As an Iraqi refugee who has experienced firsthand the horrors of Saddam Hussein's despotic reign in Iraq, it's difficult for me to watch hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets of America and Europe voicing their disapproval of the war plans to liberate my besieged homeland.

As I watch these images roll across my TV screen, I wonder how these protests appear to various audiences in Iraq. I wonder how much pain these rallies cause those Iraqis whose tongues were mercilessly cut off by Hussein because they chose to exercise that same right of free speech in Baghdad.

I wondered how these defiant protest chants sound to the hundreds of victims of Hussein's barbaric ear-cutting policies, for they too were opposed to the concept of war, especially those involving Hussein. I have treated many Iraqi soldiers and brave anti-war activists suffering from severe ear infections with life-threatening consequences, after being subjected to this perverse form of mutilation at the Al-Amarah military hospital. I was a medical intern at the hospital, located in the southern part of Iraq from 1994 until 1996, and was a sad witness to this atrocity. I find it unfortunate and ironic that a Western anti-war activist would march in support of Hussein and his war-inflicting regime while their brave anti-war Iraqi counterparts languish tortured and mutilated in the dark jails of Saddam Hussein.

I wondered how the protest banners carried by the marchers appear to Iraqis who have long been subjected to leafleting by Iraq's "Great Uncle." In 1991, my family was the terrified recipient of one such chilling message when Hussein's military helicopters dropped leaflets informing the residents of my town that the Iraqi military was about to strike us with chemical weapons. We were told the action was necessary in an effort to quell the popular and widespread anti-Hussein uprising. One of these leaflets fell in my family's garden. I can only imagine the horror my family and the residents of my town must have felt when they read the signs of the anti-war protesters asking their leaders to extend the reign of the Butcher of Baghdad.

As I reflect on how these images will play back home, I recall several other aspects of life in Hussein's besieged Iraq. Those who have lived in this prison of a country, this sorry excuse of a defiant Arab state, have too many stories and scars to recall. I remembered the bizarre episode of witnessing medical students being asked to volunteer for suicide kamakazi-style missions in a futile response to the crippling allied air assault of the Gulf War. I remember the students not only refusing to volunteer, but joking about the irony of the fact that they were studying medicine to relieve pain and suffering and were now being asked to volunteer to inflict pain and suffering. For the past 30 years the world has kept silent regarding the atrocities endured by the besieged people of Iraq at the hands of Hussein. For too long, the Iraqi people have cried for help but the world has played deaf. It is a sad reflection on the state of appreciation for universal human rights when, finally, the Bush and the British administrations seem to have heard these cries, yet hundreds of thousands of people worldwide marched in the streets to block any attempt to save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator.

For me the best response to those protesters is for the free world, led by the U.S, to liberate Iraq.

The people of Iraq will certainly welcome any international power that will join the battle with them against Hussein's warmongering regime. I know, I witnessed it firsthand. During the widespread Iraqi uprising of March 1991, Iraqis welcomed the victorious allied forces and took up arms against the totalitarian regime of Hussein. In a matter of a few days, 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces were under the complete control of the free people of Iraq. Sadly, the world community shunned the people of Iraq in 1991 in much the same manner as that of today's anti-war protesters.

One thing that I can surely predict is that if this historic opportunity of removing the regime in Baghdad is lost, the Iraqi people will be in more pain. The barbaric atrocities will prevail and more ears, tongues and heads will be cut. Instead of just dropping leaflets warning of a chemical strike, an emboldened Saddam Hussein will use real chemical weapons, as he has done before. For this time, Hussein will know the world lacks the resolve and the humanitarian spirit required to take the steps necessary to remove him from his self-anointed and blood-stained throne.

But, despite all, I remain an optimist. I believe that when the Iraqis get their freedom, they will march on Iraqi streets lifting the placards that say "Thank you America and United Kingdom." And I can certainly foretell another placard that will boldly declare "French and Germans, you can't inspect evil." However, the marchers in Iraq will never be able to exercise this very basic human right of demonstration, should the regime of Saddam Hussein remain in power. Sadly, the anti-war demonstrators desire exactly that end.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0303090269mar09,1,5796954.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsopinioncommentary%2Dhed

It doesn't matter if we plow the entirity of baghdad into a mass grave with another battalion of retrofitted tanks, or liberate them all without killing a single innocent . If we invade Iraq the damage is done. We will have established our administrations perogatives, we will be ready to 'liberate' our next victims, and the world will justly hate us for becoming the warmongering nazis next door.

No one here or anywhere supports saddam. Find me a 'save saddam' poster somewhere. Its not going to happen. But if we are to take action against Iraq, we must do so as a diplomatically appointed international force. Not a lynch mob of pillaging american cowboy nazis so hell bent for revenge that we've lost track of the offense, the suspects, and nevermind that we've never even begun to wonder about their motivations.

"Oh terrorist's dont have motivations. They're terrorists, they just like killing people. Who cares anyways." -> You can not honestly believe that.

Such bullshit. And our governments actions will only perpetuate this bloody madness.

War is not peace. Death is not freedom.

911 = Reichstag
Bush = Hitler

Which side are you on?

If you could get over your hatred of Bush you could see that.

You don't have to hate it but you know it
doesn't belong where it can harm uninfected innocents.

“...studying medicine to relieve pain and suffering and were now being asked to volunteer to inflict pain and suffering....”


Hmm, and that is what I feel when I’m told that the only way freedom for myself and other people of “democratic societies” comes from the Armed Forces.

“Join the USArmy, and rid the world of tyrannic ruler Saddam bring democracy” or whatever the fuck it is that MOAB brings.

And, fuck the call to “free the fucking world moral crap!”
That is not the reason we are all flung into this juncture. We are told time and time again, the reason is to rid of WMD and protect the national security of the US.

And fuck-ity-fuck, Bush campaigned saying he would never involve the US in a national war, and/or catastrophe when referencing Rwanda. We screwed Rwanda, and Bush said, himself, he had no interest in being involved.

Do you really think the US will stop tribal or ethnic fighting in Iraq? Why do you think the fuck is there so much pressure building in Kurdistan? Be pragmatic and realize this “freedom” or whatever will come is a fucking afterthought that isn’t even funded, never has been drawn up, and only in the 11th hour is there any talk about rebuilding oil structures after they are blown to shit.


What flutter-butt keeps posting this crap by the Iraqi National Congress?

They don’t represent Iraqis except their ideas, and certainly are taken with a grain of salt from US officials. They were written off in the summer of 2002.

get over it

Alarming how violently these people react when presented with an unpalatable fact.

flutter-butt has bgi feet?

Just get out your crayons and draw some "distinctions".

I really don’t care for the emotional argument . You want to use emotional crap from INC as a form a justifying your position and then you slam other’s when they throw emotional arguments back at you?
Waa, poor little Bigfoot.

You haven’t presented one fact, just a INC point of view. Woo--pee!
That is not fact, that is persuasion. Big wow!

Your boy from INC employs “mob appeal.” Excellently crafted mob appeal is what you get in mass marketing campaigns. The only thing missing in your little presentation campaign is a fucking theme song and some glitter.

fucking INC goon!

What does INC mean? I'm not from the US.

Iraqi National Congress
Or can't remember? From where do you hail anyway?

The Iraqi National Congress is a creation of the U.S. Government and a Washington Public Relations Firm.

They are about as genuine as CNN.

if you put "iraqi democratic opposition" in the google news search, you get like two search results.

all these pro-war people go on and on about "liberating iraq".... why don't they do some research and write some articles about the opposition groups within iraq?!

if the place is run by a US military commander after the war.. that is of course going to give a LOT of credibility to accusations of US Imperial colonialism.

can these pro-war people do anything right?!

...not lately it seems...

...or maybe we could just post on a website and have someone else do the dying like you....

Let's see now, first war was declared on terrorism, (nice to know one can declare war on a concept); then the u.s. was after Osam bin laden (which they are unable to find with all of their superior technology); then people are kidnapped by the u. s. (deemed enemy combatants); next Saddam Hussein needs to be ousted.

So let me get this straight, before the son-of-a-bush took office, there was a ?-$35 billion dollar surplus but now, in less than two years, there is a multi-trillion dollar deficit?
The u. s. government has no money to give $10 million dollars to supplement Medi-care prescriptions BUT has $12 billion dollars to give to Turkey to use its airspace and set up shop on its air fields.

It's not that $4.4 billion dollars is being cut from education in one state alone of the 48 contiguous states of the u. s. or that hundreds of thousands of people in the u. s. have been laid off of work and the government was unwilling to extend unemployment benefits to 800,000+ people. It's that the u. s. government gave $15 billion to United Airlines as a bail-out package and they still went bankrupt!

16 other nations have nuclear weapons programs in place, yet the u. s. is only going after one (17th) who might have weapons of mass destruction–why?
Because this nation [Iraq] is the only nation that has the world's second largest oil reserve-that's why. The u. s. government is no more interested in liberating the Iraqi people than I am in becoming a christian.
If the u. s. truly wishes to change a regime &/or fight terrorism, it needs to start on its own shores
Am I the only one who noticed that as soon as the u. s. obtained immunity from prosecution for 1 year from the World Court, it went after Saddam Hussien with an unchecked fervor.
Bush said 'Dictatorships are fine, as long as I am the dictator.'

We’ve been patiently waitin’
for a country to explode on. (yeah)
They can run if they want,
and their ass'll get rolled on. (its G-B)
It feels like our temper's
been hot for so long; (yeah)
And if you’re thinkin’ we’re gonna fall off,
you’re so wrong. (its G-B)



America’s patiently waiting to make it
through all the hatin’ debatin’
whether or not
it can even weather the storm.
It’s like layin’ on the table.
They’re operatin’ to save it.
And then an angel came to it,
sent from the heavens above.

They think he’s crazy,
but he ain’t crazy.
Lets face it, shit basically
The U-N’s just playin’ sick.
They ain’t shit,
they ain’t sayin shit
Spray ‘em G-B.

Grab and A-K,
and in a way
he’ll bring France and them
wit him.
And turn this day
into fuckin’ mayhem
You stayin’ wit me?

Don’t let me lose you,
I’m not tryin’ to confuse you.
When we let loose with our troops
and just shoot through their Isuzus.

Are you gettin’ the message
Am I getting’ through to you?
You know what’s comin’?
You fuckin’ liberals don’t even know,
do you?

take some GWB and some Saddam
And mix them up in a pot
Sprinkle a little Ossam on the top
What the fuck do you got?
You got the realest
And illest killas
Tied up in a knot
The juggernauts of this hot shit
Like it or not.

Its like a fight to the top
Just to see who’ll die for Saddam
We put our lives in this.
Nothin’ like survivin’ a shot
Y'all know what time it is,
soon as America signs on this dot.
Shit, what you know about death threats?
Cause we get a lot.

F15 jets were just
80 miles from the towers. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2224245.stm)
Them cowards fucked wit the wrong building
They should NOT have hit ours.
Iraq better evacuate all children
Nuclear showers.
There’s nothin’ spookier.
Baghdad’s about to witness the power.

Go to Iraq, wait for the bombs to fall on you. Then your desire for the invasion will have more credibility.

You liberals make me chuckle.

Why don't you go live in Iraq yourself? Spend a few years under the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein.

Then your anti-war protests would be given more credibility.

You __________ make me chuckle.

Why don't you go live in _______ yourself? Spend a few years under the despotic regime of ______________.

Then your anti-war protests would be given more credibility.
( fill in blanks as needed )

Can't you do any better than that? I mean, really. C'mon. You've got to be able to do better than that. At least, I'd like to think so.

The truth is really simple. Here, let me spell it out for you:

Extremism breeds extremism.

It's like the left hasn't figured that one out. These anti-war protesters just force the warmongers farther into their positions, and vice versa. Liberals just can't seem understand why people respond the way they do to the ridiculousness of the left.

It's because you morons make no sense.

Here, let me show you.

"Why don't you go live in ____the USA___ yourself? Spend a few years under the despotic regime of _______George Bush____.

Then your anti-war protests would be given more credibility."

Ridiculous. Dude, you talking to the air. Anyone know the number of a good shrink? Chuckles here, is in need of some couch time and a few strong anti-depressants.

{"Why don't you go live in ____the USA___ yourself? Spend a few years under the despotic regime of _______George Bush____."}
Exactly my view.
You dittoheads crack me up with your ability to trip over your tiny dicks.

If you don't like here, in America, land of the free, home of the brave...

then get the fuck out.

See ya!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ha!

No one is forced to live in the USA. In fact, Americans can practically obtain a visa to the country of their choice. When one gets to said country of his or her choice, one should be directed to send a certified letter to his or her's nearest Consulate General, formally renouncing his or her's citizenship.

Feel free to leave anytime Chuckles. And if you're not an American, then don't bother visiting on vacation. Go to Paris, where they like your kind.

And bring some of your friends. Might as well make it a party.
We'll see whos chicken guts spread the most with these hand loads. This is my country I will fight for it. Ha ha.

How ironic. An American hating peace protester with a gun. Named Chuckles, of all things. How entertaining he must be at parties, eh folks?

Chuckles, you and your kind are a marginalized joke at best.

Have a nice day.

I here the army is accepting applications. Oh, and so is McDonalds. You sound like you're qualified for either org.

I AM the party. My problem is working the load to a point before
it keyholes. What ever it hits sure is marginalized alright.
You know when you're going too far when the
primer starts to curl or the brass splits. What? You're going? Oh.
Have a nice day also.

I got a job for you too after you remove your false teeth.

Ignore the trolls like Shannon and the other Freeper scum that drag their sorry asses through here. They are the most knuckle-dragging, braindead, brainwashed cancer on the American body to ever crawl out from under their collective rocks. They raise the flag for the biggest collections of thieves, chickenhawks, and morons to ever illegally sieze the Whitehouse. They would've loved fascist Italy: goose-stepping around in their brownshirts, warmongering, saluting anything that moved. These sad-sacks of shit couldn't find their own asses with a mirror. They are traitorous, anti-Constitution thugs, and should get the fuck out of our country. I wish they'd all go down to Columbia or Guatemala, or some other dictatorship their heros have set up, and quit disgracing our beautiful country.

No doubt these twits think we all eat granola and practice
twidely winks. I was in the Infantry ( love the toys ) and
although it was a load of fun, I can't see wasteing these guys to die from DU and enemy action for the skunk in the
White House who never in his life put his body on the line.

Even with all the blathering you liberals do, it still doesn't amount to diddley-squat.

Tell us why, with 3000 plus dead citizen-casualties from barely more than a year past, that we should give to squirts about you're anti-war protesting hissy fits?

Of course no one wants innocent people to die in a bloody war. But if I lived in Baghdad right now, there'd be little that could keep me there. I'd load up my donkey (provided I was so graciously allowed to own one by the current administration) and hit the high road for Kirkuk or some other city outside the reach of harms way. Perhaps if all of the Iraqi people had the courage enough to isolate their brutal leader in this manner, we'd not even be having this conversation.

But go to Baghdad and ask around. You'll find that EVERYONE SUPPORTS Hussein. Every single one.

And that is exactly the problem. There are no chanting liberals in the streets, speaking out against their "leader". They're not allowed that "priviledge".

You are.

That's the difference between us and them. Guys like me, tolerate shits like you. Over there, you'd just be camel fodder.

Well, have you got your false teeth out yet? I'm waiting
for some of your special attention. (wink)

Ah forget it I thought you were a female.
You're just another tiny dick beating your chicken chest.

Why don't you liberals load up your donkeys, vovos, or whatever, and do the same thing?

I just don't understand you. You piss, whine, moan, and complain, but we just can't get rid of your sorry asses. If you hate it so much here, why do you persist on staying? Someone answer that question please??

Liberals always get huffy and pissy when asked that, but I've never heard one really answer it. It seems they'd rather stay in a place they hate and just complain about it, rather than trying to change their situation. Funny.

And if true patriots are people that bad-mouth and oppose their leaders, as well as the will of the majority of their countrymen, then how did America ever get to where it is today? A country doesn't become strong and powerful by having it's citizenry in a state of continuous turmoil. At some point, it's people had to stand together as brothers, against common enemies, and for the good of the nation.

That's the thing about Americans. We're not afraid of shit, not even each other. It used to be, we kick the shit out of each other all week long, but when someone from outside the borders poked us, we'd all stand together.

Now-a-days, everyone wants to be unique and individual. Everyone thinks "his" opinion is the one that matters. What a bunch of crap. Afro-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans, and Indian-Americans. The only ones that *don't* seem to want to hyphenate their names are the Anglo-Americans.

Oh, but now I'm just a racist. A scum sucking racist dirtbag. You don't even know what race I am, but immediately you'll assume I'm white. But of course it's not about race, it's about cooperation and collective thought. It could just as easy have been about sexism, or ageism or classism, conservatives vs. democrats or whatever.

The point is that we have to agree in order to get anything done. To agree, we're probably going to have to compromise.

If George Bush wanted this war, there'd be dead Iraqis all over the place already. He went the diplomatic route first. He's still going the diplomatic route, even today. Maybe there won't be a war. Maybe there will be. But if there is one thing I'm sure of is that Hussein is a killer in the truest sense of the word.

You can draw all the allusions to Bush you want, but on inauguration day, he didn't have Al Gore taken out back and shot.

i never got the argument that simply having freedom of speech makes me indebted to the country that gave it to me, thus obligating me to not criticize it for fear of looking traitorous. doesn't that kind of logic put a chilling effect on using that right? isn't it annulled by that kind of thinking?

oh yeah....IRAQ IS NOT AL-QAEDA. saddam hussein did not attack the US on september 11th. they have no links to each other. collin powells assertions otherwise have been porven to be unfounded. did any one else see that NY times peace in which Iraqi Kurds , who happen to be very pro-american, pretty much knocked down the story of the poisons factory controlled by ansar-al-islam? the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan pretty much said that was their territory. if you don't believe me, check what the CIA has been saying all along.

third, are you suggesting that the iraqi people are responsible for their own civilian casualties. could you clear that up? its sounds like you're blaming them for getting in the way of our bombs.But if I lived in Baghdad right now, there'd be little that could keep me there. I'd load up my donkey (provided I was so graciously allowed to own one by the current administration) and hit the high road for Kirkuk or some other city outside the reach of harms way. Perhaps if all of the Iraqi people had the courage enough to isolate their brutal leader in this manner, we'd not even be having this conversation.


But if I lived in Baghdad right now, there'd be little that could keep me there. I'd load up my donkey (provided I was so graciously allowed to own one by the current administration) and hit the high road for Kirkuk or some other city outside the reach of harms way. Perhaps if all of the Iraqi people had the courage enough to isolate their brutal leader in this manner, we'd not even be having this conversation.

Bet you get a lot of dates that way, huh, Chuckles old boy.

Combing the internet for classy chicks. You da man Chucky. You da man.

Weelll.
Seems like your hearing is bad. We live here. We have every
right to stay here. Personally I'll take a few of you out if you try to force me to leave.
GWB is a criminal and you're an idiot.
You __________(add invective) are all alike, stupid and simple as you lick the boots of who ever your facsist hero
happens to be. Know what a facsist is? I'll help you out
moron, listen up, I'll just say this once.
It's someone who believes that the merger of state and
corporations is a GOOD thing. Pull your head out.

Shannon,
Your retarded arguments are similar to this: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You are so brainwashed, you can't tell the difference between supporting a dictator and being against an unjust war.

For example, it was your rightwing buddies that helped prop up Saddam for years and years. They never gave a shit about the Iraqi people. At the same time, all of your rightwing buddies were shouting "Wag-the-dog!" when Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia and shooting tomahawks into Afghanistan. I guess that makes them supporters of the dictator Milosevic and the Taliban. Speaking of the Taliban, your buddies in the Bush Administration gave 43 million dollars to the Taliban just months before 9/11. I guess that make them supporters of terrorists, don't it? Oh, and heroin production is exploding in Afghanistan since the Taliban have been removed. They had cut production by 95%. But that's a different story.

It was your rightwing buddies that said El Salvador and Guatemala were "democracies" even as they were murdering tens of thousands of their own people. I don't remember any rightwingers saying, "Let's carpet bomb Central America to save them from tyranny." That's not what is inserted into your pumpkin little heads.

Your rightwing buddies ignored Indonesia when they invade East Timor. In fact, they supplied arms to Indonesia. Indonesia murdered 250,000 people out of a population of 750,000. The US didn't raise an eyebrow. No rightwingers said. "Bomb East Timor to save them from Indonesia!"

There is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. None. The CIA says Iraq is not a threat. Is the CIA a bunch of commies now?

There are so many countries that hate and fear the US. And they have WMD's they could hand off to terrorists. Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea, and who knows who else. Should we bomb them all? I mean, in our new total war for peace, who is next? Or hasn't RNC informed you yet? Maybe your have some suggestions. Then you can explain how bombing them will reduce terrorism against us.

Then maybe you can explain why certain people just randomly decided to hate us so much that they crashed jets into the WTC. Out of the blue. Out of a vacuum. Suddenly they bomb us. Not Canada, not Japan. No reason.

Then, Shannon, explain to us why the Bush Administration has done everything in its power to block an investigation of these attacks. Why is that?

Then, Shannon, you can explain to us what the Project for a New American Century is all about. Mind filling us in?

Then, Shannon, you can explain to us why Bush left any money for Afghanistan out of his budget?

Then, Shannon, you can explain to us why everytime the Administration brings forth a justification for war, it is immediately proven to be a fraud or outright lie?

Then, Shannon, you can explain to us why our traditional allies don't support this war. I mean, the German intelligence agencies warned the Bush Administration before hand that an attack involving jetliners was planned against us. Surely they have the intelligence assets to know whether Iraq is a threat. Can you explain that to us, Shannon?

Instead of reciting propoganda, maybe you could answer some of these questions. I mean, hell, you're a rightwinger. You know everything, right?

I'd rather go blind then donate my semen to some idiot
who would repuplicanize me as soon as I turned my back.
Are you offering your services? Sorry, I suspect it would be boring and dry.

error

Gee Mr. Chuckles, how lucky you are to have been born into the good life. I suppose that entitles you to the freedom to run your mouth all you like. I mean, what is it with this guy, folks?? Every other sentence is wrought with threats of force and violence if anyone so much as asks him a question. I mean, all I did was, out of mere curiosity, ask him why he chooses to remain in a country that he hates so much. His answer: "Because I live here and if you try and make me leave I'll take you out!"

To hear this guy, you'd think Mr. Chuckles is actually Chucky from the movie "Child's Play", on a butchering rampage against anyone and everyone. But really, he's probably just some bitter shut-in, an invalid that was would during his stint in the "infantry", and now he sits back, cusses his country and collects his disability checks from the Government.

Another thing I love is how you liberals are so prone to head off on tangents. I mean, no one has or ever will try to force Mr. Chuckles out of America (as long as he is here legally). I simply asked a question, merely to see what sort of dementia he was functioning under. And he gets all defensive, ready to fight me for his "right" to stay here and cuss the government.

See Mr. Chuckles likes the freedoms we have here. He likes the enormous wealth in this country. He likes all those things that America stands for and he gluttonously takes advantage of every last one of them. He's like a ravenous vulture, greedily feasting of the kills of others. But when the predator that made the kill shows up, Mr. Chuckles the buzzard flies off as quickly as those burly wings will take him aloft, out of fear that he too might become dinner.

What a chickenshit coward Chuckles is, one of the highest order. Thriving off of the success of a nation he despises.

And then someone else pipes up with "why is it traitorous to criticize one's government?"

Anyone want show me where anyone even remotely implied such a thing? Patently absurd.

Of course all right-wingers are goose stepping boot lickers. Absolutely, we pay the highest tribute to whomever our leader is at the time. We just couldn't stop kow-towing to Clinton, could we? His mesmerizing spell had us under in his control.

Of course we right-wingers believe in criticizing the Government too. Don't think you liberals have the exclusive, patented rights on that. Personally, when Clinton was in the White House, I couldn't shut up about how much I hated that idiot and all he stood for. So obviously, rightwing warmongers are only goose-stepping boot lickers when it's a Republican in office. When its a Democrap, then they become the manufacturers of a vast conspiracy against him. In the meantime, the liberals are doing the boot licking.

What a joke you people are.

I love it when these liberal idiots call us Nazis.

Let's see. These liberals are anti-freeing the Iraqi people from enslavement making them pro-Saddam; and they are pro-Palestinian homicide bombing making them anti-Israel which is anti-Jew.

So, we got a bunch of liberals who upholds the hands of dictators and they hate Jews.

I'm confident we know EXACTLY who the Nazis are.

Shannon answered none of my questions? Why, because he/she is a typical ignorant fucking moron. She crows like a rooster as if she is responsible for America's (remaining) freedoms, and does nothing to confront constratints to these freedoms. Nothing. Shannon, you are a traitor.

Oh, and to the other thug. Whoever wants the Iraqi people to remain oppressed under Rumsfeld's buddy Saddam raise there hand? Huh? No one? Who the fuck wants to rain the fires of hell down on and blow their limbs off and spew their entrails all over? Oh, Shannon and itstrue. Sick motherfuckers.

Sieg Hiel!!

oddworld,

Today, as you do everyday, you will be assigned to killing Jews and assisting the forces to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Keep up the good work. Should we live, you will be rewarded.

Hiel Hitler!!

1) Bush is about as republican as he is christian, which is to say, only when it serves him. So don't decide that since a lot of us here are opposed to him that that neccessarily makes us liberals, democrats, commies, or whatnot. To do so walks right into the intent of their spin manipulation bullshit. I am not anti republican, I'm anti 'neo conservative', and anti 'preemptive national defense'. They were pushing for this same shit during the cuban missle crisis and i'm glad we didn't take the first strike. Decent Americans don't invade foriegn countries for fun and profit. The nazi's were pushing for this same shit in 1933 after the Reichstag fires and the people *did* take the bait and look where it got them.

2) Many of us recognize that CLINTON! CLINTON!!! CLINTON! was not a Swell Guy. I personally am not a huge Clinton fan but damn if he doesn't come off smelling like roses next to bush. You go right ahead and excercise your rights to criticize clinton, you will get nothing but support from me. Provided clinton is actually in some position of power at the time, or actually relevant in some way, and not just used to deflect flack from a corrupt administration and divide potential opposition at a time of national political and constitutional crisis. We exist at such a time right now, and it seems all the warmongers can talk about is Clinton. Who cares about him, his day is done, if you want to level charges against him i suspect there are better times than 2 days before we are planning the begin the first prominently publicized US-led invasion of a foriegn country. Lets avoid this war, get our troops home alive, take a Good Long Look at what our drunken fratboy of a president is doing and has done, and then we can talk about clinton some. He's not going anywhere.

To address some of your particular concerns/statements:

"I mean, no one has or ever will try to force Mr. Chuckles out of America (as long as he is here legally)."

You say that with far more certaintity than you justifiably can. The phrase 'Like it or leave it' has become an anti-dissent mantra unparalleled in recent times in everyday usage. I know that I am rather forcibly suggested to move to canada or elsewhere at least once every day or two from various sources. For trying to do what i sincerly feel is right, and just, and most importantly, in the best longterm interests of our country. "Like it or leave it" has become "Get with the program or get the fuck out".

"And then someone else pipes up with "why is it traitorous to criticize one's government?"

Anyone want show me where anyone even remotely implied such a thing? Patently absurd."

The phrase "Support America" comes to mind. That is being tossed around at a fevered pitch lately. And it does directly imply that if you do not support this war you are not supporting America, and many have put 2 and 2 together to correctly assume that people chanting this rahrah shit feel that those opposed to the war are traitorous to their country. The nazi's did the exact same thing to cow dissendent voices as they banged a very, very similar war drum to the one the bush mafia and his supports in the media are clanging today.

Which leads me to my final statement here, regarding itstrue's statement that liberal's are nazis. First off, hahaha. Sorry that was a rather forced laugh, in light of the current situation it is pretty hard to geniunely laugh at anything other than "Skinner's" HTML's remarkable ability to 'has suck'. But lets look at what he's saying here:

"These liberals are anti-freeing the Iraqi people from enslavement making them pro-Saddam;"

Freeing them with holy cleansing fire. Yeehaw pass the ammo. No one is pro-Saddam, although I could argueably be stated to be pro-iraqi, but only in as much as i'm pro-humanity and pro-life. Your "arguement" is completely baseless. Never have I personally or even anyone i've read here stated that we should just forget about saddam. We must act with the complete cooperation of an international force though or we look like (and basically are), a bunch of warmongering, pillaging western cowboys trying to get our yahyahs off on an ineptly armed third world country in retribution for 9/11, something that no one has been able to associate with Iraq at all.

And it continues...

"and they are pro-Palestinian homicide bombing making them anti-Israel which is anti-Jew."

I am not anti-Jew but I am pro-Palestinian human rights. The same that have been violated with international impudency for many years. Many of you warmongers are quick to site iraq's un violations, but amazingly unable to notice that isreal has 3 or 4 times as many, half of which have been overruled by american politicians on behalf of the american people. That's wrong. We're wising up to this shit and we will not tolerate it much longer. Again, your arguements are rubbish. Putting words in the mouths of those you oppose so you can condemn us for them in your next statement (which i wont even bother responding too, its such rubbish). That crap might work down at the bar (or, more likely, the school cafeteria) discussing "politics" with your other drunk chickenhawk warmongers but it does not cut it here.

And I do say you're a nazi. You sound exactly like one. Banging your little drum, not sure which arguement to use today "We're freeing them!" - "We're protecting ourselves!" - "Well yeah duh of course we'd like some of that oil" - "You baby-killing commie bastards better shut the hell up and support our good godly president in whatever actions he takes". This uber-nationalist self-serving crap is exactly how the nazi's established their stranglehold on the german people. The only difference is our right to free speech and the internet. And those two will save us from the ruin that the bush administration does not care if we avoid, I have faith.

Also, to clarify for your small shrivelled little excuse for a brain. I'm only calling the ones banging that drum the hardest nazi's right now. My biggest fear is that they will be successful in completely programming the people of america and turning us all into similar warmongering invaders for capitalism. And so, I denounce you and yours, here and now and tomorrow and abroad. You, "itstrue", probably have at least one swastika hanging up in your room right now. And even if you don't, you're still acting like it, and you're trying to corrupt our nation with your venemous tripe, and I won't stand for it. Take that shit back to your backwoods, population 37, whitepower screaming plantation. Or start thinking for yourself and abandon it completely. Damn 15 yr old kids trying to talk politics - These are real humans with real lives we're about to bomb, most of whom have done nothing to deserve this shit.

You sound way to familiar with that crap. And why don't you just take that shit elsewhere... fucking disgusting to read, even more so when its clearly a half-baked response to your arguements obvious similarities to the nazi party. You sound like a twelve year old.

"You're a poopie head!" -> "NO YOU'RE A POOPIE HEAD!"

Rationalize your argument or conceed that you are a dumb inbred White Boy from oakeyfanokey trying to deflect the truth at a time when it could crush your movement, because thats clearly whats happening.

Were you born with flippers or something? Does your family tree fork? You're a disgrace to decent americans everywhere.

That shit is so disgusting... I'm not one for censorship but damn if that hate fiilled crap didn't go too far... Anyone else interested in seeing at least his shiteating little 'hiels' stricken? just **** 'em out maybe?

Ugh what a waste of a life you are AH... your parents should have used a higher-quality condom... unhhh.

You can make your point without being a pig. Oh wait, no YOU can't but it can in theory be done. Go back to school, get your learn on and leave the politics to the adults little man.

Get the fuck out of here. The only thing he smelled like was Monica Lewinsky's pussy.

And oddworld, don't think my unwavering, beady little eyes escaped your drivel. I don't have time to respond to all that tripe at the moment, even though it's mostly hollow, empty nothingness, proped up by a vertual vortex of voidness. But I'll definately get back to you when I have more time.

In the meantime, why don't you repost you're intial post and try backing it up with some sources. I mean, there's a invariable plethora of conspiracy theories to pull from on the internet as resources. And I'm sure an invalid shut-in such as yourself has all day to fill his brain up with such nonesensical parol. But the proof is always in the pudding. Back your crap up with reputable source material.

I bet you a dime to a doughnut that you can't (or won't) do it.

Have a nice day, liberal losers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

the formo.

Just reading back through this thread is amusing in a sick way. The creeps from Freep just seem to never seem to remove their heads from their perpetual inversion. As near as I tell their arguments for the war amount to:

1. If you don’t like killing women and children then move to another country that doesn’t. (I don't even recognize that as a valid American Viewpoint - it is straight out the Third Reich.)

2. What about September 11th huh? Like Duh! Please name all of the Iraqi’s involved in the Reichstag fire of 911? There were Zero, NONE, NADA, you freaking brainwashed morons. You have been too long closeted in your own little incestuous back-slapping, self congratulating little world. There is no evidence whatsoever linking Iraq to 911. Although there were 5 joyful picture snapping Israelis (Mossad) dancing on the top of their van and high fiving as the towers crumbled. They were very quietly allowed to leave the U.S. and return to Israel - another successful mission; with Administration complicity. 911 was an INSIDE JOB and your beloved Fuhrer was in it up to his eyeballs you Brownshirt Bastards. Take a while to actually look at the evidence.

3. If you oppose killing Tens of Thousands of innocents you are an appeaser that supports Saddam. Oh spare me. You inhuman monsters that you would be so enrapt in your propaganda that all you can see is the latest lie, which like the gullible fools you are, you swallow whole without even burping. Of course no politician, least of all our beloved Fuhrer has ever lied. Right? Real people are going to die, and the Troops you claim to support will again be given a red hot poker up their ass as they were in Vietnam and again following Gulf Massacre 1. As Der Fuhrer and his cronies get richer and the cut another 15 Billion off of the budget for taking care of those worthless dregs, you know - Infantrymen, Sailors, Airmen, who actually, unlike the Deserter Bush, fulfilled their obligations with honor.

I could go on but you Freeper Brownshirt Morons, and that is really an insult to real Morons, keep vomiting up your daily dose of propaganda. As real people die. As real Americans stand up to oppose the evil which this Administration would unleash.

“There is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. None. The CIA says Iraq is not a threat. Is the CIA a bunch of commies now?”

Really? Who in the CIA? Do you have connections we should all know about? How ridiculous, “The CIA says Iraq is not a threat.” I should stop responding to your crap right here, but a promise is a promise.

“There are so many countries that hate and fear the US. And they have WMD's they could hand off to terrorists. Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea, and who knows who else.”

All are pretty much pisant, insignificant countries. Tell us why you believe those countries hate the USA.

Let’s see. Seems I remember Iran taking a few American Consulate officials as hostages back in the late 70s. I think I could give two squirts about that country.

And North Korea? Didn’t we have to go in there back in the 50s and smack them around for hostile advances against South Korea? I think I can understand why they hate us. If I were a despotic dictator I’d hate all freedom lovers too. Again, two squirts.

Libya? Two squirts.

Syria? Two squirts.

“Should we bomb them all?”

If it comes to that, I’d say “Yep. Bomb the fuck out of ‘em.” Why not?

“I mean, in our new total war for peace, who is next?”

Well, I can only speculate. But Kim Jung Il has been making a lot of noise. He’s definitely a blip on the radar. I’d say North Korea is next. Then Iran. Syria and Libya are a toss-up. Anybody’s guess on the firing order for those two.

“Or hasn't RNC informed you yet?

No, I’m sorry to say that I’m not in the loop. I’m still striving though. Eventually, I’ll work my way up, and provided I eat my Wheaties, one day I’ll get to lead the great conspiracy against freedom, that we all know to be the Republican credo.

“Maybe your have some suggestions. Then you can explain how bombing them will reduce terrorism against us. “

The same way bombing Japan reduced terrorism against us. The same way bombing Germany reduced terrorism against us, and against the Russians, and against the Jews, and against the Europeans. God, you’re stupid.

“Then maybe you can explain why certain people just randomly decided to hate us so much that they crashed jets into the WTC.”

I could give two squirts on “why they hate us”. I wasn’t born into this world to make friends, and I certainly don’t try to rationalize the dementia of lunatics. “Oh, boo hoo hoo. Arabs hate me. Oh boo hoo hoo. I wish I knew why.”

Fuck that. Bomb the fuckers.

“Out of the blue. Out of a vacuum. Suddenly they bomb us.”

You’re an idiot. It wasn’t out of the blue. They tried it in 1992. They blew up the USS Cole. They bombed an embassy in Africa. This shit has been going on for decades. It’s not going to stop, just because you want to kiss the beasts and turn the other cheek. That’s insanity. Fuck the pigs. Fuck them and feed them fish heads, that’s what I say.

And when we’re done, fuck them one more time for good measure.

“Not Canada, not Japan. No reason. “

Canada? Canada is a joke for God’s sake. If I was a serial killer in the USA, I’d escape across the border to Canada because of their ridiculous extradition laws and lack of a death penalty. If I was and illegal immigrant wanting to get into the USA, I’d go to Canada first because of their ridiculous immigration laws and lax border patrols. Canada is a joke.

And Japan, well they tried it. Back in ’42. Maybe you read about. But in August of 1945, I think we struck back. That’s what the history book said anyway. Haven’t heard much from the Japs ever since. Seems to have worked pretty good, I’d say.

“Then, Shannon, explain to us why the Bush Administration has done everything in its power to block an investigation of these attacks. Why is that? “

Where’s your source? What exactly are you talking about? Explain to me exactly how this has occurred?

You spend too much time reading conspiracy theories on the internet, oddworld.

“Then, Shannon, you can explain to us what the Project for a New American Century is all about. Mind filling us in? “

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Never heard of it before you brought it up. Looks like a non-profit organization of radical Americans that want their way of life protected. I’m getting out my checkbook right now, and making check number 478 out to “Cash”.

“Then, Shannon, you can explain to us why Bush left any money for Afghanistan out of his budget? “

Did he? I wouldn’t know. But can you explain to me why I should give more than two squirts about it?

“Then, Shannon, you can explain to us why everytime the Administration brings forth a justification for war, it is immediately proven to be a fraud or outright lie? “

Really? Again, where’s your source? You really should back all of these accusations up with some facts. It might help your argument.

“Then, Shannon, you can explain to us why our traditional allies don't support this war. I mean, the German intelligence agencies…”

Germans? Our traditional allies? Get the fuck out of here. It was only 60 years ago that we were having to bomb the crap out of that country.

And France, a traditional allie? Not since the Revolutionary war. For God's sake, a country with a history of decapitating the bourgousie with a guillitine, all of a sudden hasn't got the stomache for violence. Give me a break.

And Russia? China? Traditional allies? Communists? Socialists? Allies? What fantasy land do you live in, lah-lah.

Traditional allies: Britain

“…warned the Bush Administration before hand that an attack involving jetliners was planned against us. Surely they have the intelligence assets to know whether Iraq is a threat. Can you explain that to us, Shannon?”

Source? Internet conspiracy theories sure are fun, aren’t they oddworld?

“Instead of reciting propoganda, maybe you could answer some of these questions. I mean, hell, you're a rightwinger. You know everything, right?”

Well, not everything. Just most everything. I certainly know enough to recognize when someone’s opinion, such as yours, lacks substance.

Now if you’re going to address any more comments to me, they had better be backed up with facts, else I won’t waste any more of my precious time addressing them.

Facts. You know. You must have heard the word somewhere. Look it up.

Well Shannon you seem to be experienced at casting aspersions and sarcastic insults but where's the Beef?

You accuse others of not citing evidence but in looking back through your meandering screeds I see not one source citation or even anything resembling a coherent argument. It could easily be summarized as "kill them all and let God sort them out". You seem to have swallowed the entire pro-war line without even once stopping to ask - does this really make sense. It's a cinch you make no sense.

Your rationale seems to come down to a blind unreasoned belief in the personality cult of your Fuhrer. No evidence, no clear rationale. You lose(r).

"You accuse others of not citing evidence but in looking back through your meandering screeds I see not one source citation or even anything resembling a coherent argument."

For which of my ramblings would you like me to cite a source? I was very specific in asking oddworld for his. Shouldn't you return the favor?

Or perhaps you'd just like to continue to plead ignorance, that you simply don't understand my incoherrent bablings. That what I type is all "Greek" to you. That I'm obviously a raving madman with niche for bedlam.

Such is why the arguments of the left so often go unheard, or are dismissed. They lack substance.

Here's a news flash. I could not care less what you imc idiots think of me. This isn't about me. It's much bigger than me or my ego (if that's even possible). This is about doing what is inherrently right, even in the face of adversity.

Playing kissy-kissy, smoochy-smoochy with a killer is not the right thing to do. It's time for action. Either you'd rather sit back and allow Hussein to continue to do his thing, or you want to see him opposed.

I want to see him opposed. That's my opinion. Obviously yours is to the contrary. That's America for you. Freedom of speech and all that jazz. Even the most idiotic idiot has the right to speak his or her mind.

Even you.

...advocate the use of massive military force resulting in thousands of lost innocent lives and untold misery.

The onus is upon you to prove your case for such action.

Upon what dire and compelling evidence to you base your case?

You are just a narrow minded blowhard with some minor facility with words.

You prove nothing other than that you accept uncritically the rantings of your Fuhrer.

Which side is that? The Republican side? Pro-American side? The side that doens't want to sick back and watch Hussein rebuild his military arsenol just so he can douse thousands of his own people with chemical weapons yet again? The side that fears that if he's capable of doing that to his own people that it's not really sure what he's capable of doing to them? The side that witnessed Hussein roll his tanks right into Kuwait, like his name is Adolph junior? The side that has sat back and watched while kissy-ass appeasing liberals have done nothing while the UN has made resolution after resolution instructing Hussein to "completely and totally disarm, or else" for the last 12 years, only to be laughed at?

Which side are we talking about?

"Upon what dire and compelling evidence to you base your case?"

Oh, I don't know. Don't mind me. I'm just a narrow minded blowhard with some minor facility with words. After all, that's what this is really all about, isn't it. Me. Little old me. And nobody else but me.

My ego grows.

Like a broken record.
You need a jog, Shannon, you're caught in a worn out rut.

to hear the truth repeated over and over again so many times gets old after a while. i don't care how true it may be.

“Which side is that? The Republican side? Pro-American side? The side that doesn't want to sick back and watch Hussein rebuild his military arsenal just so he can douse thousands of his own people with chemical weapons yet again? The side that fears that if he's capable of doing that to his own people that it's not really sure what he's capable of doing to them? The side that witnessed Hussein roll his tanks right into Kuwait, like his name is Adolph junior? The side that has sat back and watched while kissy-ass appeasing liberals have done nothing while the UN has made resolution after resolution instructing Hussein to "completely and totally disarm, or else" for the last 12 years, only to be laughed at?”

A. Please explain what you mean by "Pro-American or Republican" sides.

Do you mean that you have to be in favor of mass murder to be an American?

B. Our own D.I.A. in a published report stated that their is no evidence that Hussein Gassed his own people. The incident at Halabja was that Kurdish People were caught in a crossfire, an exchange of chemical weapons Barrages between Iranian and Iraqi forces. The bodies examined by UNESCO Observers showed signs of Cyanosis the symptoms of a Blood Agent - which is what was used by the Iranians. The Iraqi’s used Mustard Gas - a Blistering Agent - completely different symptoms.

C. Hussein rolled his tanks into Kuwait, after being given the Green Light by April Glaspie the U.S. Envoy - on behalf of George I. Further, the Kuwaitii's were slant drilling into Iraqi Oil Deposits - and was a former province of Iraq that was seperated off by British Petroleum back in the 20's.

D. Again and again the Weapons inspectors have gone to sites pointed to by the Propagandist Chickenhawks in the Bush Junta only to find the claims completely unsubstantiated.

You avoid the question: Upon what EVIDENCE do you make the call for WAR on the Iraqi people? This is not just about one man although the propagandists on your side are trying busily to focus everybodies attention on Hussein and not on the bloated bodies of children stuck with shrapnel marked: “Made in the U.S.A.”.

You are advocating an action that will result in many thousands of deaths, estimates at the U.N. run as high as 200,000 people - the population of a small city - just snuffed out because the NeoCon NeoFascists want the Oil and power.
Millions more will suffer from starvation following and we can only speculate further upon how many more thousands of deaths will result.

“Which side are we talking about? “

Why the HUMANITARIAN side of course. The side that thinks for itself rather than regurgitating unsubstantiated Black Propaganda.

"Upon what dire and compelling evidence to you base your case?"

“Oh, I don't know. Don't mind me. I'm just a narrow minded blowhard with some minor facility with words. After all, that's what this is really all about, isn't it. Me. Little old me. And nobody else but me.”

You are right here; you are a narrow minded blowhard. And not very bright either.

“My ego grows.” Far beyond the size of your Soul.

As a child born and partly raised in Beirut, I cringe a little bit but not a lot when Dr. Awadh describes his tribulations. I offer my silent prayers to God for the horrors he has had to witness and help redress. It is a shame and a blasphemy.

However, it's not the worst punishments I had to contemplate, as my people were inflicted with an encyclopedia of horrors by the Syrian secret services. People captured and sent to Damascus to never return. The question, Dr. Awadh, is March 1991, as you bring up. Why did the US let the revolution collapse? Why let so many people die? Now to go in and kill more?

No, Dr. Awadh, I hear your pleas but cannot trade the well-being of a people for the vengeance you thirst for. How will life be better after your whole country is shell-shocked? YOUR WHOLE COUNTRY? Please answer this question, I ask it respectfully.

Then the sewers and water systems and electrical power will be destroyed and the infrastructure will be rebuilt by Haliburton, and the Iraqi people will owe more than a symbolic debt to the US, as your nation which recently was coming out of its colonial debt becomes endentured to the US, and the people become SLAVES like those in Argentina. See how many people are starving now in that country--see how well the US emperors treat their subjects.

I also ask how you can trust the U.S., who LET THE PEOPLE"S REVOLUTION FAIL, with freeing the people??? They don't stand for anyone's democracy but their own. When they say 'Democracy' they mean 'Capitalism.' Capitalism is exploitation.

So as I have grown up contemplating what would happen to me as a young man if I spoke too freely and was caught by the Syrians, or by the Israelis, and torn limb from limb, fiber from fiber, so did I contemplate why the US went into Iraq when another Ba'ath party was pillaging and raping my beloved land and its people. I am glad the US stayed out of Lebanon in 1990 when Syria finally came in, the way I am glad we have had no embargo to kill 500,000 of our children in ten years.

Just my opinion. I hope Dr. Awadh can respect it, or tell me why not.

Soooo if someone doesn't agree with their Government they are anti-American? Well I don't agree with budget cuts in education and welfare, does that make me anti-American if I protest? In other words, this democracy - "ruled by the people"- can have no voice opposed to anything they say? Maybe some of us realize (since it is so obvious) that this war is about oil, they don't even take care of the millions of American living in poverty, do you really believe they care about Iraqi's? Come on! If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...

“A. Please explain what you mean by "Pro-American or Republican" sides. “

I don’t know. I asked you first. You said, “my side.” I was just trying to figure out which side was mine.

You see, unlike you, I haven’t chosen sides. My side, as you like to refer to it as, is just comprised of me, myself, and I. My editorials express the written opinions of me only, and if others just so happen to agree with me, then so be it. If one or two of those “others” just so happens to be the current Bush regime, then so be that too.

But unlike you, the sick sycophant that you are, I’m not trying to please anyone, least of all you and your liberal hippie new age pot smoking friends.

“Do you mean that you have to be in favor of mass murder to be an American?”

Of course. It’s a requirement. Everyday in school we pledge alligiance to the flag, of mass murder in the name of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one murder after another in God we trust, E pluribus unim, sic semper tyranus forever. Amen.

And to become nationalized, you have to kill someone.

And our military pledges to support and defend the Constitution in the name of murder so help us God, Satan, and Zorg.

“B. Our own D.I.A. in a published report stated that their is no evidence that Hussein Gassed his own people.”

Well there you have it folks. Straight from the Detroit Institute for the Arts. Knows all, tells all.

So are you saying that Hussein didn’t murder those people? Is that what you’re denying? Why would you try to revise history like that? Are you one of those revisionsist? How come you didn’t cite any web pages for us to look at? Maybe you didn’t find that information on the web? Maybe you’re privy to top secret documents that the rest of us can’t have access to.

Or maybe you’re just full of bullshit.

“C. Hussein rolled his tanks into Kuwait, after being given the Green Light by April Glaspie the U.S. Envoy - on behalf of George I.”

Really? Explain that logic there genius. Let’s see, goes like this.

April (on the phone): “Mr. Bush, Saddam tells me he wants to invade Kuwait”

Bush (at golf course on cellular): “Not now April. I’m 4 under par on the 9th. Can’t this wait until later.”

April: “He really wants an answer now. He’s getting impatient.”

George: “Oh, alright. Tell the greasy eared tyrant to go ahead! I don’t have time to discuss it now. I’ve got the t-box. We’ll just send in the troops next week to run him out.”

And you accuse me of being irrational.

“Further, the Kuwaitii's were slant drilling into Iraqi Oil Deposits - and was a former province of Iraq that was seperated off by British Petroleum back in the 20's. “

Oh. Well that perfectly justifies it all then, now don’t it.

“D. Again and again the Weapons inspectors have gone to sites pointed to by the Propagandist Chickenhawks in the Bush Junta only to find the claims completely unsubstantiated.”

So it’s the inspector’s job to find these stashes of illegal weapons? Or the job of the “chickenhawks” to tell them where to go to find them? What about Saddam? Does he have ANY responsibility in any of this?

"You avoid the question: Upon what EVIDENCE do you make the call for WAR on the Iraqi people?”

The war is not being called for upon the Iraqi people.

It’s being called for upon the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, and any that support and/or defend him. Do you support and/or defend him?

“This is not just about one man although the propagandists on your side are trying busily to focus everybodies attention on Hussein and not on the bloated bodies of children stuck with shrapnel marked: “Made in the U.S.A.”. “

I agree. It’s a tragedy when innocent children have to suffer. How many of those innocent children do you suppose will unjustly suffer, hampered by the tyrannical despotic regime of Saddam Hussein if we take no action? None? A few? A hundred? Any?

It’s a tough argument to refute, “innocent children”. That’s the worst case scenario, isn’t it. That’s the top dog, the head hancho of arguments. “Innocent children”. It just don’t get no worse than that, do it.

Well, what about the innocent Americans willing to risk their lives for those innocent children’s future? Their freedom? Should we just let them be ruled by fear and terror for ever and ever Amen??

Yes. By all means. Let’s just forget about the futures of these innocent children. If we don’t depose their dictator, at least they may live long enough to see their own children enslaved by that tyrant. They’ll live full and productive lives under the reigns of oppression.

Yes. Amen.

So we should just ignore this killer and walk away from his tyranny, because you’re afraid we might kill innocent children?

You really don’t know what it means to be American do you? Patrick Henry said it best.

“You are advocating an action that will result in many thousands of deaths, estimates at the U.N. run as high as 200,000 people - the population of a small city - just snuffed out because the NeoCon NeoFascists want the Oil and power. “

That’s all this is about to you? Oil? Power?

Patently absurd.

“Millions more will suffer from starvation following and we can only speculate further upon how many more thousands of deaths will result. “

Hyperbole. Buy a clock. Set it to right now. And wake the fuck up.

“Which side are we talking about? “

“Why the HUMANITARIAN side of course.”

Oh. That side. The pacifists. The appeasers. The “turn-the-other-cheek” side. The do-nothings.

I never have figured out how it’s humanitarian to allow someone, anyone to live in slavery and oppression.

Back in the old days, if you had a lamb horse, you shot it. You put it out of it’s misery. It was the humanitarian thing to do. I suppose you’d just let the poor dumb animal limp around for the rest of it’s dying days, out of kindness.

The humanitarian side wants to free a nation. That side wants to free a people. Even if the humanitarian side has to give up it’s own freedom in the process. Even if it has to give up it’s own lives or the lives of it’s own children. That’s the humanitarian side. Don’t try to fill us up with your garbage. You’re a taker, not a giver. I doubt you’ve ever done anything productive for your country. But you’ll sit around and bad-mouth it in a heartbeat.

Humanitarian. What a joke. You care about yourself only. Not those children. Certainly not me or my children. Not any of the children that died on Sept. 11. Nope. Don’t give me that bunk.

“The side that thinks for itself rather than regurgitating unsubstantiated Black Propaganda. “

You know, just looking at the “day” and calling it “night”, doesn’t make you a thinker. Seeing light and calling it darkness doesn’t make you enlightened.

You’re herded around by your opinions, just the same as me or anyone else. Just because you’re a self-proclaimed humanitarian doesn’t give you exclusive patented rights on “thinking”.

And once again, as much as you like it to, this discussion has nothing to do with me. Whether I’m a thinker or an imbecile makes no never-mind.

The question is, do we as a nation, take a stand and oppose those who would see us dead, or do we ignore and let them be? Do we just sit here in our homes while the rest of our buildings are leveled? While the anthrax is dispersed or the yellow fever or whatever? Do we live in fear, or will we find strength in fear? Will we stand up and fight for our freedom and our right to our way of life? How about for the freedoms of others? Or will we snivel and wail and moan our losses, tuck tail and turn the other cheek?

The meek shall inherit the Earth. And they certainly deserve this cesspool. I say, let them have it. After I'm gone of course.

Personally, I’m not afraid of anything. Most Americans aren’t. That’s what I like about ‘em. Hell yeah we’re arrogant, foul-mouthed, obnoxious etc. But we’re not afraid to fight for what’s right. And what’s right is to rid the world of tyrants like Hussein and the Taliban, and Ossama bin Laden, Kim Jung Il etc etc ad naseam.

“You are right here; you are a narrow minded blowhard. And not very bright either. “

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but and ad hominem is still not a rebuttal.

Shannon: "I never have figured out how it’s humanitarian to allow someone, anyone to live in slavery and oppression. "

...unless, of course, there's profit to be had....then it is called the "free market" and is quite easy to figure out....

...other than tired old canards which I have refuted a hundred times.

You have no facts only fulminations and assumptions.

I just love your ASSumption - common to your ilk - that if you are opposed to letting Shrub have his nice little war that you are by definition a leftist.

There is absolutely nothing in my posts which justify that conclusion.

Why don't you try running that one by Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Harry Browne, or any of the thousands of principled Conservatives who oppose this military conquest?

You aren't man enough.

Exactly how does one refute the truth? It's like arguing with a stop sign, isn't it?

Fulminations and assumptions are all that really exist in this world, once we scrape off the skin. Their all that matter. Not your cyber-masturbatory acts of "refuting the truth."

Big whoop. You manufacture a bunch conjecture and hearsay and proclaim you've refuted the truth. Whoopdy fucking doo. Any moron can do that.

Wanna do something significant? Wanna create something noteworthy? Tell us how to solve these problems we have in America without the use of violence. Provide a plan. Something solid.

Any idiot can sit there and go "Umm Gee, there's no proof Saddam killed all those kurds man. This is blood for oil. You're just a warmonger doood. Be a humanitarian like me. It's cool."

Yeah. My assuptions. Gotta love 'em. Common to my ilk. We're all alike. Just like the niggers. Oh yeah and the towel heads. Don't forget the gooks and the wops. Me and my ilk are all the same. No assumptions required to figure that out.

So you're not a leftist? Are you or aren't you? Don't beat around the Bush man, say it for God's sake.

Well, gee. Did it ever cross your mind that I might not be a rightist either??

"Why don't you try running that one by Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Harry Browne, or any of the thousands of principled Conservatives who oppose this military conquest? "

Those idiots are sychophannts of the highest degree. They're not opposed to the war for reasons of idealism. Primarily they're opposed for political gains.

"You aren't man enough."

Ooooooo. Insulting my manhood. Hey, didn't you just assume that I am indeed, a man? Perhaps I'm a woman. That would make you a sexist. Or possibly I'm a hermaphrodite. Perhaps I don't even exist, except possibly as a subroutine of some form of Internet based Artificial Intelligence program.

Oh yeah, anyone ever tell you that an ad hominem is not a rebuttal? It's not you know.

Refutation of the earlier argument by Diogenes, that Saddam Hussein didn't kill the kurds:

History Lessen
It is by now a well-established fact that chemical weapons claimed the lives of over 5,000 Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja on March 16, 1988. It is equally well-established that responsibility for this atrocity lies with Saddam Hussein. Indeed, there is virtual unanimity among the dozens of journalists, government delegations, and international human rights groups who have investigated the matter that Halabja was the first frightful act of Saddam's Anfal campaign, a genocide that consumed almost 100,000 Kurds in all. Yet according to a chilling and incoherent op-ed published in Friday's New York Times, Saddam had nothing to do with the massacre after all. The author of this revisionist account is Stephen C. Pelletiere, a retired Army War College professor who served as a senior Iraq analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency during the Iran-Iraq war. Pelletiere is the co-author of the 1990 book Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East, which concluded that Iranian gas, not Iraqi gas, murdered the Kurds at Halabja. In his Times op-ed Pelletiere recycles this argument, only this time against the backdrop of a second war with Saddam. He's no more convincing today than he was 13 years ago.

Pelletiere begins by reprising the usual facts--namely, that Halabja was the site of an intense battle between Saddam and the Iranians. He first concedes that Iraq did use chemical weapons, but argues that the Iranians did as well. The Kurdish victims of the chemicals "had the misfortune to be caught up in the exchange." Pelletiere then cites a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, issued shortly after Halabja, to support his conclusion that Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. His evidence? The Kurdish corpses "indicated that they had been killed with a blood agent," which the Iraqis, "who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed."

But this claim is wildly implausible. First, interviews by international human rights groups with scores of Halabja survivors reveal no such confusion about who deployed the chemicals. Kurds who were outside their houses during the mid-morning attack "could see clearly that these were Iraqi, not Iranian aircraft, since they flew low enough for their markings to be legible," concluded Human Rights Watch in its 1993 report Genocide In Iraq. In any case, the argument for Iranian culpability neglects the logistics of the Halabja battle itself. The Iranians, who controlled the town on March 15, would have no reason to use chemical agents against the Iraqi counteroffensive on March 16, since the Iraqis retaliated with air strikes and placed no soldiers on the ground against whom such weapons could be deployed.

Second, even if the victims died of exposure to blood agents, this would be perfectly consistent with the claim of Iraqi responsibility. A 1991 DIA report, since declassified, concluded definitively, "Iraq is known to have employed ... a blood agent, hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) ... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians." Nonetheless, it is far more likely, according to the standard accounts of the attack on Halabja, that mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun--and, some doctors examining survivors have speculated, perhaps VX and the biological agent aflatoxin--were the instruments of Kurdish murder, which the Iraqis were known to possess. For example, Human Rights Watch noted that survivors excreted blood-streaked urine, "consistent with exposure to both mustard gas and a nerve agent such as Sarin."

Third, the 1988 DIA report Pelletiere cites to pin Halabja on the Iranians was not the end of the DIA's inquiry. The DIA's April 19, 1988 cable--a month after Halabja--took note of the fact that the Iraqis were already forcibly resettling "an estimated 1.5 million Kurdish nationals," including "an unknown but reportedly large number of Kurds [who] have been placed in 'concentration camps' located near the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian borders." This in mind, the far more plausible story is that Halabja was part of a concerted effort to settle the Kurdish problem "once and for all," in the words of an October 24, 1988 DIA report--by wiping out the Iraqi Kurdish population.

This brings us to the biggest problem with Pelletiere's argument: If the Kurds were legitimate battlefield casualties, why is it Saddam subsequently felt the need to slaughter nearly 100,000 more of them? Pelletiere writes that any other examples of Saddam's chemical deployment on Kurdish victims "must show that [the dead Kurds] were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary guards." But even if Saddam's goal was to root out traitors, it's inconceivable that all or even most of the residents of the dozens of Kurdish villages Saddam subsequently razed were treacherous peshmerga, or that Saddam believed this to be the case. Certainly the accounts of hundreds of Kurdish refugees, who have provided remarkably consistent accounts of the genocide despite being dispersed from Iran to Turkey, refute this. So does the fact that Saddam kept gassing the Kurds after signing the August 20, 1988 ceasefire with Iran, a point made by Samantha Power in her 2002 book A Problem From Hell. And in unguarded moments, members of Saddam's regime have given lie to this rationale as well. Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, entrusted to carry out the Kurdish slaughter, was caught on tape at a Ba'athist meeting in May 1988 boasting about the Kurds, "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them!" (Human Rights Watch believes the tape is mislabeled, recording a conversation that really took place in 1987--i.e., before Halabja.)

What's perhaps most infuriating, though, is that Pelletiere is now reviving his decade-old hobbyhorse as a cynical argument against war with Iraq. "President Bush himself has cited Iraq's 'gassing its own people,' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein," Pelletiere writes. Considering the Bush administration's "lack of a smoking gun" in the U.N. weapons inspections, he continues, "perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his own people."

Even if Pelletiere had his facts straight on Halabja, his would be a noxious and dishonest argument against war. To begin with, it is an insult to the principled antiwar critics who recognize and condemn Saddam's record of genocide but who still oppose an invasion of Iraq. One such critic is Maryland Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, who as a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 1988 visited Kurdish refugees in Turkey to determine what had happened in Kurdistan. Van Hollen's team documented Iraqi chemical attacks on 49 Kurdish villages, leading him to conclude that "at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, all evidence pointed to the fact that [Saddam] used chemical weapons against the Kurds." More important, though, Van Hollen grasps the distinction that eludes Pelletiere, which is that while Bush invokes the Kurdish genocide in his brief against Saddam, the president does so to establish Saddam's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, not to argue that, as Pelletiere ludicrously puts it, "we go to war over Halabja." The only one fighting a war over Halabja, it seems, is Stephen Pelletiere. And it's one he lost before he'd ever begun.

Fuck the Kurds! I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them!

Looks like your credibility was pretty much undermined by that article. Caught in a lie. I guess we can pretty much disregard anything you tell us in the future as being truthful or trustworthy.

The chemical weapons Saddam used was in a city IRAN had already occupied during the war retard! Get it? Well you probably wouldn't since your stupid enough to believe Bush. Oh by the way I have some extra duct I want to send you unless you're already stocked up.

Makes sense. The enemy takes over your land so douse them with serin or vx nerve agents. Don't worry about your own people that were living there.

Wouldn't that sort of be like the Bush administration nuking the west coast just because it's overwraught with you idiotic liberals?

Jim, you're emailing in from Kuwait, right? You're in an armored division, getting ready to attack Saddam, right? 9/11 hit, and you marched down to the recruiter and signed right up, didn't you? You're not a chickenhawk like shrub, and cheney, and perle, right? You wouldn't dodge the draft during Vietnam and then send other young people to die for your oil, now would you?

In other words, Jim, take your bedamned oil war and shove it up your fat rightwing twinkie ass.

Weeee, I love saying Chickenhawk!
Weeee, It's easier than thinking!
Weeee, And isn't my illustration SO clever!
Weeee!

To Observer - I don't lie - that's Colin Powell's Brief.

From http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html


US Army War College: NO PROOF SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS!

Memo to Jess Helms from InfoTimes. Note excerpt from US Army War College report that no evidence exists to support US claims that Iraq used gas on the Kurds.


I continue to make inquiry into the situation in Iraq, as it is likely to brew up into another crisis one of these days when the US Army War College has no choice but to conclude that Iraq is not hiding any weapons of mass destruction -- or if they are, they are so well hidden that nobody is going to find them. As you know, I'm sure, the warhawks in the United States will continue to insist that the embargo remain in place no matter what, and there will be assertions from around the world that we have not been acting in good faith. As you also know, I believe there are serious questions regarding our behavior toward Iraq that go back further. You would agree, I think, that at the very least our State Department gave a "green light" to Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait in August 1990. The more I read of the events of the period, the more I believe history will record that the Gulf War was unnecessary, perhaps even that Saddam Hussein was willing to retreat back to his borders, but our government decided we preferred the war to the status quo ante.

In my previous correspondence with you on this matter, I had been in a quandary about the state of our relations with Baghdad during that critical period. In the months immediately preceding the "green light" given by our Ambassador, April Glaspie, a number of your Senate colleagues including Bob Dole had traveled to Baghdad, met with Saddam, and found him to be a head of state worthy of support. Even Sen. Howard Metzenbaum [D-OH], a Jewish liberal and staunch supporter of Israel, gave him a seal of approval. What disturbs me even now, Jesse, is that these meetings occurred after the Senate Foreign Relations committee had accused Iraq of using poison gas against its own people, i.e., the Kurds. Like all other Americans, in recent years I had assumed that what I read in the papers was true about Iraq gassing its own people. Once the war drums again began beating last November, I decided to read up on the history, and found Iraq denied having used gas against its own people. Furthermore, I heard that a Pentagon investigation at the time had also turned up no hard evidence of Saddam gassing his own people.

This is serious stuff, because the US Army War College tells us that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions, which is 3,000 times more than the number of Kurds who supposedly died of gassing at the hands of Saddam. Many of my old Cold Warrior friends practically DEMAND that we not lift the sanctions because if Saddam would gas his own people, he would gas anyone. Now I have come across the 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The report is 93 pages, but I append here only the passages having to do with the aforementioned issue:

Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East
Excerpt, Chapter 5
U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

Introduction. Throughout the war the United States practiced a fairly benign policy toward Iraq. Although initially disapproving of the invasion, Washington came slowly over to the side of Baghdad. Both wanted to restore the status quo ante to the Gulf and to reestablish the relative harmony that prevailed there before Khomeini began threatening the regional balance of power. Khomeini's revolutionary appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of him.United by a common interest, Iraq and the United States restored diplomatic relations in 1984, and the United States began to actively assist Iraq in ending the fighting. It mounted Operation Staunch, an attempt to stem the flow of arms to Iran. It also increased its purchases of Iraqi oil while cutting back on Iranian oil purchases, and it urged its allies to do likewise. All this had the effect of repairing relations between the two countries, which had been at a very low ebb.

In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation - according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before adjournment).

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of them Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

I love saying chickenhawk. It makes the rightwing thugs choke on their own hypocrisy. They are the bIggest collection of traitorous cowards to ever usurp our government. If only they would put their fat asses on the line to die for oil somewhere far away. If only this cabal of chickenhawks had died or been maimed in Vietnam . . . .

Nothing you can do about it, because the silent majority supports taking out Saddam to make this world safer, if you want to lie down and die by terrorists, I suggest going into Al-Qaeda/Taliban territory on the Pakistani border and getting shot in the face by them. Because Americans will not risk another 9-11.

BOOYA!

Even were War needful it is nothing to be happy about. To reach any other conclusion marks you as an abject idiot.

You prove how stupid and duped you are by the Saddam 911 comment. There is no evidence whatsoever that links Saddam to 911.

Do you know what liberal means?

Diogaynes, you fucking retard, i never said 9-11 was supported by Saddam, i said we will not risk another 9-11. Saddam already supports terrorism in Isreal, his #1 enemy is America, what the fuck makes you think he'll never think about touching America? Are you so dolluted by your own liberal values that you forgot about American security? Would you be surpised if we do discover that Iraq helped the hijackers?!

I thought you liberals were the champions of human rights, apparently, you are the champions of human atrocities, thank god for BUSH!

Fucking morons. This is why you're gonna lose. You're just too damn stupid to survive when the going gets rough. And its about to.

Diogaynes, you fucking retard, i never said 9-11 was supported by Saddam, i said we will not risk another 9-11. Saddam already supports terrorism in Isreal, his #1 enemy is America, what the fuck makes you think he'll never think about touching America? Are you so dolluted by your own liberal values that you forgot about American security? Would you be surpised if we do discover that Iraq helped the hijackers?!

I thought you liberals were the champions of human rights, apparently, you are the champions of human atrocities, thank god for BUSH!

...how do you know I am a liberal? Is opposition to War a purely Liberal position?

I think Joe Sobran might disagree. Along with Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, Lew Rockwell, and quite a few others.

You are just a silly duped individual who demonstrates his ignorance with every post.

Game over. Get your goddamn hands off my country right fucking now.

I got yer back POIO. We better get use to this shit from these chickenhawks. For a little while anyway. Ignorant, contemptuous scum, every last one of them. Strap a brown shirt on them and it's Crystallnacht all over again. Goddamn cowards! Attacking one of the poorest weakest countries in the world and they get a big old war hardon. These thugs just love picking on the weak, don't they? They are going down, hard!

Is that the only thing you guys can say...."you liberals!" wow you really told them! Liberal really means your views aren't still in the 1920's. ....so why don't u go wave your little "MADE IN CHINA" American flag or maybe if you check out "HOTJOBS.COM" the Navy is hiring morticians starting with a $6000 sign on bonus! (no joke) Then you would really support your troops!

Diogaynes, what your a consverative?! Haha, stop playing dumb and address my issues:

Why haven't you complained about Clintons adventure into Kosovo

Why haven't you complained about Hussein not going into exile?

Why haven't you complained about Hussein's atrocities?

How come you go to communist-sponsered rallies?

How come you burn american flags?

How come you spit in the face of Americans in uniform?

How come you can't see Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

How come you can't see the overall picture(more people dying with saddam in power and then his evil sons compared to a quick war in iraq?

How come you don't stand up for the rights of Iraqis?

How come you can't see the consquences of inaction?

How come you don't care about Hussein supporting terrorists in Isreal?

ADDRESS ALL THESE ISSUES AND IF YOU ANSWER INTELLIGENTLY AND REASONABLY I'LL PROBABLY JOIN YOUR SIDE.

Your questions are all stupid and ignorant.
Why did you support Hussein throught the 80's?
Why did you support state sponsored terrorism in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Columbia?
Why didn't you blindly support your President Clinton when he was bombing Yugoslavia? Are you a Milosivic lover and supporter?
Why don't you care about our civil liberties being raped?
Why don't you care that Ashcroft is insane?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Get bent, loser. You and your buddies are going down, big time.

... I am a Libertarian.

Ha, ha yourself. The chances of my convincing you is about zero. If you ever do change your mind it will be because you decided to of your own free will.

I don’t burn Flags.

I am a Veteran.

I complained bitterly about Clinton’s murderous rampage in the Balkans -- to liberate the 1.5 Trillion dollar Trepka Mining Complex.

“How come you can't see Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? “

If you know he’s got them why don’t you and the government tell the Arms Inspectors where they are so they can be destroyed?

“How come you don't care about Hussein supporting terrorists in Isreal?”

"That is because he doesn’t." He has sent some money to the families of Sacrifice Bombers and that is the only thing that can be proven so far as I am aware. Anything beyond that is a Fairy Tale.

As for the rest - since I know you are not serious I’m not going to bother

well, there are a lotta questions, but at least you tried, unconvicing though, american is really confused though.

Why did you support Hussein throught the 80's?
Because Iran was our enemy? Have Americans die or your enemy of your enemy die?

Why did you support state sponsored terrorism in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Columbia?
What the fuck are you talking about?

Why didn't you blindly support your President Clinton when he was bombing Yugoslavia?
Are you gay? Thats YOUR president, i dont like lying, cocksucking, cheating, pardoner to mass criminals presidents. My fav presidents were Reagan, Bush, this Bush too.

Are you a Milosivic lover and supporter?
No, fuck you, Milosivic deserves to be tried and executed for war crimes.

Why don't you care about our civil liberties being raped?
Civil liberties? Like having arabs from terrorist sponsered states being double-checked at airports? Maybe youre liberties are being ''raped'' because you are a terrorist.

Why don't you care that Ashcroft is insane?
Ashcroft insane? Uh, youre dumb.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Again, no wife.

So there, BOOOOOO YAAA, answered your questions shit monger? That the best you got?

Just what I expected from an illiterate thug such as yourself. Your answers were basically "Duh, huh? What is he talking about?" You don't even see your own ignorant double standard when it is held before your crossed eyes. And then you pat yourself on the back as if you've accomplished something. I'm gonna cut and paste this so I can show everybody what morons you rightwing thugs are. Thanks for the laughs. No wonder you're so brainwashed. And no wonder you don't have a wife. Ha ha ha ha ha!

User American, no wonder you have a male parter, you fucking faggot, i answered all your questions, the questions where i said duh to were bullshit questions. Why did we sponser terrorism? Never did. Why is ashcroft insane? What the fuck, why are you insane, cant you see we need to destroy evil, including you bitch.

Looks like the typical Americans have been holding up my end of the debate for me in my absence. They obviously need you liberals for leaders.You guys are so cool.

Hey Diogenes, how come you didn't address the comment by Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddams cousin from the article that I posted? You still deny that Saddam was responsible for the atrocities at Halabja?

What a sicko.

Gotta go. My hero's on TV. I hear he's announcing something important tonight.

idiot.

Figure out the difference between a title and a name.

Most of america, represent! yeah, bush is on tv baby! support our troops!

Redundant: "Why did we sponser terrorism? Never did."


Never have, huh? Have you ever heard of a man named Orlando Bosch?

Have you ever heard the term "soft targets" used in connection with Rotbrain Reagan's Contras?

I know, I know...just some pinko commie faggot conspiricy......

You are the biggest Freeper clown to blow this way yet!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10104503648,00.html

KPC, peace out dude, its been fun, ive made my points and guess what, nothing you can do will stop the liberation of iraq, unless hussein steps down, its in husseins hands, but anyways, what do i know, im just an ignorant teenager....

Now you have an excuse to go get drunk....

...go do so, but spare me the "liberation" bullshit...unless that is the latest Republican euphamism for blowin' 'em to pieces....

...let me guess, you are a cheerleader for your college volleyball team?

someone asked you...

why did you support state sponsored terrorism in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Columbia?

YOUR ANSWER WAS:

****What the fuck are you talking about?

How do you not know what this person is talking about? Why don't you do a little research on the CIA and US Foreign Policy....check out a Cia agent named John Stockwell - he has books and speeches about US terrorism. Learn something for the love of God - for once...