinery, not even the US claims that they've already developed such a program. And developing it, if they somehow got the resources would take time.

And once again, an attack is the only way to be absolutely that Saddam WILL use his weapons of mass destruction. If you attack, expect Iraq to defend itself.

Personally, I don't think in terms of strategic victory, I think in terms of saving human lives, and I think the most economic solution, in terms of that, would be to wait him out. Saddam has no apparent heir, so when he does die there will be political instability in the country. And that's the best opportunity to strike, when Iraq is on the border of a civil war.

It has an added advantage: the UN will be able to step in as a peace keeping unit, just like they did in former Yugoslavia, which is much easier to accept for everyone involved.

Those are all outright falsehoods. The Bush Administration presented its case to the United Nations and mentioned the thousands killed and the Kurdish minority throughtout the report. I posted a link to that document at the time, IIRC.

And you still haven't answered any of Laches's arguments.

I think Saddam is misunderstood. Maybe his actions are just a desperate plea for help from the West/Industrialized world. Could he be a really just a good guy stuck in a bad situation?

:grin: :spin: :roll:

Okay seriously...I'm still wondering why we're not arming the Kurds and Shia's (Shi'ites?) in Iraq to help them take over their country, and install a leadership to help everyone? Why does America need to personally go? Although I think Saddam in a threat to the U.S., he's an indirect one. I'm more concerned with how he distributes his weaponry and aids terror organizations than I am about Saddam or Iraq doing something specific.

Bel the opposition is too small for them to be successful, but that is likely the scenario the US would use in addition to some of its own special forces.

[ October 01, 2002, 05:32: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I'm sorry, I should stay out of this but I can't help myself.

Idoru do you not see the contradictions in your words? First you say the Iraqi regime hasn't been aggressive since the Gulf War, then you say they can't pose a threat because of the military force present.

You say the case against Iraq is based on what Iraq might be able to do eventually. Then you say an attack will cause Iraq to use their weapons of mass destruction. Which is it? Do they have them or not?

Just on the nuclear weapon topic: Iraq had a nuclear weapons program as well as refined uranium that was dismantled by the UN inspectors. It has now been 4 years since the last inspections, and attempts to smuggle uranium into Iraq have been thwarted. How many attempts have NOT been thwarted?

On no apparent heir: What about his 36 year old son Qusai who commands military and intelligence forces as well as smuggling rings?

OK, I'm done exposing falsehoods; I'll keep silent until the next batch arrives... ;)

I personally am all for punishing Iraq, but doing it as one country without the support of the UN isn't a very good idea in my opinion. I agree that the current regime in Iraq is monsterous and should be dealt with, but attacking based on that principal won't hold up internationally. If we were to do something over in the US I'd suggest more covert means of destroying a corrupt regime. Then again, maybe not... but still, if I were president of the US (and thank the Fates I'm not!) I'd try for more international support before I "drop the hammer and despense some indescriminate justice."

I wonder, are they passing out petitions with this type of information as well?:

'Ali Hasan al-Majid, Saddam's relative who oversaw the operation, announced in May 1988: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? **** them! The international community, and those who listen to them!" from Iraq's Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds
By Human Rights Watch
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995

__________________________________________________
A Petition
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

The Venerable Chief and Leader, the Honorable Saddam Hussein (May God Protect Him), President of the Republic and Head of the Honorable Revolutionary Command Council:

Struggling Comrade, I greet you. And I present myself to you as a devoted citizen.

I implore you in the name of Ba'athist Justice to hear my plight, which has deprived me of sleep night and day. For I lost all hope and when I had no one left to turn to except yourselves, I came to you with my problem, which may be of some concern to you.

Sir:

I, the undersigned, Assi Mustafa Ahmad, who returned as a prisoner of war on August 24, 1990, am a reserve soldier born in 1955. I participated in the Glorious Battle of Saddam's Qadissiyat in the Sector of Al-Shoush and was taken prisoner on March 27, 1982. I remained a prisoner until the day that the decision to exchange prisoners of war was issued. Then I returned to the homeland and kissed the soil of the Beloved Motherland and knelt in front of the portrait of our Victorious Leader and President Saddam Hussein. In my heart I felt a tremendous longing to return to my family. They would delight in seeing me, and I would delight in seeing them, and we would all be caught up in an overwhelming joy that could not be described.

However, I found my home completely empty. My wife and my kids were not there. What a catastrophe! What a horror! I was told that the whole family had fallen into the hands of the Anfal forces in the Anfal operation conducted in the Northern Region, under the leadership of Comrade Ali Hassan al-Majid. I know nothing of their fate. They are:

1. Azimah Ali Ahmad, born 1955/ My wife.
2. Jarou Assi Mustafa, born 1979/ My daughter.
3. Faraydoun Assi Mustafa, born 1981/ My son.
4. Rukhoush Assi Mustafa, born 1982/ My son.
I have thus come to you with this petition, hoping that you would take pity on me and inform me of their fate. May God grant you success and protect you. You have my thanks and respect.
[signature]

Former Prisoner of War
Reserve Soldier/Assi Mustafa Ahmad
Without home or shelter in Suleimaniyeh/
Chamchamal/Bekas Quarter/
Haji Ibrahim Mosque October 4, 1990
__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________
The Reply
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Republic of Iraq
Bureau of the Presidency
Reference No.: Sh Ayn/B/4/16565

Date: October 29, 1990

Mr. Assi Mustafa Ahmad
Suleimaniyah Governorate
Chamchamal District
Bekas Quarter
Haji Ibrahim Mosque

With regard to your petition dated October 4, 1990. Your wife and children were lost during the Anfal Operations that took place in the Northern Region in 1988.

Yours truly,
[signature]
Saadoun Ilwan Muslih
Chief, Bureau of the Presidency
__________________________________________________

see the Human Right's Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

"Since 1975, over 4,000 Kurdish villages had been destroyed; by a conservative estimate more than 100,000 rural Kurds had died in Anfal alone; half of Iraq's productive farmland is believed to have been laid waste.

The Kurdish genocide 'fits Hilberg's paradigm to perfection,' which is summarised in the following key concepts: "definition - concentration (or seizure) - annihilation."

see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html
__________________________________________________

In July, two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem 'Akla, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the President, by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by 'Uday Saddam Hussein, the President's eldest son. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad.

In March 'Abd al-Wahad al-Rifa'i, a 58-year-old retired teacher, was executed by hanging after he had been held in prison without charge or trial for more than two years. He was suspected of having links with the opposition through his brother who lived abroad. His family in Baghdad collected his body from the Baghdad Security Headquarters. The body reportedly bore clear marks of torture, with the toenails pulled out and the right eye swollen.In May, two Muslim clerics, 'Abd al-Sattar 'Abd al-Ibrahim al-Musawi and Ahmad al-Hashemi, were executed in Baghdad, reportedly for publicly accusing the government of being behind the murder of Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr in 1999. The two were said to have been arrested at the end of 2000.

In July, two lawyers, Mohammad 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Hadithi and Karim al-Shammari, were reportedly sentenced to death by a special court for alleged anti-government activities. The two were among a group of lawyers interrogated in June about the distribution of leaflets critical of the lack of independence of the judiciary. It was not known whether the sentences were carried out.

In March Hussam Mohammad Jawad, a 67-year-old retired medical doctor, and his brother-in-law Iyyad Shams al-Din, aged 63, were arrested by the authorities, reportedly to put pressure on Su'ad Shams al-Din, a medical doctor and the wife of Hussam Mohammad Jawad, to return to the country. Arrested in June 1999 and tortured, she had subsequently fled abroad. The two men were reportedly released in May.
In August, 22 people were arrested in Ramadi and Kut, allegedly for suspected anti-government activities. At the end of the year their fate and whereabouts remained unknown.

That is from the most recently updated report for JUST 4 MONTHS that I could find.
__________________________________________________
see Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open

Actually, the debate seems to have shifted now. The earlier debate in other threads seemed to indicate that many (most?) felt Bush was a moron and no action should be taken in Iraq. Now many are saying instead that they feel or are beginning to be persuaded that a regime change is necessary.

Containment not only has a decade of failure under its belt but it certainly doesn't do the people of the region any good.

So, if not containment, what? That to me indicates a forced regime change.

Sprite, and idoru both bring up reasonable objections in my opinion. The argument they present though is not against a forced regime change but unilateral action. (EDIT: idoru posted again while I was typing and the new post seems to differ with the ealier upon a cursory look.)

If we can come to some at least hesitant agreement that a regime change is a good thing though, as we seem to be approaching, then I don't find the fears of Sprite and idoru to be compelling reasons for there not to be unilateral action if necessary.

Here is the scenario I am imagining: The U.S. and U.K. seek U.N. support for a forced regime change in Iraq. Say that support is vetoed (as an aside, Putin and Bush are friends and Russia and the U.S. are becoming closer all the time in ways that aren't broadcast on ABC everyday, this fear of Russia seems preposterous to me.)

Now, after the hypothetical veto what then? There has been no change in Iraq. The same leadership, guilty of genocide which rules with fear and murder would retain its iron grip. What is the morally correct action? To say, "well they vetoed it, so I guess we will have to sit here and twiddle our thumbs until Hussein gasses another 50,000 and try again." Or is the morally correct action to say, "well, looks like we will have to stand on our own."

Amon-Ra spoke to this very well above I think.

Sprite, I've never read any article like you mention. I have no doubt that they exist though. One of the prices to pay for free speech is foolish speech. I know when you say unilateral action against Hussein might lead to was on Amsterdam you are using hyperbole, I'd just feel lax though if I didn't point out that Hussein isn't a guy sitting in his room taking hits from the bong.

That said, I do not believe there will be purely unilateral action. If there is a veto of action though, and everyone else in the world chooses not to sit on their hands once again, the question becomes: if not us, who? If not now, when?

[ October 01, 2002, 04:59: Message edited by: Laches ]

I'm more of the mind of getting a sniper (or THE Sniper ;) ) within a 1000 feet of Saddam...and giving him a bad case of lead poisoning!

The US (as Bush has indicated) very much wants the UN to take care of this matter of disarming a fellow who consistently fires at US and UK troops despite UN regulations and specific agreements not to do so.

But if the UN will not do so (and all it takes is a veto by France, Russia, China, or the UK), then what are we to do?

Should we stand idly by while Hussein grows and assembles biological and nuclear weapons? Should we wait for him to kill thousands of people again? Should we ignore it if he attacks his own people and just wait until he attacks Americans?

[ October 01, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: Shralp ]

While of course its not my place to criticise people for having headed "off topic", I would like to point out that the topic was in fact "Are the American people insane?", and not Do you support the Bush administration/The proprosed invasion of Iraq.

On this note I would like to comment that, while insane would be putting things too strongly, I do, on whole, believe the American people to be something of a nuisance. This dislike comes primarily from the blind patriotism for which the Americans are famed, and additionally from their perversion of the English language, mainly through the use of different spellings (grey becomes gray, paid becomes payed, et cetera) as well as seemingly creating new meanings for existing words.

Clearly you haven't seen much of America. Pre-9/11 people in mainstream America were ridiculed for being patriotic. They received the same labels from others that many Europeans give us: slow, uneducated, narrow-minded, etc.

Now patriotism is much more en vogue.

And as for the language, you Brits should be thanking us. If it weren't for us, English would be spoken only in the UK, Ireland, South Africa, Hong Kong, India, Australia, Nigeria, and New Zealand. As it is, you really don't have to learn a new language to travel. :1eye:

You're welcome.

Shralp and any other Americans: Pleae note that this newbie does not represent the general opinion in the UK.

[ October 01, 2002, 05:44: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

While I apologise to my rather blunt approach in the phrasing of my comments, I still stand by my points on the language, as it does little good the language being expanded further across the world thanks (with thanks to be spoken with a slight air of sarcasm and disgust) to the American people if it is a warped shadow of the language in it's former glory.

The reason why so many other countries fail to support America is not because they believe that toppling Saddam is a bad idea. More that the way in which Bush is going about is wrong.
The way Bush was announcing long before the UN disscussions that he would attack with or without the support of the UN created a bit of a warning signal IMHO.
America seems to be almost desperate to destroy Hussain, almost oblivious to the consequences of their actions. The rest of the world is prepared to hold back and think about it for a bit. Actions of this magnitude DO require careful thought.
The fact that America is prepared to rush in and noone else is suggests that they are still bloodthirsty from the WTC disaster. This is not a good thing to be when in tense situations.

The accusation that America is after the oil reserves is proof of how the rest of the world percieves Bush's actions. The fact that he would go against the world on this isse suggests that America could soon become a dictating superpower who simply gets it's own way or else. And this is what people are afriad of.

However on the other side of things it is obvious that due to a direct threat on their country, the American government is being a lot more decisive for a reason. Maybe Bush sees an even greater threat from Saddam.

Of course i am only putting it very simply. But i think that Bush is in the right to attack Saddam. The problem is he can't just storm in when he feels like it. His intentions are good but his means are bad. If he continues to ignore the arguments of other states then America will become a worse threat to world peace than Iraq.

First you say the Iraqi regime hasn't been aggressive since the Gulf War, then you say they can't pose a threat because of the military force present.Depends on how you define aggression. They have not performed any large scale attacks on other countries. The aforementioned radar base attacks happens when US forces claim that they have sensed that Iraqi radar has locked on to their fighters. So, they take out the Radar that was used to lock on.

I'm not arguing for a US/UK withdrawal of forces. The no flight zones and the intense monitoring is part of WHY Iraq hasn't been aggressive since the Gulf war.

You say the case against Iraq is based on what Iraq might be able to do eventually. Then you say an attack will cause Iraq to use their weapons of mass destruction. Which is it? Do they have them or not?I'm terribly sorry for being unclear. It is considered likely that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. However it is not considered likely that Iraq is currently a nuclear power, or even that they're very close to achieving that.

Biological and chemical weapons are horrible indeed, but they do have some basic limitations compared to nuclear weapons. They can only cover a smaller area, they can not be deployed over a great distance, especially not with Iraq's ancient Scud missile technology. And once they ARE deployed, they're gone. They do not cause radiation like a nuclear bomb, which is capable of effectively destroying large areas of land for the next thousand years or more.

Just on the nuclear weapon topic: Iraq had a nuclear weapons program as well as refined uranium that was dismantled by the UN inspectors. It has now been 4 years since the last inspections, and attempts to smuggle uranium into Iraq have been thwarted. How many attempts have NOT been thwarted? Developing nuclear weapons takes more than 4 years, and requires more than just uranium. First of all it requires competence, you don't just throw in some uranium in a robot and fire it in the general direction of Israel. It is not completely clear whether Iraq alone has enough educated people to develop nuclear weapons or not. They obviously did before, but the country has gone downhill since, to say the least.

And then there's the actual technology required. It was taken by the UN inspectors, and most experts agree that Iraq can not produce this machinery on its own. It will have to be imported. So far no Iraqi attempt to import this equipment has been stopped. Nothing. The case against Iraq is based on evidence that suggests that Saddam Hussein has previously TRIED to get access to such weapons, but apparently with not much success.

On no apparent heir: What about his 36 year old son Qusai who commands military and intelligence forces as well as smuggling rings?What about Tariq Aziz, Saddam's right hand? He's the one who speaks good english, you've probably seen him on the news. What about the generals in his army? What about the various exiled leaders from rebellions?

My point here is that while Saddam himself may have an idea of who he would want, that does not in itself guarantee that it will be so. Saddam Hussein is an extremely totalitarian leader. He's in near complete control of the country. Whenever a leader who pulls that many strings himself disappears, there will be a struggle for power. Saddam is, in a twisted way, very talented at what he does. To take that kind of control and then hold on to it is not an easy task. I personally think it unlikely that his son would possess the same talent, if that's the word for it. Not many people do.

I'll throw one more coin into the fountain: Do you think Saddam Hussein is suicidal? He knows that one small move of aggression on his behalf, and the US will have their excuse to crush him. He knows that with the current situation, the only thing that keeps him alive is just that element of uncertainity: Is he really a threat?

Saddam is not suicidal. Nor is he stupid. He knows very well that Iraq has no way of ever gettign close to beating the US... and he also knows that any form of aggression against Israel or Kuwait would mean a US attack. Saddam is not a suicide bomber, if he has shown one thing, it is that he really values his own life. He has countless bunkers, secret palaces, dopplegangers... he is even rumored to be hypocondric.

It's 7 am, and I believe I'm probably contradicting myself somewhere again, but I hope I'm making at least a bit more sense now. Goodnight.

I simply don't understand how anyone, even from America, could look at the recent goings-on and not get the feeling that something's wrong. I really can't put my finger on it, try as I might, and that seems to be the problem for many other anti-preemptive strikers. It's like there's more going on than we're allowed to know.

Hussein's crimes are not the reason for a possible American assault. If they had been, we would have wiped him out eleven years ago, when we had the chance. I mean, duh. There's an alterior motive. The government only acts on something when the American people either distinctly want it or distinctly don't want it, or when it works out to its advantage and the public can eventually be convinced of it. Just glance through an American History textbook. It's completely true. And since only about half, at most, of our citizens have been manipulated into supporting an attack, and significantly less are completely sure of the rightness of such an action, Bush and Co. obviously have something to gain.

But what? Oil? No. We don't need Iraq's oil. We have plenty already, more than any other nation. Security? What security could be gained in making even more enemies? People in the Middle East hate us, and not without reason. Wrapping up Bush, Sr.'s work? Possibly. Of the options available to the general public, this seems to make the most sense.

Or, perhaps we should think that potentially hostile nations shouldn't be allowed weapons of mass destruction. And there's no doubt that Saddam's guilty of at least trying to build them. However, what right have we to attack Iraq for posessing these weapons, when we have the world's largest stockpile? Judging by Dubya's current "biggest f'ing stick" policy, I'd say the United States are potentially hostile. Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyone for that matter, has every right to bomb us if we go in there waving an anti-nuke flag. What kind of hypocritical bastards are we?

One last, somewhat off-topic, note. Having just read up on his presidential reign, I'd say Teddy Roosevelt seems to be a big influence on Bush. Both were Texans with a "cowboy" attitude, and similiar diplomacy, and both liked to wave their big sticks around. Unfortunately, TR was also a rabid imperialist, and completely went against U.S. idealogy by basically forcing Central and South America to march to our drums, all while flouting his new version of the Monroe Doctrine. Bush's actions seem remarkably similiar, only on a broader scale. And while I don't know if the doctrine he's abusing has a name, it's being waved about just as frantically as poor Monroe's ideas were.

As for the initial topic: the American people aren't insane, just ignorant and easily manipulated. Even those of us (like me) who'd rather not believe what our government says don't know enough to effectively refute a point. We're a buncha wishy-washy idiots, basically.

I'm pulling my hair out here:

Blah blah blah blah, cowboy, blah blah blah blah, Bush, blah blah blah blah, insane, blah blah blah blah, Americans, blah blah blah, We're a buncha wishy-washy idiots, basically. Ok, lets get something straight, if you have no facts on a subject and have a "gut feeling" that something is wrong, that is not evidence that something is *in fact* wrong! What is this, "we're all ignorant and easily manipulated?"

Speak for yourself there Rube.

BTA and Shralp have both put up educated arguments based on fact and logic, and everyone who doesn't *want* to agree simply ignores their posts and moves on to the next, "no, something is wrong" spin.

Everyone would rather go along with the popular hysteria, its so much easier than attempt to learn something or see a different viewpoint.

Here's the funny part, I don't even agree with them! But damnit I'm going to listen to what they're saying, because they're the only ones who are saying anything worth listening to, rather than the same fear stricken hysterical BS that everyone else is throwing around. Bush is evil, American's are evil, blah blah blah, how easy, how convenient, what a great way to write off something that's much more complicated than that.

Damona is entirely right, no one is here to discuss anything. If anyone disagrees with you, they must be wrong. Very few seem to actually take any more than a casual attempt to get educated on the subject, then claim expertise on a "gut feeling." If someone disagrees, they must be, "insane," "easily manipulated," and "stupid."

Bravo sheep.

Novak, here is the analogy that came into my head when I was still considering the motives of the current administration:

A woman comes home, pulls out the IRS code, and sits and studies it for a day or two. She then realizes that she is slightly above the cutoff for one income bracket but if she donates $102.33 to charity she can take a deduction, drop into the lower income bracket, and save a lot of money. She quickly opens the phone book, chooses a random charity, and writes them a check for that amount. This is her only charitable donation of the year.

Now then, I would say that the woman deserves no moral pat on the back for her action. Motivation has to play a part in when we consider a person worthy because of their actions. HOWEVER, this does not mean she should not have given to charity. That does not mean giving to charity is something that should not be done, right?

Suppose Bush is like that woman (I'm not convinced he is, but let's assume.) If we can agree that there is a purely humanitarian reason requiring a regime change, then Bush's personal motivations are in many ways irrelevant. If Bush is motivated by selfish reasons, it only means he wouldn't deserve that moral pat on the back for doing the right thing.

Thus far, the only person who has really made any type of argument against there being a humanitarian reason sufficient for a forced regime change is idoru in my opinion.

idoru, I believe your argument is strong. Hussein is old. He may well keel over tommorrow. However, at 75, it seems to me that he may well last well over another decade. I will agree that the odds of Hussein further using gas on his own people is now less likely. However, if you go to the the Amnesty International website I linked above and look at the reports over the last decade you will see that a "tame" Hussein is still one running around cutting out the tongues of lawyers for saying they need an independent judiciary. In other words, the brutality may not be on a scale to make Hitler proud anymore, yet it still continues.

Another consideration in my opinion is that I believe the U.N. sanctions on Iraq to be harmful. I believe innocent people are paying the price. Hussein is diverting at least 2/3 of the humanitarian relief to military expenditures. So, if Hussein remains in power for another decade, I'd anticipate the sanctions continuing and the people of Iraq will continue to bear the brunt of these sanctions. Measured this way, the thought that war means more lives lost is not clear to me. I think it a strong possibility more life will be lost by continuing our current containment policies.

Fair enough about the clear successor...

The no flight zones and the intense monitoring is part of WHY Iraq hasn't been aggressive since the Gulf war.Exactly my point. Does this mean they are not aggressive, or does this mean they need to be more covertly aggressive?

So far no Iraqi attempt to import this equipment has been stopped. Nothing.Does this mean they do not have them? Of course not; it means they have not been caught. Which is exactly why we want inspectors back, and to be able to back them up with force if they are thwarted like they were before.

Saddam is not suicidal. Nor is he stupid. He knows very well that Iraq has no way of ever gettign close to beating the USHence the Gulf War right? He was given every opportunity to withdraw from that one and did not. The same rhetoric is rising once again: "If the US attacks they will see casualties that have not been seen for decades." Sounds kind of like "the mother of all battles" rhetoric doesn't it?

And for those who are concerned about the Bush Administration's threat of unilateral action, let me tell you a fictional story.

My brother and I shared a room as kids, and that room was one big mess.

Mom would come and tell us every weekend to get that mess cleaned up, but we of course would make some ineffective attempts at cleaning it up, but the mess never went away.

Finally Mom was fed up. She said if we couldn't clean it up, she was going to, and we wouldn't like the way she did it: Throw every piece of junk she found in the garbage!

Whoa! We said. Mom is just crazy enough to do it too! We better get our act together and clean this mess up the way we want it done. Maybe we could even get Mom to help out... ;)

[ October 01, 2002, 17:15: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Actually Z-Layrex. You and i both know well that what this newbie says IS in fact the general consensus of the British public. But not nessisarily yours. (and not totally mine either) Well yes, I do hear some people say "AMericans think they're better than the rest of the world" etc, but most of the people I know have no problem whatsoever with what the USA is doing.

In recent weeks alone, a shipment for equipment to enrich uranium was intercepted on the way to Iraq and smugglers with weapons-grade uranium were caught by Turkish authorities near the Iraq border.

Those are just examples I can recall off the top of my head. Your claim that "So far no Iraqi attempt to import this equipment has been stopped. Nothing." is simply wrong.

I just wonder what Americans would say if the international community tried their generals for their actions in Vietnam, Hiroshima, etc. They want to be excluded from Haag but they can name other countries as "countries of evil". It doesn't work like that. Iraq has to give a real reason to be attacked. So what if they have powerful weapons, so do 50 other countries in the world.
BTW, Shralp, you're right, if there weren't Americans English would not be spoken throuhgt the world. But if there weren't for the English and other Europeans, the USA would not even exist. Basicaly, Americans are a nation that united 230 years ago from several European nations. You have no history, no tradition when compared to the Europeans. Europe has been in war and peace situation with islamic countries for centuries and not once were they named as evil.
But then again, there was no oil to fight for then...
Sorry if you think I'm wrong, but doesn't it make you think how MOST of the world say that Americans are arrogant and uneducated, narrow-minded... And Great Britain is kissing some serious ass with Blair.
Bah, who in their right mind would WANT to go to war. People die. It's not like the movies. There are no heroes. There are just dead people and lucky people. It's easy for Bush to say attack, he's not gonna be anywhere near the front.

[ October 01, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: Corr Raven ]

Europe has been in war and peace situation with islamic countries for centuries and not once were they named as evil.
Really? You can state this as fact? During the crusades, the Europeans never referred to the Muslims as evil? Are you sure?

but doesn't it make you think how MOST of the world say that Americans are arrogant and uneducated, narrow-minded Nobody seems to be holding it against you.

Are the American people Insane?

Pretty simple actually...

Yes, they are :p

[ October 01, 2002, 20:30: Message edited by: Faragon ]

Heh, I had told myself I wouldn't push the boulder anymore but here I am again, this was just too interesting to pass up.

Much has been made about Russian, French, and Chineese saying they do not wish action in Iraq. I found this article by happenstance which explains a lot about why Russia and France don't want to upset the status quo -- they make too much money dealing with Hussein. All those gassings are in the past, we can overlook those now if business is good, right? And the U.S. is blamed for wanting war for oil, sheesh....

Here's that article:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1031119786127&p=1012571727166

Also, Barbara Slavin reports today that China is indicating a hesitant willingness to either support or abstain from the current U.N. proposal circulating.

A possible crimp in the plans for Bush though, looks like Iraq is going to finally agree to inspections though the palaces are still off limits. I hope that's it for me.

As this topic is about american people in general i have to say i only have met 4 americans personal.
A girl that was taking a shower 2 times a day.
A boy that wasn't able to look anyone in the eye, but he was able to talk german and had a baby with a german woman.
Two boys selling drugs in europe, freaks from the westcoast. I was unable to understand the last two boys because of their accent. But one of them seemed to be a bit more normal than the other three.
I don't like this topic, because i think a whole country can't consist of morons (Iraq, US). There must be somebody reasonable.
Well i know a man from Iraq too. He's very polite, has given me tea while i was waiting for my ward. But as he's a Kurde, you might say he must be good (argh). It's a sad thing, that the bombs can't distinguish between good and bad people while killing them.

[ October 01, 2002, 23:42: Message edited by: Oblate ]

Oblate,
Thank you for a post that is well thought out. You are reasonable, state your experiences with both groups, and try to maintain some objectivity.
Truly refreshing.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but America hasn't made too many good decisions in the past. They all seem trigger happy, and use the military to get their own way.

Yes, that's why we've conquered so many nations and bent them to our will lately. Really, we've become quite rich off of wars.

No, wait. I was wrong. We haven't. We haven't gained an iota of land militarily since the Spanish-American War IIRC. We haven't used military force for trade since we opened Japan's harbors back before WW2. We gained nothing in Vietnam, Korea, or the Persian Gulf wars.

If you folks up in Canadia and elsewhere in NATO would get off your tushes and start funding your military (the U.S. spends more than twice as much on defense as the rest of NATO combined), then maybe we wouldn't have to be guarding your sorry asses all the time and we could actually cut back on the size our military (which, actually, we have been doing anyway).

It's amazing how many people operate by stereotypes instead of facts.

If America didn't gain anything from Vietnam, Korea, or the Persian Gulf wars then why did you do it in the first place?

To fight the "commies" remember??

any country with a regime like iraq,that starts producing NBC weapons,that has already shown its willingness to attack others should be eliminated from the world stage.and there are not 50 countries with this capability.and yes America is the youngest of nations but have we not kickedeverybody elses butt at least once.and we do it ,not with arrogance, but with national pride.we strive to be the best.maybe we dont have the traditions ya'll have but then why does everybody send their kids to school over here to get their degrees.goverments actually pay the tuition costs.as for evil in the world, theres always going to be evil,the ? you should be asking yourself is are you going to stand by or are you going to do something about it. Americans are always the first to act, to help,to give, to rebuild.as to war,nobody wants it,but our pride wont let us back down.and after we get a bloody nose,the American people will do some evil buttkicking.

If you folks up in Canadia and elsewhere in NATO would get off your tushes and start funding your military (the U.S. spends more than twice as much on defense as the rest of NATO combined), then maybe we wouldn't have to be guarding your sorry asses all the time Amen to that

:yot:
korea: http://www.steamshovelpress.com/biowar.html

http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/169th_issue/2001103103.htm

http://www.ku.edu/~ibetext/korean-war-l/20000401/msg00006.html

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/eyewit27.htm

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolrevkor.html

vietnam:http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm

The next one's very good with a lot of photos.
http://www.pathfinder.com/photo/essay/mylai/mylaihp.htm

iraq: http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2002/08/06/33892.html

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Yes Shralp, that's it. War is no fun.

[ October 04, 2002, 22:15: Message edited by: Oblate ]

Interesting. A list of supposed war crimes (and one in which the author apparently didn't like the way Washington conducted peaceful negotiations with an ally). Some of those are debatable as war crimes (Pravda article on DU rounds, killing of Iraqi soldiers during Gulf War).

What's interesting is that several of them cite American government sources. Americans were holding trials on their own soldiers and administering justice. Not exactly a resounding condemnation of America you've presented there.

Regardless, I fail to see how a list of possible war crimes proves anything beyond the fact that soldiers often commit war crimes.

"If you folks up in Canadia and elsewhere in NATO would get off your tushes and start funding your military (the U.S. spends more than twice as much on defense as the rest of NATO combined), then maybe we wouldn't have to be guarding your sorry asses all the time and we could actually cut back on the size our military (which, actually, we have been doing anyway)."

How dare you make such an outrageous statement, especially to Canada, which bankrupted its military sending Canadian boys to die in Afghanistan as a FAVOUR to the United States. As a matter of fact, to die at the hands of Americans in Afghanistan. If other countries have more poorly-equipped armed forces, it is either because the country is smaller and poorer than the United States (Canada has a smaller population than virtually any single State) or because the country morals do not include bombing hell out of everyone they can come up with any reason to dislike. Both are true in the case of Canada- which, represents 10% of the world's peacekeepers despite representing less than 1% of the world's population. And since when does Canada seek *more* interference from the United States? I've never met a Canadian who didn't want the American military and government to keep its nose out of our affairs.

If you want to bomb every putative enemy you can think of, go right ahead and enjoy its results (gee, I wonder where anti-Americanism comes from?). But it is incredibly offensive for you to judge other countries harshly for choosing to focus its skills, strengths and limited income on peacekeeping instead of crusades.

Self-righteous bull****.

Canadians may send their forces out on proportionately more peacekeeping missions than most countries (if the UN says it's ok for you to do so), but then you recall them back home. We station our troops in other countries and leave them there. That is what keeps the peace. You can argue about why we do that all you wish, but the fact is that there has been peace in many areas of the world due only to large armed forces there, and the majority of those have been American.

The situation of the American pilot who inadvertently bombed Canadian soldiers engaged in live fire drills has already been discussed. The pilot of that plane and the pilot of the accompanying plane are being prosecuted. Your moral outrage, while understandable because of your friends in the Canadian forces, is simply irrelevant.

No, Shralp, we don't want other countries building up their military, because then we wouldn't be able to bully and intimidate them as effectively as we do now... ;)

[ October 03, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

One of Iraq's two vice president has come up with a momentous plan, one which will save all but two lives and solve the conflict between the US and Iraq.

George Bush and Dick Cheney should duel Saddam Hussein and one of his VPs. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021003/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_17) The U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan could be the referee.

has anyone ever read"the americans" by gordon sinclair,a radio broadcast from june 5, 1973 CFRB, Toronto,Ontario Canada.Its still quite relevent today and enlightening.I'm just not sure where you could find it.but it's really worth it.

It is 13 months since 11 September, and still the great charade plays on. Having appropriated our shocked response to that momentous day, the rulers of the world have since ground our language into a paean of cliches and lies about the 'war on terrorism' - when the most enduring menace, and source of terror, is them.
The fanatics who attacked America came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. No bombs fell on these American protectorates. Instead, more than 5,000 civilians have been bombed to death in stricken Afghanistan, the latest a wedding party of 40 people, mostly women and children. Not a single al-Qaeda leader of importance has been caught.

Following this 'stunning victory', hundreds of prisoners were shipped to an American concentration camp in Cuba, where they have been held against all the conventions of war and international law. No evidence of their alleged crimes has been produced, and the FBI confirms only one is a genuine suspect. In the United States, more than 1,000 people of Muslim background have 'disappeared'; none has been charged. Under the draconian Patriot Act, the FBI's new powers include the authority to go into libraries and ask who is reading what.

Meanwhile, the Blair government has made fools of the British Army by insisting they pursue warring tribesmen: exactly what squaddies in putties and pith helmets did over a century ago when Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, described Afghanistan as one of the 'pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world'.

There is no war on terrorism; it is the great game speeded up. The difference is the rampant nature of the superpower, ensuring infinite dangers for us all.

Having swept the Palestinians into the arms of the supreme terrorist Ariel Sharon, the Christian Right fundamentalists running the plutocracy in Washington, now replenish their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the 22 million suffering people of Iraq. Should anyone need reminding, Iraq is a nation held hostage to an American-led embargo every bit as barbaric as the dictatorship over which Iraqis have no control. Contrary to propaganda orchestrated from Washington and London, the coming attack has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', if these exist at all. The reason is that America wants a more compliant thug to run the world's second greatest source of oil.

The drum-beaters rarely mention this truth, and the people of Iraq. Everyone is Saddam Hussein, the demon of demons. Four years ago, the Pentagon warned President Clinton that an all-out attack on Iraq might kill 'at least' 10,000 civilians: that, too, is unmentionable. In a sustained propaganda campaign to justify this outrage, journalists on both sides of the Atlantic have been used as channels, 'conduits', for a stream of rumours and lies. These have ranged from false claims about an Iraqi connection with the anthrax attacks in America to a discredited link between the leader of the 11 September hijacks and Iraqi intelligence. When the attack comes, these consorting journalists will share responsibility for the crime.

It was Tony Blair who served notice that imperialism's return journey to respectability was under way. Hark, the Christian gentleman-bomber's vision of a better world for 'the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of northern Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan.' Hark, his 'abiding' concern for the 'human rights of the suffering women of Afghanistan' as he colluded with Bush who, as the New York Times reported, 'demanded the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population'. Hark his compassion for the 'dispossessed' in the 'slums of Gaza', where Israeli gunships, manufactured with vital British parts, fire their missiles into crowded civilian areas.

As Frank Furedi reminds us in The New Ideology of Imperialism , it is not long ago 'that the moral claims of imperialism were seldom questioned in the West. Imperialism and the global expansion of the western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major contributor to human civilisation.' The quest went wrong when it was clear that fascism was imperialism, too, and the word vanished from academic discourse. In the best Stalinist tradition, imperialism no longer existed. Today, the preferred euphemism is 'civilisation'; or if an adjective is required, 'cultural'.

From Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, an ally of crypto-fascists, to impeccably liberal commentators, the new imperialists share a concept whose true meaning relies on a xenophobic or racist comparison with those who are deemed uncivilised, culturally inferior and might challenge the 'values' of the West. Watch the 'debates' on Newsnight. The question is how best 'we' can deal with the problem of 'them'.

For much of the western media, especially those commentators in thrall to and neutered by the supercult of America, the most salient truths remain taboos. Professor Richard Falk, of Cornell university, put it succinctly some years ago. Western foreign policy, he wrote, is propagated in the media 'through a self righteous, one-way moral/legal screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence'.

Perhaps the most important taboo is the longevity of the United States as both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists. That the US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law, is unmentionable.

'In the war against terrorism,' said Bush from his bunker following 11 September, 'we're going to hunt down these evil-doers wherever they are, no matter how long it takes.'

Strictly speaking, it should not take long, as more terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth.

There is no terrorist sanctuary to compare with Florida, currently governed by the President's brother, Jeb Bush. In his book Rogue State , former senior State Department official Bill Blum describes a typical Florida trial of three anti-Castro terrorists, who hijacked a plane to Miami at knifepoint. 'Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men,' he wrote, 'the defence simply told the jurors the man was lying, and the jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting the defendants.'

General Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived comfortably in Florida since the 1990s. He was head of El Salvador's military during the 1980s when death squads with ties to the army murdered thousands of people. General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US Government. Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot's henchman and apologist at the United Nations, lives in New York. General Mansour Moharari, who ran the Shah of Iran's notorious prisons, is wanted in Iran, but untroubled in the United States.

Al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces, paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism.

In 1993, the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war; two-thirds of them had been trained at Fort Benning. In Chile, the school's graduates ran Pinochet's secret police and three principal concentration camps. In 1996, the US government was forced to release copies of the school's training manuals, which recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.

In recent months, the Bush regime has torn up the Kyoto treaty, which would ease global warming, to which the United States is the greatest contributor. It has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in 'pre-emptive' strikes (a threat echoed by Defence Minister Geoffrey Hoon). It has tried to abort the birth of an international criminal court. It has further undermined the United Nations by blocking a UN investigation of the Israeli assault on a Palestinian refugee camp; and it has ordered the Palestinians to replace their elected leader with an American stooge. At summit conferences in Canada and Indonesia, Bush's people have blocked hundreds of millions of dollars going to the most deprived people on earth, those without clean water and electricity.

These facts will no doubt beckon the inane slur of 'anti-Americanism'. This is the imperial prerogative: the last refuge of those whose contortion of intellect and morality demands a loyalty oath. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the Nazis silenced argument and criticism with 'anti German' slurs. Of course, the United States is not Germany; it is the home of some of history's greatest civil rights movements, such as the epic movement in the 1960s and 1970s.

I was in the US last week and glimpsed that other America, the one rarely seen among the media and Hollywood stereotypes, and what was clear was that it was stirring again. The other day, in an open letter to their compatriots and the world, almost 100 of America's most distinguished names in art, literature and education wrote this:

'Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression. We believe that questioning, criticism and dissent must be valued and protected. Such rights are always contested and must be fought for. We, too, watched with shock the horrific events of September 11. But the mourning had barely begun when our leaders launched a spirit of revenge. The government now openly prepares to wage war on Iraq - a country that has no connection with September 11.

'We say this to the world. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. We draw on the inspiration of those who fought slavery and all those other great causes of freedom that began with dissent. We call on all like-minded people around the world to join us.'

It is time we joined them.

/John Pilger

Absolutely chock full of half-truths and outright falsehoods. Amazing.

This guy should be a demogogue in some banana republic.

Lets pust aside all the other questions for a few moments and try to answer these two simple ones.
Iraq has ignored almost all of the UN peace agreements for the past 10 or 11 years.Including letting in UN weapons inspectors.
Why wont the UN support the enforcement of its own decrees.Doesnt this seem to undermine the authority and power on the UN just a little.
Question 2.Iraq has more oil than anyone.(I could be wrong about this correct me if I am)By rights they should be one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world.
Why is so much of their country still living in third world conditions?
And just as reply to those of you who keep saying
the US will soon be a dictatership.Do you live under a rock worst case Busch will be gone in eight years(less realy he is closing in on the end of his first term).He may not get a second term.
Just some more things to think about.

I think that Saudi arabia got more oil, though the people is turning against the us...

I think its ironic that the US condemn Iraq dau to having weapons of mass destruction (they think), supporting terrorists (they think) and breaking alots of human rights.

Same time they suport Israel, and they got weapons of mass destructions, they do suport terrorists, and they to break many of the human rights.

I think it's sad that people post stupid things like that on SP.

Ironic is that people criticize the U.S. for interfering when it's none of their business and then, when the U.S. interferes in something that is our business, they conveniently pretend not to notice where our interest lies.

Did you follow that, comrade?

Corr Raven:

I just wonder what Americans would say if the international community tried their generals for their actions in Vietnam, Hiroshima, etc. They want to be excluded from Haag but they can name other countries as "countries of evil". which generals? the ones who died of old age? Yes, that's relevant. But let's look a little closer at the situations: Hiroshima: let's see, because we dropped the bomb, we didn't have to invade. You do the math.
Vietnam: warcrimes? You bet. Did we prosecute those responsible? You bet. So why would the international community do anything, when we've already policed ourselves?

Turandil: what are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Turandil,

I do hope you're joking.

Yes, we've got the BOMB. Hey, we've even used it.

Care to take up the rallying cry that our using an atomic weapon on Japan did NOT save lives?

Care to think that Saddam's willingness to use atomic or other weapons of mass destruction would be used to the betterment of mankind?

Why do you think Saddam got nuclear weapons? There is no proof at all, and why would he sell it to terrorists?

The usa practically controlls every nation except Irak, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus and Iran...soon there will all be under the controll of the Usa...I really fear a ww3, not a single country in the middle east (unsure about israel) suports an american invasion of Irak, not even the kurds...It might lead to a new calif, and a jihad...

Some info...

During the Gulf War, the United States suffered 148 soldiers killed in action, and 458 wounded. The U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted, and 60,000 were taken prisoner.
U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, 1992 / penpress.org 020529

The U.S. Department of Defense provides professional military training to more than 100 countries, annually.
U.S. Department of Defense, Defense 96, 1996 / penpress.org 020529

1.2 million Iraqi people, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died due to the scarcity of food and medicine, since the commencement of UN sanctions in 1990.
UNICEF 1997, www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm (http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm) 020619

The U.S. maintains a military presence in more than 140 countries.
U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Almanac 2000 / penpress.org 020529

In developing nations, there are nearly 5 million acute pesticide poisonings per year due to lack of protection during application, with millions more exposed to lower but still dangerous levels.
World Resource Institute, Report on Global Health, 1998 / penpress.org 020619

Seven rich countries hold 48% of the voting power at the IMF, and 46% at the World Bank: The United States, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany and the Russian Federation.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", undp.org/hdr2002/facts.html 020801

In Latin America, fewer than 10% of landowners own almost 90% of the land.
UNICEF: State of the World’s Children, 1995, p. 43. / penpress.org 020619

27 million workers in the world’s 845 export processing zones are not allowed to organize in unions for collective bargaining.
UNDP: "Human Development Report", 1999 / penpress.org 020529

In the last ten years, U.S. Navy deployments abroad have increased by half, U.S. Army deployments have tripled, and U.S. Air Force deployments have quadrupled.
U.S. Department of Defense: "Major Deployments/Operations", 1999 / penpress.org 020529

In 1999, more than 250,000 personnel from U.S. Armed Forces occupied foreign countries, more than one-fifth of all U.S. Armed Forces personnel.
U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Almanac 1999 / penpress.org 020529

The World Bank is governed by 24 executive directors, each with one vote. The United States, Japan, France, Germany and the UK are each represented by one voting director. The other 177 member nations share the remaining 19 votes.
The World Bank, 1999 / penpress.org 020619

Gallup International’s Millennium Survey asked more than 50,000 people in 60 countries, "Would you say that your country is governed by the will of the people?" Less than a third said yes. The survey also asked, "Does government respond to the will of the people?" Only 10% said that it did.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", undp.org/hdr2002/facts.html 020801

The developing world spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants.
World Bank: "Global Development Finance 1999" / globalissues.org 020705

Of the 738 NGOs accredited to the WTO’s 1999 ministerial conference in Seattle, Washington, 87% were from industrial countries.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 8

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has 182 member countries. Five countries, the United States, Germany, Japan, France and the UK, control 40% of the votes that determine IMF policy.
International Monetary Fund, Members' Quotas and Voting Power, October 2001 / penpress.org 020619

USA have agreed to 10 of 26 international conventions about human rights. Cuba has agreed on 17.

Latinamerica #4/2002

Presidential candidates in the 2000 U.S. election spent $343 million on their campaigns, up from $92 million in 1980. Including spending by political parties, more than $1 billion was probably spent on the 2000 campaigns. In the 2000 U.S. election cycle, corporations gave $1.2 billion in political contributions — about 14 times the already considerable amount contributed by labour unions and 16 times the contributions of other interest groups.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 4-5

In 1977, the richest 1% of Americans earned as much after taxes as the poorest 49 million Americans. In 1997, the richest 1% of Americans earned as much after taxes as the poorest 100 million Americans.
UNDP: "Human Development Report", 1997 / penpress.org 020529

95% of the fifty wealthiest executives and financiers in America at the turn of the century came from upper-class or upper-middle-class backgrounds. Fewer than 3% started as poor immigrants or farm children. Throughout the nineteenth century, just 2% of the wealthiest fifty American industrialists came from working-class origins.
Journal of Economic History, vol. 9 no. 2 (1949), p. 184, Gregory & Neu, "Industrial Elite in the 1870s," in Men in Business (1952), p. 202. 326-28 / penpress.org 020619

From 1940 through 1996, expenditures for nuclear weapons ($5.5 trillion), exceeded the combined total federal spending on education, training, employment, and social services; agriculture; natural resources and the environment; general sciences and space research; community and regional development; law enforcement; and energy production and regulation.
Brookings Institution, Atomic Audit: 1940-1996 / penpress.org 020529

In Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, at least half the single-parent households with children have incomes below the poverty line.

Every day, 40,000 infants die of malnutrition.
World Bank: World Development Indicators, 1998 / penpress.org 020619

200 million children under the age of five suffer from malnutrition.
World Bank: World Development Indicators 1998 / penpress.org 020618

Worldwide, nearly 50% of deaths among children under 5 are due to malnutrition.
WHO: World Health Report 1998 / penpress.org 020619

1.1 billion people do not have access to clean water.
UNFPA: The State of World Population, 2001 / penpress.org 020619

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
UNICEF: "The State of the World's Children 1999" / globalissues.org 020705

Of the 4.4 billion people in developing countries, nearly three-fifths lack basic sanitation. About a third have no access to clean water. A quarter do not have adequate housing. A fifth have no access to modern health services. A fifth of children do not attend school to grade 5. And more than a fifth are chronically malnourished.
UNDP: Human Development Report 1998 / penpress.org 020618

UNDP har konstaterat att Porto Alegre, som 1989 införde en process för folkligt deltagande i utformandet av den lokala budgeten, har gjort "anmärkningsvärda framsteg": På sju år ökade andelen hushåll som har tillgång till vatten från 80 till 98 procent. Andelen som har tillgång till avlopp ökade från 46 till 85 procent, och antalet barn som gick i skolan fördubblades.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002",

In 1998, the global starvation rate among children reached its 600 year peak.
UNICEF: State of the World's Children 1998 / penpress.org 020619

At the current rate it would take more than 130 years to rid the world of hunger.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 11

In Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS per capita income shrank 2.4% a year in the 1990s; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 0.3%.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 10

Malaria kills at least 1 million people a year, nearly all of them in the poorest countries.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 7

1.2 billion people live on less than $1 per day. 2.8 billion people live on less than $2 a day.
World Bank: "Global Poverty Measures 1987-1998 and Projections for the Future", 1999 / penpress.org 020618

Almost half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day.
Kofi Annan: "Message of the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty", 001017, un.org 020705

113 million school-age children are not in school—97% of them in developing countries.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 11

To achieve universal provision of basic services in developing countries would cost 80 billion a year, less than 10 percent of global military expenditures.
United Nations Development Program: "Human Development Report", 2000 / penpress.org 020529

American and European annual expenditure on pet food: $17 billion per year.
Estimated annual cost of providing universal healthcare and nutrition for everyone in the world: $13 billion per year.
UNDP: Human Development Report 1998 / penpress.org 020619

In the Sovjetunion and eastern-europ one of three citzens, 140 miljoner humans lived, on less then 3,5 $ a day 1999. Its ten times more people then 1989. The Economist / Metro 990507

The BNP of russia halved between 1989 and 1999.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: "Whither reform

The three richest families in the world have a combined wealth equaling that of the 600 million poorest people living in the world.
UNDP: Human Development Report 1999 / penpress.org 020619

From 1989 to 1996 the U.S. sold more than $117 billion of arms, about 45% of the global total.
U.S. State Department and U.S. Department of Defense, Foreign Military Assistance Act, Report to Congress, Financial Year 1996: Authorized U.S. Commercial Exports, Military Assistance, Foreign Military Sales and Military Imports, September 1997 / penpress

In 1997, the U.S. exported $15.6 billion in military arms to developing countries, 54% of these to non-democratic regimes.
U.S. Department of Defense Security Assistance Agency: "Foreign Military Sales, Construction and Assistance Facts", 1997; "Non-democratic regimes" is defined by U.S. Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, and the U.S. Department of State's "Country R

Since 1990, the U.S. government has given away, free of charge, more than $8 billion worth of "surplus" equipment from U.S. military stocks, including 4,000 heavy tanks, 500 bombers and 200,000 light arms.
U.S. State Department and U.S. Department of Defense, Foreign Military Assistance Act, Report to Congress, Financial Year 1996: Authorized U.S. Commercial Exports, Military Assistance, Foreign Military Sales and Military Imports, September 1997 / penpress

In 1996, the U.S. Department of Defense dedicated 6,000 employees and $450 million to promote U.S. arms sales overseas.
World Policy Institute: "Arms Trade Report", 1996 / penpress.org 020529

From 1945 to 1997, the U.S. "lost" 11 nuclear weapons, still unaccounted for.
U.S. Department of Defense, "Lost Weapons," 1997 / penpress.org 020529

Global expenditures on education: $80 billion annually
Global defense expenditures: $781 billion annually
$781 billion is more than the total income of the poorest 45% of the global population.
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Report, "The State of the World's Children", 1999, World Bank: "World Development Indicators", 1998 / penpress.org 020529

Global Annual Military Spending
United States $271 billion
All U.S. allies combined $205 billion
Russia $70 billion
China $38 billion
All potential U.S. adversaries combined $15 billion
US Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 1998; Center for Defense Information, 1998; 'Potential adversaries' defined by US Department of Defense "Bottom Up Review", 1993 / penpress.org 020529

Two-thirds of all U.S. scientists and engineers work for defense contractors or on defense contracts in industry or in universities. Nowhere else in the world is this true.
Center for Defense Information, 1998 / penpress.org 020529

47% of all U.S. federal tax revenues go towards current or past military costs.
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002 / penpress.org 020619

About half of all US federal research and development (R&D) funds go into the aircraft and missiles industry, the leading recipient of US federal R&D funds, exceeding all expenditures on health, environment and agriculture research combined.
National Science Board, Science

More than 80 percent of the goods and services produced in the world today are consumed in their countries of origin.
Mark Weisbrot: "One Year After Seattle: Globalization Revisited", CEPR 001127, cepr.net 020705

Countries belonging to the OECD provide about $1 billion a day in domestic agriculture subsidies – more than six times what they spend on official development assistance for developing countries.
UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", undp.org/hdr2002/facts.html 020801

The world's richest countries, with 20 per cent of global population, account for 86 per cent of total private consumption, whereas the poorest 20 per cent of the world's people account for just 1.3 per cent.
UNFPA: "The State of World Population", 2001 / penpress.org 020529

The income gap between the richest fifth of the world's people and the poorest fifth, measured by average national income per head, increased from 30 to one in 1960, to 74 to one in 1997.
UNDP: Human Development Report 1999 / penpress.org 020618

The fifth of the world's people living in the highest income countries has 86% of world gross domestic product (GDP), 82% of world export markets, 68% of foreign direct investments and 74% of world telephone lines: the bottom fifth, in the poorest countries, has about 1% in each sector.
UNDP: Human Development Report 1999 / penpress.org 020618

From 1960-1980, output per person grew by an average, among countries, of 83%. For 1980-2000, the average growth of output per person was 33%.
CEPR: "The emperor has no growth", 001127, cepr.net 020705

The richest 10% of the U.S. population has an income equal to that of the poorest 43% of the world. Put differently, the income of the richest 25 million Americans is equal to that of almost 2 billion people.
Milanovic 2001 / UNDP: "Human Development Report 2002", p. 19

Industrialized countries hold 97% of all patents worldwide.
UNDP: Human Development Report 1999 / penpress.org 020618

Want more?

So, did you even read half of what you posted, or was that just a massive cut-and-paste? It's all pretty random and unrelated.

Honestly, Turandil. Those two posts REEK of cut-and-pasting. And this thread reeks of ignorance. People, please. Enough of the war-monger bull**** and whining.

Well, suppose I'd better put in my say as well...
I have a question about the UN itself: what does it plan to do if they still are not permitted to send its weapons inspectors in to Iraq? stand there and ring their hands and talk some more?
OK, so people are angery because we here in the US are doing the UN's job if they're weapons inspectors are refused entry in to Iraq? what kind of logic is this?
I personally don't want war, and I do not wish to go to war unless Iraq doesn't cooperate with the UN.

Turandil,
What was your point? You obviously feel that those statistics are relavent, but to what?

Want more? Hell yeah!!

You know...

It's hilarious arguments like this, that have been going on for centuries, that make me want to just completely pull out of all this crap.

If it were my call to make, I'd pull all the troops back home to the US. Then I'd wait. It might take 10 years. It might even take 20.

Sooner or later, it's going to blow up again. Just like has with every other war that has ever raged across the planet. The Serbs and Croats. Down in the Congo, where some faction has killed like, 5 million of the other faction since 1990. Japan and China/Korea. Iran and Iraq. Israel and Egypt.

But this time through, it's going to run a bit different.

You're not going to measure the death toll in the thousands. It's going to be in the hundreds of millions. Because of all these "entangling alliances". Patton (actually, George C. Scott, but same difference, historically) called it. "Give me 10 days, and I'll have us at War with them, and I'll make it look like their fault."

Just set some troops over there with your allies, and wait for the shelling to commence. Then you report to your people that your troops were killed, and everyone votes for War. But I'd wait until it climbs up into the billions before I'd lift a finger.

People are mostly just stupid like this. I say that in general, because it also applies to the Europeans that live away from where the fighting was going on. If there is not a constant reminder, every day, in all your senses, that people you knew and loved were just erradicated, it's never real. It never becomes real, until it actually happens to you. Until you are finding your way down some pitch black staircase, using your friggin indiglo watch as a place marker for the other 200 people behind you. You literally have to go through this, rather than just imagine the people that did. That's the whole reason why the Jews are such a tight knit little organization.

The Muslims all say, "get out". God, the Vietnamese were saying "get out"; so were the Koreans, and the Croats. Their media is government controlled, so I can't really say I expect them to think/believe anything otherwise. Same deal with the Chinese. Cypress just opened their media, but all the other Muslim countries (read: leaders of those Muslim countries) hate Cypress specifically for that reason.

You know, I sometimes wonder exactly how the the Asian continent would look, on a "political" map, if America hadn't been over in Korea. Or Vietnam.

Isolationism rules. Bring back isolationism. I am like, totally for isolationism. It's time to solve all these stupid little social conflicts before something *really* bad happens...

I have thought the same thing. I'm not sure it would be effective, but it would be interesting.
Additionally, kick the UN out of the US. Some other country can host the spy nest.
While we're at it, let's pull ALL foreign aid. Take that money, pay everyone off that we somehow owe (despite the foreign aid), invest in our own fossil fuel resources (as well as alternative power sources), and let the chips fall where they may.
What do we have to worry about? Mexico or Canada invading? If the Middle East falls apart, it will be a bigger problem for Europe and Russia then anyone else.

I have read it through, and I did copy paste...

Turandil,
What was your point? You obviously feel that those statistics are relavent, but to what?

My point was to show that we are not living in a perfect world, to show you that this planet are full of misery and wrongdoings, and also to show the effects of imperialism and capitalism and to let you see that the USA are far from perfect and are very dubble moralic (?) yeah, something like that...

Dear Turandil,

We would like to thank you comrade for your continued defense of communism and your exposure of the evil capatalist pigs for the vermin that they are. Rest assured comrade, their murderous ways will end in a glorious revolution.

Sincerely,
Stalin 43 million
Mao 38 million

Dear Turandil,

We would like to thank you comrade for your continued defense of communism and your exposure of the evil capatalist pigs for the vermin that they are. Rest assured comrade, their murderous ways will end in a glorious revolution.

Sincerely,
Stalin 43 million
Mao 38 million Dear Laches, please dont' take me as an evil man, all I want is a nice world in peace an happiness, as you I supose. Though am I right when I say that you dont think thats possible? Well I do, maybe not a perfect world but it can change to the bether, if we do not believe so we wont have a future. We just have different ways to make that happen. You still believe in capitalism, I don't as iam sure you all know by now.

In my strife for socialism and communism I do think we need a big change, and I do not think we can change the world to get rid of capitalism with the current system that was made by and for capitalists. We need to start over, we need a revolution to bring happiness, justice and peace to the world. Unfortunatly everyone do not like ot believe in that idea, and many of the upper classes will gladly use police or military to defend them self against the people wishing to teke away their previleges from them and retake some of their money. Unfortunatly this means battle and blood. Is it worth to sacrifice lifes to save many others in the future? Thats a hard question, a realy hard one. Specially when all can go wrong. After a refvolution the power are scattered, the nation lies in current chaos, a perfect oppurtunity for a diktator to seize power. So did Josef Stalin and so did Mao Zedong.
To much power leads to coruption and fear to loosing it, it leads to paranoia. And millions died. And thats terrible indeed, that must not happen again, and we are working for a new safer way of revolution, were the power will lie at the people an advancement of the current democracy (plutocracy) thats wats communism is realy about, not murder and diktatorship.

I wouldn really call the sovjet union for a communistic state, communism is the end fase of socialism a near perfect world, and thats far from sovjet. After the revolution Sovjet begun developing its socialism towards communism, it went pretty good, the pruduction raised with hundreds of percents and it was far bether russia today or under the Tsar, that was almost a miracle because Tsar-russia lacked heavy industri and its people were not educcated at all, and in addition they constantly fought huge wars wich really took many precious recources.

But when Stalin seized power everything changed he started working toward his own agenda developing some kind of facism, he wanted more and more power and controll, the strive for communism ended...

It don't have to be this way, if we all work together we can make it work.

The Americans are so cool, they are a great nation, very educated and brave, we should all strive to be like them... NOT.

hey... let the americans be their little Imperialistical pigs... :shake: :shake: :shake:

What would this thread be without Corr Raven's and Ass' brilliant and informative replies.

oh, a few months ago they wanted to invade Holland, my Country!!
Capitalistic pigs, prob because we got huge warehouses full of marihuana :D

And then they start asking me "Why do you hate America, we always wanted to protect the world, yatattattatatatablablablabla, can we borrow some crack??"

Cor Raven is so cool, he is a great poster, very educated and brave, we should not make him Idiot of the Week... NOT.

I think some of you people are insane!

OK Morgoth when did the Us ever have any plan of invading Holland?

As soon as some American soldiers would be brought to justice at the International Tribunal in Den Haag.

Saw interviewes with Bush threathening to do it, eventually he was called back by the UN.

Morgoth,

Leave the fantasies to someone who is creative enough to pull it off (or Padeen).

"There's the risk the ICC could attempt to assert jurisdiction over U.S. servicemembers, as well as civilians, involved in counterterrorist and other military operations -- something we cannot allow."
D.S. Rumsfeld

But America warned of "serious consequences" if the International Criminal Court (ICC) ever arrested a member of the US military.

President Bush's administration had been threatening to veto all future UN peacekeeping missions if the American military was not granted permanent immunity from the ICC.

We will never permit Americans to be jailed
John Negroponte, US ambassador

The US have really isolated themselves and are putting themselves into bed with the likes of China, the Yemen and other undemocratic countries
Judge Richard Goldstone

Here´s the stories
bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/2126403.stm)
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/06/international.court/index.html?related)

Edit: Oh, how do you think Bush will react, asking his soldiers back with a pretty please??

P.S. with invasion I mean US military operation in Holland, without the UN, NATO, EU and ofcourse us approving

[ October 22, 2002, 21:36: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Morgoth:

oh, a few months ago they wanted to invade Holland, my Country!!
I browsed your resources and saw nothing to back up your original statement.

To answer the question that the topic poster asked:

I am an American, and I must be insane to continue to respond to crap like this.

Allright Morgoth
I read both of your links and fail to see in their anywhere one mention of the US planning to invade Holland?
From what i gather from these stories is the UN has agreed with the United States on this matter.

[ October 23, 2002, 03:02: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

oh, a few months ago they wanted to invade Holland, my Country!!
Sadly its true.

The whole Iraq war machine is actually a distraction to mask Bush's ultimate goal of invading Holland and securing all of their tulips - the world's most powerful and finite power source.

I hear they were planning on starting the invasion in Morgoth's underwear drawer.

Imperialistical...NOT A WORD.

If you're gonna be an Ass, at least be one correctly.

We Americans ain't all that smart. I feel personally threatened by George Bush's shifty-eyed accusations to every other nation ever. He drove our economy to ruins and needs a war to keep himself loved by the public. Taking out his own texan aggresion on every other country in the world is complete idiocy. He sees plots to destroy the American way of life everywhere, and i have to ask a simple question: what way of life? No one in The USA seems to care that the rest of the world thinks we're stupid(for justifiable reasons.) I still can't believe that a money-problem is driving this ego-maniac into a possible WW3 scenario wherein the rest of the world will look to America as the agressors much like Nazi Germany in WW2.

End Rant. Continue regeneration. For an end to the madness call 1-900-STOP-NOW. (not a real #)

Yeah, the economy is Bushs fault. :rolleyes: It has nothing to do with:
* The dot-com bust (which happened during Clintons presidency)
* 9/11 which crippled the airline industry
* widespread CEO abuse, primarily at companies that took wing and succeeded under Clinton (Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom)

Blaming the Bush for the failing economy is like giving Clinton credit for the economic boom of the 90's.

[ October 24, 2002, 16:50: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Imperialistical...NOT A WORD.

If you're gonna be an Ass, at least be one correctly. That was really lame shogun!

Show of hands. Who thinks Irreligious Paladin is a teenybopper? C'mon! Admit it!

*raises right hand and slaps turandil with left*