Bye Bye Iraq, Big Bad Bush is gonna come to get you with his buddy Blair.

yay, war war war :|


opinions?

This is sad :( .. he thinks he controls the globe

:read: :read: :read:

This is very sad indeed. It won't last hopefully.

bush better hope he doesnt lose, same with blair, or war crimes all the way:rolleyes:

Hmmm........


Similar threads have been done on numerous occasions, but the period before war seems to continue. The large western countries, rather George Bush........ seems to be waiting.


I feel it is........ unjust. Perhaps there are correct reasons...... but Bush is not doing it for those reasons. To me, it seems he is attempting to gain votes. Like his war on terror campaign. I believe the war on terror, wa sjust scapegoating of the Afghan regime. Sure they were bastards, the Taliban, but there are many bastards worldwide. I mean, I am sure Al Qaeda are funded by man countries, even by their governments, or perhaps given amnesty, but those countries have a very valuable black liquid.


Iraq, why attack now. I think this is war, for the wrong reasons.

I think George Bush is a lousy bastard.

Originally posted by willem
I think George Bush is a lousy bastard.
lol i reckon there should b no war at all, and blair seems to be acting like Boy Georges :brow::brow: pet dog following him!!!

a war would boost the us econamy, simple...

Originally posted by ImmUniTy
a war would boost the us econamy, simple...

Yep. And as a result alot of other economies 'benefit' as well. Which is why many of them are eager to go along with Uncle Sam. Turkey for instance, and Syria may even go along as well, because they have both recently accepted 'aid' packages (bribes, anyone????????) totalling 30 billion. Yeah, good idea, lets put a joint Turkish/ UN force in the Kurd controlled region of Iraq, can't see any probs there, eh? Some people in my own country wnat to ditch our anti-nuclear policy (which makes us pretty unique) in favour of joining in the bloodshed.

I am pretty aure most here know my thoughts on this situation, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. were planning to tidy up their 'unfinished business' before Dubya got elected, which is why they have hitched the Iraq thing to the War on Terror with great haste, to them the tragedy of 9/11 has been no more than an opportunity for them to push their agenda on Iraq, they have grasped the opportunity with both cynical hands.

If it does happen, which I am 80% sure it will, then I expect it to be over pretty quick, Saddam will be exiled (not killed, if they wanted him dead, he would be), and an interim totalitarian puppet regime will be put in place for as long as it takes to get the oil flowing where the US wants it too. Democracy will only arrive in Iraq when this happens, and we will see all sorts of excuses for the delay of democratic elections, such as the need for the process to be 'slow' and carefully monitored.

Iraq will then be used as a base from which to pressure for reforms in other parts of the Middle East, starting with Iran and possibly moving towards Saudi Arabia. I can't see all-out invasions occurring in these places, but I can see the US setting up supply and funding routes to opposition forces that can apply pressure, i.e. it will be less direct than the Iraq thing. Iraq has a great big target on them because they are the only country that can increase oil production significantly enough, and have already been pulverised in the international media propaganda campaign.

And I am 50/50 on whether we will see the much-harped 'domino' effect occurring, with one regime after another falling, or whether the US will bite off more than it can chew and end up with Vietnam 2. I am erring towards the latter though.

Originally posted by rhizome17
Yep. And as a result alot of other economies 'benefit' as well. Which is why many of them are eager to go along with Uncle Sam. Turkey for instance, and Syria may even go along as well, because they have both recently accepted 'aid' packages (bribes, anyone????????) totalling 30 billion. Yeah, good idea, lets put a joint Turkish/ UN force in the Kurd controlled region of Iraq, can't see any probs there, eh? Some people in my own country wnat to ditch our anti-nuclear policy (which makes us pretty unique) in favour of joining in the bloodshed.

I am pretty aure most here know my thoughts on this situation, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. were planning to tidy up their 'unfinished business' before Dubya got elected, which is why they have hitched the Iraq thing to the War on Terror with great haste, to them the tragedy of 9/11 has been no more than an opportunity for them to push their agenda on Iraq, they have grasped the opportunity with both cynical hands.

If it does happen, which I am 80% sure it will, then I expect it to be over pretty quick, Saddam will be exiled (not killed, if they wanted him dead, he would be), and an interim totalitarian puppet regime will be put in place for as long as it takes to get the oil flowing where the US wants it too. Democracy will only arrive in Iraq when this happens, and we will see all sorts of excuses for the delay of democratic elections, such as the need for the process to be 'slow' and carefully monitored.

Iraq will then be used as a base from which to pressure for reforms in other parts of the Middle East, starting with Iran and possibly moving towards Saudi Arabia. I can't see all-out invasions occurring in these places, but I can see the US setting up supply and funding routes to opposition forces that can apply pressure, i.e. it will be less direct than the Iraq thing. Iraq has a great big target on them because they are the only country that can increase oil production significantly enough, and have already been pulverised in the international media propaganda campaign.

And I am 50/50 on whether we will see the much-harped 'domino' effect occurring, with one regime after another falling, or whether the US will bite off more than it can chew and end up with Vietnam 2. I am erring towards the latter though.

Damn hippie kids. :f***:

Originally posted by rhizome17
'domino' effect


I still cannot believe the Menzies believed that crap. He couldn't possibly believe that Australia would become a communist state over-run by Viet Cong type revolutionaries. He probably didn't believe that trash, yet was just the lackey of the US President.


Like Howard now........... I like him as a PM, but one of the things I despise......... unrelenting obedience towards the United States. If one Aussie soldier dies in Iraq..........:kader:

Originally posted by Juventus_theres_next_year
If one Aussie soldier dies in Iraq..........:kader:

That would be no good.

If we want to do it, it should be OUR WAR. And because it would be OUR WAR mind your own business, but it's not and the old W is trying to get everyone involved so go ahead--SWING away.

Originally posted by Joe
That would be no good.

If we want to do it, it should be OUR OIL. And because it would be OUR OIL mind your own business, but it's not and the old W is trying to get everyone involved so go ahead--SWING away.

lol! you spelt OIL wrong! There is no W, A or R in it. But no fear. I have corrected it for you :o :p :mrpimp:

But to some extent you are on the right track. It is the fault of the US that Iraq is what it is today. I mean, all those Kurds couldn't have been gassed without the help of the US. And I guess that there wouldn't be starving Iraqi citizens today without the US. So yeah, the US does have some responisbility for remedying the situation. Not sure where WAR fits into notions of responsibility though.

And if one Aussie soldier dies ion Iraq, then Howard will trumpet them as a hero, a necessary casualty in the pursuit of Oil ...*er*... I mean justice and peace.

If 50 Aussie soldiers die, it will be a different story. But at least you should know the casualty list. The US will hide the true extent of theirs. Kissenger hid the true extent in Vietnam, so there is a precedent. Lets just hope the US forces have learnt the difference between 'Enemy target' and 'Canadian ally' in this one.

i read in the sunday herald sun, melbourne something REALLY interesting on donald rumsfeld.

try looking at the daily mail, its very very interesting :|

can we all filter news here on the subject, cause its interesting.

Originally posted by Paul
i read in the sunday herald sun, melbourne something REALLY interesting on donald rumsfeld.

try looking at the daily mail, its very very interesting :|

can we all filter news here on the subject, cause its interesting.

no probs. i will bring it in as i find it.

here is my opinion in Donald Rumsfeld.

From what i read in the article, he is scared of what Iraq used to do, and wants to remove him as soon as possible to save his own ass ;)

after u read the article u should be able to catch on :)

he is sly.

Where is the article? What does it say?

its says stuff about don

Originally posted by ImmUniTy
its says stuff about don

You don't say... :)

Interesting article on a post-Saddam regime:

Iraq's Wannabes
Chris Toensing, January 8, 2003

On December 17, 2002, a long-delayed conference of the Iraqi opposition in exile concluded in London. After four days of contentious debate among over 300 attendees representing a spectrum of opposition groups, a smaller number of delegates entered a closed-door conclave to select a "coordinating committee" tasked, in the view of some delegates, with the eventual formation of a transitional government that can replace Saddam Hussein the moment he falls.

White House and State Department spokesmen promptly hailed the conference as "the broadest gathering ever convened of free Iraqis opposed to the tyrannical regime in Baghdad," pledging to "work with" the coordinating committee in achieving its goals. Days earlier, press reports revealed that George W. Bush's administration has released $92 million to train 1,000 Iraqis screened by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group that most Iraqi opponents of Hussein regard with scorn, to help U.S. soldiers police a post-Saddam Iraq.

These contradictory signals from Washington--applauding with one hand an inclusive Iraqi opposition while feeding with the other hand the ambitions of one narrow faction--partly reflect rancorous and ongoing battles within the Bush administration over dealings with "Free Iraqis," as U.S. officials have begun calling the organized Iraqi opposition. They also indicate the end of U.S. reliance on Iraqi opposition groups in their plans for overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, even as the ******d signs of cooperation increase.

read the rest at http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc955.html

Good article questioning the hypocrisy of the US administration. So pointing out thew obvious, in other words. Fisk is very very good.

Double Standards In War On Terror
by Robert Fisk
The Independent
January 04, 2003


I think I'm getting the picture. North Korea breaks all its nuclear agreements with the United States, throws out UN inspectors and sets off to make a bomb a year, and President Bush says it's "a diplomatic issue". Iraq hands over a 12,000-page account of its weapons production and allows UN inspectors to roam all over the country, and – after they've found not a jam-jar of dangerous chemicals in 230 raids – President Bush announces that Iraq is a threat to America, has not disarmed and may have to be invaded. So that's it, then.

How, readers keep asking me in the most eloquent of letters, does he get away with it? Indeed, how does Tony Blair get away with it? Not long ago in the House of Commons, our dear Prime Minister was announcing in his usual schoolmasterly tones – the ones used on particularly inattentive or dim boys in class – that Saddam's factories of mass destruction were "up [pause] and running [pause] now." But the Dear Leader in Pyongyang does have factories that are "up [pause] and running [pause] now". And Tony Blair is silent.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2826

Theres Only Double Standards on North Korea and Iraq because North Korea is so strong, and North Korean threatens so many people and nations, and two of the most powerful and biggest econamys in the world in Japan and South Korea. Plus

The Oil Factor...
Iraq has Oil
North Korea wants Oil :rolleyes:

And Iraq Wants Weapons ;)
North Korea has Weapons...

Originally posted by ImmUniTy
Theres Only Double Standards on North Korea and Iraq because North Korea is so strong, and North Korean threatens so many people and nations, and two of the most powerful and biggest econamys in the world in Japan and South Korea. Plus

The Oil Factor...
Iraq has Oil
North Korea wants Oil :rolleyes:

And Iraq Wants Weapons ;)
North Korea has Weapons...


Lol :) :D

Well there is no use, lets have WWIII for crying out loud for once. LETS ALL DIE AND REST IN PEACE:crazyboy:

I hope Aaron doesn't mind me posting these quotes from the same article, but I just felt I had to do it.


Yet the US, as part of its obscene "war on terror", has cosied up to the Algerian regime. It is helping to re-arm Algeria's army and promised more assistance. William Burns, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, announced that Washington "has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism".

And of course, he's right. The Algerian security forces can instruct the Americans on how to make a male or female prisoner believe that they are going to suffocate. The method – US personnel can find the experts in this particular torture technique working in the basement of the Château Neuf police station in central Algiers – is to cover the trussed-up victim's mouth with a rag and then soak it with cleaning fluid. The prisoner slowly suffocates. There's also, of course, the usual nail-pulling and the usual wires attached to penises and vaginas and – I'll always remember the eye-witness description – the rape of an old woman in a police station, from which she emerged, covered in blood, urging other prisoners to resist.

We shouldn't forget, however, that the Islamic Algerian armed groups, those the Algerian regime is fighting, were responsible for the decimation of entire villages, including babies, all killed chopping their heads off.

I also like this part, because it is a sort of response to those who say we're in the anti-american bandwagon:

Meanwhile, we are – on that very basis – ploughing on to war in Iraq, which has oil, but avoiding war in Korea, which does not have oil. And our leaders are getting away with it. In doing so, we are threatening the innocent, torturing our prisoners and "learning" from men who should be in the dock for war crimes. This, then, is our true memorial to the men and women so cruelly murdered in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001.

Yes, that final quote pretty much sums up the callousness of the Bush and Co. Administration :(

definetly Double Standarts between Iraq and North Korea. I heard Bush say it right off his mouth he wants to solve the Korea situation with "PEACE" when Korea actually went on and said they built a bomb with the money the U.S.A gave them while like you guys said the Iraqis are doing most of the things asked by the U.S.A.
I belive the factor here if fear like you guys said because Korea has an army almost as big as the U.S.A and theyre soldiers are much much more trained and ready for war than the U.S soldiers.

Bush adminstration plans to tap Iraq's oil to pay for war and occupation
Posted on Friday, January 10 @ 10:01:26 EST
_____

By Knut Royce, Newsday

Washington - Bush administration officials are seriously considering
proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of
a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly
inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in
Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an
important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of
Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in
the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war,"
according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the
dialogue.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all
the spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be further
identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there
is a new democratic government [in Iraq]."



The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. "The Justice
Department has doubts," he said. He said department lawyers are unsure
"whether any of it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held
in trust for the people of Iraq."

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that
Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.

Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about
"internal policy discussions."

Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief
in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not
rooting out weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a
recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University.

"It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the
democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the
Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism," he said. "That is how they
[Mideast nations] would perceive it."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation
would range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials
believe an occupation could last 1 1/2 years or more.

And Iraq has a lot of oil. Its proven oil reserves are second in the
world only to Saudi Arabia's. But how much revenue could be generated is
an open question. The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing
nearly 2.8 million barrels a day, with 80 percent of the revenues going
for the United Nations Oil for Food Program or domestic consumption. The
remaining 20 percent, worth about $3 billion a year, is generated by oil
smuggling and much of it goes to support Saddam Hussein's military. In
theory that is the money that could be used for reconstruction or to
help defer occupation costs.

Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment Iraq could produce much more.
By some estimates, however, it would take 10 years to fully restore
Iraq's oil industry. Conversely, if Hussein torches the fields, as he
did in Kuwait in 1991, it would take a year or more to resume even a
modest flow. And, of course, it is impossible to predict the price of
oil.

Laurence Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor who chaired a
Center for Strategic and International Studies conference in November on
the economic consequences of a war with Iraq, said that conference
participants deliberately avoided the question of whether Iraq should
help pay occupation or other costs. "It's a very politically sensitive
issue," he said. "... We're in a situation where we're going to be very
sensitive to how our actions are perceived in the Arab world."

Meyer said officials who believe Iraq's oil could defer some of the
occupation costs may be "too optimistic about how much you could
increase [oil production] and how long it would take to reinvest in the
infrastructure and reinvest in additional oil."

An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct
of the war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are
being drafted by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think
tank prepared a classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the
Pentagon's influential director of Net Assessment, on the future role of
U.S. Special Forces in the global war against terrorism, among other
issues. Part of the presentation recommended that oil funds be used to
defray the costs of a military occupation in Iraq, according to a source
who helped prepare the report.

He said that the study, undertaken by the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, concluded that "the cost of the occupation, the
cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional
[civilian] administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil." He
said the briefing was delivered to the office of Paul Wolfowitz, the
deputy secretary of Defense and one of the administration's strongest
advocates for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13.

Steven Kosiak, the center's director of budget studies, said he could
not remember whether such a recommendation was made, but if it was it
would only have been "a passing reference to something we did."

Asked whether the Pentagon was now advocating the use of Iraqi oil to
pay for the cost of a military occupation, Army Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a
spokesman, said, "We don't have any official comment on that."

NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military
occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the
operation and maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid,
refugees, possibly for infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing."

But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its
conclusions reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials.
"It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there," he
said. "... They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for
Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of
operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning as far as I know to
use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to
pay for the occupation."

dont you guys think this isnt ONLY about Iraq? United States is trying to take control of the whole area one by one. they planted soldiers in Afghanistan, they already have bases and such in Turkey (which im againts) and also will also send soldiers. When they take over Iraq, then of course it will be Iran's turn. Then go to the east....maybe even Pakistan?

Originally posted by Sukur54
dont you guys think this isnt ONLY about Iraq? United States is trying to take control of the whole area one by one. they planted soldiers in Afghanistan, they already have bases and such in Turkey (which im againts) and also will also send soldiers. When they take over Iraq, then of course it will be Iran's turn. Then go to the east....maybe even Pakistan?

Yes, in a way, I think you are right. There was an interesting article in The Independent that i read the other day comparing the rhetoric of the US administration with the rhetoric of colonial-era Britain. I believe that we are possibly witnessing an era of empire-building, that the US will seek to gain influence in many parts of the world, but in the process will use a range of different strategies, raniging from all-out warfare, to promoting internal-dissent, through to diplomacy, depending on the circumstances. Iraq is a special case because they are already in the dogs box, and the US can link them to the War on Terror (however false that may be). And it also gives them a territorial foothold in the region. So whereas they will suffer an all-out invasion, somewhere like Iran will probably be subject to the funding of internal opposition groups. Pakistan, i am not entirely sure about, it depends on when the current Pakistani regime outlives its usefulness to Bush & Co. Again, this will involve a different strategy, probably pressuring Musharraf to restore full democracy.

Originally posted by rhizome17
Yes, in a way, I think you are right. There was an interesting article in The Independent that i read the other day comparing the rhetoric of the US administration with the rhetoric of colonial-era Britain. I believe that we are possibly witnessing an era of empire-building, that the US will seek to gain influence in many parts of the world, but in the process will use a range of different strategies, raniging from all-out warfare, to promoting internal-dissent, through to diplomacy, depending on the circumstances. Iraq is a special case because they are already in the dogs box, and the US can link them to the War on Terror (however false that may be). And it also gives them a territorial foothold in the region. So whereas they will suffer an all-out invasion, somewhere like Iran will probably be subject to the funding of internal opposition groups. Pakistan, i am not entirely sure about, it depends on when the current Pakistani regime outlives its usefulness to Bush & Co. Again, this will involve a different strategy, probably pressuring Musharraf to restore full democracy.

Yes you are right but if you can see, he cannot make all of this buildup of his big empire at once. he needs time and lots of excuses to continue onto this buildup. Iraq yes they are already linked with terorism. As for Iran and the funding of internal opposition groups wouldnt be great as invasion but they may even be able to find an excuse for Iran. Heck even Turkey can become the next victim just for not helping them with their "war on terrorism" The policy as you know it is "Either your with us or againts us." I have heard the Pakistani regime is running out its usefullness to Bush becuase couple of days ago a group of American soldiers had a battle with some Pakistani soldiers because the U.S. soldiers went into Pakistan to catch Bin Laden. Even if not because of this Musharraf is probably considered a evil dictator anyway so he will find a way to get to them also.

Originally posted by Sukur54
Yes you are right but if you can see, he cannot make all of this buildup of his big empire at once. he needs time and lots of excuses to continue onto this buildup. Iraq yes they are already linked with terorism. As for Iran and the funding of internal opposition groups wouldnt be great as invasion but they may even be able to find an excuse for Iran. Heck even Turkey can become the next victim just for not helping them with their "war on terrorism" The policy as you know it is "Either your with us or againts us." I have heard the Pakistani regime is running out its usefullness to Bush becuase couple of days ago a group of American soldiers had a battle with some Pakistani soldiers because the U.S. soldiers went into Pakistan to catch Bin Laden. Even if not because of this Musharraf is probably considered a evil dictator anyway so he will find a way to get to them also.

Yeah, he will become an evil dictator once he is no longer useful. And yes, you are right, the US are having a few problems with the Pakistani Army, as there are both Taliban and Al Queda sympathisers in the Army.

But yes, Turkey are an interesting part of this equation. i have just been reading an article about it here http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc962.html. Depends on how 'useful' Turkey is to the US.

As for taking the empire-building one step at a time, that is why Iraq is vital. The oil that can be taken as 'spoils of war' will offset the cost of this buildup.

Can you tell me, what is the general feeling 'on the street' in Turkey about this conflict? I would like to know.

Originally posted by rhizome17

Can you tell me, what is the general feeling 'on the street' in Turkey about this conflict? I would like to know.


Wow, a long subject for me to start off but i will give you a brief overview of the "on the street" that is going on in Turkey.
As you know we are in serious debt (120 billion to be exact) and we are following IMF orders. The public hates this because no industry can get support from the government without the confirmation of the IMF.
As for the U.S it is definetly getting on peoples nerves because theyre pushing it too much. People here do not want to go to war because the country just came out form a deep crisis and is recovering and the war is definetly going to effect the country again. The U.S did promise Turkey a package containing 30 billion $ but just to let you know they promised a similar package before the Gulf War and never paid up. Just a little sum was aided. People do not trust the U.S again because of this.
Even if we accept this term they want specific bases. I understand getting the bases in the south but the United States also wants bases on the black sea which is getting our military generals suspicious of a move the United States may try to make up north.
If Iraq is attacked there is going to be a serious threat to Turkey from the Kurds who want to form their own nation and then our soldiers have to go to Musul and the North and of course clean up the U.S.A's mess. Now the main reason the United States doesnt want to go into this war without us would be of course the bases and also the ground troops of Turkey which know the area much much much better than the U.S troops who will probably get lost in their own radius. It is also said that the U.S troops that enter Turkey may stay after the war because of another invasion that the U.S may pull in the near future.We have very good economic relationships with the Iraqis because they import around 3-4 billion $ worth of goods from us every year. The public doesnt trust the US and also do not want another crisis, and start another reign of terror like the PKK. We want peace in the middle east and in the cechenyas thats all we want but we also need the U.S.A's lobby in the EU and aid financially so it is a hard decision for us. There is so much more to tell you but i do not want to bore you with it. I think this financial aid is crap because we have been paying interest for the apst 10 years so it will be impossible the more we get into debt for us to pay it. I also dont trust BUsh.No one does.BTW: Where are you from?

Originally posted by Sukur54
Wow, a long subject for me to start off but i will give you a brief overview of the "on the street" that is going on in Turkey.
As you know we are in serious debt (120 billion to be exact) and we are following IMF orders. The public hates this because no industry can get support from the government without the confirmation of the IMF.
As for the U.S it is definetly getting on peoples nerves because theyre pushing it too much. People here do not want to go to war because the country just came out form a deep crisis and is recovering and the war is definetly going to effect the country again. The U.S did promise Turkey a package containing 30 billion $ but just to let you know they promised a similar package before the Gulf War and never paid up. Just a little sum was aided. People do not trust the U.S again because of this.
Even if we accept this term they want specific bases. I understand getting the bases in the south but the United States also wants bases on the black sea which is getting our military generals suspicious of a move the United States may try to make up north.
If Iraq is attacked there is going to be a serious threat to Turkey from the Kurds who want to form their own nation and then our soldiers have to go to Musul and the North and of course clean up the U.S.A's mess. Now the main reason the United States doesnt want to go into this war without us would be of course the bases and also the ground troops of Turkey which know the area much much much better than the U.S troops who will probably get lost in their own radius. It is also said that the U.S troops that enter Turkey may stay after the war because of another invasion that the U.S may pull in the near future.We have very good economic relationships with the Iraqis because they import around 3-4 billion $ worth of goods from us every year. The public doesnt trust the US and also do not want another crisis, and start another reign of terror like the PKK. We want peace in the middle east and in the cechenyas thats all we want but we also need the U.S.A's lobby in the EU and aid financially so it is a hard decision for us. There is so much more to tell you but i do not want to bore you with it. I think this financial aid is crap because we have been paying interest for the apst 10 years so it will be impossible the more we get into debt for us to pay it. I also dont trust BUsh.No one does.BTW: Where are you from?

I am in New Zealand at the moment, probably the safest place to be in the world (H) the US have pretty much ignored us since we banned their warships from coming here. We also have one of the few 'western' governments to come out and directly oppose any unilateral action by the US regarding Iraq.

But if you have more to say, i would like to hear it. It is not boring at all. I think it is important that you share what you have to say, and it is important for all those here (not just people from the US) to read what you have to write, because you are one of the few people here that are close to the conflict zone. That gives you a unique perspective that none of us could hope to match. For the most part, we only hear 'the US sent such-and-such thousands of troops today' in the propaganda media, with very little about the people who are going to have to live with the consequences of US action. We hear a bit about Turkey's role, but only regarding 'will they, won't they let the troops in'. Never anything from the actual people there.

Originally posted by rhizome17


But if you have more to say, i would like to hear it. It is not boring at all. I think it is important that you share what you have to say, and it is important for all those here (not just people from the US) to read what you have to write, because you are one of the few people here that are close to the conflict zone. That gives you a unique perspective that none of us could hope to match. For the most part, we only hear 'the US sent such-and-such thousands of troops today' in the propaganda media, with very little about the people who are going to have to live with the consequences of US action. We hear a bit about Turkey's role, but only regarding 'will they, won't they let the troops in'. Never anything from the actual people there.

I will talk more about it tomrow but if you come to think of it lets say Iraq was what they say it is. So is North Korea and Norht Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq in a situation like this isnt it why dont they make peace with them first??? Even the old defense minister is asking this same question.

Originally posted by Sukur54
I will talk more about it tomrow but if you come to think of it lets say Iraq was what they say it is. So is North Korea and Norht Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq in a situation like this isnt it why dont they make peace with them first??? Even the old defense minister is asking this same question.

I think two things.

1. Iraq has oil

2. North Korea has an ally that frightens the **** out of the US - China.

Perhaps this could please both sides of the debate. This was off
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076676/

It is doubtful the London-based Al-Hayat, owned by the Saudi royal Prince Khaled bin Sultan was attempting humor in its headline, "27,000 New American Troops [to the Gulf], Prince Abdullah Believes War Unlikely." Abdullah, the crown prince and effective ruler of Saudi Arabia, remarked at a Riyadh gathering, "We can see the fleets and the concentrations of troops in the region; however, God inspires me … to say there will be no war." The crown prince hedged his celestial bets when he told the United Nations, "[T]he Arabs have one request: that they be given an opportunity to reach an understanding with Iraq to avert a war."

For the influential Lebanese publisher Ghassan Tueini, writing in his Beirut paper An-Nahar, it is Abdullah's "right" to deem war improbable, even if the Arabs don't have much of a say on the issue. The Arab scene is "gloomy," he asserts, and the only way to describe the Arab presence is as "an absence of presence … except as a 'vocal phenomenon' … echoed by 'intellectual groups' closed in upon themselves, turning in a vicious circle, asking: 'Will there be war or no war?' As if the Arabs were outsiders."

Speaking of absences, missing from several leading regional papers was news of the article in Sunday's Washington Post, which traced the surreptitious maturation of the Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq. The president decided to confront Saddam soon after Sept. 11, though the plan was only revealed to the foreign policy bureaucracy later. The timing of a conflict may remain vague, but Hisham Melhem, writing from Washington in Beirut's Al-Safir, offers a date: The war will happen in March or April at the latest, he writes, citing senior U.S. officials, regardless of whether U.N. inspectors fail to find weapons of mass destruction by Jan. 27, when they report to the Security Council. "The sources indicated that one of the excuses Washington will use … to accuse Iraq of non-cooperation with the inspection teams is its refusal to allow scientists to travel abroad to be questioned, without the presence of Iraqi officials."

Melhem's story and Crown Prince Abdullah's reference to Arab efforts to avoid a war dovetail by hinting at a possible last-ditch stab at convincing Saddam to go into voluntary exile. There have been recent reports (notably in the Christian Science Monitor) of Saudi efforts to persuade the Iraqi leader to bow out. Melhem writes that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faysal is a leading proponent of the idea, though his request for more time has provoked derision in the United States, where officials cackled, "Will Saddam join [former Ugandan dictator] Idi Amin in a Jeddah hotel?" Prince Saud actually wants Saddam to go to Mauritania, hardly making acceptance likelier.

This is the cartoon that appeared in our main newspaper yesterday.

Check out Bush's checklist :p

Here's a great site for you punks: http://www.punkvoter.com

It's from Fat Mike, singer/bassist of NOFX.

Here's a couple pics I found there:
http://www.punkvoter.com/images/pic2.jpg

http://www.punkvoter.com/images/pic5.gif

http://www.punkvoter.com/images/pic8.jpg

Cheers for the link Infesta. It's a good site too. :)

Now he has his reason to attack the Iraq :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/index.html

Originally posted by vince15
Now he has his reason to attack the Iraq :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/index.html

i think its crap because why would they take the chemical weapons out and hide them while leaving the evidence behind?? those are i think really expired warheads because it would be dumb to leave them out there in front of them when u can hide that anyway dont u think??
if this is true it was definetly sold by the U.S.A to them long ago because i can see that they are acting very very sure about them having some sort of things that are related to the chemical weapons that they are looking for.

all good stuff guys, cheers for the links :mrpimp:

I think the pic with the checklist sums it all up. All those troops, it would be such a shame to bring them back without some action now, wouldn't it:( .

As for empty warheads from the eighties, well if that is an excuse for war, then a new low has been reached. Just goes to show how little there is to report, the media getting hyped about empty warheads in Iraq while North Korea pushes forward with their nuclear program. Me thinks the water in washington has been tampered with...

Originally posted by rhizome17
As for empty warheads from the eighties, well if that is an excuse for war, then a new low has been reached. Just goes to show how little there is to report, the media getting hyped about empty warheads in Iraq while North Korea pushes forward with their nuclear program. Me thinks the water in washington has been tampered with...

i cant say anything more than this. plus those warheads are from the damn gulf war. but u know those empty warheads are going to make this happen surely if they dont find anything else.

This is a VERY well written article on the buildup to this conflict, very well written and researched indeed. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2869

Final paragraph:

"In short, I believe the true explanation for the American government's planned second war with Iraq is the same as for its wars in the Balkans in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 -- the inexorable pressures of imperialism and militarism. I agree with Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when he asks, "Why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."

Originally posted by rhizome17
This is a VERY well written article on the buildup to this conflict, very well written and researched indeed. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2869

Final paragraph:

"In short, I believe the true explanation for the American government's planned second war with Iraq is the same as for its wars in the Balkans in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 -- the inexorable pressures of imperialism and militarism. I agree with Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when he asks, "Why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."


exactly what i said wasnt it?

Here are two sites worth a look:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html - a site by Peter Turnley, a photographer, that contains a number of unreleased photos from the first gulf war, in the hope that people think twice about the reality of starting a new one.

http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/ - a site that contains information on every conflict involving the US from 1776 (!) to the present, catalogued by year.

Great links.

WARNING: Some of the pics on the first site are extremely violent. You need stomach to see them. If you believe the war in Iraq is those CNN images of flashnig lights over Bagdad, don't watch these pics, bcs they might change you mind.
Anyway, I've seen far worse pics from this conflict... They showed some here in Portugal, a few years later.



The pic pretty much speaks for itself...
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/images/turnley/47.JPG

EDIT: Btw, read what Peter Turnley, the photographer, had to say about war itself.

Recent comments from Rumsfeld and Straw could not have spelt out the real issue behind the Iraq :drevil: crisis :drevil: any clearer.

I've read on ceefax that a war would be avoided if 'Saddam steps down'. Rumsfeld has even gone so far to say that they would give Saddam immunity if he were to do this, like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey.

What this says to me is that the real issue is nothing to do with trying to find weapons of mass destruction, or indeed the fear that Iraq has these weapons, it's that Saddam is stopping the US and UK from getting at it's oil reserves and that by removing Saddam they could put their puppet leader in place to do their bidding. Then the threat of WMD's will miraculously disappear, and a war would be averted.

I mean really, how stupid do the leaders of the US and the UK think we are? :rolleyes:

mind if i speak of something... i think george bush junior is the worst us president for ages... then again it is only my personal opinion...:crazyboy:

Originally posted by monkee

I mean really, how stupid do the leaders of the US and the UK think we are? :rolleyes:

They 'misunderestimated' us (H)

1 Fisk article and 1 Pilger article to digest:

This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads Or Human Rights: It's About Oil
by Robert Fisk
The Independent
January 18, 2003

I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan – the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan – sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2882

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

George Bush's Other Poodle
by John Pilger
January 17, 2003

Strange days in Australia. "Paranoia in the lucky country", say the headlines in Sydney, "Terror threat grips a nation". The government of John Howard has issued full-page advertisements calling on Australians to protect their "friendly, decent society" from terrorists within by spying on each other. More than a thousand people have used a hotline "to report things", causing grief to Muslim Australians. Asked if he thought it better that Muslim women made themselves "less conspicuous at this time" by not wearing their traditional headdress, Howard replied: "Obviously."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2879

Originally posted by monkee
I mean really, how stupid do the leaders of the US and the UK think we are? :rolleyes:

nah, your thinking wrongly ;)

how stupid were people to elect them in the first place :o

(i dont vote, or live in one of those two countries, so i am safe :p)

Originally posted by Paul
[B]nah, your thinking wrongly ;)

how stupid were people to elect them in the first place :o
Not me. I didnt' vote 'cos it was voting for the lesser of two evils and all they were arguing about was the Euro. But since Le Pen scared France I don't think that this was the best policy. :D

Besides who elected Bush? :o ;)

Originally posted by Paul

(i dont vote, or live in one of those two countries, so i am safe :p)

yeah, but you are stuck with Howard :kader: Blair might be Bushs poodle, Howard may as well be his kitty

Originally posted by rhizome17
yeah, but you are stuck with Howard :kader: Blair might be Bushs poodle, Howard may as well be his kitty

bush got tons of pets hes an animal lover : England,Turkey,Australia, Pakistan (for now), japan(useless in war), need i say more?

UNBELIVABLE! War on terrorirsm !!!:

PKK and KADEK are terrorist group that work againts Turkey in Turkey. And the U.S.A have declared these two groups as terrorists in the U.S.A also and froze all their bank accounts and such, declaring them a threat to all nations. But according to Turkish Inteligency Agency (MIT) who have made it clear that U.S representatives had meetings with PKK and KADEK leaders. As you know PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan is in prison. But they have made contact with both of these groups leaders. It is said that our generals are going to have a talk with Richard Myers, who is in Turkey right now. Now tell me what kind of war on terrorism is this? THey are trying to get PKK and KADEK to uprise in the southeast so we can join the war??I know the plan theyre trying to run... Is this what they call war on terrorism? Stabbing your ally in the back? You tell me!

Originally posted by Paul
nah, your thinking wrongly ;)

how stupid were people to elect them in the first place :o

(i dont vote, or live in one of those two countries, so i am safe :p)

You don't seem to understand, The political relationship between the president and the prime minister have always been the same for at least the last 15 years. Why do people always see Blair has Bush's little poodle, it was no diferent to when both John Major and senior Bush were im power. There political relationship was just as strong as the Bush-Blair one.

Originally posted by Amika
mind if i speak of something... i think george bush junior is the worst us president for ages... then again it is only my personal opinion...:crazyboy: Couldn't agree more, man. But the worst thing is...the Americans would choose him again.

Originally posted by Sukur54
I know the plan theyre trying to run... Is this what they call war on terrorism? Stabbing your ally in the back? You tell me!

Sounds like typical double-dealing US forwign policy. I would be interested if you have any links to the things you were talking about.

Originally posted by TOON ARMY
You don't seem to understand, The political relationship between the president and the prime minister have always been the same for at least the last 15 years. Why do people always see Blair has Bush's little poodle, it was no diferent to when both John Major and senior Bush were im power. There political relationship was just as strong as the Bush-Blair one.

I think this one is different though, I think Blair has attached himself to Bush for political expediency rather than any natural affinity for the man (the UK needs oil too btw). Blair was good friends with Clinton; Thatcher was good friends with Bush Snr. Bush Jr. though has absolutely nothing in common with Blair. You can kind of see Blairs politics in action now. As the anti-war voices begin to get louder, he is beginning to be more cautious in his statements about Iraq. He is standing on a very slim tightrope at the moment.
But for the last year or so, Blair HAS been a little lapdog, performing the right tricks for US. Only time will tell if the dog bites his master.

I've been reading through all of your responses, and I find it interesting to hear international perspectives on the potential conflict. I'm American and am proud of it, but the Bush administration's refusal to consider a peaceful resolution frustrates me to no end. I agree with your opinions about Bush's motives, his intentions are not to free the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, but to get at Iraq's vast oil reserves. Also, he knows how the American public tends to rally behind its leaders in wartime.....interesting how'll he'll probably time the attack just in time for the 2004 elections. Unfortunately many Americans support the war because they don't want to seem unpatriotic, and they buy into the black and white picture of the world Bush paints, that the U.S. and its allies are "good" and our enemies are "evil." The opposition party, the Democrats, also often are reluctant to take a stand against the war in fear of seeming unpatriotic. Fortunately Bush's conflicting stance on North Korea has exposed his hypocrisy to many Americans....his approval ratings are the lowest since pre 9/11.....but I'm still worried about where this country is headed.

My parents are voting for LIBERMEN for the 2004 elections.

STUPID BUSH, Gore won that election, all because of his stupid brother Jebb Bush.

Stupid Cowboys :f***:

Originally posted by kwalker31
I've been reading through all of your responses, and I find it interesting to hear international perspectives on the potential conflict. I'm American and am proud of it, but the Bush administration's refusal to consider a peaceful resolution frustrates me to no end. I agree with your opinions about Bush's motives, his intentions are not to free the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, but to get at Iraq's vast oil reserves. Also, he knows how the American public tends to rally behind its leaders in wartime.....interesting how'll he'll probably time the attack just in time for the 2004 elections. Unfortunately many Americans support the war because they don't want to seem unpatriotic, and they buy into the black and white picture of the world Bush paints, that the U.S. and its allies are "good" and our enemies are "evil." The opposition party, the Democrats, also often are reluctant to take a stand against the war in fear of seeming unpatriotic. Fortunately Bush's conflicting stance on North Korea has exposed his hypocrisy to many Americans....his approval ratings are the lowest since pre 9/11.....but I'm still worried about where this country is headed.

Hey gidday kwalker31, good to see your post, hope to read some more of your perspectives in the future. :D (H)

Originally posted by Sukur54
UNBELIVABLE! War on terrorirsm !!!:

PKK and KADEK are terrorist group that work againts Turkey in Turkey. And the U.S.A have declared these two groups as terrorists in the U.S.A also and froze all their bank accounts and such, declaring them a threat to all nations. But according to Turkish Inteligency Agency (MIT) who have made it clear that U.S representatives had meetings with PKK and KADEK leaders. As you know PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan is in prison. But they have made contact with both of these groups leaders. It is said that our generals are going to have a talk with Richard Myers, who is in Turkey right now. Now tell me what kind of war on terrorism is this? THey are trying to get PKK and KADEK to uprise in the southeast so we can join the war??I know the plan theyre trying to run... Is this what they call war on terrorism? Stabbing your ally in the back? You tell me!



Isn't Abdullah Ocalan a Kurd? I remember that he was to be put to DEATH! The European Union told the Turkish government not to execute him, or being a part of the EU would "compromised". I am not the most knowledgable person in relation to the Kurdish people's plight, but, aren't they kind of persecuted? I remember some Kurdish guy, tried to seek asylum in US (that'll work:rolleyes:), and apparently if he returned to Turkey his safety would be "threatened". PKK and KADEK, they are Kurdish freedom fighters are they not? Of course in they deranged way of ensuring your people's liberation is to attack Turkish interests. There aim is to eventually have some sort of Kurdish state or land and not be gased out by Iraqi's, or persecuted :rolleyes:.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Sukur54
bush got tons of pets hes an animal lover : England,Turkey,Australia, Pakistan (for now), japan(useless in war), need i say more?


Australia. John Howard and the Libs who I prefer over the opposition who I agree with most of the time (The Liberals that is), but not on there horrible foreign policy mistakes. I still can't figure out what is wrong with support the UN and not the US on anything, without second thought. Of course, he has to follow up on this tough stance on all this apparent terror and indefinite insecurity,:rolleyes: :rolleyes:. It won him an election.


Pakistan are interesting.......... I see an incredible hypocrisy, that General Pervez Musharaf, who seized power in a military coup is now apparently, a trusted US ally. So are they condoning these actions. There is no need to state why the US "like" Pakistan, we all know why. Therefore let's say tomorrow, a military dictator seizes a country in the Balkans, or Eastern Europe, what would the US do? Most likely start a war, claim they have Nuclear weapons, post sanctions, etc. Or if they are not in a strategic position, or do not have oil reserves, most likey there would not be an invasion, they already have two possible wars to spark an ailing economy.

Originally posted by JTNY
Isn't Abdullah Ocalan a Kurd? I remember that he was to be put to DEATH! The European Union told the Turkish government not to execute him, or being a part of the EU would "compromised". I am not the most knowledgable person in relation to the Kurdish people's plight, but, aren't they kind of persecuted? I remember some Kurdish guy, tried to seek asylum in US (that'll work:rolleyes:), and apparently if he returned to Turkey his safety would be "threatened". PKK and KADEK, they are Kurdish freedom fighters are they not? Of course in they deranged way of ensuring your people's liberation is to attack Turkish interests. There aim is to eventually have some sort of Kurdish state or land and not be gased out by Iraqi's, or persecuted :rolleyes:.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurd yes, he was supposed to be put to death penatly because he is resposible for the death of 35,000 Turkish citizens in his "freedom" fighting. Thanks to the EU who saved his ass now he is on the Imrali Island all alone until the rest of his life. You know they were not persecuted at all in our country. Usually most of the Kurds live in the eastern region and have been living there and no one bothered them. But then all of a sudden they just started to make terrorist attacks againts the government for their own nation. They are trying to take our soils to their hands and as most nations would not an inch is to be given basically. Now Turkey does not want the Kurds to form a nation because firstly they dont want Iraqs soils to be broken up and secondly were againt all wars and thirdly an Kurdish Republic will be a very big threat to us in the near future. We had enough form one group who was killing people and a whole nation definetly is big danger. So basially they are not freedom fighters theyre terrorists.

I still can't figure out what is wrong with support the UN and not the US on anything, without second thought. [/B][/QUOTE]

answer: free trade deal


Originally posted by JTNY
Pakistan are interesting.......... I see an incredible hypocrisy, that General Pervez Musharaf, who seized power in a military coup is now apparently, a trusted US ally. So are they condoning these actions. There is no need to state why the US "like" Pakistan, we all know why. Therefore let's say tomorrow, a military dictator seizes a country in the Balkans, or Eastern Europe, what would the US do? Most likely start a war, claim they have Nuclear weapons, post sanctions, etc. Or if they are not in a strategic position, or do not have oil reserves, most likey there would not be an invasion, they already have two possible wars to spark an ailing economy.

yeah, but apparently he made a speech the other day where he suggested pakistan could also be on the US hitlist.

I thought i would post this its nothing to do with War on Terror but that other idiot Bill O'really from Fox News (no thats not a spelling mistake).

OK i saw an interview with him and a professor from UCLA media and TV school and it was quite funny watching Bill dodge questions with answers like "Please dont use that rhetoric here" type thing....the master of spin knows all the answers the interview was about Bill Moyer a man against O'Reilly and Moyer is also left wing (how conveniant for O'Really) and the discussion was about George Clooney and his outburst about Charlton Heastons alzhemers (which imo is bull**** too, as he came out and said it the same time "Bowling for Columbine" was released)

Read and post your opinions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76198,00.html

i read an interesting dialouge on hannity and colmes and talks to Al gore and his views on Bush's "War on terrorism"

HANNITY: And still to come tonight, should Jimmy Carter stand with President Bush and return the Nobel Peace Prize? And we'll tell you about his remarks from earlier today.

But first, Alan had the chance to sit down with former Vice President Al Gore.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLMES: You said shortly after September 11 that George W. Bush was your commander in chief.

GORE: Yes.

COLMES: You've been coming out a little more, being a little more critical of him, but do you still feel he is your president?

GORE: Oh, of course, of course, he's everybody's president. Whoever is sworn in as president of the United States, ought to be accepted by all American citizens as our president.

Now more to the point, I thought he did a magnificent job in the immediate aftermath of September 11. I do think that since that time, he and his team began to make some choices that I have serious questions about. And I think some others do. I think we still are lacking some focus on the war against terrorism. I think that where Afghanistan is concerned, the crucible of the al Qaeda organization...

COLMES: Yes.

GORE: ...the joint chiefs chairman said not long ago, we're losing ground there now.

COLMES: Yes.

GORE: And the chaos is returning, the warlords are back in charge. They're the number one heroin producer again. Violence is once again the rule of the day. I think that's a mistake because those are the conditions that led to the Taliban...

COLMES: Right.

GORE: ...and al Qaeda in the first place.

COLMES: One of the criticisms Clinton/Gore has come under is that they keep saying the other side politically keeps saying, you guys were offered Usama bin Laden on a platter three or four times, and rejected by the Clinton administration. Is there any truth in that?

GORE: Well, I don't think that's accurate, no. We tried on numerous occasions to get him in a variety of ways. The option of sending troops into another country, as we did correctly in Afghanistan, that option wasn't really for all practical purposes available.

COLMES: But Saudi Arabia offered to send him to...

GORE: Before we were attacked.

COLMES: ...the United States at some point?

GORE: Well, I'm not familiar with those -- with that particular allegation. I think that obviously, we should never pass up an opportunity to take him and into custody.

COLMES: There's another story that Sandy Berger spoke a number of times with the incoming administration and gave a lot of information to Condoleezza Rice about Usama bin Laden, and that they should be a priority and that, for turf war purposes, seemed to be ignored by the Bush administration. Are you aware of information that was passed on, that was not acted on for the first number of months this administration was in power?

GORE: Well, I am aware that it was passed on. I'm aware of what the briefings were for the incoming administration. I do know that not only Sandy Berger, but others made the point forcefully that this is -- should be the number one thing that you spend time on. I'm not in a position to know what the Bush/Cheney group did with that information.

Now there's a new book out called "Sacred Terror," I believe, is that the name of it?

COLMES: I think so.

GORE: That is written by a couple of people who were on the inside, who claimed that information was, if not ignored, put way on a back burner. I have no personal knowledge of that.

COLMES: Let's move on to some other topics. You singled out Fox News, among other conservative media outlets, and said that they were kind of a fifth column in American journalism. You know, conservatives for years have complained about CNN and said it was too liberal. It this just the flip side of that coin?

GORE: No, I don't think it is. I think it's a different phenomenon. I think that your network finds it profitable to orient the news in opinion format toward the expectations of a core audience...

COLMES: Yes.

GORE: ...that forms a profitable part of your base. I think that cable television news changed the economics of the news business. And once again made it profitable to try to deliver a more predictable point of view. Now you're one of the Democrats...

COLMES: Well, I'm a liberal. I'm on every night primetime on the Fox News channel.

GORE: Absolutely.

COLMES: My views...

GORE: I understand.

COLMES: ...and my support of you has been prominent.

GORE: I appreciate that very much.

COLMES: So clearly...

GORE: But you probably wouldn't -- well, maybe you would -- but maybe if we got off camera, you might not dispute the proposition that overall, Fox is pretty well tilted toward the conservative Republican.

COLMES: Well we got Geraldo. We've got Greta Van Susteren. We've got me. O'Reilly, I think, is pretty unpredictable.

GORE: But overall, wouldn't you say that it's more sort of...

COLMES: I would say that we give vent to conservative voices...

GORE: Yes.

COLMES: ...that previously have not been heard necessarily as loudly on cable news.

GORE: Well, I'm not going to urge you to bite the hand that feeds you.

COLMES: Does the Democratic party have any obligation to you to look favorably on you -- if you choose to run?

GORE: No, I don't think.

COLMES: Having gotten the most votes of any Democrat for president ever?

GORE: No, I don't think they do at all. I think that if I run again, I will have to scrap and struggle and fight for every single vote and every single delegate. And then in the general election, if I get the

nomination, for every vote in the general election.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Would you vote for him again?

COLMES: Depends who he runs against.

HANNITY: And coming up, former President Jimmy Carter accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today, even though some people think it was a rebuke to President Bush. Should he have refused it? Stick around. All coming up.

SEAN HANNITY/CO-HOST: As we continue on HANNITY & COLMES, also coming up, why won't some Hollywood liberals line up behind the commander in chief? We'll tell you what Martin Sheen said. But first, the other night we brought you some of Alan's one-on-one interview with former Vice President Al Gore. Tonight, we're going to take a look at part two. Alan asked the former vice president about the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLMES: When you were in the White House as vice president, the Clinton/Gore policy was regime change. That was a stated policy about Iraq.

AL GORE, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes.

COLMES: But you didn't act on that?

GORE: Well, actually, we did act on that. Legislation was passed in Congress. A number of programs were begun, some of them covert, that can't be talked about publicly, but a process was begun that the Bush administration has continued to try to create change inside of Iraq, and improve the chances that there will be a new regime there. That's different from a unilateral American military invasion of another country to install a government of our liking. That's a far more difficult and I think less wise course of action.

COLMES: Will you support a war if one happens? Will you forcefully say that you support what the president is doing?

GORE: Depends...

COLMES: Support the troops?

GORE: It depends on what the president does whether I think it's a good idea or not. All of us as American citizens retain that right.

COLMES: Yes.

GORE: I think that there are two problems with a unilateral war against Iraq. He started on the objective of making war to change the regime. I think we should change the regime. I don't think that a U.S. invasion is the way we should try to do it. And to do -- to launch a war unilaterally in that region of the world, in these circumstances, I think would bring costs far heavier than the benefits, particularly because our relationships in that part of the world, and with our allies in Europe and Asia, are even more important to us now in order to win the war against terrorism.

And the second mistake that I see that I would urge him to handle differently is they keep saying that al Qaeda, that Usama's terrorist organization and Iraq under Saddam Hussein are virtually the same thing. And they're not. They're separate. And as far as the publicly available evidence is concerned, there's no connection between them. And when you ask the intelligence communities, is there a connection, they say no.

COLMES: You may know that Byron Dorgan of South Dakota said...

GORE: North Dakota.

COLMES: Excuse me, North Dakota. He wrote you a three-page letter in April. He says you're a fine person. He likes he you, but he says that the party should move on. Does that hurt you?

GORE: Yes. No. He's a friend. I respect his judgment. People can feel whatever they want. And North Dakota hasn't gone Democratic in a presidential contest in a long time.

COLMES: Yes.

GORE: Tipper did campaign there. I did not. And I plead guilty to that. And I can see why he would be upset that I didn't come and campaign in his state. But that's...

COLMES: Barney Frank has been outspoken and said...

GORE: On behalf of his home state colleague, yes.

COLMES: Yes. So is there a fight within the party? And never mind getting the general public to accept you, but the Democrats themselves. Is that a struggle for you?

GORE: Oh, sure. I think that I'm stronger at the grassroots level than I am with the -- inside the Washington Beltway.

COLMES: Yes.

GORE: I think that if I decide to be a candidate, I will face not only the challenge of going out and campaigning as everybody does, but also the challenge of communicating effectively with the media, with the party insiders, and convincing those two groups that I have learned enough from what I have been through to run a better campaign and be a better candidate.

COLMES: What's the biggest misconception about you?

GORE: Hmm. I don't know. Maybe that I don't have a sense of humor?

COLMES: Well, we know that's not true because you're going to be on "Saturday Night Live."

GORE: Well, I hope that doesn't -- I hope that appearance doesn't reinforce the misconception.

COLMES: You were funny with Jon Stewart. You were funny on "Letterman."

GORE: Well, maybe it's not a misconception anymore. I don't know. Maybe that I'm stiff. I don't know.

COLMES: Have they put you through your paces yet for that show?

GORE: No, no. You mean "Saturday Night Live?"

COLMES: Yes?

GORE: No, not yet. No, I've just heard some script ideas, but I haven't done any...

COLMES: Do you have veto power over...

GORE: I hope so. I hope so. I've heard a lot of good and funny ideas. They've got a lot of talented young people there.

COLMES: You know one of the things, being prominent as you've been, is those late-night barbs on television.

GORE: Yes.

COLMES: Do you have a favorite one?

GORE: Oh, gosh. There have been a lot of really funny ones. I used to collect them. I haven't been able to watch the shows as much lately.

COLMES: They don't offend you?

GORE: I remember one of them said, years ago, I used to quote the one -- how can you tell Al Gore from a roomful of Secret Service agents? He's the stiff one.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: I like that one.

And coming right up, should a man that pretends to be president be attacking the man that actually is? You won't believe it. Martin Sheen out there speaking out again. We'll show you what he said, coming up.

comments???

Yea............... I saw his show a couple of hours ago :rolleyes: , but anyways in Hannity and Colmes there is a debate if the protests in Washington D.C are anti-american :rolleyes: o boy here we go again.

This war is a joke. Common everyone is against this war RIGHTTTTTTT?????? :confused:

Veteran CBS News Anchor Dan Rather speaks out on BBC Newsnight tonight

The veteran CBS News anchor and reporter Dan Rather has for the first time attacked the climate of patriotism in the United States, saying it's stopping journalists asking tough questions. In an exclusive interview with BBC TWO's Newsnight tonight (Thursday 16 May), he admits he has held back from taking the Bush administration to task over the so-called war on terror.

Rather says: "It is an obscene comparison - you know I am not sure I like it - but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism."

Rather admits self-censorship: "What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship. It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole - and for all the right reasons - felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves. And one finds oneself saying: 'I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it'."

He tells Newsnight: "I worry that patriotism run amok will trample the very values that the country seeks to defend... In a constitutional republic, based on the principles of democracy such as ours, you simply cannot sustain warfare without the people at large understanding why we fight, how we fight, and have a sense of accountability to the very top."

He declares himself a patriot, but for him the essence of being American is being able to bring the government to account: "It's unpatriotic not to stand up, look them in the eye, and ask the questions they don't want to hear - they being those who have the responsibility, the ultimate responsibility in a society such as ours, of sending our sons and daughters, our husbands, wives, our blood, to face death, to take death. Now, in my position my view is not to ask the tough questions in this kind of environment is the height of lack of patriotism."

Rather is also stinging about the lack of access and information the Bush administration is giving news journalists over the war: "There has never been an American war, small or large, in which access has been so limited as this one.

"Limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war, is extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted. And I am sorry to say that up to and including the moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current administration revels in that, they relish that, and they take refuge in that.

"What's being done practically in real terms is in direct variance with the Pentagon's stated policy. The Pentagon stated policy is maximum access and maximum information consistent with national security."

Rather is dismissive about the new trend in American television - "militainment" - mass market reality shows about life in the military. The Pentagon has given unprecedented access to RJ Cutler to make Military Diaries for VH1, which airs later this month. It features service men and women talking personally about the music they listen to away from home, and includes exclusive footage of Operation Anaconda.

Rather says: "The belief runs so strong in both the political and military leadership of the current war effort that those who control the images will control public opinion. They realise what an entertainment-oriented society ours has become. Therefore one way of looking at it is quite natural, they would say to themselves: 'Hey, we've had the Hollywoodisation of the news, we have had the Hollywoodisation of almost everything else in society, why not the Hollywoodisation of the war?'

"And I want to say quietly but as forcefully as I can that I hope this doesn't go any further, it has gone too far already. I am appalled by it, I do think it is an outrage, this is a personal opinion

As we all know Americans were never known to be patriots they werent really caring that much. Now they are very patriotic and supporting their country which is good for them. But with the U.S.A it is like instant fame. Instant fame, meaning you know when someone gets too famous too quick and they start to get paranoid, abusive, and think everyone is working againts them? Well i kind of feel that the U.S.A is feeling something like this now after the September 11 events. Citizens are being over patriotic. Many Pakistanis and Arabs that live around here in my neighborhood sold their stores and are leaving the U.S.A becuase all their relatives got kicked out already and theyre afraid to get kicked out soon so they left. This looks like a no good sign for the U.S in my opinion. I think it is hard for U.S government becaue a situation like this does test DEMOCRACY to its very limits and also tests the belief of Life,Liberty and Porperty of mr. Locke in my opinion.what do u guys think? Rhizome and the rest?

Well not being there it is hard to comment on the patriotism issue, where I am all we get really is the filtered images in the mainstream news, of US citizens being all patriotic etc., the mainstream news had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the arrest of 500 Iranians etc. But I also know that there is a large groundswell of support for the anti-war movement in the US, thanks to the news sites I visit and the comments of SOME on this board and others. After all, the US is the country that has the proud tradition of the anti-Vietnam movement, so hopefully that bit of history remains in the memory of many from the US. A stupid unnecessary war that involved deceitful politicians and a corrupt administration. Sounds familiar, eh.

And I really don't know, when it comes to the crunch, whether there would be many americans who would want a war where the rest of the world is against it. After all, 9/11 is the day when the real wprld came and hit them smack-bang in the face, years of insularity suddenly ended in an hour or so. Given that the US now realises that there is an external world, would they want to risk that happening again? Unilateral action will only prompt more of those sorts of attacks, and at the end of the day they are things that no amount of infantry, nop amount of defence spending, no amount of intelligence operations can prevent.

I mean, patriotism is all well and good, but it is an 'imagined' identity that requires constant nourishment and PR work. And there are many divisive elements in the US itself, there were some from the right-wing militia groups (from where Timothy McVeigh came) who praised the actions of Al Queda.

As for the issue of democracy, well I don't have much respect for the US version of democracy anyway. It is fueled by lobby groups, money, connections, and barely anyone votes there for a number of reasons. So I think democracy has been under threat in the US for a very long time. And I think the life, liberty, property stuff, as promoted and exercised within the political narrative of the US, is a facade, in that it is practised only in the death, slavery and theft from others.

Originally posted by rhizome17
And I think the life, liberty, property stuff, as promoted and exercised within the political narrative of the US, is a facade, in that it is practised only in the death, slavery and theft from others.

interesting statement....why do u belive so?can you explain?

Originally posted by Hitman47
This war is a joke. Common everyone is against this war RIGHTTTTTTT?????? :confused:

my ass it is.

its just Bush wanting to earn his little ammunition companies some money :rolleyes:

Originally posted by rhizome17
He declares himself a patriot, but for him the essence of being American is being able to bring the government to account: "It's unpatriotic not to stand up, look them in the eye, and ask the questions they don't want to hear - they being those who have the responsibility, the ultimate responsibility in a society such as ours, of sending our sons and daughters, our husbands, wives, our blood, to face death, to take death. Now, in my position my view is not to ask the tough questions in this kind of environment is the height of lack of patriotism."

This is what I've been trying to say to the american folks here, in this thread.

Check this out http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7308 a series of near-identical letters to the editor in a large number of US newspapers, all commending Bush for his leadership - anyone smell propaganda and manipulation???

Iraq to get a good grade by the U.N :crazyboy:

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

VIENNA, Austria - The head of the U.N. nuclear agency will tell the Security Council on Monday that Saddam Hussein has done a "quite satisfactory" job of cooperating with inspectors in some areas but that they need more time to complete their search.

The White House dismissed the favorable assessment, but a senior U.S. official said the Bush administration was considering agreeing to let the inspections go on longer as a means of reassuring anxious European allies following a rift that broke out this week with France and Germany.

There were also moves in Europe to calm the tensions with Washington.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said although there was "growing support" in Europe for Germany's position, his country's toughened stance against war "won't destroy the German-American relationship."

"We need to cool off on statements and rationalize," said the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

The United States has threatened Iraq with war, but France, Germany and Russia all urge that the inspectors be given more time to do their job of assessing whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or programs to build them.

In his remarks to the Security Council on Monday, U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei will say his inspectors have gotten generally good cooperation from the Iraqis, spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told The Associated Press.

"Their report card will be a `B' - quite satisfactory," he said.

However, White House spokesman Sean McCormack said: "It's pass-fail. Iraq either is in compliance or not. And so far Iraq has failed to pass the test."

Later, seeking to qualify his comments, Gwozdecky said the "B" is only for responding to inspectors' questions and requests for information.

"We're not in the position of issuing grades - that's for the Security Council to do," he said. "We just report the facts, and our goal is the disarmament of Iraq. They're not coming forward to help us. They're not bringing forward original documentation."

On Monday, ElBaradei will argue that the inspectors, who returned to Iraq in November after a four-year break, need at least several more months, Gwozdecky said. ElBaradei will also say that the Iraqis "need to help themselves" by pointing the experts in the right direction.

ElBaradei, director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, will brief the council on nuclear issues. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix will brief the council on Iraq's biological, chemical and missile programs.

As the pair finalized their reports to the council, a senior official in Washington told AP that the Bush administration is considering extending the inspections in an effort to ward off mounting criticism at home and abroad that it is rushing toward war.

In Washington, two key lawmakers continued to urge President Bush to resolve the situation diplomatically. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, warned Friday against a "rush to war in the absence of a strong multilateral coalition."

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said "we have yet to see any evidence that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction."

A decision by the Bush administration on whether to support extended inspections - and put off any military action - will be based on whether the inspections are productive and whether Blix and ElBaradei offer new evidence to the council on Monday, said the senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Like ElBaradei, Blix is expected to praise the access Iraq has accorded inspectors. But he has increasingly criticized Baghdad over the past week for a number of failings, including blocking inspectors from using an American-made U-2 reconnaissance plane.

Blix will spend the weekend working on his presentation, which will build on an assessment he presented to the council on Jan. 9. In the earlier report, Blix said inspectors hadn't found any "smoking gun" in Iraq.

Since then, his teams have uncovered 16 warheads which he said Iraq didn't adequately account for in its 12,000-page arms declaration. Inspectors also uncovered some 3,000 pages of documents at the home of an Iraqi scientist, some of which Blix said should have been mentioned in the weapons declaration as well.

Blix said tests were still being conducted on some of the warheads. None of the results, however, will be detailed in Blix's report to the council Monday.

"This is far too technical a matter to bring up unless we find something sensational in a sample but I have not had such a report yet," Blix said.

The inspectors' reports could play a pivotal role in Washington's justification for swift military action.

In other developments Friday:

- Germany started deploying the first of 2,600 soldiers at U.S. military installations to step up security ahead of possible war - a move meant to offset Berlin's opposition to any military action. About 300 soldiers were in the first wave being sent out to U.S. bases and other complexes, strung across southern and western Germany, the Defense Ministry said.

- NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson said in London that the United Nations will lose all credibility if it does not act to disarm Saddam.

Although Baghdad steadfastly denies it has weapons of mass destruction and has recently taken a harsher tone toward the inspectors' work, "access and cooperation are good," said Gwozdecky, the head IAEA spokesman.

"We've been getting where and when we want to get, and we've been generally successful in getting what we need," he said.

Gwozdecky said ElBaradei will make a case for additional pressure on Baghdad to encourage Iraqi scientists to consent to private interviews with the U.N. inspectors. So far, the scientists have refused.

Iraq said the United Nations had asked to interview three scientists on Saturday. At least six others have refused to be interviewed without an Iraqi official present.

At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush considers the failure of Iraq to make its scientists fully available to U.N. inspectors "unacceptable."

Fleischer said Saddam's conduct will make "the end of the line come even closer. His refusal is further evidence that Iraq has something to hide."

ElBaradei's main message to the council will be that the inspectors need more time, Gwozdecky said.

"He'll say we need several more months to come to conclusions," he said. "He'll say our team is not yet at capacity, and that some tools are not yet on the ground," such as high-tech equipment capable of detecting airborne gamma radiation.

If a ground war goes ahead i hope British troops are equipt with NBC protection gear, because an elite Iraqi unit has been eqiuped with NBC equipment!

I think Saddam has a nasty trick up his ****in sleeve, if he uses chemical weapons against allied troops then god help him!

What, protecting against an aggressive invading force? Come on, have we really come to this, warning a country not to use all means necessary to protect themselves against an aggressor? And before anyone says 'ignoring UN resolutions', I have a one word answer: Israel.

Originally posted by rhizome17
What, protecting against an aggressive invading force? Come on, have we really come to this, warning a country not to use all means necessary to protect themselves against an aggressor? And before anyone says 'ignoring UN resolutions', I have a one word answer: Israel.

if powerful countries arent going to give a crap about the UN then there is no point of having it same with nato i think these are pointless

Originally posted by Sukur54
if powerful countries arent going to give a crap about the UN then there is no point of having it same with nato i think these are pointless

Your saying that UN and Nato are useless? :confused:

Yeah they seem useless now but really they are needed - the world needs to sit together with the proper representive to make peace and make the world as a whole more stable, friendlier and work to a common goal - problem is we dont get along with each other.

Yeah, i am not a big fan of the UN, but they are currently needed to act as a brake on the US. I think that Germany and France are trying to occupy that space at present, as an alternative voice to the US, with the aim of building a European Superpower as a counterweight.

Originally posted by TOON ARMY

I think Saddam has a nasty trick up his ****in sleeve, if he uses chemical weapons against allied troops then god help him!
and the Iraqi people :nape:

Articles on the media fudging of protest numbers in Washington on January 18 http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen01182003.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=2897

And Fisk on War journalists

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2895

Colin Powell said on his speech today in Switzerland that "The time given to the UN is the time given to Saddam" so this means they really dont give a **** about what the UN reports will be from what he says.

Originally posted by vince15
and the Iraqi people :nape:

How can you say that Saddam is the bad guy not Iraqs people in a way thats narrow thinking so they are to blame because they are the ones being persicuted.

Here we go...:(

Blair: war can start without UN arms find

Last chance for Saddam to aid weapons team

Kamal Ahmed and Peter Beaumont, London, Ed Vulliamy in Washington and Suzanne Goldenberg in Baghdad
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

Tony Blair has raised the temperature in the confrontation with Iraq by insisting there is no need for United Nations weapons inspectors to find a 'smoking gun' for Saddam Hussein to be in breach of UN resolutions and face military action.
Downing Street sources made it clear last night that although there would be a 'short pause' in preparations for war while the inspectors are given 'a few more weeks' to try to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's failure to co-operate pro-actively with the team will provide a pretext for attack.

As it became increasingly clear that Saddam now believes war is inevitable, Washington sources said the inspectors were now 'on a very short leash'.

Whitehall officials said they are increasingly resigned to the fact that Hans Blix, the head of the Unmovic inspections team, would fail to uncover significant evidence of nuclear, biological or nuclear weapons.

'Of course it would be far better if he did,' said one Number 10 insider. 'We realise they have to be given more time to see what they can do. That is an imperative for the public debate here and the wider diplomatic world.

'We know the stuff is there. Whether the UN team can find it is a different matter.'

The official said the Prime Minister knew a stronger case must be made for action against Iraq if public opinion was to swing behind it.He would now start making the case that an 'incremental breach' is enough to trigger action if Saddam does not disarm.

'An absence of co-operation and a pattern of obstruction does constitute a breach,' said another Downing Street official. 'As each day goes by and he doesn't satisfactorily answer these question [on weapons of mass destruction] then it becomes clear that we may not need a smoking gun - but we know there is the whiff of cordite.'

Blair will insist Saddam has done nothing to account for tons of munitions and biological and chemical weapons which previous UN weapons inspectors said were unaccounted for in the Nineties.

It will be argued that there are still 11 key questions unanswered from the Iraq's widely-criticised weapons declaration which have already been outlined to Iraqi officials. Other issues include a lack of unfettered access for interviews with Iraqi scientists who, US officials claim, have been threatened with death if they co-operate with the UN, and Saddam's refusal of permission for flights over Iraq by U2 spy planes.

Blair had a 30 minute phone conversation with George Bush on Friday night in which the President agreed to press for more time for the inspections..

Blix is expected to express frustration in his report to the UN Security Council tomorrow that Saddam has not been more helpful.

In an interview with The Observer , Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said tomorrow's report was not a deadline but that Saddam could not expect the inspectors to continue searching indefinitely. 'Evidence is mounting that Saddam Hussein's policy is not to comply but to conceal. If the deceit and delays continue Iraq will, to quote UN resolution 1441, have to face serious consequences.'

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, also kept up the military rhetoric: 'The burden is upon Iraq. Iraq must comply, or it will be made to comply with force.'

Powell said no decision on the use of force would be made on military action before Bush meets Blair on Friday at Camp David.

Blair is still fighting against the weight of UK public opinion. A poll in today's Sunday Times revealed that 68 per cent of people feel Blair has failed to convince them Iraq poses a significant threat that justified military action.

In an article in today's Observer , Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, says the Prime Minister is in danger of acting too quickly and without UN authority: 'I see no contradiction between abhorrence of his leadership and the profound anxiety many people in this country feel about the way in which the Americans - with Tony Blair's support - are proposing an invasion,'

In Baghdad it is becoming clear that Saddam believes war is almost inevitable.

In a highly unusual interview with a small group of journalists, one of his closest confidantes said that Iraq had exhausted all the measures at its disposal to avoid a conflict, and the decision to go to war.

'One tends to think it is coming no matter what we do. We insulated ourselves that war is never coming. We must do everything in our power not to give them an excuse,' General Amer Saadi, said.
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,882712,00.html

Blair II:

Poland, the most gung-ho new member of NATO, whose president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, said in an interview last week, "if it is President Bush's vision, it is mine."
____

Poland chose Lockheed Martin over two rival European bids for a $3.5 billion contract for 48 F-16s after intense courting by the United States. The Lockheed-Martin package was supported with a U.S. government loan at rock-bottom interest rates. It came with the planes, plus weapons, pilot training and billions in investment and business deals for Poland.

Originally posted by zul-aid
How can you say that Saddam is the bad guy not Iraqs people in a way thats narrow thinking so they are to blame because they are the ones being persicuted.

Youve got the wrong end of the stick, Vince didn't mean the Iraqi people have got trick up there sleeves he meant that there would be trouble if chemical weapons were used on the iraqi people. Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people before, so who knows what that man is capable of

Thanks Toon, exactly what I meant.

Originally posted by K-Man
Blair II:

Poland, the most gung-ho new member of NATO, whose president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, said in an interview last week, "if it is President Bush's vision, it is mine."
____

Poland chose Lockheed Martin over two rival European bids for a $3.5 billion contract for 48 F-16s after intense courting by the United States. The Lockheed-Martin package was supported with a U.S. government loan at rock-bottom interest rates. It came with the planes, plus weapons, pilot training and billions in investment and business deals for Poland.

Did you read what I wrote about the planes that were sold to us? Seems like you're getting a similar deal, my friend. :(

Originally posted by INFESTA
Did you read what I wrote about the planes that were sold to us? Seems like you're getting a similar deal, my friend. :(

hey we get thrashed planes form them too!

Sadaam is unstable, unpredictable and needs to be eliminated.

Originally posted by Seán Denny
Sadaam is unstable, unpredictable and needs to be eliminated. but imo NOT by a military attack

Originally posted by Seán Denny
Sadaam is unstable, unpredictable and needs to be eliminated.

Hey! Look everyone! I told you George Bush was on these boards!

Originally posted by rhizome17
Hey! Look everyone! I told you George Bush was on these boards!

Haha. I thought of that too but didnt say anything.

Originally posted by INFESTA
Did you read what I wrote about the planes that were sold to us?

where? :o :o

Hey guys did you know President Bush is registered to a forum???

Well here ya go ;)

Science (www.scienceforums.net/forums)

go to general discussion and click on the thread "My fellow Americans" :hump:

Originally posted by K-Man
where?

The US has a military base in the Azores Islands, in Portugal, that our government "lent" them. I say "lent" because what we get in return is planes that come directly out of the US's junkyard, and that turn out to be more expensive in their maintenance than buying brand news ones...

These planes have a very expensive maintenance, and the older they are, the more expensive it gets. We must have paid those planes like a dozen times, now. And what about the planes that fell with mechanical problems? :kader:

I am hearing that February 22nd, give or take a day or so, is the date for war...

Erm Hugo,
I read in the newspapers today that your government will support Bush. Is this right? :(

u know i read today that there are groups of American soldiers that already went into the Northern Iraq part and theyre training the Kurds to become a unit so they can use them againts Iraq then they will give them some soil so the Kurds can attack Turkey:rolleyes:

Originally posted by vince15
Erm Hugo,
I read in the newspapers today that your government will support Bush. Is this right? :(

Yes, it is. :mad:

Our pm was one of the 8 european leaders (most of them are members of right-wing parties) that signed that petition, basically giving a carte blanche to whatever Bush does.
This is pretty serious because:

a) Barroso signed it without consulting the parliament.

b) Barroso signed it without consulting the President, who already said publicly he opposed an armed intervention without the UN's consent.

c) Barroso signed it despite knowing that the vast majority Portuguese people, like the rest of the Europe, opposes an armed intervention against Iraq.

Our President immeadiately called for a State Council -> this means he's pissed at Barroso. :evil: And so am I. Very pissed.

We have a rude saying here that depicts Barroso's support on Bush: "When you lower yourself too much, the others can see the crack of your ass."

Originally posted by INFESTA
a) Barroso signed it without consulting the parliament.

c) Barroso signed it despite knowing that the vast majority Portuguese people, like the rest of the Europe, opposes an armed intervention against Iraq.
This sounds pretty similar to what Blair is doing. Most MPs don't back a war with Iraq and the majority of Brits don't back it either. It goes against the idea of democracy. I think Blair has ambitions to become a dictator. I think he's more of a dick-taster

Our PM went this morning to the Parliament, to be questioned by the opposition. I saw it live and here are a few notes I took:

- Portugal will not be neutral on this affair. We will support the US even if they unilaterally attack Iraq.

- The US asked us for permission to use the Azores base in a possible attack on Iraq. Barroso granted that request. [At least they asked for permission...]

- I was looking at the Parliament as the PM spoke, and I think I recognized this guy -> :clapwap: and others just like him, mixed among his party's stand.

Ok, here is a recent Noam Chomsky address to the WSF. It is a speech so does not flow entirely like an article might, but he addresses a number of current concerns, from the impending imperial invasion of Iraq to the comments about 'old' and 'new' europe.
The main point I think is that we are witnessing the struggle of an anti-democratic elite, in the Bush Administration, and its attempt to supplant democratic freedoms with nationalistic fervour. Which is pretty spot-on when it is the democratic regimes i.e. those who have listened to their constituencies concerns about the war e.g. Germany who are criticised, whilst those who have not e.g. Britain are held up as shining examples.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ideas are second nature to the current political leaders, most of them recycled from the Reagan administration. They are replaying a familiar script: drive the country into deficit so as to be able to undermine social programs, declare a “war on terror” (as they did in 1981) and conjure up one devil after another to frighten the population into obedience. In the `80s it was Libyan hit-men prowling the streets of Washington to assassinate our leader, then the Nicaraguan army only two-days march from Texas, a threat to survival so severe that Reagan had to declare a national emergency. Or an airfield in Grenada that the Russians were going to use to bomb us (if they could find it on a map); Arab terrorists seeking to kill Americans everywhere while Qaddafi plans to “expel America from the world,” so Reagan wailed. Or Hispanic narcotraffickers seeking to destroy the youth; and on, and on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2938

I have a question about Bush here. He was very sad about the Columbia shuttle tragedy that happened few days back. Bush said that we are in sorrow as a nation and we are but when he goes to war in Iraq in a month or so there are going to be many soldiers that wont be returning also does he ever think abou this? Do those soldiers have no importance to him?

Originally posted by Sukur54
I have a question about Bush here. He was very sad about the Columbia shuttle tragedy that happened few days back. Bush said that we are in sorrow as a nation and we are but when he goes to war in Iraq in a month or so there are going to be many soldiers that wont be returning also does he ever think abou this? Do those soldiers have no importance to him?

If only a few are killed, then they will be accorded hero status. But imo soldiers sign away their individuality once they enlist. They are pawns in the games of politicians. So they are expendable, a 'resource' if you like.

Anyway, here is a link to the Guardian which has a series of interviews with different people, from Iraqi exiles to Noan Chomsky. There are a number of different viewpoints here, from pro- to anti- war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/0,12811,880735,00.html

Interesting link Rhizome. It clarified my thoughts about the new Iraq 'Crisis'.

Originally posted by rhizome17
I am hearing that February 22nd, give or take a day or so, is the date for war... I Heard March 4th, Due to Daylight Saving times around the world, it would be much easier to do a night raid on Iraqi Targets

Originally posted by ImmUniTy
I Heard March 4th, Due to Daylight Saving times around the world, it would be much easier to do a night raid on Iraqi Targets

Yeah feb 22 was the date that was being proposed prior to Blairs visit to Bush, and the decision to have a second UN resolution. So March seems increasingly likely. I can't see it beng delayed much longer than that though :( .

ohhh, ok, read it wrong, i just skim read most times :rolleyes:

interesting image, i thought id post it here...

http://images.deviantart.com/large/indyart/freehand/Homo_sapiens_Evolution.jpg

well, you really have to hand it to Osama. What timimg for him to come out and release a message of support for the Iraqi people.

OK. So the US government leaps on it as evidence that there is a link between Iraq and Al Quida. Never mind that Osama calls Saddam an infidel. Don't mention that to the US public, will you Colin Powell:rolleyes: . The link between the 2 is as distant as ever. But Bin Laden knows exactly how to pull US strings and how to make them dance.

Anyway, what the US has planned, is exactly what Osama wants. US invade holy land, giving the perfect reason for those influenced by Bin Laden to plan further attacks on US (and related) targets. Can the US admin not see that? By attacking Iraq, they will not decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks, but increase the chances of them happening.

Bin Laden is doing no more than rally the Iraqi people behind his cause. He knows very well that Saddam will not last, and if anything the US will be doing his (Bin Ladens) work for him. He also knows that whilst many people in the region hate Saddam, they hate the US even more. And US presence, after Saddam is gone, makes them targets for Bin Ladens agenda.

And it is precisely at this point where the US has bitten off more than it can chew. :confused:

With all the terror alets and all, the US admin has been trying to set a climate of fear amongst the population. Now imagine what will happen if something does go off. It will be directly linked to US plans for Iraq. The **** could literally be about to hit the fan.

EDIT: full text of the tape can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

Now I'm off my soapbox. One question comes to mind Rhizome.

If we were to say for example carpet-bomb Iraq and get into Baghdad in say end-March/early April. Get rid of Saddam in the process, what's the likelyhood of say the country being split into three seperate states. Kurdistan in the north, a state for the Shi'lites of the south, and the middle part of Iraq becoming so-destablised that a fundamentalist regime who is supported by Bin Laden comes into place in Central Iraq?

Originally posted by Robert Roberts
Now I'm off my soapbox. One question comes to mind Rhizome.

If we were to say for example carpet-bomb Iraq and get into Baghdad in say end-March/early April. Get rid of Saddam in the process, what's the likelyhood of say the country being split into three seperate states. Kurdistan in the north, a state for the Shi'lites of the south, and the middle part of Iraq becoming so-destablised that a fundamentalist regime who is supported by Bin Laden comes into place in Central Iraq?

A Kurdish state will never get off the ground. First and foremost, Turkey would oppose it, 100 per cent. That is one of their main concerns about war in Iraq, and I am sure that the US will have agreed with them in exchange for the use of Turkish soil to launch attacks. Secondly, there is more evidence linking Kurdish operatives to he terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq than there is evidence linking Saddam with them. For starters, the area is out of Saddams control. The US will be aware of this (even if they don't admit it at present).

The first 2 parts of the scenario are what the Kurds, Syria etc. would like to see. i don't think there are any regimes there that want Bin Laden wielding too much influence. But perhaps most scary for people in the US, UK and Europe in general, is that the very presence of US forces in Iraq will be enough to destabilise the region, because there will be a number of revenge attacks for things done under Saddams regime, then there will be the divisions forming between all the different groups that want their share of Iraq and the ensuing conflict, then there will be a climate that Bin Laden can exploit. The guy is dangerous for sure and needs to be caught, but he also has perfect timing. He knows that by coming out now, he has increased the liklihood of a US attack on Iraq. The thing is, such an attack will only play into his hands. And that is the scary part. He has no liking for Saddam, as he made clear in his recent tape. But he knows perfectly how to milk this situation for his own advantage.

He also knows that a puppet regime installed by the US will be unacceptable to most people in Iraq and the region as a whole. All I can see for the future is a recipe for disaster. Sure, Saddam will go, but who is more dangerous? Osama or Saddam? I know what my answer is, and I know that Mr. Bush knows also. only one of them has attacked US soil, and only one of them can still do so. Saddam is a smokescreen.

So whilst I doubt that the scenario you describe will become reality, I can see that there wilol be a long conflict between multiple groups trying to achieve that goal. And the **** will hit the fan. The US are very good at removing regimes, they are just not very good at building new ones.

Gotta hand it to Bin Laden, hes timing is superb, he knows when to talk, and he just makes the US run around like the gossip queen in the school yard.

Originally posted by ImmUniTy
Gotta hand it to Bin Laden, hes timing is superb, he knows when to talk, and he just makes the US run around like the gossip queen in the school yard. Yep, I have to agree, he always knows what to do next.

btw. has anyone heard of newsmax.com? Probably one of the biggest propaganda sites on earth :rolleyes:

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?&DID=6&Product_ID=448&CATID=10&GroupID=13

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?&DID=6&Product_ID=1018&CATID=13&GroupID=53



:|

I think it is important that all those who are here are introduced to the knowledge that organizations such as the U.N. and NATO are the offsprings of a foreign policy doctrine called collective security that originated in none other than the United States.

I will not go thru the history of this but as most of you know or should know before World War I Europe was quite enthralled in dealing with its matters in only one way: war.

For centuries upon centuries the only language that European policy makers understood and grasped (and in some cases quite well for example Otto von Bismark) was that in order to be "safe" you need to bunch up and defeat militarily those who oppose the common order, thus we had balance of power.....


Let me also remind you, that after World War I when I guess a few people in Europe finally realized that "well balance of power is just not gonna work for us" they for the most part were vehemently opposed to the Idea of collective security proposed by then president Wilson. As a result of their opposition we have
the great failure of the League of Nations, one of the great Fiascos of the 20th century.

It was not after much of Europe had been levelled thanks to World War II that most came to have to accept collective security to protect against the Soviet menace and to ensure that they themselves would not blow each other up again.

So then, it is rather cynical, that the country which was foremost in defiying collective security all throughout the Cold War (France) because it impeded upon the "individuality of nations" is today the most ardent advocate of that precise system against the country that create it.

I for once am convinced that the French have no interest in seeing a resolution of the Iraq crisis be it political or otherwise; the goal of the French is to block the US, because as Degaulle so clearly put it the US can suffer from "Hyperpower" syndrome so it is France's job and responsability to check this disease. And sadly this French theory of US "hyperpower" has squarely mixed with the calls for a fair resolution of the Iraq issue, so today we find whole nations crying out AGAINST the US and not AGAINST a war...big difference which a lot of you and the fellow citizens of the world cannot make.

Its funny how a number of nations signed this vaunted resolution 1441 without the least bit intention of even attempting to look at it for the second timeif at least to make their judgement a little clearer. If the wording in it is too tough maybe they should have used those 7 weeks of debate they had to make it softer....:rolleyes:

Read that, proves my point exactly


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54434-2003Feb10.html

Wow, that's what I call propaganda :confused:

Yup, because what you post is not......:rolleyes:

I know I'm against war. But when I compare this article with some of German newspapers or whatever it's a big difference 'cause it tells you France/Germany is the evil, the US is right.

Is not saying the US is right is saying if you really wanna do something about this do it the right way, I particularly think this should be directed more towards France than Germany as Germany seems to be more genuine about its position, even tho of course the Chancellor wants to divert attention from the fact the German economy is in shambles right now, its still a more adept position than the french one.....

a lot like Bush an the US economy actually.........well see they agree on something then:confused:

Somehow you can argue about each countries's postition. No one is completly right.

vote this:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

North Korea
6.5 %
Iraq
7.6 %
The United States
85.9 %


Total Votes Cast: 442502



:confused:

Originally posted by INFESTA
Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

North Korea
6.5 %
Iraq
7.6 %
The United States
85.9 %


Total Votes Cast: 442502



:confused: What's wrong? :confused:

I agree with INFESTAs statement. The US (their government) are mor dangerous than any other country in the world. They feel like God and rule this world. Bush and co think that THEY are democratic, but they invase other countries to protect their interest and kill a lot of innocent people, just to save their democracy. That's nonsense and not democratic.

Well I don't trust Bush but in my opinion Saddam is more dangerous than he. :confused:

Yea, Hussein is dangerous. But Bush too, and even as gangerous as Hussi. The thing, which makes Bush so dangerous for me is not his army, it is his power over the economic world. America rules the world economy and they can destroy, what won't happen, any country in this world. By stopping investments.

Originally posted by vince15
What's wrong? :confused:

Nothing, mate. That was me trying to look surprised...


So, has anyone been to the protests? I went to the one in Porto, with my bro, mum and cousin. We had a nice time. Peolpe from all ages, professions and social backgrounds. Very to see. :)

I met 3 friends, who were walking in the opposite direction, an ex-gf, her sister and the sis' bf, who didn't have a clue what was all that people doing there. :|
Yes, they live in a cave.

No, I didn't go to one of the protests.

In Berlin were 500 000 people :o it was the biggest peace demonstration in the German history.
Here are some pics:
Berlin
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,242955,00.jpg

London
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,242915,00.jpg

Amsterdam
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,242925,00.jpg

people don't want this war :(

CNN also informed the American public today that the march in London was attended by 500,000 Muslims...No mention that the crowd was more like 1,500,000 and was made up of all creeds religeons ages and sex.I have spent time in the States and what the media feed the people is garbage,and like in this country some people eat it and some dont.Mostly we do not.Why is it supposed to be unpatriotic to critisize your government? That is called Democracy...Leaders should learn to walk it like they talk it.
One more thing.....Nobody likes a bully whatever continent he may live on....France and Germany voice caution so Bush threatens them with sanctions...some ally...some friend....some Bully.....

Originally posted by pede54
CNN also informed the American public today that the march in London was attended by 500,000 Muslims...No mention that the crowd was more like 1,500,000 and was made up of all creeds religeons ages and sex.

Really? :kader:
I didn't heard it, but I'm not surprised... Kader was telling me yesterday about the wide spread panic atmosphere that some US media have been creating lately. People storing food on their basements, etc. It's '1984' again, I tell you.
Anyway, I agree with everything you said.

Originally posted by INFESTA
Really? :kader:
I didn't heard it, but I'm not surprised... Kader was telling me yesterday about the wide spread panic atmosphere that some US media have been creating lately. People storing food on their basements, etc. It's '1984' again, I tell you.
Anyway, I agree with everything you said.

Storing foods? I read about it, quite crazy. The chance of being hitten by an astroid is bigger than being hitten by a iraqi bomb in the US.

I'm no supporter of war, but what I didn't see in all those images on TV was any anti-Saddam signs...if all those protesters cared so much for the Iraqi people then they should also protest against the brutal oppression the Iraqi citizens have been living under for decades...

I'd bet anything that the very second American bombs blow Saddam out of Iraq, the people there will be taking to the streets yelling "USA #1!" and asking where the first McDonalds will be built (:/)

Originally posted by George Hagi
Storing foods? I read about it, quite crazy.

yea, u bet......

______

WASHINGTON -- The list was specific: Water for three days. Flashlights and a battery-powered radio. Enough duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal a room against the toxic materials that al-Qaida might try to spread in a terrorist attack.

But four days after telling Americans to assemble emergency supply kits, a move that had people from Washington to New York stripping hardware stores of supplies, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Friday was forced to clarify his instructions for how Americans should prepare for potential terrorism.

His new guidance: Buy the duct tape. Just don't use it without a signal from the government. And wait for further instructions next week.

It was the latest example of the difficulty federal officials are facing in making the public prepared but not panicked about terrorism. It came in a week that saw schools purchase gas masks, businesses review evacuation plans and antiaircraft missile batteries return to key posts around the capital.

"I want to make something very, very clear at this point: We do not want individuals or families to start sealing their doors or their windows," Ridge told a news conference.

He said people should assemble the emergency kits but also watch for a media campaign, to start Wednesday, that will lay out how to respond to each of the various scenarios that could arise from a terrorist attack, which might include biological, chemical or radiological materials. Duct tape and plastic, he said, were not appropriate "for every conceivable terrorist attack."

"What they should do now if they've secured their supply kit," Ridge said, "is they ought to go pick the kids up at school and they ought to go to the soccer games and they ought to go to work, because they've done all we want them to do now."

The administration's advice Monday moved thousands of Americans, mostly in the New York-to-Washington corridor, to stock up on disaster supplies. But it also drew questions from many residents, as well as ridicule from Democrats in Congress.

"Duct tape is not enough. We need a real plan that makes first responders a first priority and that truly strengthens America's homeland security," said Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D.

He appeared Friday with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and a group of firefighters at a news conference to urge Bush to spend more money on border control, civil defense equipment and other security measures.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, said the government still needs to issue "clear and concrete guidance" about how to prepare for terrorism. "Secretary Ridge should go on network television one evening soon and talk us through the realities and possibilities of our current Code Orange threat," he said, referring to the federal government's warning that the nation is at "high risk" for terrorism.

Others said they had little confidence that duct tape would help them in a terror attack.

Chicago college student Ryan Schmidt, 21, fretted that he lived near one of the nation's tallest buildings. "I live in the shadow of the Hancock, and you think duct tape and plastic is going to save me?" he asked. "I can't explain how stupid that seems."

"In South Florida, homes are built with concrete, which does not make for a good bond with duct tape," said Sergio Mariaca, a 34-year-old financial adviser in Boynton Beach, Fla. Even if the tape could seal out toxins, "you may suffocate to death. Any way you look at it, you cannot win."

In Boston, callers to a WRKO radio program have also been skeptical in recent days about the emergency preparedness advice.

"I think people were alarmed at first, and the more it sunk in the more it sounded silly to them," said Doreen Vigue, co-host of the morning McCarthy and Vigue program. She said callers tend to trust President Bush and support war with Iraq, but they are less certain about Ridge.

"The government didn't do a lot of homework in telling me to seal myself off in a room, where I might suffocate," she said.

Several U.S. counter-terror officials also expressed dismay over the guidelines released Monday, particularly the recommendation to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting. They said this heightened public unease significantly, making it even harder for FBI agents to do their jobs.

"We have a problem and we are at war," said one official. But the public "should not be absolutely freaking out."

Schools and businesses on Friday continued efforts to improve security. In Fairfax, Va., near Washington, 360 biohazard masks arrived at the private New School of Northern Virginia, part of a plan to protect staff and students, who are in grades three through 12.

At the Capitol, police warned that there were no exceptions to a rule barring couriers from entering the building, even to deliver Valentine's Day flowers.

Lawmakers in recent days have been told to keep sensitive documents, medicine and a list of key phone numbers on hand in case an evacuation is announced. Staff members have been trained in how to use "escape hoods" that protect against chemical and biological substances.

______

riiiiiight, duct tape will help with bio-terror..... WTF?! :|

my mom is taking this seriously :$ in our basement, there is this empty room...... my mom sealed all the windows there, and stores water and food there now :S

haha, she also regrets she didnt buy gas masks when they were selling them in CVS last year :D

Originally posted by ::shinji::
I'm no supporter of war, but what I didn't see in all those images on TV was any anti-Saddam signs...if all those protesters cared so much for the Iraqi people then they should also protest against the brutal oppression the Iraqi citizens have been living under for decades...



Australian 60 minutes.

Originally posted by ::shinji::
I'd bet anything that the very second American bombs blow Saddam out of Iraq, the people there will be taking to the streets yelling "USA #1!" and asking where the first McDonalds will be built (:/)
I couldn't agree more, the Afghani were also all happy once we came in.

Originally posted by ::shinji::
I'd bet anything that the very second American bombs blow Saddam out of Iraq, the people there will be taking to the streets yelling "USA #1!" and asking where the first McDonalds will be built (:/)

Yes, you are right. People in Iraq are scared though. There was that guy on the radio, who managed to escape from Iraq a few years ago, and lives in the U.S. now. He was telling how most people hate Saddam there, but they are scared to do anything. Anyone who says or does anything that can be considered anti-hussein is killed on the spot.

Originally posted by K-Man
Yes, you are right. People in Iraq are scared though. There was that guy on the radio, who managed to escape from Iraq a few years ago, and lives in the U.S. now. He was telling how most people hate Saddam there, but they are scared to do anything. Anyone who says or does anything that can be considered anti-hussein is killed on the spot.

yep, so why not go in and help those people ...

he's a dictator ... not a social worker ...

The Iraquis may need time to built a dtrong opposition. The opposition there is too weak to beat Hussein. Here in East Germany a lot of people also experienced a regime, which defeats its enemies. Many people here disappeared, because they were in an opposition. It took a lot of years to win over the socialist regime. And this just happened, because people in the GDR were strong and motivated enough to free themselves from the regime. I think that this wouldn't happen in Iraq, because Gusseins regime is big and well organized. It will be difficult for ordinary iraqis to be free from Hussein, but there's always a change. As we in East Germany experienced.

You guys in the states and Canada...for Christs sake get your heads out of your asses...I attended the demo in London and their were plenty of anti Saddam placards and Tee shirts and balloons..maybe your media machines decided not to show you that...I wonder why.Yeah of course the Afghanies on the TV looked happy to see WESTERN troops(not only Americans) in their country.These are the same people that the Western Governments previously chased off in favour of the Taliban.All America has done since it entered their country is organise the building of a pipeline(by an American oil company) so they can get the OIL.Most of the troops in Afghanistan are there to protect the oil routes.The people are still living in poverty and surrounded by rubble.The same thing will happen in Iraq.Also can you tell me honestly that your governments have never "removed" a citizen from society who's influence might pose a threat to "national interests".Ours has...and i know that yours has too..and it still does...everyday.The west is just a bit more subtle about it.And there is no point whatsoever trying to prepare for terrorism..We have lived with it for as long as i can remember and believe me when i say that you will get used to it and one day it will be the last thing on your mind when you leave the house.Sure you keep your fingers crossed that you make it through the day,but if its your time to go...theres not a lot you can do about it....You cant trust all you are being told...So think for yourself...In this day and age Information is so easy to find....SO FIND IT.

Originally posted by ::shinji::
I'm no supporter of war, but what I didn't see in all those images on TV was any anti-Saddam signs...if all those protesters cared so much for the Iraqi people then they should also protest against the brutal oppression the Iraqi citizens have been living under for decades...



That sounds like a bit of propaganda to me, man. I went to the protests in Porto, and I saw a couple anti-Saddam banners. I can say 99,9% of all that attended the protests were democracy and freedom lovers, with a strong humanitarian desire.
Sure there were more anti-Bush banners, but the reason is simple: this was an anti-war movement, first and foremost. Still, I think it was made clear that nobody supported Saddam and his evil regime.

I think the people from Iraq are dying to get rid of Saddam (literally :|), but I don't think they support the USA. Not after what happened since the gulf war. Come on, guys, they are starving due to the sanctions imposed to them. Half a million children died because of these sanctions, and Madelene Albright said she was ok with that figure. What do you expect? Cheers of joy for the USA?

Iran hates the U.S.

and at the same time they hate Saddam, even more ...

and if that means the United States removing Saddam then so be it ...

Some of you "anti-war" guys really upset me, as an American as a member of the armed forces, and as someone who is against the way the administration is handling this war and the country (Is no wonder I voted for Gore;). But this has turned from informed, cultured and active dissent into an all out bash-party against anything America has done throughout its history.....no it hasn't been all good a lot has been wrong but I promise you I could go pick up a neutral history of any of your countries and find the same things in different eras, different people........


I was reading that anti-anti-american thread and what also jumps at me is the triviality of most things which are posted there, the simple fact that most of that is things which hold no real importance puts me in doubt as the honesty of the people who wrote those things....(not all the people thought)

Granted, there are exceptions to everything and not for nothing but this guy INFESTA although sometimes, he gets a little feisty for me he does seem genuine and for the most part informed in his discent, sadly I cannot say that for most "anti-war" supporters here or anywhere for that matter.

Althought I think is crude to make this analogy I'll make it anyway. In sports there are those teams that are always the best, the #1 as you can tell by my sig I support one such teams (Real Madrid) and when Real lost 5-1 (I think) the other day in the Kings cup playing mostly subs and obviously giving little of what they are capable, people came out laughing and having a kick, saying that their best days were past them and so forth......I cant get away from that as I'm sure neither can you....I hate the Lakers with a passion and when I see them lose regardless of the circumstance I am quick to put them in the grave that I've dug ahead of time and burry them without a check of vital signs........

Now on a more serious note. With America it seems people world wide are taking out their understandable frustration with American POLICY and transforming it into this all out bandwagon, its the country you love to hate, its the in-thing to do, this is the time to pull out all the stops and pull out all the dirty laundry you can find, and I think that is simply wrong and misguided

Originally posted by KingPaulV
Now on a more serious note. With America it seems people world wide are taking out their understandable frustration with American POLICY and transforming it into this all out bandwagon, its the country you love to hate, its the in-thing to do, this is the time to pull out all the stops and pull out all the dirty laundry you can find, and I think that is simply wrong and misguided

Hmm........

Personally, I am against this war, see rest of thread(s). I am not against the US. The administration is crap like all governments in some, well actually most areas, yet is the best we can muster in this society. There are things wrong, but it is pointed out in this thread, because it is about the Bush war campaign, so other topics come up. I'm sure if a thread came out against Australian war policy other issues would rise, like asylum seekers and so on.

It's predominantly people opposed to war.

Originally posted by KingPaulV
Some of you "anti-war" guys really upset me, as an American as a member of the armed forces, and as someone who is against the way the administration is handling this war and the country (Is no wonder I voted for Gore;). But this has turned from informed, cultured and active dissent into an all out bash-party against anything America has done throughout its history.....

Not again. Really, this is getting too much. Seems like all you people can come up with to back off our claims is the accusation of an anti-american bandwagon. That accustion is false. You go back and, among the dozens of posts this and other threads have, collect the examples of anti-americanism and post them here. Lets see how anti-american we really are.
Yes, I think we might have talked about the USA's recent past, but, at least me, was to prove points like Rumsfeld being Saddam's buddy in the 80s.



Originally posted by KingPaulV
no it hasn't been all good a lot has been wrong but I promise you I could go pick up a neutral history of any of your countries and find the same things in different eras, different people........

Of course you could, but does that give US the right to do whatever they want? Does that mean we have to shut up and let you wage all the wars that you want? Besides, this is the present, a war on Iraq, promoted by the US and England. But if you want to pick up a neutral history of any of our countries then please go ahead.



Originally posted by KingPaulV
I was reading that anti-anti-american thread and what also jumps at me is the triviality of most things which are posted there, the simple fact that most of that is things which hold no real importance puts me in doubt as the honesty of the people who wrote those things....(not all the people thought)

Granted, there are exceptions to everything and not for nothing but this guy INFESTA although sometimes, he gets a little feisty for me he does seem genuine and for the most part informed in his discent, sadly I cannot say that for most "anti-war" supporters here or anywhere for that matter.

If you doubt ou honesty, then this is the last reply you'll get from me.
Yes, some things do seem trivial (and probably are), like the NBA or the movies, but if you had paused a moment to reflect on them, you'd have showed us how smart you are, by reaching the conclusion that these 'trivialities' are, in fact, important parts of your culture, that have been impregnated on us since we were kids. That's the kind of things that make you love a country.
What did you expect us to say anyway? How we love Bush and Reagan!?
That is probably why we're all so frustrated with Bush and those who support him, because this is a major disappointment. It doesn't fit the glorious Hollywood movies we were fed since we were kids.

Not again. Really, this is getting too much. Seems like all you people can come up with to back off our claims is the accusation of an anti-american bandwagon. That accustion is false. You go back and, among the dozens of posts this and other threads have, collect the examples of anti-americanism and post them here. Lets see how anti-american we really are.

Well, this thread has over four pages, but I'll be glad to make a nice little collection of anti-american rethoric mascaraded behind sensible dissent. You're just gonna pick up another stunning come back and say "well no that REALLY isint anti-american", but I'll do it for the hell of it, next time I post...cause I will also look thru the other 10 or so threads in here, so you knock yourself out ok?





Of course you could, but does that give US the right to do whatever they want? Does that mean we have to shut up and let you wage all the wars that you want? Besides, this is the present, a war on Iraq, promoted by the US and England. But if you want to pick up a neutral history of any of our countries then please go ahead.


OK....I see you're in need of history lessons, then I shall find out a little dirty laundry from your country if that's what you want. I was just trying to make a point obviously you wanna take it further.....Portugal right?...let me get my thinking cap on and show you a few things in a while


Yes, some things do seem trivial (and probably are), like the NBA or the movies, but if you had paused a moment to reflect on them, you'd have showed us how smart you are, by reaching the conclusion that these 'trivialities' are, in fact, important parts of your culture, that have been impregnated on us since we were kids. That's the kind of things that make you love a country.

Hummm.....since when do you get off question the intelligence of someone you dont even know and who has threated you with some respect?. Good way to start things off.... Secondly, is that my fault that you decided to pick Trivial, yes, Trivial things to like about my country?. Rather it is a show of your intelligence that you could not see a nation for things others than movies an music. In another thread somewhere in here an American said he embraced Australian culture and he mentioned......*gasp* Beer, and Movies! as a demonstration of his embracing the culture, yet he was bombarded and bashed to the ground for being........*gasp* trivial, yet you can all sit there and pick out ridiculous unimportant stuff to like and say that is a true measure of recognizing a countries accomplishment.... No mention of the people, the real culture, and the good parts of the history....of course not, you and I know there is a bias here and a lens that changes perception slightly in these boards anyway.......one when looking at Americans and one were looking at the rest of Western sentiment......



and as someone who is against the way the administration is handling this war and the country (Is no wonder I voted for Gore

You didn't catch that did you?........I didn't think you would. That's a problem when your perception is blinded and you see what you wanna see. If you had taken a second to reflect, you would have clearly seen that we had more common ground than at first aparent, I am against bashing a nation because of what its president is doing, I never said I was in favor of a war.


BTW the requested info is coming up!

Originally posted by KingPaulV
Well, this thread has over four pages, but I'll be glad to make a nice little collection of anti-american rethoric mascaraded behind sensible dissent. You're just gonna pick up another stunning come back and say "well no that REALLY isint anti-american", but I'll do it for the hell of it, next time I post...cause I will also look thru the other 10 or so threads in here, so you knock yourself out ok?


OK....I see you're in need of history lessons, then I shall find out a little dirty laundry from your country if that's what you want. I was just trying to make a point obviously you wanna take it further.....Portugal right?...let me get my thinking cap on and show you a few things in a while

Ok. Go get it, tiger! :D


Originally posted by KingPaulV
Hummm.....since when do you get off question the intelligence of someone you dont even know and who has threated you with some respect?. Good way to start things off.... Secondly, is that my fault that you decided to pick Trivial, yes, Trivial things to like about my country?. Rather it is a show of your intelligence that you could not see a nation for things others than movies an music. In another thread somewhere in here an American said he embraced Australian culture and he mentioned......*gasp* Beer, and Movies! as a demonstration of his embracing the culture, yet he was bombarded and bashed to the ground for being........*gasp* trivial, yet you can all sit there and pick out ridiculous unimportant stuff to like and say that is a true measure of recognizing a countries accomplishment.... No mention of the people, the real culture, and the good parts of the history....

You seem like you didn't read what I wrote. It may seem trivial, but it's not - it's your country's culture. It's the Californication, the influence you have on the rest of the world. That's what changed our lives.
I think it's very anti-american of you to say your culture is trivial.
I wonder what you would say if we had a similar thread, but about my country or NZ instead. Would you talk about our culture, people and accomplishments? Do you know any of it?
But then again, and like you said, you better get your thinking cap first and answer after.


Originally posted by KingPaulV
You didn't catch that did you?........I didn't think you would. That's a problem when your perception is blinded and you see what you wanna see. If you had taken a second to reflect, you would have clearly seen that we had more common ground than at first aparent, I am against bashing a nation because of what its president is doing, I never said I was in favor of a war.


Of course I read that part and understood it. Please don't measure me with your scale. ;)
As you might remember, I made no comments about your political choices. I didn't say anything about Bush and his politics; I only stood against your attacks on our 'anti-americanism'.
If you come here unfairly attacking me and some others, you're going to get a reply. It doesn't matter if you're not in favour of a war, just like I am. This is a different issue, although born on something we apparently share equal ideas.

I also am against bashing a nation for whatever its president is doing. That's why I hate people coming up here and accusing me of such, especially when we already stated our views a milion times before!


Oh, and I'm still waiting for your answer on these:

"Of course you could, but does that give US the right to do whatever they want? Does that mean we have to shut up and let you wage all the wars that you want? Besides, this is the present, a war on Iraq, promoted by the US and England. But if you want to pick up a neutral history of any of our countries then please go ahead."

Don't you think those answers are more pertinent than your efforts to divert our attention on my country's wrong doings, 500 years ago?

Dude you don't get it...all the political things are directed to Bush. Fortunately Bush is not the hole US, so call it Anti Bush, but not Anti-American.

I hate Bush, not the American people.

And you don't have to show me things 'bout Germany's history :rolleyes:

While our King Paul the Fourth is looking for Portugal's dirty laundry (and all you needed was asking me, King. I would save you the time.), I'm going to talk about the recent:

Anti-French Bandwagon in (some) the US Media

While we're all discussing here whether we're a bunch of evil posters with a knack for 'anti-american rethoric mascaraded behind sensible dissent' or not, some US media have been less modest to admit their lack of empathy for countries like France and Germany.
The 'New York Post', yes, I know it's a tabloid, but people read it, don't they? The 'New York Post', I was saying, called Germany and France 'weasels' in one of its latest covers.
Later that day, Fox News showed the NYP's cover, which was particularly saluted by carefully hand-picked guests.
Even the 'Wall Street Journal' is marching on the Anti-France sentiment, with its latest editorials.
Back to the Fox News, Bill O'Reilly raised the suspicion that France is led by anti-semitism. If good old Bill said it, I think he has to be right.




Meanwhile, I found an article on the Guardian that talks about this anti-europe wave some US press has been surfing lately. Check it out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4603098,00.html


And KingPaulV, this is what anti-
insert-name-of-country sounds like:

In the Wall Street Journal, Christopher Hitchens described Jacques Chirac as "a positive monster of conceit _ the abject procurer for Saddam ... the rat that tried to roar". In the Washington Post, George Will opined that the "oily" foreign affairs minister, Dominique de Villepin, had launched France into "an exercise for which France has often refined its savoir-faire since 1870, which is to say retreat - this time into incoherence".
The Wall Street Journal editor, Max Boot, argues: "France has been in decline since, oh, about 1815, and it isn't happy about it." What particularly galls the Gauls is that their rightful place in the world has been usurped by the gauche Americans." An ad, due to come out soon, shows three German-made cars, including an Audi and a BMW, driving towards the camera with a voice saying: "Do you really want to buy a German car?" The "petulant prima donna of realpolitik" is leading the "axis of weasels", in "a chorus of cowards". It is an unholy alliance of "wimps" and ingrates which includes one country that is little more than a "mini-me minion", another that is in league with Cuba and Libya, with a bunch of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" at the helm.

EDIT: Sorry about that 'intelligence' comment. It's just that we're all so sick and tired of being called anti-americans when we're not.
I hope you retract yourself from that comment on our honesty.

I can live as a weasel.
I guess it's the patriotism. Who's not for us is against us. And then they start to bashing their "enemy".

Look I'm at work right now, and I cant get into the kind of discussion I would like to get into but I think its important that before you start ripping me apart you take a chance to understand where I am coming from.....I am not calling YOU personally evil and treacherous and anti-american, I said so earlier........what I am calling for is a re-focusing of the oposition, if you wanna make a difference you cannot make one by pointing out every wrong thing the American government has done over the past half century (plenty if I say so myself)...........

I was not born in the United States, but I came here at an early age, and for one reason or another I have learned to embrace this country with open arms and I am not ashamed of it regardless, however I think you will not find a more level headed person about this than myself....I have travelled, a lot, thankfully and I have been to most of western Europe, (xcept maybe Andorra and Luxemburg) and as a matter of fact I have lots of family in Germany, in Italy and Spain, I love Belgium, and I learned German (some) and planning on learning Italian, I am a big fan of European history (part of my major) and I love the overall culture and richness of the continent. So if you think I hate Europeans as well I dont, If you think I am uninformed about the rest of the world and that I live in my little American Coccoon I dont. But prescisely because I 've been to so many places I can honestly appreciate the goodness of this land and I that's why I will defend it.....So I invite a healty opposition to what "The Bush" is doing but I cannot condone negativism directed towards America....When some American comes out with facts many jump and say Propaganda, otherwise is a fact, when someone says Bush is Hitler is all cute and funny when someone says Europeans are evil its outrage.....and I honestly think that in order to have worthwhile debate here the lines of sepparation need to be drawn more clearly

As far as France goes......sadly to say I agree with the Post. Not Germany, they seem genuine to me, but the French, after studying their history repeatedly I can't say too many nice things about their foreign policy procedures, it tags along with the public sentiment too closely making it lack objectivity.........for more on that just read above what I wrote about French foreign policy.......


But regardless I accept your apology and I retire what I said as well.

Bush is an idiot. It's that simple. He's spending $40 BILLION dollars to put troops in Turkey. $40 Billion!!! Now not only does he want to invade Iraq, along with occupying Afghanistan, but he wants to invade the Phillipines too, to try to weeed out Al-Quaida. I think the whole situation is religion based. Bush is a strong willed christian who is to dumb to listen to other sides of issues. There had been fighting in the mid east since the dawn of time. It will never end, we're just muddying the waters even more. Perhaps if we took a diplomatic approach to Saddam...granted he is doing terrible things, there is no reason for bloodshed.

War in Iraq: Blood for Oil.

On a similar note, N. Korea has missles that can reach the western coast of the US!!!!!! We have missles that can reach them, too!!!! Should we be punished as well??? WHY IS AMERICA TRYING TO IMPOSE IT'S WILL ALL OVER THE WORLD??? What happened to isolationism? It worked well after WW I!!!!!!

After 9/11 I was more patriotic then I will ever be. I seriously thought about joining my high school ROTC. I see how far my country has come in a year, and i'm disgusted. As Americans we should be ashamed of what our administration is doing.

QUOTE
After 9/11 I was more patriotic then I will ever be. I seriously thought about joining my high school ROTC. I see how far my country has come in a year, and i'm disgusted. As Americans we should be ashamed of what our administration is doing. [/B][/QUOTE]

Its a horrible feeling when you feel so dissapointed with your Government.I for one know that.You feel betrayed, and the more they try to reason with you the angrier you feel.After 9/11 most of the world would have united in the fight for peace...I cant believe we were on the verge of this and as usual they blew it.Now theres more barriers than ever. Bugatti,at least your'e not on your own...there are millions of us worldwide...Any critisism directed at the States is directed at Bush and Co and not the American people...80% of the people of the UK dont want war,but are our leaders interested in that? No Blair has shafted us all and i cant believe i voted for the scumbag....AAARRRGGGHHH

I think we're all sick of war. It's been a year in Afghanistan. A long, expensive, boloody year, and all we did was overthrow a regime on the verge or collapsing anyway. Iraq will be no better. Even if we get Saddam, which we won't, we'll install some puppet government. This will cause even more dissent towards westerners. It's like we're ASKING for terrorism. I think terrorism is bred from social inequality, not religion. USA goes in, and tries to take over a land and culture that they care nothing about. I'd be bitter too. If a competent president was almost impeached for fooling around with an intern, shouldn't an incompetent president be impeached for being an idiot? If he gets reelected in 2004, i'm moving to England (H) . He won't get my vote...

Originally posted by KingPaulV
Some of you "anti-war" guys really upset me, as an American as a member of the armed forces, and as someone who is against the way the administration is handling this war and the country (Is no wonder I voted for Gore;). But this has turned from informed, cultured and active dissent into an all out bash-party against anything America has done throughout its history.....no it hasn't been all good a lot has been wrong but I promise you I could go pick up a neutral history of any of your countries and find the same things in different eras, different people........

Now on a more serious note. With America it seems people world wide are taking out their understandable frustration with American POLICY and transforming it into this all out bandwagon, its the country you love to hate, its the in-thing to do, this is the time to pull out all the stops and pull out all the dirty laundry you can find, and I think that is simply wrong and misguided

A preliminary note:
Well, I didn't think I would be back so soon...but with 1. the response to my complaint post, and 2. the formation of a politics forum, it looks like I may hopefully have made my point. Thanks to those who replied to my thread, and also sorry if I did it in a manner that annoyed anyone, but sometimes things need to come to a head, and like Evan said, my style is not to be backward in coming forward. Yes we should be pleased that for the most part, the mods do an excellent job, and if it weren't for them, there would be no forum. But the flipside is, if there are no posters and users in any numbers, then there is also no forum. Just look at soccered. Special thanks to Hugo also, a man who gets things done.

Now, I feel I have to reply to some of your comments there KPV.

About the airing of dirty laundry from US history. Now I may be mistaken, but most of the history that has been spoken about on these boards has tended to be focused on US foreign policy in the middle east of the last 20 years or so. Now you may not see this as particularly relevant, but I do, because it penetrates the current situation on many levels. At the most basic level, the main political actors that occupy positions of power in the US administration are the same guys who were there in the 1980's during the Iraq-Iran war. Just because they have not held those positions for a number of years does not mean that they start anew with a clean slate. Their historical dealings with Iraq in general (in terms of oil and weapons deals) and Saddam in particular, are very important in understanding the reasons for the current situation. (I could go on about the connections with Osama, but that can wait).

Secondly, I would just like to point out the fact that the recent worldwide protests, the biggest in history, and amazing considering that there hasn't even been a fullscale war yet, are not simply about anti-americanism, or even anti-Bush, or even anti-US foreign policy. To see it as only that is to oversimplify the matter completely and buy into Bushs argument that this is a question of taking sides. In my opinion, the levels of dissatisfaction go much wider than those things. I really don't think that the US should take the protests so personally. Yes, the anti-Bush/US foreign policy is an important component that cannot be ignored. But I really think that last weeks demonstrations were a movement against war in general, an airing of grievances that embraced a generalised dissatisfaction with the direction of global politics. It is no surprise that the largest protests occurred in those places where the governments are most in favour of a war. And we saw demonstrations that bridged the normal barriers of religion, of class, etc. People are simply sick to death of violence as an answer to global problems. People are sick to death of being treated as imbeciles by their governments, they can see that the evidence presented for a war on Iraq thus far is lame and unconvincing, they are sick to death of being told that their leaders know best. Because people know from experience that their leaders are not always right.

Thirdly, as for your comments about the history of other nations involved, e.g. France, well, I don't think you would be offering anything new to most of the people here. And I really don't think a tit-for-tat debate adds anything, as we have seen from Rumsfelds misguided comments about 'old' europe, which may make for a nice (albeit childish) soundbite, but does nothing to diminish the fact that France carry a veto on the UN security council. Regarding France and the UN more generally, well I have pointed out many times here that the motivation for French, German and Russian opposition to war are not pure. All three have alot at stake regarding the geopolitical consequences of an invasion of Iraq. The Russians could watch their economy slide if cheap crude floods the global market. The germans have fostered and nurtured a number of economic ties with Iraq over the previous decade. And the French have their own oil contracts with Iraq that are awaiting the end of the sanctions, but would be null and void if an invasion takes place. Add to this the fact that Chirac wants to go down in history as a great statesman, and sees the current situation as an opportunity to make his mark (also look at the fact that France is trying to increase its influence, note the recent African Leaders Summit that was hosted by Chirac). And add to this the fact that France and Germany are determined to build a European Union that can operate as a new 'superpower' in place of the void that was left after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (and has consequently allowed for the US attempt at unilateralism we are witnessing). So you can see that I do not regard the situation as a simple matter of choosing sides based on anti-american sentiment, because both sides have their vested interests. Indeed, if it were France proposing war on Iraq, and the US against it, then I would be siding with the US. I, like many people, just cannot see the justification for a war between the most technologically aadvanced military force the world has seen, and a nation that has been crippled by sanctions and continual air strikes on their military capabilities.

And finally, people everywhere feel betrayed. In a little under a year and a half, George Bush and his band of merry men have completely and utterly destroyed the global goodwill and sympathy that existed in the time after September 11. And the protests were as much about that betrayal than anything else. Yes, many people could see that the US had become a victim of its history (FACT). But this did not diminish in any way the feelings that people had. But now, people feel that those same feelings of solidarity against terrorism have been betrayed, they have been used as an excuse to pursue other agendas that have nothing to do with a war on terror. People simply do not buy into the argument that they will be safer if Iraq is invaded. Even the most pro-US government in the Middle East (not counting Israel), the Kuwaiti government, qualify their statements. Yes, the Iraqi people will undoubtedly be pleased to see the end of Saddam and the presence of forces that remove him, BUT as the Kuwaitis are quick to point out, only if their presence lasts for a few months. Now, this is not likely to happen. The people of Iraq will want the opportunity to choose their own leaders, not the installation of a puppet regime that has its strings pulled in Washington. People there know that thier suffering under UN sanctions has occurred for the most part as a result of US and UK decisions to maintain them, despite proposals from other governments to have them removed because of the fact that they have hurt the civilian population, not Saddam. And Osama, the real nemesis of the US regime, is ready to pounce. And that should be very frightening indeed.

So to sum up, I can see the points you are trying to make, but I think that in your efforts to criticise the people that oppose war as 'trivial', then you have also been complicit in oversimplifying the foundations of that opposition. We can't just take things at face value. The current situation is extremely complex and its resolution will have longlasting consequnces for the future global balnce of power. And in order to understand the motivations of the characters, regimes and movements at play in this game, an understanding of the history that has led to it is definitely necessary. I could keep writing on any of the issues I have raised here, from the political actors through to the future of the UN, but again that can wait, but hopefully I have made my point.

:)

Aaron comes back........... with style :o

The Saddam and George show

Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein's challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened had they met

Tuesday February 25, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,902793,00.html

Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you.
Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN, one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout the world.

Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today's debate we may find some common ground between the Iraqi people's commitment to peace and human progress and America's desire to destroy the Middle East.

Bush: Do I answer that?

Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links with al-Qaida?

Bush: I do not.

Blair: The question is for President Saddam.

Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I have no such links.

Bush: Neither do I.

Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would win?

Bush: That's easy. America, right?

Saddam: Even I knew that one.

Bush: That's because the great United American States of America are on the side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis? Three?

Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you like.

Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.

Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil.

Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?

Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders?

Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we are happy to comply, even though these non-existent weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I've tested them myself, and we don't have any.

Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to reach a negotiated solution?

Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend.

Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

Saddam: OK.

Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe.

Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming" according to the OED.

Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.

Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.

Bush: Too late.

Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of 'Demands a Sushi'?

Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all.

Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option?

Blair: I'd like to remind everyone at home that the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows after the break.

Read this, I will try to find a summary/transcript of what he said on the 60 Minutes, it was some really interesting stuff....

Interviews: Hussein Shahristani
February 23, 2003
Reporter :Jana Wendt

The man who was ordered to build a nuclear bomb for Saddam Hussein, Dr Hussein Shahristani, talks to Jana Wendt about the Iraqi dictator and his weapons arsenal now.

TRANSCRIPT

JANA WENDT: It takes a brave Iraqi to say no to Saddam Hussein, especially when you’re a scientist being ordered to build him a nuclear bomb. That’s exactly what Hussein Shahristani did in 1979. Dr Shahristani was then chief of the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission. For refusing to help Saddam develop his weapons of mass destruction he was tortured and thrown into jail for more than a decade. Dr Shahristani eventually escaped from Iraq in 1991, during the chaos following the Gulf War.He maintains a network of contacts inside Iraq. Dr Shahristani agreed to this interview from our studio in London.

Dr Shahristani, thank you very much for joining Sunday. What do your contacts tell you about whether Saddam does or does not have chemical or biological weapons?

DR HUSSEIN SHAHRISTANI: I believe that he does have some remaining quantities of his chemical and biological arsenal. He may not have as much as he had in the 1990s. He ... just before he allowed the inspectors in he managed to get rid of some of that material, particularly at areas that have been known to the inspectors, and they could have been visited again, but he is keeping some quantities deep underground and on mobile units.

WENDT: So the suggestion by the French recently, for instance, that the number of inspectors should be tripled ... does that make any sense to you?

DR SHAHRISTANI: I don’t think it would lead to any great discoveries. As I said, Saddam has mastered his deception tactics, and concealment tactics. He has ... we know he has some deep underground storage areas and tunnel systems, that cannot be easily detected by satellite imagery, and he has fermentors — these are small equipment that can produce germs, and they are mounted on mobile trucks identical to the trucks that are on the road in Iraq distributing food and carrying goods.

WENDT: So from what you know, what kind of damage could Saddam inflict, with the kind of chemical and biological weapons that you believe he has?

DR SHAHRISTANI: Well, if he decides to use his chemical or biological arsenal against the Iraqi people, and he has a track record of doing so — he has used his chemical weapons against the Iraqis in the north in 1988, and he has used limited amounts in quashing the uprising of 1991 in the south. If Saddam feels he can stop this war by inflicting very high civilian casualties on the Iraqi population by using his chemical weapons he will not hesitate to do so.

WENDT:But when you say this would be a means of stopping the war — inflicting large casualties on the Iraqi people — how would that stop any war?

DR SHAHRISTANI: He will think that if the international media could show that there are tens of thousands of Iraqis — civilian Iraqis — dead on the streets, in a number of cities, he can get the world opinion to demonstrate to end this war that’s causing such a high civilian casualty, and the war is ended then to avoid any further civilian casualties, he will consider himself to have won the war, regardless of how many Iraqi lives we have lost, or what damage has taken place in Iraq.

WENDT: Dr Shahristani, you dealt personally with Saddam Hussein. How do you think that his mind is working at the moment? How do you think he is dealing with the kind of pressure that he surely must be under right now?

DR SHAHRISTANI: I think he realises the seriousness of the situation, and his limited chances of surviving this confrontation. I think he will think his only hope of ... of surviving it is to shield himself will millions of Iraqis. He will try to fight the war in Baghdad, and not outside Baghdad. There he has four million Iraqis in a, you know, highly concentrated, geographically.

WENDT: I haven’t asked you yet, of course, about your own specialty — that is the nuclear field. Now, you were asked specifically by Saddam Hussein to develop a nuclear bomb for him. Is that correct?

DR SHAHRISTANI: Yes. I mean, it was made clear to us at the Atomic Energy Board as soon as Saddam became ... appointed, rather, himself President, in 1979, that they wanted us to stop our research on peaceful applications and concentrate on what they called strategic applications — to develop a nuclear bomb.

WENDT: And what did he say to you about his intentions with that nuclear bomb?

DR SHAHRISTANI: He was not very direct himself at the beginning, but as I mentioned earlier, he did send his step-brother to me, and he said very clearly that they need the bomb to reshape the map of the Middle East. This was early summer of 1980, even before Saddam had started his war against Iran.

WENDT: Now, Dr Shahristani, you were tortured by Saddam Hussein’s Government. Can you tell me something about the treatment that was meted out to you in those days of torture?

DR SHAHRISTANI: I was hanged from my hand tied in the back to the ceiling and high voltage props were used on the sensitive parts of the body, and I was beaten. But they were careful with me not to leave permanent marks on my body. I could hear other people in the cells nearby being tortured, and later I saw them in their chambers — in the torture chambers. They were using electric saws to chop off fingers, toes, hands, feet. They were drilling holes into people’s bones. They were using hot iron on their bodies. They were bringing their children and wives were right in front of the victims, and children sometimes were tortured to death in front of fathers to extract confessions from them.

WENDT: With that horrendous experience, we now are at a point in the world where it appears that there will be an attack on Iraq. Do you support that attack?

DR SHAHRISTANI: No, I do not support an attack on Iraq. I think it’s utterly unjust for the Iraqi people to put them in one box with the regime of Saddam and call that Iraq, and then direct sanctions against them, or attack them. I think the war should be focused on Saddam’s power base, on his elite republican guards, on his security apparatus, on his party headquarters, presidential palaces, and spare the Iraqi people yet further suffering.

WENDT: And when you talk to United States and British officials, as I know you do, are they hearing that message that you’re delivering to us now?

DR SHAHRISTANI: Yes. I mean, they hear it.They assure us that they are looking very carefully into their plans of action, and they are paying great attention to details — how to avoid civilian casualties, or damage to the infrastructure. However, quite frankly their record, at least in Afghanistan, doesn’t show that they have been very successful in targeting, and there has been fairly large collateral ... what they call collateral damage. And we hope not to see similar situation in Iraq.

WENDT: Finally, let me ask you this — we have seen millions of people marching in the streets, the capital cities of many countries around the world. Our Prime Minister John Howard has been attacked in recent days for claiming that these marches were only giving support to Saddam Hussein. Is he right or is he wrong?

DR SHAHRISTANI: The Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam. They’ve been killed en masse over 30 years now. And for the Iraqi people, there is no option but to see Saddam removed to put an end to their suffering. And for the peace marchers to demand a stop to the war without following it up with practical ways of helping the Iraqi people to get rid of this dictator, and save them from further atrocities by the regime I think they are stopping short of helping the Iraqi people.

WENDT: So, but just quickly, do you think that those peace marchers around the world did give comfort to Saddam Hussein?

DR SHAHRISTANI: They do give comfort to Saddam Hussein. I mean, Saddam Hussein will seize any opportunity to ... to further his cause, and his plan. To stay in power and control the Iraqi people, as he has always been doing.
So in a way Saddam will be benefitting from them unless these marches can really turn into a demand to remove Saddam from power in Iraq without using excessive force.

WENDT: Doctor Shahristani, I very much appreciate your time. We must leave it there.

DR SHAHRISTANI: Thank you for the opportunity.

WENDT: Iraqi scientist, Dr Hussein Shahristani.

Originally posted by K-Man
DR SHAHRISTANI: No, I do not support an attack on Iraq. I think it’s utterly unjust for the Iraqi people to put them in one box with the regime of Saddam and call that Iraq, and then direct sanctions against them, or attack them. I think the war should be focused on Saddam’s power base, on his elite republican guards, on his security apparatus, on his party headquarters, presidential palaces, and spare the Iraqi people yet further suffering.

DR SHAHRISTANI: They do give comfort to Saddam Hussein. I mean, Saddam Hussein will seize any opportunity to ... to further his cause, and his plan. To stay in power and control the Iraqi people, as he has always been doing.
So in a way Saddam will be benefitting from them unless these marches can really turn into a demand to remove Saddam from power in Iraq without using excessive force.

2 key quotes from this piece (cheers K).

And in a way, they are very much tied together. Because from my experience anyway, this is what the people who have marched against this war have argued themselves. Not much attention is given to the fact that the marchers do not oppose the removal of Saddam, they oppose the methods that have been suggested. I mean, how can we take the assurances that civilian casualties will be avoided, when it is gleefully reported how the US will unleash 800 or whatever it was cruise missiles on the first day of conflict? And everyone knows that the sanctions have been maintained at the behest of the UK and US governments, despite the fact that the civilians have suffered most from their implementation.

If our 'leaders' would only listen to the demands of their people that there are alternatives to all-out war to resolve this issue, and the media started doing their job and following up this demand.

Of course there will be civilian casualties, and plenty of them. In fact, the Pentagon no doubt has an estimated body count for almost every category (american soldiers, iraqi civilians, etc.). Unfortunately by releasing this information to the public they can't further their case for war. If only the people were fully informed, like people should be in an actual democracy.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :hump: That was great!!!!!

Turkey imports 10% of its oil requirements from Iraq.

Until today.

Oil transporters that regularly cross the border have just been ceased.

Me thinks...that this...means war...is coming...for sure.

:(

I'm afraid, the case for war, is getting stronger, and stronger.

:(

Hey man, I didn't know this thread was running, I never saw it update.......weird......


Anyway, Rhizome.......great reply to my questioning. I actually agree with you 100% and finally someone who oposes war with intelligence has sprung forth!!...thank you for explaining yourself so clearly



I just felt I had to point out a couple of things. The Sadam/Bush debate was absolutelly hilarious!!! and on another note in case you guys didn't know:

- Today Russia and China have moved closer to the US position, apparently Bush & Co. has obtained a guarantee from the Russians at least that they would not Veto any US resolution in the UN.

-Also Mexico, thru its president Vicente Fox, voiced that it is ready to side with the US if it is clear to them that the council would support a second resolution. Mexico is a current member of the security council.

-Spain who has a lot of diplomatic clout with Chile has also hinted that the Chileans might vote in favor of a second resolution

-Further, Saddam & Co. have "found" a couple more bombs, one of these said to possibly contain biological agents. It is presumed that these moves are aimed at shifting attention from the fact that he does not intent in the least to destroy any of the Al-Samoud (spelling might be wrong) missiles by Saturday's deadline. Should he fail to do so, it is likely that a US led resolution will pass with ease in the security council.




Finally, on a more personal comment. I think it should be clear that regardless of this new resolution passing the United States will go to war against Iraq. Why?, simply because Bush has said that according to him the authority he needed to go to war was given to him by way of the first resolution, and regardless of what happens with the second resolution he said he does not expect his plans to change....

Also, another guy somewhere made a comment about Isolation following World War I which was simply and obsolutely uninformed. Isolation after World War I was one of the gravest mistakes of American Foreign policy during the 20th century. Had the American congress ratified the Treaty of Versailles (however flawed it was) and had they also ratified the charter that created the league of Nations, arguably, World War II could have been averted.

Originally posted by KingPaulV

Today Russia and China have moved closer to the US position, apparently Bush & Co. has obtained a guarantee from the Russians at least that they would not Veto any US resolution in the UN.

Finally, on a more personal comment. I think it should be clear that regardless of this new resolution passing the United States will go to war against Iraq. Why?, simply because Bush has said that according to him the authority he needed to go to war was given to him by way of the first resolution, and regardless of what happens with the second resolution he said he does not expect his plans to change....



It would not surprise me in the slightest if the Russians moved closer towards the US position. In my opinion, they were only holding out and appearing to support the Fraco-German proposal to extract as much from the US as possible, much the same as Turkey has done. If the US can guarantee that the Russian economy will not be adversely affected by the increased oil production that is likely to flow after an occupation of Iraq, then the Russians are on side. As for the Chinese, well ever since 9/11 the US admin have been remarkably quiet on the subject of China and human rights abuses. Again, there is something for China to gain in supporting the US on this one. Plus it gived them room to move on the North Korea issue, which is of course far more important to the Chinese government and they would undoubtedly be heavily involved in any negotiations/ resolutions on that front.

As for whether or not Bush has decided to move on Iraq, well I think that decision was made, oh, about 5 or 6 years ago, if not before. People that are active in the current Admin, such as Perle and Rumsfeld, were actively lobbying the Clinton administration to tackle Iraq more forcefully. So the decsion to invade was made years ago, it was just a matter of 1. getting the 'right' people into positions of influence, and 2. waiting (or creating) the appropriate circumstances under which such an invasion could be justified. With Bush becoming president, they had 1., and with 9/11, they figured they had 2. as well.

And who knows, they could have pulled it off, and had everyone cheering them on, at home and abroad. But they stuffed up. In my opinion, where they stuffed up was not necessarily in terms of justifying an invasion, because the evidence would have been flimsy no matter what the circumstances. No, where they really stuffed up after 9/11 (although it was also happening prior to this), is that Iraq was not the only controversial issue they peddled. If they had simply stuck to Iraq, and didn't piss the rest of the world off by pulling out of environmental treaties and weapons pacts, and causing trouble in the In themselves, then they would probably not have engendered the fierce opposition that they have now encountered. i.e. they wanted their cake, and to eat it too. I guess this kind of expands on what I said in an earlier post about the anti-war movement being much more encompassing than it is often perceived.