COMPLETE SECURITY COUNCIL CONTACT INFO at:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1573568.php

.

.

FUCK THE FRENCH IN THE FACE!!! YOU ARE A BUNCH OF WINE SUCKING CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEYs WHO BENT OVER AND TOOK IT UP THE ASS FOR THE NAZIS UNTIL WE CAME OVER TO SAVE YOUR SORRY PUNK ASSES!!!!

I WOULD NOT PISS ON YOU OUR YOUR CUNTRY IF YOUR HEART WAS ON FIRE!!!

D'OH!!!!!

I love Homer's post. The heart of right wing thought. They really hate beautiful women, appreciation of art, casual yet romantic sex, a 36 hour work week, great mass transit, and good tast in general. No wonder they despise the French (the ones the helped us win the Revolution) so much. The French love their culture, and are annoyed by aspects of ours, thus they deserve to die.

Homer also just pissed on all the French resistors when Hitler occupied their nation, that put their lives on the line to provide the Allies with crucial intelligence during the war. Homer and his ilk would've been sucking up to the Nazi's, I'm sure.

The French had no shortage of Collaborators. They looked really funny with no hair.

The French are great, and you're just ignorant, stupid, right wing, red neck, white trash.

10 dirty deals that France has done to aid Saddam

TWO-faced Jacques Chirac has cozied up to evil Saddam Hussein for 30 years. Here are ten links between France and Iraq that have helped the tyrant remain in power.

1 The French President first met Saddam in 1972 when the pair struck a lucrative oil deal. Chirac described Saddam then as a “personal friend” and little appears to have changed. Chirac is the only Western head of state to know Saddam personally.

2 France has sold the tyrant arms worth £15billion, more than even the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.

3 They have also built two nuclear reactors near Baghdad.

4 Saddam was close to getting an A-bomb before Israeli jets blitzed his facilities in 1981 in a raid condemned by Chirac as “unacceptable”. Without Israel’s hardline act, Saddam could have held the world to ransom with nuclear arms.

5 Chirac is so keen to build on relations with Saddam he has his own special envoy in Baghdad who is so trusted he is even allowed to sit in on Iraqi Cabinet meetings.

6 Despite world opinion, the men have continued to cut deals. Chirac encouraged French firms to help re-arm Iraq after its war with Iran in the 1980s. French companies sold Baghdad warplanes armed with Exocet missiles.

7 Chirac was so keen to help his old pal he even extended him credit when Iraq failed to meet the repayments. France also sold Iraq equipment to improve the accuracy and range of Scud missiles.

8 Despite tough UN trade sanctions, French firms hold massive oil contracts with Iraq. And there are many more in the pipeline — even in the aftermath of a second Gulf War, Chirac has told energy bosses.

9 Time and time again France has turned a blind eye to Iraq’s abuses when they have been exposed by the UN Security Council. It comes as no surprise to diplomats that French firms keep on landing lucrative deals.

10 World leaders were horrified after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 but France again helped Saddam. Under pressure from Chirac, then President Francois Mitterrand sent emissaries to 24 countries assuring them France would only participate in the war as a “defensive” measure.

Jonny boy, seen this picture? Bush/Reagan = Appeasers. You should worry more about what your own country has been up to. Limbaugh breath!

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN MY OWN COUNTRY.

So what, Project 7? I can match you picture for picture, and that doesn't change the fact that 1984 was a different time, with a very real enemy (in the Soviets).

about 'leaders' and the people.

At least in France the ELECTED leaders

listen to the people. Even a rabid

right wing weasel like Chirac.

We wouldn't want to seem ungrateful, would we?

You got the weasel part right, anyways! See, for the simpletons like Sheepshit, it's still about Gore losing...

And that's why you lost the house and senate too! Your message is muddled, Sheepshit, by your blind hatred of the President.

And that makes you, your party, and your "appease" movement irrelevent.

...to thank Prescott Bush - Financier to the NAZIs.

I mean you, Matt.

Hate is such a mild word.

Gore? Who is that?

So chicken sh!t Matt, when are you enlisting? HUH?

You want a war and you don't fight it .You don't send your sons to fight it.

You expect others to do the fighting and dying while you cowardly type on your computers.

You're the lowest of the low. It's not the French who are "weasels", IT'S YOU ! You're the scum of the earth.

And I mean YOU, Sheepshit.

I was in the Navy at Hickam AFB, you chickenshit. Don't you dare talk to ME about service, you fucking traitor.

"I can match you picture for picture, and that doesn't change the fact that 1984 was a different time, with a very real enemy (in the Soviets)."

Matthew, you ain't making sense (not that I expect that from you.) So it's okay for the US to be buddy buddy with Saddam to contain the Soviets (I guess that's what you mean, I don't know), Rummy shaking hands, and all, but not the Frenchies? I'm not sure I follow your (insane lack of) logic.

Why are you offended by the things the French did with Saddam, but when the rightwing Bush/Reagan administration were doing the very same thing, you aren't offended? Virtually everything on your list, your rightwing heros did. I'm offended by what France did, as well as horrified what Reagan/Bush did, since they were my government. What's your point? Are you that ignorant of what Reagan/Bush did? Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, did $78 million in business with Saddam in the 90's. No Soviet Union. Is that okay with you? That's called cognitive dissidence.

Reasoning with rightwing thugs like you is impossible. You want your insane chicken-hawk led bloodbath in Iraq, even if it destroys this country, increases terrorism and hatred towards the US, and turns the US into a pariah nation.

I earned my right to speak. I have friends that earned their's too. Unfortunately they can't be here today - Real Estate Deal you know.

I think it means they.

Ever been shot at with

something besides paint balls?

Mark, Just try to shut me up.

Gutless cowards like yourself with

nothing but ignorant stupidity to

valadate your opinion always make me

shake with terror.

What do you call a man with no arms or legs

who skydives? Mark.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Now take that picture of a military grave yard. those hundreds (really hundreds of thousands) of young Americans dead; dead because of war. The words behind those photos are calling FOR war, but the picture speaks otherwise.

The French position is AGAINST war.

The French position is AGAINST more of these graveyards.

Sorry WAR-MONGERS: bad PR.

After looking at that photo, rather then hating the French, I say:

VIVE LA FRANCE !

NO MORE WARS !

Listen closely, 7, and I'll speak realllllllll slowwwwwwww forrrrrr yaaaaaaaaaa.

You show a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands, right? And that's meant to smear the administration, isn't it?

Little thing called the balance of power. Back when you were an itch in your dad's balls, the Iranians had just held Americans hostage for, oh, awhile (I'm sure if you grew up there you'd have been one of the hostage-takers, but I digress). So Reagan's now President and the Iranians are receiving aid and arms from the Soviets. Now I know history means nothing to you, but in the early 1980's, the Soviets were a real threat - though I'm sure you would never believe that given your retarded mental growth.

The fact that we countered them by making nice and selling arms to the lesser of two evils, AT THAT TIME (stay with me, slow poke, stay with me) was because the threat to the balance of power was REAL.

I said it's hypocritical of the French to speak of "humanity" etc, etc, when they are knee-deep in oil contracts with a killer.

As for your generaliites about "everything on your list, your rightwing heros did", be specific. I know that's hard for you liberals - to use your brains and not your bleeding hearts- but try.

Cheney did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998. Furthermore, they were parts for oil derricks and for distilling, which were in compliance with the FOOD for AID program -- so that the Iraqi people could eat and Saddam could build his palaces. I'm sure the lifting of the sanctions was something you were for, no?

What you are doing is called being intellectually dishonest. Not admitting the facts as they are, and portraying them incorrectly.

Reasoning with you liberal mealy-mouths is impossible. I am no chickenhawk, I've served for this country, unlike you, and DO NOT pay lip-service to things like duty, honor and country. You are an asshole and I spit on you and raise a hearty middle finger in your face.

The only thing that will hurt this country is chickenshit appeasers like you, who know nothing of sacrifice and will do everything to tear us down. You are a useful idiot for Saddam. Grow a brain.

Hey Martha, join your friends as useful idiots! Go to Iraq and become a shield. Seriously!

Do you live in L.A.? Because I do. If you'd like to get together and chat sometime, that would be fun. What do you say?

Hey Martha, here's a picture for you.

Look at the animation on the top of this page.

http://www.xanga.com/home.asp?user=dissidentfrogman



It's called:

The price of their peace :: Le prix de leur paix

Have a nice day.

well Matt, speaking of the Iranian Hostages, as a history buff, I'm sure you know that Bush senior (then part of the CIA) contacted the Iranians and made a deal with them so that the American hostages would NOT be released until after the elections. And that's why Reagon (and Bush Sr.) won and Carter lost.

Strange , DON'T YOU THINK, to have a branch of the US Government brokering a deal, to PREVENT the release of American Hostages.

google: "october surprise", bush

Just want to get this right.

I am supposed to hate the French because they are AGAINST WAR.

Did I get that right???

And meanwhile I'm supposed to listen to you, who obviously is NOT serving in the military, and who obviously WANT war (but don't expect to fight in it).

The French don't want a war. I absolutely agree with them. As does 90% of Europeans. 80% of Australians. 95% of Turks.

I can't think of any country that wants this war except Israel. Are you perhaps posting from there?

That myth has been exploded a thousand times, son. The real 'October Surprise' was hatched by Carter, who appealed to the Soviets for help in defeating Reagan.

Check this out, History Buff.

http://jottings.blogspot.com/2002_10_13_jottings_archive.html#85580813

Well, Ralph, one history "buff" to another, you gotta look at the source, don't ya?

Crypto-liberals conspiracies have a way, if told often enough, of sounding like the truth. Were you there, Ralph? Did you know that the person who originally told this lie is in jail for... lying and swindling?

google, october surprise, bush, myth



"October Surprise" refers to the unproven -- and, as far as the public record is concerned, unfounded -- accusation that Reagan campaign officials, specifically William Casey, worked to delay the release of the hostages being held in Teheran. This effort was supposedly undertaken to prevent Jimmy Carter from arranging a release in October just prior to the 1980 election.

In an interesting footnote to the October Surprise myth, Jamshid Hashemi, who first came to public attention in 1991 by "claiming to have helped Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign negotiate to delay the release of U.S. hostages in Iran until after the election,... pleaded guilty [in London in December 1998] to swindling [Reston, VA, corporation] Octagon and other businesses in Europe, Asia and the United States out of millions of dollars through a series of elaborate scams." (David S. Hilzenrath, "Encounter With Global Con Artist Left Reston Firm Reeling," Washington Post, 23 Jan. 1999, E1. [http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ralph, really. You do look the fool. :)

"So it's okay for the US to be buddy buddy with Saddam to contain the Soviets (I guess that's what you mean, I don't know), Rummy shaking hands, and all, but not the Frenchies? I'm not sure I follow your (insane lack of) logic."

Pro7, don't fall into the trap of lending legitimacy to bullshit...It isn't that we chummed up with Saddam out of necessity...we MADE him...we could have lent our support toward a more democratic government, but, in our infinite concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, we preferred a totalitarian regime 'cause they are more predicatable, or "stable" as state department stooges would say. So don't lend any credence to that "oohhh, but we were fighting the big bad SOVIETS, so we had to pal up with this dictator" bullshit...we made these motherfuckers...

Shut up and read the previous posts before you go calling people chickenhawks, you fat ass.

I'm in Los Angeles, I'm not Jewish and I've served and am in the reserves, unlike YOU.

Why is it that people like Martha end up throwing in anti-semitic comments, (you must be posting from Israel) huh? You make me sick.

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"

Martha, who the hell are you talking to?

The French don't want peace, they want the status quo. The status quo has resulted in our burying 3,000 New Yorkers, 300 plus Australians, various missionaries, a bundle of diplomats, etc.

The status quo has us watching recruiting videos for terrorist organizations which feature beheading American journalists.

The status quo has a murderous tyrant desperately clawing to hold on to power while terrorizing his country and providing financial and intelligence aid to terrorists.

The status quo is that war has been declared on the West by primitive shitheads in the Middle East. And the only reasons that France stands for the status quo are:

1. They are profiting from it. NO APPEASEMENT FOR OIL!

2. They are buying 'peace' by standing with the fascists in the hopes that the fascists will strike elsewhere.

You can always tell

by Diogenes • Friday February 21, 2003 Frit 02:14 PM



"When an article makes an effective counter-argument to the latest spin the trolls are told sell. It immediately gets clobbered with Spam. Recognize then that the article is worth reading and noting."

ie. THANK THE FRENCH (AND GERMANS, AND RUSSIANS, AND CHINESE). THE TROLLS ARE GOING NUTS ON THIS ARTICLE. IT MUST BE IMPORTANT! DON'T BOTHER RESPONDING, JUST GO TO THE UN MEMBERS AND START E MAILING THEM NOW. BE SURE TO ASK RUSSIA, CHINA AND FRANCE TO USE VETO.

Bark: "You make me sick"

Aww, pobrecito.....

A senior Pentagon adviser today accused France of striking a deal with Saddam Hussein to oppose military action in return for a lucrative oil contract.

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

“What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total,” Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.

“One can suspect that there’s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there’s a certain amount of political support.

“It’s entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else.”

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as “extraordinarily lopsided” in favour of the French company.

“This is not your normal oil exploration contract.”

Total is currently barred from working on the oil fields because of the economic sanctions against Iraq.

If Saddam is overthrown the new regime is likely to nullify existing contracts and invite oil companies from around the globe to compete for new deals.

“The French interest in the propagation of contracts that will only go forward with this regime is perfectly obvious.”

Mr Perle also said the dispute over whether to invade Iraq had exposed France’s determination to shape the European Union as a “counterweight” to the US.

French president Jacques Chirac saw the role of the EU to neutralise America rather than to work with it, he said.

“A relationship that can be described in terms of a counterweight is not a relationship of alliance.”

Mr Perle said the “extremity” of the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the “petulance” of Mr Chirac in their stance on Iraq could alter the US-European partnership forever.

“I think that’s going to cause a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic to rethink the post-war alliance.

“It may well be the case that we are witnessing history in the making in this transatlantic relationship.”

These trolls sure are something!

that article that has extensive quotes of Richard Perle. That's not the same Richard Perle who lost his job with Senator Jackson because he spying for Israel, is it? He was caught passing secret US information to the Israeli embassy, and was investigated for being part of the Pollard affair. Certainly that man is in Jail, and not in public office. Certainly this is the man who's pushing America into a middle eastern war? He's in jail, right? Just like Elliot Abrams, right?

google: "richard perle", espionage, jackson

“The French don't want peace, they want the status quo. The status quo has resulted in our burying 3,000 New Yorkers, 300 plus Australians, various missionaries, a bundle of diplomats, etc. “

So, now your’re accusing the French of helping in 911. Another silly Conspiracy Theory like the one about 19 Arabs that couldn’t fly a Cessna straight doing military maneuvers in Jumbo Jets.

“The status quo has us watching recruiting videos for terrorist organizations which feature beheading American journalists. “

Who worked for the Mossad - and it was on Journalist that is singular without an “s”. Not that I approve but let’s be complete here.

“The status quo has a murderous tyrant desperately clawing to hold on to power while terrorizing his country and providing financial and intelligence aid to terrorists.”

Which Terrorist Organizations? Please Cite “credible” sources - certainly not the White House or Colin, I’ve got the Dossier, Powelll.

“The status quo is that war has been declared on the West by primitive shitheads in the Middle East. And the only reasons that France stands for the status quo are:

1. They are profiting from it. NO APPEASEMENT FOR OIL! “

Damnit it should be American Oil Companies profiting from Iraqi Oil.

“2. They are buying 'peace' by standing with the fascists in the hopes that the fascists will strike elsewhere. “ Inflammatory balderash - the U.S. Government has routinely supported fascist murderers whenener it suited their short term needs - Suaharto, Pionchet, Saddam Hussein.

THANK YOU FRANCE.

YOU ARE THE OLDEST ALLY OF THE US

WITHOUT YOU WE WOULDN'T HAVE WON THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

WITHOUT YOU, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY

WITHOUT YOU HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUNG AMERICANS WOULD ALREADY BE AT WAR

DON'T LISTEN TO THE FOREIGN OWNED PRESS

THEY DON'T SPEAK FOR US

WE DO

VIVE LA FRANCE !

He's such a smug bastard that it's tempting to respond to him (as, I guess I'm doing now) but it would be much more worthwhile to be writing the UN members, which I'm going to do right now.

Have any of you watched Bowling For Columbine? Try to watch the Brief History of America cartoon in the movie. That is the reason for this whole American "good vs. evil" war... the whole Saddam wants to rule the world... just like the savage Native Americans. American paranoia and arrogance is at its height... unless Americans make changes to their attitudes NOW, things can only go downhill.

(of course im generalizing, I do know that a significant number of Americans aren't ranting raving paranoid uptight buffoons)

My advice to America... RELAX.... i mean jeez, you guys are so uptight, you need to relax and enjoy life.

"but it would be much more worthwhile to be writing the UN members, which I'm going to do right now. "

I'm sure they are waiting with baited breath for your 2 cents worth of sheepspeak.

I thought that was your deptment, along with all

the other crap you post.

"I thought that was your deptment, along with all

the other crap you post."

very clever retort. nice work.

My response to ‘X’ comment: “... RELAX.... i mean jeez, you guys are so uptight, you need to relax and enjoy life.”

Did these people deserve this? Are you telling me that you support Saddam? Take a minute to thank France and Germany and the entire UN for helping to keep Saddam in power when he should have been removed in 1991. (and the USA administration for not going after Saddam then...listening to his lies about disarmament) He has more dangerous chemicals and biological weapons now...do you want him to have nukes also? Why don't you go to Iraq and see for yourself what kind of person you advocate for. Oh wait, Iraq isn't a free country, you can't just travel wherever you like or say whatever you want to.

We'd better not help the kurds or anybody else...so just sit back in your comfortable world of "what shall we protest today?" activism and potsmoking. You can't be bothered to do something that would REALLY make a difference. March in the street in a free country...ooooh, if you break windows or get violent you MIGHT just get arrested...ooooohh, THAT's brave, and smart too!!! You really make a "statement"

Try doing that in Iraq

those pictures are awful, how come you didn't mention that the US supplied the gas? How come you didn't mention that after these pictures were taken, Rumsfeld is shown shaking Saddam's hand?

Should I post pictures of dead Palestinians mothers and children, killed by the Israelis with our weapons?

Should we "take out" Israel too?

Just wondering?

Are we supposed to go after all who are war criminals?

Are we?

Are we supposed to "get" Sharon; bomb Jerusalem too?

or are you VERY selective about who you want us to go after?

"You can always tell

by Diogenes • Friday February 21, 2003 Frit 02:14 PM



When an article makes an effective counter-argument to the latest spin the trolls are told sell. It immediately gets clobbered with Spam. Recognize then that the article is worth reading and noting."

ie. THANK THE FRENCH (AND GERMANS, AND RUSSIANS, AND CHINESE).

THE TROLLS ARE GOING NUTS ON THIS ARTICLE. IT MUST BE IMPORTANT! DON'T BOTHER RESPONDING, JUST GO TO THE UN MEMBERS AND START E MAILING THEM NOW. (FAXES ARE BETTER, BUT ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN SILENCE).



BE SURE TO ASK RUSSIA, CHINA AND FRANCE TO USE UN VETO.

You're right, those pictures are awful. As to your 'how come'...your statement is a lie: The USA provided conventional weapons to Iraq, not chemical weapons.

In reference to the picture of Rumsfeld; our national interest at the time was to block the very real threat of the Soviet Union. Just like in WWII, you saw a picture of FDR shaking hands with Churchill and Stalin. The president buddied up to Stalin because it was in the USA's national interest to defeat Hitler. Hitler was a threat, then the Soviet Union was a threat, NOW Saddam's Iraq is a threat. He has these weapons and has been perfecting different ways of deploying them. He has been actively seeking more destructive technology...in defiance of UN resolutions. The UN is ineffective in dealing with this guy...didn't he have his last 'last chance' in 95 or 98...what was it that Clinton said "this is Iraq's last chance to disarm" ?

And Yes, I AM selective in who we fight...I don't think that we need to be involved in every war or police the world. We do, however, need to concern ourselves where an avowed enemy has demonstrated his willingess to destroy civilians by the thousands using illegal chemical weapons...an enemy who supports others whose stated goals are 'death to America'. We need to concern ourselves where our national interests lie. Is that so hard to understand? and yes, national interests change: our allies today, may not be our allies tomorrow. I will acknowledge that the USA has made some frighteningly bad decisions with regards to foreign policy...we are by no means perfect. But I believe the USA is the greatest country on earth in the past and present!!!

Your moral equivalence of Sharon and Saddam is flawed, and you even mention that they (the palestinian innnocents) were killed with 'our' weapons, as if we sent them there for that purpose. Hmmm, lets see...a country that goes out of it's way to try and ensure collateral damage to civilians is kept low while trying to get terrorists that are murdering civilians indiscriminately (on purpose)...and a country that goes out of it's way to kill over 5000 women and children in one day, testing the effectiveness of chemical weapons. hmmmm....I just don't see the equivalency here. Maybe you should visit Israel and Iraq and see which one treats their citizens better. Most palestinian arabs (not terrorists) get better treatment and more rights than they would have if they lived in Saudi Arabia or any other arab country. In Israel, they are full citizens and even have representatives in the Knesset.

Another bit of history for you...The two countries created out of the 'palestinian mandate' were Israel and Jordan. Jordan has the majority of land...Jordan IS palestine...Jordan also has a majority of palestinian arabs (if you can call a loose conglomeration of several different tribes 'palestinian') but is ruled by the Hashemites (another tribe). Arafat was invited into Jordan, he incited a revolt among the palestinians and was crushed by the hashemite ruler, King Hussein. He was never invited back.

Do you see now? or will you be back in the street, trying to figure out who to march for now? It's your right to do that, even if I think you're wrong. You can support Saddam all you want...try to keep him in power...go to Iraq and fight on his side. Maybe he'll even reward you. You could become a member of his rape squad...or work for his son Uday on the olympic athlete committee...torture those athletes when they don't comply with your wishes. Nahhh, that's too much work...go medicate yourself and eat a cheeseburger.

my point is that a good percentage of the problems in the world today are the result of failed US foreign policy... foreign policy that is reflective of the paranoid nature of americans in general.

who supplied weapons to Iraq in the first place? Who played the two regional powers (Iraq and Iran) against each other because they feared either side becoming too strong? who mistook a simple civil conflict in Vietnam for a worldwide soviet communist conspiracy?

think about how many lives would have been spared if the americans werent so paranoid.

the americans should, rather than trying to achieve security through worldwide military domination, try to achieve security by advocating the creation of a standing U.N. peacekeeping force... true equality where the US is not morally above any other country will only be a plus. Democracy in the United States should perhaps be a microcosm of what the world should be - where each state is equal much like each man is equal (theoretically speaking of course).

many americans wonder why they are so hated and that really is a wonder considering how nice most americans are. the answer to the question lies in how easily americans are brainwashed by a government who considers cheap oil to be a matter of national security (going against the very american belief in the laws of supply and demand). before sep 11, most americans didnt even know who bin laden was, shocking considering... now they are so paranoid they follow whatever bush tells them - he has so successfully played on the ignorance of the american populace that they believe he is a serious threat - totally taking into account his cold, calculating and rational behaviour. since osama has disappeared, bush has had to paint someone with the face of a maniacal terrorist... saddam seems to be the easiest target. now all of a sudden "saddam wants to rule the world" - I SWEAR ON MY MOTHER'S LIFE I HAVE HEARD AMERICANS SAY THAT. Bush neglects to mention how the US used to be his best friend during some of his most murderous and tyrannical years. He also neglects to mention that the US gave him the green light to invade kuwait in the first place!

So why again are americans so hated in this world? Because the government they so blindly support IMPOSES standards throughout the world yet doesn't live up to these standards themselves! HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY! how the US imposes sanctions on pakistan for testing nukes, then all of a sudden lifts sanctions and provides pakistan with aid packages during the afghan campaign! how the US preaches and preaches democracy yet supports vicious dictators throughout the world. How, knowing that saddam is a bastard provides him with weapons, sees him kill 5000 kurds, provide him with more weapons, then 10 years later when he is no longer on their side claim that he is wrong because he is a murderous tyrant! ALL THIS BECAUSE OF AMERICAN PARANOIA.

* Typo

shocking considering... now they are so paranoid they follow whatever bush tells them - he has so successfully played on the ignorance of the american populace that they believe *SADDAM is a serious threat - totally taking into account his cold, calculating and rational behaviour. since osama has disappeared,

.

Howdy X,

“green light”

Well, I don’t think the popular opinion is that the US gave S.H. a “green light”, but we certainly didn’t intervene when he hit a US Navy Ship. Let alone, one gassing of Kurds was presented by US in the 1980’s as an Iranian assault and not S.H. This, of course, is not a “green light”, but an unusual set of events that some have argued bolstered S.H.’s confidence which led to his invasion of Kuwait. Oh, Clever parallel drawn by including the Pakistan trade miracle. Money flows into Pakistan, but not so in Afghanistan.

"Peacekeeping"

In response to the the statement that the US should try to “achieve security by advocating the creation of a standing UN peacekeeping.,” coalition,

The Bush Administration entered their presidential race campaigning for the end of US peacekeeping forces and have essentially held that line. The US Army Peacekeeping Institute (founded 1993), is scheduled to be dismantled by Sept 2003, Bush has effectively refused to assist the other 18 NATO countries in conducting Peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan. Later, by the will of Congress (Nov. 02), changes in Pentagon rhetoric began to show-- although little (money included) has really moved forward since that time.

Summer of 2002, US exercises VETO to stop the routine 6 month extension of Kosovo peacekeeping efforts until Negropointe secures a motion that the US will not be prosecuted by the ICC, which it walked out of in May/June ‘02. (later, NYtimes reports that this US VETO scenario was constructed to protect the top officials --thus, the troops are not really protected --- just W, et al)



UN sec. gen. Annan responding after the US VETO’S KOSOVO PEACEKEEPING, US opposition to anti-torture conference, and US anti-Kyoto stance, stated in early Fall ‘02 that “one law for us, another for everyone else” seemed to be the “American Attitude.”

To proclaim that peacekeeping will occur by the will of this Administration is a wishful thought. What is apparent over the last two years is that Bush/Wolf/Rice/Perle/Cheney and the relucant Powell., want the US to be the muscle, NATO the Peacekeeper, EU the financier. Germany and France don’t like this roll of the die, and are working for more involvement on the international level. These two countries, part of 11 out of 15 UN Security Council members, are interested in continuing with the UN inspections.



(lunch time soon over....)





.

The whole point of my post was that many in the antiwar group may be genuinely pacifist, others may be anti-American and wish harm on America, and others may just be ignorant about Saddam Hussein and who exactly they are marching for. I thought at least the last group should be aware of what kind of person he is and what the marchers are promoting. Do not be mistaken my friends, Saddam is a very bad person. Now, my response to 'X'

I agree that there were foreign policy disasters and mistakes. I don't think it was all 'paranoia' though that drove the US policy decisions. The German threat in WWII was very real...so we overlooked Stalin's murdering in order to defeat Hitler. Should we have been so high minded that no alliance with Stalin should have been made? Stalin killed many more than Hitler. I think we made the right decision AT THAT TIME. That's not to say, because of it, the soviets became even more powerful and started expanding throughout the world and became a bigger threat than Germany. The conflict in Vietnam was not a small civil conflict...the north was being supplied by the soviets. Same as in Korea....the soviets were very strong, so the best we could do is try to contain them without provoking them into total war. That meant buddying up to Saddam...were we right to turn the other way when he gassed his civilian population? No, I don't believe so...we should have pulled all support and worked toward his overthrow. BTW, the 5000 were killed in '88...only two years later, we were in Desert Storm....and it was already admitted that the US Ambassador bungled the whole ‘green light’ Kuwait question. Remember, it’s not hypocrisy to make mistakes. The government is run by people, not perfect creatures who know what to do in every situation...and know what the outcome will be years later.

So the question is now...what to do??? In your post, you seem to think that Saddam is not a threat. While I don't really seriously think he wants to rule the world, I DO think that he is a serious danger to the rest of the world. If you really believe that he's not a threat, then I can see your point that this is all just paranoia...but I also don't believe that Saddam's demonstrating the effectiveness of chemical weapons on civilian populations is just paranoia...Saddam's funding terrorist organizations who target innocent civilians by design is not paranoia...especially terrorists who would die to kill as many civilians as possible.

Yes, it would be nice if all countries played by the same rulebook, they were all representative constitutional republics like the USA...but that's not the case. Many of the world's nations are run by despots, tyrants, and murderers. The UN was supposed to have high ideals, but look at how morally corrupt and bankrupt it is now....Libya is to chair the Human Rights commission...and the USA was voted out in favor of Sudan!!! (in case you didn't know...Sudan still, this day, has slavery)...oh and who is supposed to chair the UN commission on disarmament...hmmm...IRAQ!!! All the UN has done is give these tyrants and despots a larger voice than they normally would have...it props up dictators while trying to impede any real changes in the world for security or human rights. If it weren't for the UN...saddam would not even be a threat today.

Hey, the USA is not perfect, but it's the best so far...it's not paranoid to protect yourself if you see a threat. The answer in the LA City Council's resolution seems to be "wait until we're attacked" and then respond...except we'd probably have people in the streets again saying that we deserved it, we should have kept quiet, don't respond....

Why don't the peace protesters focus on Saddam? If he only disarmed earlier, he wouldn't have even needed to step down...if he would only disarm now, follow the numerous UN resolutions (and even statements by Clinton's administration) we wouldn't have to go in and disarm him. If only he would disarm voluntarily and step down, maybe my friends or myself or others wouldn’t have to go into danger and possibly die. He IS a threat to the world.!!!



What is your solution to Saddam? give him another 12 years to disarm? how many more resolutions should we pass? Or should we just forget about it and pack up...let him do whatever he wants with his chemical/biological weapons...let him have nukes too? (after all, the USA has them and has used them...right? That’s the thinking of many marchers.) Think of the costs of inaction...it's not paranoid to confront a stated (by saddam himself) threat, in order to protect yourself. If we happen to help the suffering civilian population who hate Saddam in Iraq, then that's just an added bonus.

P.S. The Americans do not seek "worldwide military domination" Otherwise, Europe right now would be under our heel as US Property, a colony conquered by us. As would many other countries in Asia. We seek to promote democracies which are both beneficial for the countries and are friendly toward us. To our great shame, we have also propped up dictators, but I think that's changing. Democracies (representative republics) generally do not go to war with one another. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any in the 20th century...although I can think of any number of socialist or communist countries that have even gone to war with each other in the 20th century, not to mention fascist dictators thrown into the mess. I can think of the 'purges' the 'gulags' the 'great leaps forward' that happened in many communist countries. Millions have died for that bankrupt ideology...and yes, the USA has a black eye for helping dictators stay in power if they stated they were against it (and looking away when they oppressed their people). That was our biggest mistake. I think it is a national interest now to promote peace and stability by promoting regime change in Iraq. As I said before, Saddam is the enemy, if anybody here doubts it, just go see for yourself...and if you're allowed to tour Iraq without guards or minders then you can really see what you are marching for.

Kurd, thanks for the civil post. But it is still ill-informed. And illogical.

Solution to saddam?

How about

1.Containment. It has worked for the cold war, and for 10 years in Iraq allready. Where is any evidence other wise?

2. Inspections. According to all reports, up until the time unscom was told to leave by the US, they were %95 successful.

3. As per the Kurdish issue. It seems as though Saddam is not the only person in the region who doesnt respect Kurdish rights. A regional approach that addresses Kurdish populations in Syria, Turkey, Iraq- need be followed. The semi-autonomous regions of Northern Iraq seem a step in the right direction.

i don't know what the solution to the Kurdish situation is , but many reports make it seem that a post-war Iraq does not mean a seperate Kurdistan.

kurd,

Your talent for thinking in broad terms requires such skill, such doctrinaire practice that it would be terribly rude of me to not tip my hat.

My praise to you for taking time to write down your thoughts.

me

It's curious, isn't it, that absolutely everyone who wants this war with Iraq, also just happens to be an appologist for Israel as well.

It's curious too that the real proponents of this war in the administration worked with the Israeli think tanks in Washington: Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and drew-up plans to invade Iraq in 1996.

It also curious that Sharon has #1, said that "Israel controls the US", and #2 .the day after Iraq, we're supposed to go after Iran.

Why is that?

Just who's war is this anyway? Our's or Israel's? If the latter, how come we're fighting it???

Obviously, Iraq doesn't pose any danger to the US.

And obviously, the US doesn't really care about human rights abuses elsewhere; look at all the tyrants we have supported. Look at all the tortured and killed in South America, trained and supported by the U.S.A. We could care less about bad behavior, we support a lot of it.

Somehow, because of 9/11, we're supposed to feel justified going after an MiddleEastern country that has done nothing to us. Which poses not danger to us.

And speaking of Middle Eastern countries that pose a danger to us.

Why were those Israeli spies video taping the burning World Trade, and cheering? (What were they so happy about?).

Why were the Israeli "art student" spies in every town in the USA in which those who flew the airplanes into the World Trade were taking flight lessons: every town, including Hollywood Beach, Fla.?

Why are there Israeli spies in the U.S.A. in the first place?

Who's war is this for really, Us or Israel?

And who's REALLY our ally and who's REALLY our enemy???



http://www.unansweredquestions.org "9/11timeling"

Well, it just goes to prove my point. Only the Sharonists are for this war, and it seems that they will do ANYTHING to have it.

and I mean ANYTHING!!!

http://www.unanseredquestions.org

9/11 Time Line

Response to impy:

Solution to Saddam rebuttal

1. Containment: it worked for the cold war because that was our only option short of total war with nukes. If the soviets didn’t have so much foreign (UN) backing and strength, I think the world would have been much better if we would have went straight to Moscow after defeating Hitler as Patton suggested. How many people died in eastern Europe? SE Asia? How many little wars did the USA get involved in for ‘containment’? How many crappy deals did the USA have to make with dictators like Saddam? As you recall, we had a pretty big upheaval in America over some of the cold war policies...we’re still experiencing fallout from that...and you advocate more of this? Perhaps give saddam nukes, then we wouldn’t dare go in there...and if he starts annexing his neighbors like he tried to in 90? Then what? As you also recall, there have been people marching because of the starving children in Iraq...protesting UN sanctions instead of protesting Saddam. Some people who were calling for an end to sanctions before, are now saying to use sanctions as a way to contain him. Either way, it’s Saddam’s fault for not complying with the terms of his 1991 ceasefire agreement...if he would have complied, we would not be where we are today. Also, you can point to Saddam’s funding of any terrorist group who will do damage as a failure of containment. While I don’t think he was directly involved in 9/11, I do believe that he has harbored and given aid to the terrorist groups who were responsible...not to mention the many terrorist palestinian groups who think it’s great to blow up teenagers and others at a disco or Sbarro pizzeria in the mall, or murder people in their homes who were actually pro-palestinian israelis.

2. Inspections: Back to the 1991 ceasefire agreement and inspections...the inspectors are not in Iraq to find WMD...we already knew that he had these...they were there to witness the destruction of WMD. We already knew he had large chemical stockpiles and the willingness to use them in direct violation of the Geneva treaty. We had some evidence of a bio-weapons program when inspectors were denied access to facilities. It was pointless to keep them there if they had no access...so they were called back. Also, there were many problems with the inspection program; not the least of which was that the Iraqis accompanied the inspectors and often knew in advance where they were going. Also, history shows that inspections alone have never been successful in disarming a country...even a willing one, such as the Weimar Republic. That doesn’t even bring into what happened when a non-willing dictator came to power. I urge you to check your history on disarming Germany after WWI. I’m not sure where you got the 95% successful part, all you have to do is look to see that yes, they still have the weapons, they’ve been playing hide-and-seek with inspectors for 12 years...barely doing the minimum to avoid provoking war, and have been working on getting a nuke program in secret, not to mention the advances made in biological programs and chemical delivery systems.

3. You’re right, I agree, the situation with the Kurds is very sad, and I don’t think that there is a chance for a separate Kurdistan after the war. The USA’s ally, Turkey, has repeatedly killed and oppressed the Kurdish population but has not lowered themselves to mass murder by illegal chemical weapons. Immediately after the gulf war, the Kurds had hoped we would press on to Baghdad and rose up in defiance of Saddam. Even beaten by the USA, he managed to send the Iraqi army to kill them. They were driven into the mountains (that do not have trees, wildlife or anything on them) and were starving by the thousands. The USA was constrained at the time by the coalition and the UN from doing the right thing...so they tried to help the Kurds by dropping food and preventing the Iraqi army from killing them. Many thousands died and they were disappointed at the lack of support in trying to overthrow Saddam. Sometimes, even the Turkish forces that were supposed to be protecting the Kurds, attacked them. Remember that these are only members of a different tribe...you cannot visibly tell them apart, they are the same religion...except their group identity has been raised to a level where it becomes something you kill or are killed for. I don’t have a real workable solution to the Kurdish situation/plight, except that one would hope as Iraq becomes more like a representative republic democracy, it would also become less tribal and all citizens would work together. That’s, admittedly, wishful thinking, but it has happened before...traditional enemies can work side by side in relative harmony and even come to identify with each other until the reason for ancient hatred is erased...unless it is repeatedly dredged up by activists.

One thought to the protesters...spend some time with a real Iraqi or Kurd who has had the displeasure of living under Saddam. You won’t find them at any of the ‘peace’ rallies, you’ll have to go out and find them. It may open your eyes to what kind of man you’re marching for in the street. Please don’t advocate for more sanctions, the people of Iraq are already suffering greatly...do you think this hurts Saddam? This is not just an in-your-face (you go girl) type of rebelliousness against authority here. It is very serious and deadly for millions of people. Here is an excerpt from an Iranian newspaper:

Tehran Iran News, Feb. 17: What about the Iraqi people who have been taken hostage by a megalomaniacal dictator for so long? Why is nobody thinking about the immense suffering of the nation of Iraq? If one negotiates or yields to the demands of this hostage-taker Saddam Hussein, he will only be emboldened to increase his demands. He might even take more hostages. In any event, it is only the hostages [the Iraqi people] who will suffer further loss and injury….If Saddam Hussein is allowed to finesse his way out of this crisis, he may take the entire region as hostage in the near future….Moreover, someone should ask these antiwar protesters…if they realize how truly terrifying it is to live near a deranged and demented ruler such as Saddam Hussein, who has already invaded two of his neighbors?…Where were these protesters when Saddam Hussein was killing hundreds of thousands of citizens with conventional and unconventional weapons?…In conclusion, the same high and mighty Western powers who created the monster that is Saddam Hussein owe a debt of honor to the people of Iraq, as well as to the people of the entire region, to disarm and remove him from power now.

Here also is a blurb from Iraq on the ‘human shields’. It was amazing to me that these people would be so blind as to think that Saddam would not use them in this way...to protect MILITARY targets in a possible MILTARY OPERATION. It seems that now, some of them are waking up to the possibility that they are just cannon fodder for Saddam. Their antics do not work over there. If we do not attack a target because he has placed human shields there, he gets what he wants. If we do attack it anyway, he has civilian bodies to point to...and can hope world opinion will allow him to stay in power. In the gulf war, he purposefully put civilians into underground military command bunkers. On a side thought, what do you think the Iraqi people will do to the surviving human shields that they see were helping Saddam after he’s gone?

Human Shield Update

"america is the best so far"

i disagree

america is the best in many aspects. but not in others. as long as america keeps thinking it is the best, there is no room for improvement.

theoretically speaking,

wouldn't it be nice to go to war just to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam? Forget about oil, global security, and weapons of mass destruction. Wouldn't it just be nice to arrest him simply for war crimes? Why stop there? Why not arrest Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat? The leaders who supplied Saddam should also be punished. I wish there was a way to enforce international law directly.

First comment response: so...I'll ask again...what's your solution?

Here's your view as I see it: The USA is not perfect,(surprise surprise) therefore you are completely against it in everything...but somehow, you are willing to participate in a street march in LA to show support for Saddam? Talk about hypocrisy.

Second comment; I can't figure out if you're being serious or facetious. Yes it would be nice to just go in there and arrest him. Unfortunately you and I both know that's not possible. As to the Arafat and Sharon reference, Yes, I think that Arafat should be on trial for multiple murders as an accomplice and chief planner. Sharon might be more difficult for you to arrest for war crimes; show that he's actively targeting civilians...many Israeli soldiers have died because he has ordered them to be cautious and take special care to not kill civilians. That's kind of hard when civilians are actually shooting at you and you cannot tell the difference between an unarmed or armed person. This is getting off topic so I'll close it here. Let me know if you'd like to continue this discussion somewhere else.

Like I said, my original intent with this was to try and open the eyes of well-meaning, but misinformed people who don't understand Saddam represents a danger to the world and his own people. Open their eyes to the monster that they supported with their chants, signs, and demonstrations. They may only think that it's exciting and fun to protest in the street...without realizing the consequences of their action. I wonder where they were on numerous other 'wars'...? Free Tibet...whatever happened to that? Isn't it amazing that these war rallies are only organized around US actions...and then pretty much only when a republican is in office? LBJ got us into Vietnam but the protests didn't start in full force until Nixon got into office. One could even argue that the inept policies of the Johnson administration drew out the war extremely long and the protests swayed public opinion and prevented us from winning it...which in turn counted for the millions of deaths in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left. I wonder if the vietnam protesters ever think about the harm they did by prolonging the war. Thousands of Americans dead also....thanks Jane Fonda! You really helped us lose! I'm sure the people of S. Vietnam are very happy because of you also. Why didn't I see any protests in the street when Clinton was building up to "Saddam's Last Chance" before Operation Desert Fox? Was it because most people thought he was ineffective and it didn't mean anything anyway? I'd just like to see some real consistency in these protests, why aren't there any protests against Saddam? Answer: he killed all the potential protesters. Still think Saddam is a great guy, worth marching for? worth becoming a human shield for? worth fighting for? worth breaking windows and getting arrested for?

Off topic again...sorry...back to the Iraqis:

Here's a short article from one escaped Iraqi woman:

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_journey.html

Thank the French for what? Who kicked the GErmans out of France. From what I've been hearing from them lately, I wish there was a way we could take over FRance and give it to Saddam so they could then see what they are really doing? They are helping Saddam stay in power so I say that if they love murderous dictators so much, then lets put Saddam in charge of France. Also I would like to mention that I happen to be Jewish, American, Conservative, and a Republican so I guess all of you peace protesters must really hate me. Why can't you assholes put the politics aside and look at the facts. If you gave a shit about the people of Iraq, then you wouldn't be out there marching. Sure, some civilians will die, but look into the future and you will see a place where oil flows free, everyone is well fed from the oil exports, free media making government accountable for its actions, free speech so they may also protest like you do, Kurds living without fear, Israel living without fear, Kuwait living without fear, and the Iraqi people living without fear. When this wars over, your buddy Saddam is going to pay for his crimes. Inspections could have worked, but retards like the peace protesters and France have let Saddam think that the world is with him so he can do whatever the fuck he wants. He can play his games with the inspectors and he won't be attacked without the full support of the UN, but at least Bush knows that this threat must be dealt with even though the Leaders of France and Germany disagree with him. They only do it because of their own political interests. Didn't you know that standing up against the US made foreign leaders more popular with the people. Think about it you fucking rejects before you go and thank them. They don't care about peace anymore than you do. Before you tell me that I'm brainwashed by the media, I should let you know that I have two degrees in International Studies and Political Science and I know a hell of a lot more than all of you withiout the media.

Just another Pro Sharonist for WAR. Doesn't give a f*ck about America. That's for sure. Won't fight the war himself. That's for sure. Wants Americans to die for Sharon. Wow, A real American.

"...thinking in broad terms requires such skill, such doctrinaire practice.,"



Ha-ha. I had to stop and laugh. I can't believe this guy, me.

Whoosh! What was that that just flew over my head?!

Two Degrees huh? I guess explains your writing and Grammar.

Certainly neither was in Logic.

Your chain of "reasoning" would seem to approximate:

Saddam is a bad man.

Therefore it is alright to kill a few hundred thousand people to take him out.

It's the right thing to do.

You are a MORON. Except that is unfair - to real Morons - they were born that way.

to the above poster...who are you directing your retort to? You've lapsed into mindless insults "sharonist" that add nothing to the conversation. The other tired old insult is the assumption about the poster not willing to fight in a war. How do you know that I'm not in the military right now? How can you be sure that I don't have friends over somewhere in a dry place right now? How can you be sure that I'm not wondering if myself or other friends might be called up to go there?...and yes, we WILL go because we believe that Saddam is a threat. Apparently you have closed your eyes to Saddam's history and his brutality...and you'd like America to just sit back and let this fester in the mideast until it becomes a bigger problem. Or maybe you'd like that to happen since you seem to like supporting Saddam. My advice, go and enlist in his army. The "Real Iraqis" will tear you to pieces once they are free of Saddam. Thanks to you from all the starving children in Iraq who died today...thanks to you from all the oppressed people who starved, murdered or were tortured today...thanks a lot!!! Thanks to you, mr American sanctimonious protester living in luxury, from the thousands of dead Kurds whose blood received no justice. It's easy for you to protest, you're already free to do that...what about the millions who dream of simply being able to go wherever they want in their own car, work in the job of their choice, eat well, sleep in a bed, have a shower...etc...without the threat of chemical bombardment or death by torture if you happen to say one bad thing or if even somebody accuses you. One last thanks to all the protesters for peace from the murdered, oppressed, tortured Iraqi people....and their dead children.

How can you look at yourself in the mirror?

Pro-War: "Also I would like to mention that I happen to be Jewish, American, Conservative, and a Republican so I guess all of you peace protesters must really hate me. "

Personally, I wouldn't piss on you if your ass were on fire...your flaccid fuckin arguments aren't worth the effort it takes to flick a crusty booger.....your a real piece of work, pal..."I wish we could take over this country...I wish we could take over that country...and everybody will be happy tossing flowers and singing la-de-fuckin-da as the oil flows....oh sure, some will die, but it won't be me or any body else I know so what do fuck do I care? And those protesters, well, there just retards, and we all know about them..."

Nah, we don't hate you...you and your ilk are too much of an anachronism to last much longer...soon we'll read about your like in history books and museums...sorta like we do with Neanderthals now...sort of with aloof pity...

Pro-War and Kurd are one-in-the-same? just add a comma to tie the two postings together and you have the exact same voice. I love it. Too fun.

Your getting a little excited, maybe you should take some time and cool out. I wouldn’t want you to come across as a extremist that works off of the emotional palette to build his arguments. I’m sure everyone will let you take a cessation without teasing you too much.

Turd, do us all a favor...go write a fuckin' Bible and publish it someplace else... you could give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people except how they fit as pawns in your picture...thanks to you for supporting ineffective sanctions that resulted in millions of Iraqi children dying...thanks to you for supporting military actions that target hospitals, schools, mosques, food storage, water purification, and at the same time, ban supplies that could fix the mess you allowed to be made. So, do me a favor, Turd, spare me your self-righteous lying claptrap and your claims of concern for the Iraqi children that your are drooling to bomb. If you cannot find the courage to seek a solution other than death and destruction, then fuck you and your fuckin' bullshit moralizing.

Nice ad-hominem attack. Congratulations on your astounding display of logic that calls me a moron without any real argument of your own. Whew, I might never recover...perhaps we should use your wit in attacking Saddam...he would be so cowed that he'd never appear in public again.

So, you're another one that believes Saddam isn't a threat? Do you believe he's content to stay in Iraq and do nothing with his chemicals or biological weapons? Apparently he doesn't even have them, right? And even if he does, he would never use them in violation of world opinion and the geneva convention...after all he signed it too..?! If you had read another post by me, you'd see that I say the liberation of Iraq is an added bonus, it helps clean up one of the USA's mistakes and helps Millions. The primary focus is the non-compliance with UN resolutions and the existence of WMD. Next time, leave your insults and try some real discussion...I assume that you're an adult, and not some teenager who thinks he knows everything, who can converse civilly when you want to?

I'll put it in Simple Terms for you

1. Yes, Saddam is bad

2. He has chemical and biological weapons

3. He has demonstrated that he will use them

4. He has allied himself with, and directly funds terrorist organizations.

5. (stay with me here) This is a danger to the USA

----------

extra credit if you also learn

6. He has killed thousands of his own people

7. He will continue to kill those who even mildly oppose him

8. He has many methods to oppress his people: rape squads, torture, death, secret police.

9. The majority of Iraqi people are suffering and want him out also.

10. The USA helped build him up and make him powerful to our shame...now it's time to correct that mistake and fulfill our obligations to the Iraqi people...they expected it after the gulf war and rose up...we didn't support them then and they were murdered and starved. We should support them now instead of Saddam.

Yep, Kurd helped us out by responding to Pro-War's mail.

KURD/PRO-WAR



xxx adult's only!

Some more real discussion and NO more insults.

I don't know how much of this calm, reasoned approach by you that I can take. You're right, I'm the one who should calm down. Your arguments are so powerful and so logical. I'm overcome by your brilliance and the use of the word "Turd".

I guess I'll have to agree with you that Saddam is good...the USA is bad...huh? NOT! Looks like I found the real agenda by a few here after all...it's not peace....after all, you're just so peaceful and reasonable when dealing with a post on a board. And you wouldn't even piss to put out a fire on somebody? My goodness! that's so incredibly, uh, NICE of you. You have such a big heart and are so caring and full of goodness. LOL

I'm going to borrow a phrase to describe you

HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY

Sorry, 'Who's to Know'...When I said to the poster above, I was responding to the 'Real American' post...I didn't see the others after it until after I submitted my own. Not the same person as 'Pro-War'...sorry to burst your bubble.

Cheers!

Tanga Ka Talaga!

The post by Diogenes, which Dio directed to Pro-War, was answered by you as Kurd. That was very odd.

so, there.

I didn't scroll back up far enough to see what he (Diogenes) was responding to...so, Sorry Diogenes, I jumped the gun. His 'arguments' in his post were worth responding to however.

KPC, do you have anything constructive to add? possible solutions to minimize the death and destruction in Iraq and here in the USA? You seem to be backwards in your thinking....which country actively bombs civilians and kills civilians on purpose? And which county develops things like 'smart bombs' to try and minimize civilian casualties while taking out the military capabilities? Which country puts civilians in military targets?

What's your solution other than just a generalized wish for 'peace' (I assume that's what you want)?

Don't get me wrong Turd, there are plenty of people I'd be happy to piss on if they happened to burst into flames...but, you, I couldn't care less about...you are a sound...a lingering odor that just needs slight breeze to disperse...of no more consequence than a gnat buzzing my ear...

...now take your self-congratulating, pontificating ass and write that Bible that seems soooo pent up in that holier than thou soul of yours...

Turd, I am not interested in solutions to figments of your imagination...

Dear Turd,

Unreal. You would seem to have swallowed whole without analysis all of the Pro-War PsyOps PR that is flooded out through the usual outlets.

With each day the rationale morphs again - first it was because Saddam would not allow the inspectors back. And then he did. And then they found almost nothing. So with no WMDs® the Chickenhawk in Chief is now making it “God’s Will” that we take the OIL for Jesus.

I am a Veteran. I did my duty. So junior spare me the Violins about the pain of being separated from one’s loved ones and being stuck in a Foreign Land on an extended Deployment. Been There, Done That.

Because one is opposed to an ill conceived War of Aggression which runs contrary to the ideals that this nation once stood for does not mean one supports Saddam Hussein. You can Parrot that lie as many times as you would like and it still will not be true. Being loyal first to the Constitution under which this nation is allegedly run - which Bush and his Business Partners are busily gutting is an act of Patriotism.

Ask the Gulf War I Vets about how they were rewarded for their service - unproven Vaccinations, Uranium Poisoning from DU dust, Chemical Attack Alarms they were told to ignore, and the highest rate of disability of any group of Veterans to ever serve in a foreign conflict - now figured at 2 out of 5. Take a visit over to Gulfwarvets.com for an eye opener. Read what the guys who did the heavy lifting have to say. Rush, Anal Cyst, Limbaugh won’t talk about that. Nor Savage nor Hannity. They are busy selling War for their Masters. Ask Rush which branch of the service he served in. Hint: NONE.

And your proposed solution to the murder and torture of the poor beleaguered Iraqi people? Why let’s go kill some more. Should be plenty of children to shoot at - half of the population is under 14 - not many men left after the last “Turkey Shoot”. Won’t that be great fun as some “War Planner” sits back in their Swivel Chair and pushes the button launching 800 Cruise Missiles into the most heavily populated areas of Iraq. Can’t make an Omelet without killing a few children, eh? (After all the U.N. estimates no more than a Million Children will be killed in the attack.) It’s all in a good cause. That’s why the U.S. Armed Him, turned a blind eye to his rampages when it served our government’s Real Politik interests and then double crossed him to get the Oil Fields as soon as it was convenient. The U.S. Government has supported every tin pot Dictator who would suck up to American Business interests throughout the 20th Century. When Kosovo, and the War for the 1.5 Trillion Dollar Trepka Mining Complex, was going on the U.S. was supporting thugs with guns who ran the Heroin Trade into Europe. But that’s OK the C.I.A. does it too - documented in their own Inspector generals Report.

I might point out that U.S. actions such as using, and not cleaning up, DU munitions, bombing CIVILIAN WATER WORKS IN A DESERT COUNTRY, destroying Waste Disposal Infrastructure, and denial of replacement parts for said Water Works under the guise of Sanctions has resulted in by far in more dead Iraqi Children than Hussein is responsible for. (All while Cheney’s Halliburton was selling Oil Field Equipment to Hussein.) Go look up the UNESCO report if you would care to have your eyes opened. Read the report written by the U.S. Army’s Doctor sent over to assess the DU damage, contamination, and what it would take to clean it up. They buried the report. He has gone public as a Whistle blower, but of course Rush won’t talk about that.

Blind loyalty is just that - BLIND. Start digging into the real history of how our government has been subverted and how it has been sold out. With each new War SOLD by slick PR campaigns. Anyone say Incubators?

kurd,

Your talent for thinking in broad terms requires such skill, such doctrinaire practice that it would be terribly rude of me to not tip my hat.

My praise to you for taking time to write down your thoughts.

me

Diogenes (great name, philosopher)

I couldn’t help but notice the jab on Cheney and his Iraqi Business deals. So much for righteousness and moral code and all that shit that is used against the French as if they are the only “team Oil player” out there.

But, hell screw talk-- let’s crunch some numbers.

----------------Oil imported from Iraq: annual figures

in million barrels per day (ex, 1.022 is 1,022,000 barrels per day:

1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I

US .001 .089 .336 .725 .620 .795 1.022

-------------------------------------------------------------------

FR .000 .078 .171 .148 .148 .096 .071

Strange, over the last three years France has imported less and the US of A has imported more oil from Iraq. Now if we look below we will see that 25% of N.A. (that includes Canada, but not Mexico) 2000 imports from the entire Persian Gulf (more than just Iraq) is Iraqi import by the US. If you take the imports that Canada has from Iraq, it increase a little. Canada imports are about equal to France's. France consumes about 2 million barrels a day, of which 1.9 m are imported. Imports for 2002 from Iraq were a whopping 71,000 barrels a day. That isn't even 5% of their entire import. 2001 was about 5%. Let's look at the outlook on Oil

-----------------------------------------------

International Energy Outlook (world run model):

N.Amer. I Europe I

2000 Persian Gulf---- 2.6 3.2

2020 Persian Gulf---- 4.9 3.5

2000 total OPEC ----- 5.4 5.9

2020 total OPEC------ 9.7 6.9

----------------------------------

Pretty cool numbers. The numbers appear to indicate that N.A. is going to be doubling oil imports by 2020 while Europe will increase by roughly ~15%

Numbers are fun, they aren't political.

------

Don’t take my word, go ask the US Energy Information Administration.

You can find them under the DOE.

Okay, okay., http://www.eia.doe.gov

why is it that the more I learn, the less I understand?

Sorry about the alignment above. See if this works better,

US v. France: Iraqi oil imports by both countries,

1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I

.001 .089 .336 .725 .620 .795 1.022-----United States

.000 .078 .171 .148 .148 .096 .071-----France

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

N.Amer. I EUI

2.6 3.2 2000 Persian Gulf

4.9 3.5 2020 Persian Gulf

**************

5.4 5.9 2000 total OPEC

9.7 6.9 2020 total OPEC

--------

Total US increase for 2020 in OPEC : est. 4.3 million barrels/day

Total EU increase for 2020 in OPEC: est. 1.0 million barrels/day.

2.3 m/b/d for US will be from the Persian Gulf

0.3 m/b/d for France will be from the Persian Gulf.

http://www.eia.doe.gov

EU (minus new eastern countries--see above URL for more detail. It is part of the DOE so be leery of its validity :-)



what IT is....

```--'96---'97--'98---'99---'00---'01---'02

US.001 .089 .336 .725 .620 .795 1.022

FR.000 .078 .171 .148 .148 .096 .071

-----------------------------NA--EU

2000 Persian Gulf----2.6---3.2

2020 Persian Gulf----4.9---3.5

2000 total OPEC -----5.4---5.9

2020 total OPEC------9.7---6.9

KPC: non-discussion...go learn how to communicate your ideas without primitive grunts and insults Apparently you are willfully blind and do not see any threat...it's all "a figment of [my] imagination". Don't see any point in continuing with you. Great insults, but I don't see the Bible writing connection. I hope others can see the brilliance of your deep introspective genius...and run the other way. Go and get another joint, you probably wouldn't do anything worthwhile with your life anyway except live off mommy and protest when the mood strikes you.

To Diogenes: I'm surprised you'd stoop to the name-calling. Very well, I'll respond to some of your points.

Unreal. You would seem to have swallowed whole without analysis all of the ANSWER, Donahue, Workers World Party B.S. that is flooded out through the usual outlets.

Please go and read UN Resolution 1441...tell me where it says the inspectors are supposed to be doing a hide-and-seek? Do an honest reading of it and tell me if Saddam has broken it, not once but in many different places. Heck, while you're at it try the other 17 resolutions too. Here's something to get you started.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

You say you are a veteran...for that I'll pop you a crisp salute. I'm a gulf war vet myself and I don't know of any attack warnings that were ignored. Hell, we were jumping into our gas masks every time a scud was launched...even though we didn't know it wasn't aimed at us.

You say "Because one is opposed to an ill conceived War of Aggression which runs contrary to the ideals that this nation once stood for does not mean one supports Saddam Hussein. " I would tend to agree with you if that's what's in your heart (and this was really just a 'War of Agression' [it's not]), but you have to took a look at your actions and the results...you may not intend to support Saddam, but who benefits? If you succeed in undermining the resolutions and ultimatums given to Saddam, who will benefit? Of course if you believe that Saddam is a swell guy who doesn't deserve this treatment, then by all means you are correct in your own mind. It's not enough to say that because you don't INTEND to help Saddam stay in power. You should be old enough to understand that.

Hmmm, in your big paragraph you talk about things like "half the population is under 14 not many men left", "800 Cruise Missles into the most heavily populated areas" and "That’s why the U.S. Armed Him, turned a blind eye to his rampages when it served our government’s Real Politik interests and then double crossed him to get the Oil Fields as soon as it was convenient. " I don't know about the first two sentences...I think you 'pulled them out of someplace the sun doesn't shine' or are willfully misrepresenting the truth...they make lousy fiction. Read my earlier posts about the last point...I'm of the opinion that it was shameful to support Saddam...and it still is.

You talk about MY proposed solution...so what about yours? it was pointed out to me by a brilliant individual that sanctions were ineffective, and I agree...they only increased the misery of the people without harming Saddam at all. What is YOUR proposed solution, assuming that you see he is a serious threat....what would YOU do if you were the Top Dog, Head Cheese, Commander in Chief? Keep in mind that yes, another huge surprise!, that oil is a national interest...until we get fuel cell cars, our economy will depend on, [gasp], oil. I'd also like to know why if we're such an imperial hell-bent on world domination and taking oil fields, we didn't just keep Kuwait when we had the chance? or take over Saudi Arabia...they're really not our friends anyway you know.

OK, using DU ammunition and not cleaning it up...it should be cleaned up...push for action on that! march in the street for that! Maybe we should even have Iraq use some of its oil money to help pay for it, after all, THEY were the ones who invaded Kuwait in the first place. But, no, the USA will shoulder that debt too...funny that you bring in this excuse as a reason not to remove Saddam...what about all of the chemicals still in the ground where he used his weapons? What will the 'fallout' be if he gets nukes? or a terrorist that he sponsors takes out a sizable city? What will be the environmental damage then?

Blind, kneejerk street marches for peace are just that...blind. Look into who funds these things and backs them...ANSWER, Workers World Party et al. Many groups that have an active anti-USA stance. Check out the NION fund raising efforts.

I agree that some politicians in the 20th century have seriously degraded the constitution through judicial activism and executive orders...not to mention unconstitutional legislation. So, does that negate threats to this country from outside? No. Does that allow us to ignore Saddam? No! (assuming that you know he's a dangerous dictator)

What is your proposed solution? You seem like many others here...'The USA is not perfect' so we shouldn't do anything...'War is bad' (Duh, but there possibilities of greater war and more suffering later).

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here, so I'll say bye to all for a while. To the ones that kept it civil...thanks...to the ones who didn't...grow up.

P.S. "Oil for Jesus"...that's good...I hadn't heard that one before...did you think that up yourself or did you read it on indymedia? LOL "You can Parrot that lie as many times as you would like and it still will not be true. " LOL

Anti-war Protestors: Shades Of Stupidity

The word “civil” comes up frequently in blogs, popular culture articles, magazines, and daily conversion. “Let’s be civil.” “Can we have a little civility, here.” I wonder what exactly is being conveyed by the masses when words and phrases are over used.

I can tell you, Kurd, that you, like most on this post, want to be heard and are feeling rather ineffective when it comes to global issues like going to War. Believe me, I understand the frustration.

Your arguments can be summarized to create a pretty good look at what your grappling over.

Your issue is to take out Saddam.

You give some ideas to why. The resolution, Kurds, and US national security are your main issues. When you deal with moral issues you become somewhat less defined and emotional. You have no real input on these issues, yet you like to argue them because you are, in the end, insignificant but impacted by the decisions. This is fair enough, however, I don’t quite understand why you feel the need to try to convince others to act like you act. That is your goal: to convince, or convert others into seeing the picture like you see it. Your position is so clear to you; it is simple. Your confidence in your generalities is why you get flak. Someone will call you names, others give faint praise “Your talent for thinking in broad terms requires such skill, such doctrinaire practice....”

You offer your arguments, but when it comes to the other side you mock, and ridicule, you use vulgar words, graphic images, and emotional taunts to overwhelm your audience. Then you petition a civil argument, but you lose some of your traction by poorly defined points that you believe are illustrating something significant. The structure of your sentence tend to be colloquial, spliced and rambling. In the end, your call for civility is overshadowed by your desperate tactics.

The guy's paid to do this. You haven't figured that out yet?

You think he's just one person.

You think in a space of a minute he comes up with well thought out paragraphs?

Get real.

THANK YOU FRANCE.

YOU ARE THE OLDEST ALLY OF THE US

WITHOUT YOU WE WOULDN'T HAVE WON THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

WITHOUT YOU, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY

WITHOUT YOU HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUNG AMERICANS WOULD ALREADY BE AT WAR

DON'T LISTEN TO THE FOREIGN OWNED PRESS

THEY DON'T SPEAK FOR US

WE DO

VIVE LA FRANCE !

Nuf said.

..."nuff said" from you before your first fuckin' post, asswipe...

I found this picture of Luke

Are disgustingly flabby and prominent jowls a prerequisite for joining the right?

im living in the US, im paying taxes - what makes you think im against it in everything? i'm saying that america could improve - it could be better for everybody. so if it could be better, why not make it better... right?

anti-war protesters arent supporting saddam

theyre scared for the losses the iraqi people might have to endure (losses during and after an invasion)

for the iraqi people

living with saddam is like losing all four limbs

whereas a US invasion would mean that they would lose only 2 legs and an arm.

so yes, a war would be better for the iraqi people but seriously, it isnt much of a choice.

i oppose war for reasons other than most anti-war protestors. i am not a pacifist, but i am not a hawk either. i simply think that we need more time to think of options. nobody has really bothered to pay attention to the issue for the past decade. but now all of a sudden, the only thing we're arguing is whether to go to war or not. neither side really has teh time to think of solutions.

to all u war protestors out there with brains (unlike me), let's here some real viable solutions that could give the iraqis a break.

if you want to know why i have no solutions its coz im not smart enough to think of any but believe me there are people out there who are smart enough.

1. Stop the chickenshit sanctions that deprive the medical and repair equipment needed to provide relief from the slow

death we causing after we shot up their water systems and

contaminated the area with DU.

2. End the aid to the zionist occupation army.

3. Provide food for the starving in Iraq.

4. Impeach the criminals and killers in the white house.

5. Arrest and prosecute and hang the criminals in the

white house.

6. Wait for the flood of fan mail from all the corners of

the world except Israel.

Bowling for Columbine - The Brief History of America

thats conservatives for you

Hello to all,

First of all, I would like to say that I lovethat picture posted for the protesting for idiots. You people, really have no sense of the real world. I advise you spend a few years in Iraq and see for yourself how they have to live before you oppose a war. Yes, I support a full military invasion of Iraq. No, I did not get my opinion from the mass media. A part of my extended family lived in Iraq for years until they cam to America in the late 90's. When I went to visit, I could not believe what I saw since I had grown up in the land of the free. There is simply no way to describe it to you. I know it is in your best intentions to help the people of Iraq, but in a way, you will be hurting them if you get your wishes. I was raised to believe that we are all equal. Does this exclude the Jews and Kurds, and maybe Conservatives. Tell me why we can't liberate Iraq? Are you afraid of war? I know that you would be too afraid to walk down the streets of Baghdad holding your signs. You say you don't like Bush, well imagine if Bush was a dictator. Thats another thing, you call him a dictator, but are you aware of the system of checks and balances, the divisiion of power, the impeachment process, the Democrats, the protests, the Bill of Rights. Maybe you would all be much happier living under the Articles of Confederation where the Federal Government didn't have any power. What I get from you is that you oppose the Federal Government for making the right decisions because they are Republicans. You all don't deserve to live in such a great country where you take your freedoms for granted everyday. Look at the Vietnamese example- the slaughter of thousands of innocent people just because some drug addicts with signs didn't agree with the war. I would volunteer any day to help save a life, even if it meant joining the military and defending someone from evil.

Geez, Turd, give it a rest!

Typical liberal... acts like he cares about others but really is a dismissive scumbag!

Geez, Puke, give it a rest!

who are you liberating? is that your true goal? i doubt very much. its more of a possible side effect. out of the people who you wish to liberate, the kurds especially have received extremely harsh treatment by saddam. so you claim you wish to remove saddam to liberate these people. are you aware that the US government is planning to provide $10 billion in grants and $5 billion in loans to turkey for its use as a staging base for a war?

so on one hand you're liberating kurds by removing saddam while at the same time providing aid to another regime thats just as brutal to the kurds as saddam is.

My problem -- America's problem, really -- with the French boils down to two things: What they say and what they do. Rhetorically, the French, along with their gentle-giant pals the Germans, claim that they are leading a "new Europe." The unifying myth of the "new Europe" is that over the last 50 years it has achieved peace and prosperity through endless blather in Zurich hotel conference rooms.

"Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out," Karl Kaiser, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Affairs told the Chicago Tribune. "Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world." Or as The New York Times' Ethan Bronner wrote recently, "Through common economic interests, education and relentless talk, the Europeans have forged a new world for themselves."

The problem with all of this is that it's absurd. Europe's accomplishments are great and good and all that, but the European model isn't what it is portrayed as being. The reason Europe remained peaceful during most of the last half of the 20th century is that it had a common enemy to the east in the form of the Soviet Union and a protector and leader to the west in the form of the United States. For much of the Cold War, the U.S. carried the bulk of the defense burden of Europe, in effect subsidizing the lavish welfare states the French and others now take for granted.

It's a classic free-ride problem. The Europeans have benefited from the global stability provided by the United States. But the Europeans -- or at least the French and Germans -- now take that stability for granted and berate the United States for doing what it sees as necessary to ensure continued peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, the idea that violence never solves anything is a fraud. Violence ended the Holocaust; in the U.S., it freed the slaves. And, in 1998, American-led violence ended slaughter in the Balkans while European paper shufflers stood by paralyzed.

The French and Germans claim that the United States is a "bully" and a "cowboy" largely because America can do things the French and Germans can't or won't. Their own military capacities are woefully deficient, and so they champion peace at any cost in part because they're loath to admit they couldn't fight if they wanted to. If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If all you have is a briefcase full of petitions and human rights lawsuits, every problem is going to call for more paper shuffling.

It's not all that surprising that the power imbalance has led to envy and festering resentment. Throughout the 1990s, French bookstores bulged with such books as "Who Is Killing France? The American Strategy" and "American Totalitarianism." "No Thanks, Uncle Sam" was a best seller written by a member of the French Parliament who concluded, "It is appropriate to be downright anti-American." A more recent French best seller suggested that America itself plotted the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, anti-Americanism is so strong in France -- in part because French governments encourage the sentiment -- that French governments have wide latitude to do just about anything they want so long as it is seen as being contrary to American interests.

Which brings us to the second problem with the French: What they do. France's long-term ambition for the new Europe has always been to lead a united European Union that could rival the United States in global influence. "What is the point of Europe?" Charles de Gaulle once asked. "It must serve to prevent domination either by the Americans or by the Russians." With the Russian threat gone, France considers it even more important to block "domination" by the U.S. This is their chief motivation for blocking U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein.

Certainly, as a matter of realpolitik this long-term strategy is intellectually defensible. The practice of one state trying to check the influence of another is a time-honored tradition. But this isn't a game of Risk between family members where you team up with your brother to keep your father from winning the game. As de Gaulle's statement reveals, French foreign policy has a tendency toward blindness when it comes to good guys and bad guys. (Witness the recent invitation of Zimbabwe's thug-in-chief Robert Mugabe to Paris.) Indeed, equating American and Soviet "domination" -- even rhetorically -- as equal threats is not merely stupid; it is morally outrageous.

France is playing a similar game with Iraq, claiming that the United States is the bad guy in this scenario. Never mind the ingratitude of a country saved by U.S. military action twice in one century, what is truly galling is that France's motives toward Iraq are profoundly more cynical and selfish than our own. In addition to their desire to curb U.S. influence in the region, the French are far more hungry for Iraqi oil money than the United States. If we were hellbent on Iraqi oil, we would lift the sanctions tomorrow in exchange for fat oil contracts -- something Hussein has suggested in the past. Or we could have just taken Iraq's oil a decade ago when we briefly occupied the region. America has no interest in fighting a war for oil. But France desperately wants "peace for oil."

In exchange for France's opting out of the no-fly zones and denouncing the pain and suffering inflicted by Iraqi sanctions, Hussein has consistently rewarded the French with lucrative contracts through the oil-for-food program. An American-led war would end that.

Indeed, there's almost no criticism of the United States that doesn't apply with greater or equal force to France. The French are certainly willing to trade blood for oil, just so long as it's not their own. And if it's true to say that America helped "create" Hussein, it's doubly accurate to say it of the country that sold him a nuclear reactor. The only difference between the two countries is that America is eager to correct its mistakes while France is entirely at peace with letting Hussein continue murdering and terrorizing his subjects and neighbors.

It's true, the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" isn't particularly accurate here. The French aren't being cowards: They're more like cheese-eating appeasement monkeys, willing to negotiate with evil for short-term advantage. If that makes them heroes to the anti-war movement, so be it. But it doesn't make them principled -- and it certainly doesn't make them our friends.

Geez, it used to be when you bought someone, that motherfucker stayed bought!

USA is never going to be popular. The koran basically says that Islam should rule the world so that rules USA out as being very popular anywhere in the muslim world. the african countries want debt relief and donations but it seems the same countries that get lots of donations in arabia done seem to like the US much. Anyway you give them debt relief and they are asking for it again in 10 years. (not that that means you shouldnt do it only that it isnt going to make you popular).

In the british comonwelth we hate americans cause they have bigger cars than us (to summarize the general opinion). We also think you are fat.

In asia we (Im in asia now) think that we should be the dominant people in the world (as opposed to USA people).basically that leaves you with antartica as your friend and some penguins.. otherwise besides becoming a third world country (in which case we will jsut loose respect for USA) The USA cant do anything.

Sorry tough luck no fan mail for you.

Spotty, your typing alot, but your not saying anything....

KPC

nice insult from the man who created the great piece of wisdom

"Geez, Turd, give it a rest!"

then like mojo jojo redundantly continued

Geez, Puke, give it a rest!

14 years of torture and humiliation in Saddam's jail

------------------



RAFAT Abdulmajeed Muhammad is a slightly built man of 45 with a distant stare and a scarred body. He lives alone in Sulaimaniyah, northern Iraq, and owns nothing but the clothes he stands in. He spends his days trying to forget the past 14 years, which he spent in the darkness of Saddam Hussein’s most infamous political prison.

Mr Muhammad’s only crime was to sell a British journalist a roll of film, but his treatment bears ample testimony to the nature of Saddam’s regime.

Mr Muhammad was an Egyptian photography graduate who moved to Iraq in 1985 and opened a small photographic shop, Rafat’s Photography, in Baghdad. In August 1989 a foreigner visited his shop and bought a roll of film. Mr Muhammad gave him his business card and forgot about him.

The next month he encountered the man again, this time in very different circumstances. Mr Muhammad, who had been arrested the previous day and charged with espionage, was sitting blindfolded in a chair in Room 18 of the headquarters of the Iraqi secret police, the Mukhabarat.

“They pulled the blindfold up so that I could see the spy I was accused of aiding,” he said. “There, standing in silence, was the man to whom I had sold a roll of film. His name was Farzad Bazoft. The Mukhabarat had found my business card in his belongings.”

Mr Muhammad never saw Mr Bazoft again. The Iranian-born journalist, who was working for The Observer, was executed for spying the following March.

The Mukhabarat never extracted a verbal confession from Mr Muhammad during the four months he was held in a tiny cell in the headquarters. He said that he was interrogated by a Mukhabarat officer named Basim twice a day, each time being whipped with cables while suspended from the ceiling, his hands tied behind his back. He had his jaw, ribs and hands broken. Sometimes he was taken to the basement, strapped into an electric chair and given shock treatment.

“I had nothing to confess to,” he said. “They said I worked for Mossad (the Israeli intelligence agency) but my only mistake was that I sold Bazoft a roll of film.”

In January 1990, days before Mr Muhammad’s trial, the Mukhabarat inked his thumb and pressed it against a statement in lieu of a signature. He was charged under article 158 of Iraqi law and sentenced by a military court to life imprisonment. He was transferred to the notorious Abu Greeb penitentiary, west of Baghdad, where 7,000 political prisoners lived in constant fear of torture and execution.

He spent the next three years in solitary confinement. He was taken out of his cell twice a week for beatings. He said that in the prison basement were deep pits, each a metre wide. Up to ten prisoners deemed guilty of disciplinary offences would be dropped into these pits and kept there for a week at a time. “Many died in those pits,” he said.

Last summer Mr Muhammad had the top joint of the second finger of his left hand smashed off with an iron bar for insulting Saddam, an offence for which five years were added to his sentence.

Large-scale executions were a regular occurrence. The first that Mr Muhammad remembered was on March 27, 1991, during the uprisings in Iraq that followed the coalition victory in Kuwait.

“There was no rioting in the prison, just a feeling of unease,” he said. “Then that day hundreds of men from a special unit arrived. They took all the prisoners from their cells and made them parade in the yard facing the walls. It was the first time I had been in daylight since my imprisonment.When we all had our backs to them, standing in the sun, they opened fire on us. Over a hundred men lay dead and dying. The rest of us were made to stand up again and they kept us paraded there until 8pm, when we were returned to our cells.”

Mr Muhammad had some notable companions in Abu Greeb, and their identity sheds light on the broad interpretation of “political prisoner” in Iraq. In a neighbouring cell during his first year of solitary confinement was Hussain al-Shahristani, an internationally renowned Iraqi expert on neutron activity. He had been imprisoned for refusing to co-operate on Saddam’s nuclear programme.

“We used to whisper to each other through the doors of our cells when the guards were eating their supper,” Mr Muhammad said. “We even made a plan, through one of the men who gave us meals, to bribe the Mukhabarat and escape.”

He later found himself rubbing shoulders with seven Iraqi al- Qaeda inmates. “Their chief was Dr Mohammad,” he said. “He was an Iraqi from Mosul who had fought in Afghanistan and was a personal friend of Osama bin Laden. We became very close. I remember him praying specially for Osama when the Americans began to attack Afghanistan.” The seven al-Qaeda prisoners received special privileges. Dr Mohammad was allowed a bed and a private room in which to meet his wife and “special visitors”.

On October 20 last year, 400 prisoners were taken out before dawn and marched to a field inside the Abu Greeb complex, where they were shot.

“In a way it was good news for us,” Mr Muhammad said. “Though executions happened the whole time, usually mass killings preceeded an amnesty. It was a way the authorities had of culling the prison population. So that morning, after the shooting, we hoped some of us may be freed.”

An immediate amnesty announcement did indeed follow. Along with 2,000 other prisoners from Abu Greeb, many of them Kurds, Mr Muhammad was simply ejected from the gates that afternoon.

He had no money and no documentation. He had no idea where to go. He had no idea of the fate, or whereabouts, of his two brothers and two sisters in Egypt. In the end, some Kurds took him northwards and he crossed into Kurdish- controlled northern Iraq two days later. There local people put him up in a small, spartan hotel in the centre of Sulaimaniyah.

The local branch of the UN and the Red Cross appeared unwilling or unable to help him. “They were polite but firm,” he said. “They told me I was a released prisoner so was out of their jurisdiction.”

He sits alone in his bare room, waiting, and hoping that something will happen to change things.

“I am surprised to hear of all the anti-war demonstrations in the West,” he said. “I wish that the demonstrators could spend just 24 hours in the place I have come from and see the reality of Iraq.

“Fourteen lost years of my life. Nothing but bread for food — darkness, filth, beatings, torture, killings, bitterness and humiliation. I wish they could experience it for just 24 hours.”

Killed for 'spying'

In 1989 Farzad Bazoft, an Iranian-born freelance journalist, was working for The Observer. Having established close links with the Iraqi Embassy in London, Mr Bazoft was invited to cover a showpiece election in Kurdistan.

While he was in Iraq, news broke of an explosion at a secret missile plant to the south of Baghdad. Defying an official ban, Mr Bazoft went to the site disguised as a doctor. He was driven by his friend Daphne Parish, a British nurse. While there, he took photos and two soil samples, which he believed would show that the site was contaminated. When Mr Bazoft attempted to leave Iraq he was arrested by the secret police and put into solitary confinement for six weeks. When he emerged he was shown in a televised interview confessing to being an Israeli spy.

On March 10, 1990, Mr Bazoft was convicted of spying and sentenced to death. Ms Parish was jailed for 15 years but released after ten months. Despite appeals from Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, Mr Bazoft was hanged on March 15 on the orders of Saddam Hussein.

Oh that's TERRIBLE...why did that Poppy Bush prop up such and evil man? He should be hanging his head in shame!

You really are a piece of work, KPC. No matter what evidence is placed before you, no matter who tells you of the horrors that they suffered, you just plug up your ears and run your fool mouth: It's about the oil. Bush is Hitler. The Israelis bombed the WTC.

You crack me up.

Evidence? What evidence? All I've seen are the moronic rantings of the ill informed or willfully stupid..

...but you are in your own category...my dumb doggie!

The case you make against Saddam is certainly terrible.

So when are you enlisting?

When is your son going over?

From such an up-standing citizen as yourself, I don't expect words, and more words,

I expect action.

Sign-up and fight, send your son; and if you're not in a position to do this, then simply: Shut up!

If he goes over there will you and everyone else here sudenly abandon all opposition to the war? there has to be a quid pro quo.

Anyway there will be a few people going over there who do care - so i guess that has the problem solved already as long as they do all the fighting it is none of our business?

As an aside - Its certainly none of my business - my country doesn't have a defence policy we just get you guys to handle it (sweet as for us but you guy probably aren't so keen on it). So I couldnt go over there if I wanted to. Oh yeah and we dont like you using our ports either. Can't make it easy for you can we?

Oil Statistics are not political.

Iraqi oil imported by US and France below are in million/barrel/day (ex. .795= 795,000 barrels/day; .096= 96,000 barrels/day)

```--'96---'97--'98---'99---'00---'01---'02

US.001 .089 .336 .725 .620 .795 1.022

FR.000 .078 .171 .148 .148 .096 .071

Over the last three years France has imported less Iraqi oil while the USA has inncreased Iraqi oil imports. If we look below we will see that 25% of N.A. 2000 imports(that includes Canada, but not Mexico) from the entire Persian Gulf (not just Iraq) is Iraqi oil imported by the US. If you take the imports that Canada has from Iraq, it increases a little. Canada 2002 Iraqi imports (.073) are about equal to France. (France consumes about 2 million barrels a day, of which 1.9 m are imported. Imports for 2002 from Iraq were 71,000 barrels a day. That equals less than 5% of their entire oil import. 2001 was about 5%.) Let's look at to the future outlook of Oil

-----------------------------NA--EU

2000 Persian Gulf----2.6---3.2

2020 Persian Gulf----4.9---3.5

2000 total OPEC -----5.4---5.9

2020 total OPEC------9.7---6.9

Total NA increase by 2020 in OPEC : est. 4.3 million barrels/day

Total EU increase by 2020 in OPEC: est. 1.0 million barrels/day.

2,300,000 b/d more for NA will be from the Persian Gulf

300,000 b/d more for EU will be from the Persian Gulf.

The numbers appear to indicate that N.A. is going to be doubling oil imports by 2020 while Europe will increase by roughly ~15%

China is expected by 2020 to be importing roughly 50% of their oil from the Persian Gulf.

Don’t take my word, go ask the US Energy Information Administration.

You can find them under the DOE.

http://www.eia.doe.gov

Have you considered the fact that the United States' population is 280,000,000 while that of France is only 60,000,000? If you look at oil consumption per capita from Iraq, the French use more Iraqi oil than the US. Furthermore, the US has a $10 trillion GDP compared to Iraq's $1.5 trillion. This would lead one to believe that we have a fuel requirement roughy 8 to 10 times that of France.

Again, numbers aren't political.

Disengenuous as always I see. The numbers posted as comparison are for the European Union which has a larger population than the U.S..

Numbers are interesting things. I find logic fascinating as well.

Reading class is in.

Diogenes: Please read the following quote from above, explain where you got the EU out of it, and then apologize for A: unfounded accusations and B: being so stupid.

"Oil Statistics are not political.

Iraqi oil imported by US and France below are in million/barrel/day (ex. .795= 795,000 barrels/day; .096= 96,000 barrels/day)

```--'96---'97--'98---'99---'00---'01---'02

US.001 .089 .336 .725 .620 .795 1.022

FR.000 .078 .171 .148 .148 .096 .071 "

Class dismissed.

Point granted.

...and therefore we import more Iraqi oil than France, but they consume more they we do? Per cap., is this right?



Good points to make, S.S.

I'll try to make it back soon, because this looks like a good discussion. Must run -other tasks at hand (work)

H.E.R

(typo? Iraq has 1.5 trillion GDP?)

Yes, huge typo. It should read France's GDP is 1.5 trillion. Sorry about that.

Sorry also for the strident language, Diogenes. I'll make it a point to try and keep it civil from now on.

...and therefore we import more Iraqi oil than France, but they consume more they we do? Per cap., is this right?

I was hoping this question was answered so I could verify that I understood your statement.

I got the consumption per capita, GDP, unit over a unit., then there is "oil consumption per capita from Iraq" What do you mean? Do you mean FR and US oil consumption per capita and what % of that is Iraqi light? anyway., I'm tired. talk soon.

Thnks,

H.E.R.

attempting to justify and make sense of everything involved in the us/iraq/terrorism problem is useless if no solutions are offered. all i am reading is opinion , history lessons and the occasional mindless insult. Do you know what this boils down to? PEOPLE. oil, religion, politics, alliances, power all useless with out a population to benefit from it. yes saddam is dangerous and a negative ingredient to an already unstable part of the planet, but once he is gone who is going to take his place?a global unification and resolution must be made in order for HUMANITY to co-exist and maximize our potential on the bigger scale. there is so much that this world could accomplish with a common vision, if we could only stop squabling over small pieces of earth and realize that human beings are the only real asset. All that anyone should ever be garaunteed is equity in this world. i hope for nothing more than a peaceful capture of all war mongers and any of those who invoke fear and hysteria to control the masses to exploit them for thier own personal benefit.

i miss ghandi so much

Is there anyone who watched w's news conference that doesn't think this war isn't going down the shitter. Even this staged group of so called journalist who normally serve as stenogrophers and just report what ever the state dept tells them, were forced to ask Bush what he plans to do now that his war plans are completely falling apart. He was asked, well gee Mr Pres now that youv'e pissed off the whole world and divided the UN and made a fool out of yourself why are you going ahead with this war. I can't belive that there are people who are still supporting this clown who was somehow selected to be the leader of the free world. This whole thing is blowing up in his face. They are totaly downplaying the Turkey situation which is going to make things alot more difficult. Hell he could have even had Iran in his corner oh but he put them in the Axis of Evil, and the longer this goes on the more foolish he looks.

Now youv'e got North Korea about to start producing nuclear weapons ! Yea thank God GW is making the free world a safer Place!

The sad thing is thousands of people are going to die and the innocent people of Iraq are the ones caught in the middle of this mess

That dynamic team of F & G are the ones that sold the material and equipment to Iraq to make WMD and they want to hide that fact as best as possible. They care more about Iraq oil then the people of Iraq. Those whores have sold their souls to the Devil!

Wait, I thought this war wasn't about oil???

You Republicans have to send us your revised scripts or we can't keep up!

yeah.. it must be the devil. oops. i mean The Devil.

just kidding. i don't believe in god. is that ok in the USA?

Stop the war

NOT ANOTHER VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kindly demonstrate any historical similarities between the coming conflict in Iraq and the Vietnam war.

This is going to be good.

well let's see here.... for starters they're both wars.

your point, simon?

The Hundred Years War was a war.

The Thirty Years War was a war.

King Phillips War was a war.

The War of Spanish Succession was a war.

The Boer War was a war.

The War of the Roses was a war.

The War of 1812 was a war.

The Russo-Japanese war was a war.

The Korean War was a war.

The Peloponnesian War was a war.

Pinhead didn't mention any of these conflicts. Pinhead said "not another vietnam".

One must therefore presume that Pinhead sees similarities between the two conflicts.

I am fascinated by what these similarities are.

i don't get it, simon. what's so fascinating? are you trying to bore us to death?

Yeah, Fido, I imagine you are also fastinated by bright shiny objects, but you don't have to write about 'em.

I find it fascinating that someone can raise the spectre of Vietnam without any noticable similarity between that conflict and the one about to begin in the Persian Gulf. The Left uses "Vietnam" as a totem to frighten and to rally around. Booooo No Vietnam Boooo.

I guess its easier than having to think.

Simon,

why should anybody else have to do your thinking for you?

you're the one who's fascinated - so THINK already!

we pointed out one similarity - Vietnam and this Iraq thing are both wars, right?

now say thank you and now you try to think of some more similarities.

come on, you can do it, little solider boy.

this shouldn't be so hard for you.

Oh, wait, wait, I got one!

Both of these conflicts were protested by deluded cowardly louts who arrogated to themselves a morally superior position all the while ignoring the misery of millions.

Ah, but screw them - they're just Iraqis or Vietnamese or Cambodians. At least I don't have to fight.

You were right. There are similarities.

Give him a chance to go check the manual....

It's absurd to compare Vietnam with the up coming Iraq war.

Vietnam resulted in 60,000 dead American soldiers, killed "over there", before we were routed.

In this war, the dead will include many American civilians who will be killed in retalitory "terrorist" attacks here, and around the world.

Protestester sometimes chant "bring the war home",

well, with this war, this is exactly what's going to happen.

So, if you're for this war, don't expect only American soldiers to die.

Are you saying that there will be fewer terrorist attacks if we don't proceed with this war?

He saying hide in the closet and let the world go to hell and maybe the terrorist will leave us alone or only hurt us a little bit.

Hey do i have an offer for you!

man I suggest you surrender all of your property to me and i might not make some sort of a nebulous threat that i probably cant deliver on!

Is there anyone else here who would like to declare their intention to surrender whenever a threat is made?

Why use Homer's words?

Homer makes fun of lazy white America.

Quoting Homer is not good.

It makes you look stupid.

Tell me your not stupid,

and that by quoting Hommie

that you are actually

sending off a clever crack.

Just noting that there would be a huge insentive for people to think that way.

and by the way your post made no sense to me at all.. although it appeared to be some sort of a poem.

This is a great photo of the international anti-war crowd and what they really have in mind.

I hope George left enough money on the dresser!

Here is someone waiting to lick the boys clean!

"Insentive?" Scottie, you really are helping me make my point.



Homer is a sarcastic joke about the average white suburban male who is fat, lazy, uneducated, simple-minded, with an understanding of his world through his ego, which is represented by his appetite. When Homer said “cheese eating surrender monkeys” the author was making fun of you. (Matt G. intended to make sociopolitical commentary of US suburban culture, okay?-- thus,“springfield”)

The fact that people actually use homer-isms as a way of expressing their individual emotions is painfully ironic--- and I would laugh, except you guys are too “Homer” to know that Homer has got your number--- and that makes me worried.

No wonder US polls show that an alarming number in the US believe Saddam is connected to 9-11/ bin-lad without any information stated by the US govt. to support such weirdness.

How desperate, how tiresome. In England the Simpson’s are enjoyed because of this little joke about America. Now it is your turn. Stop being detached and try and identify with Homer-- as you are he.

You watch too many cartoons my friend.

I know why I used that term and it wasn't based on homer simpson or any other cartoon character. In fact i was wondering if you were refering to the Iliad or the Odessy.

The fact that you think things that people say must be centered around a cartoon merely reflects upon yourself. Or even worse the fact that you are worried about it.

While I am vaguely aware that this cartoonist is left leaning (I think i saw a cartoon series he did on republicans) I dont go to cartoonists looking for profound insight, and i expect those who do are usually dissapointed. Therefore whatever comentary he might have intended is not particularly significant.

As to the 9-11 sadam connection - were you one of the people saying binladin was innnocent right after 9-11? or maybe arguing that we would be defeated by the taliban or that we would find nothing there.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong to just sit back and admit that you really know nothing?

sadam is all cosy with all sorts of groups who like killing innocent people. many of whom think hes a bit of a infidel but hey a few million here and there and an infidel can be your buddy. just ask the fundimentalist palistinian suicide bombers!

considering that it would be somewhat surprising if you cant find his hand somwhere deep down in the network of terrorists.

I assume your going to put whats left of your reputation on the line to say that the US will invade iraq and find no connection at all between sadam and al quaeda ("the base")?

will you apologise and never disagree with mr bush again?

British Royal Air Force medic Craig Short tends to the stitches on the stomach of a six-year-old Iraqi boy who sustained shrapnel injuries from artillery fire near Basra, southern Iraq, Friday March 28, 2003. (Photo: AP) image546620x

Fuck off, you cameljockeys.

New Lady Liberty - a Boush

the usa has "been there" for france in the past and vice versa. i think whatever country is not in coalition with this iraqi war should not benefit in the post war. it would be like stealing from the dead.

The US should get ALL of the Iraqi oil. We should not share it with anyone, not even the Iraqi people.

martha, the french are not the only country to have these kinds of graveyards. and if america and its allies win this war- then those countries who did not participate should be forever grateful of the continuing freedom they have, forever grateful to the soldiers who are in iraq, and realize that some of these soldiers are dying (as i write this ) to make the world a better place (not including the french) that you seem to be rallying for .

OIL.. the liquid bandaid! nonetheless that sounds a bit frantic to me.. what about our allies.. the ones that are there fighting as well.. and as far as the "oil " goes.. well that opens up a whole new view for me..an ugly one.

use your own name when replying to my message!

i a'int greedy !

could someone please help me back into my straightjacket now?

you who choses to respond to my messages by using

MY name ... i would be more than happy to help u into your straightjacket.

May I help YOU back into your straightjacket now? We just don't seem to be making any progress on that multiple personality disorder. Oh well, we could always try a lobotomy.

your funny dr fruit. are you a comic?

Yes, the French did the correct thing in not supportin the Bush imperialistic war.

Way to go France!!!

http://www.aucklandcitypolice.govt.nz/History/warrior.htm

Way to go, Simon. Whenever we conservatives don't have anything intelligent to say, we can always resort to posting a propoganda link.

You and Simon at totally wastes....or maybe totally wasted. Sheesh.

So far, we haven't gained:

- military victory

- the change of regime

- disarming the country from weapons of mass destruction

- spreading democracy

- appointing a government chosen by the Iraqi people

- won the hearts and minds of the I-raqi people

- brought food and medicine to them

- been able to take their oil

I don't care about the American people - they didn't vote for me anyway...

wee weel show zem! we are not at all laak frogs!

*LE BOMB NEUTRON*

"So far, we haven't gained:

- military victory RIGHT, BUT GIVE IT A FEW MORE DAYS

- the change of regime NO< BUT WE"VE DELETED THE OLD REGIME

- disarming the country from weapons of mass destruction YOU"RE RIGHT. THERE ARE STILL MANY WMD'S LEFT IN IRAQ. WE AGREE

- spreading democracy THAT"LL NEVER HAPPEN IN THE ARAB WORLD. YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT>

- appointing a government chosen by the Iraqi people RIGHT.WE WILL NOT "APPOINT" ONE.

- won the hearts and minds of the I-raqi people AU CONTRAIRE. ALL EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY MUCH TO YOUR CHAGRIN.

- brought food and medicine to them WRONG AGAIN. THEY GET IT AS FAST AS WE CAN GET IT TO THEM.

- been able to take their oil AND WE ARE NOT THERE TO TRY. WE AGREE AGAIN.

This war has been going on for less then THRE WEEKS. THREE WEEKS! Do you have any idea how amazing it is that we are in control of Baghdad and have BOTH airports in this time. This has been an OVERWHELMING success on EVERY level. You shouldreally wake-up, grab a Starbucks, get your head outa your ass and enjoy it while it lasts.

THRE WEEKS.

Learn how 2 spell your numbers, people.

Yes, lets thank them both for reminding us that we may not be able to stand alone, BUT WE SURE CAN STAND WITHOUT THEM!!!! This morning, on Fox & Friends, the best news story I've heard in a while: The french ambassador to the US was OFFICIALLY told that our "relationship with them HAS DEGRADED!" DUH!!! Seems the snaileaters are finally feeling the pinch from no wine sales. Hmmm, now if we could get Germany to feel the pinch from down car sales we'd have something else to feel really good about!

The French had the right to diagree with the U.S., but was their real motive? Was it because they were not following the sanctions or maybe it was because they chose Saddam's money over the Iraqi people. I for one will never miss a chance to let the French know how much of a whore I think they are.

"The French had the right to diagree with the U.S., but was their real motive?"

What was the US's "real motive" for attacking Iraq? Please don't tell me it was for the "liberation" of the Iraqi people. I'd hate to think that you are a buffoon.