Everything America does right now is shaped by the events of September 11, 2001, when four airliners were taken over by terrorists and three of them were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of innocent people. All those who had a knot in their guts and were shocked and infuriated, raise your hand and say, "Aye!"

Everything else - its relations with longtime allies, the decisions of the United Nations Security Council, trade disputes, the state of the stock market, jobless figures, or interest rates - is secondary.

This analysis is the best explanation as to why the US is willing to go to war with Saddam Hussein, even though many of its traditional allies are not. George Bush and his advisors have determined that Hussein has many links to terrorists, and they are probably correct. Certainly, Saddam has no love for the US after the Persian Gulf War and any organization that sees the US as a "Great Satan" would likely get a warm reception from him.

And that is why America will leave no stone unturned in its search for terrorists, enemies that are for more difficult to identify or track down than any specific country or leader.

This single-minded determination will hurt US allies, as long as their leaders are determined to keep their distance from the US and not "get involved."

If you cannot support what America is doing now and will continue to do to free the world of terrorists, stop for a moment and remember those who died and had no chance to voice their opinions. And if they could have foreseen their futures on that morning of September 11, 2001, would they have raised their hands in support?

I am afraid this is to high brow for Helen, who will see the great satan side of it. She ignores what brought this about.

As she sees the slanted side of the news from her end of the world and swears that is the only view to be had.

Of course, Saddam has no WMD, which is why our troops have found chemical suits, gas masks, and anthropine injectors along with the military uniforums that the Iraqi soldiers have gladly exchanged for civilian clothes so that they may use the civilian populace for human shields. This will serve no pupose but to get other innocent civilians killed which will have her shouting once again how evil the Great Satan is. Why does this seem so one sided?

I have to tell you somethink: almost every day in whole world as many children dying from lack of water or food as died on 9.11. Every of these child had it’s father and mother who suffer much. But we, day after day do not realize this tragedy. Many of these cases are connected with economical conquer of west countries, therefore I’am angry when the 9.11 tragedy is still called as a reason for more and more tragedies in third world.
Why (Who gave you authorization to do so) you using victims to produce more victims. Or US victims are more valid than other countries ones?

oh comon not this 9/11 again.
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
This linking SH to OBL is a sick joke that insults the intellegence of anyone with a basic understanding of what these people represent.

These Irregular soldiers in Civillian clothes, a lot of them ARE civillian's have been classed irregular soldiers or terrorists, before the war it was well publicised that SH was giving out guns to all famillies and even schools showing little girls how to fire a gun, many of them took up on this to fight what they see as an invasion.
Many not to protect SH but for Iraq.

Chemical suits and anti-chemical warfare agents in a hospital, oh no, not that, anything but that, go down to any hospital in the USA and you probably have rooms full of that stuff.
In fact almost any modern nation will have this.

When this war is over and you find no WMD then what will they say i would like to know?
If they do find them then hey, Feel free to point at me and say i told you so.
If he has them and uses them well he really will commit suicide and give USA a reason not only for this war but to say i told you so we know best and go onto the next war saying they have a clean heart and most of American public will be falling in line behind them.
If he had them but didnt use them i guess you will say he would of one day...so i guess you are free to attack any country with possably WMD that may one day attack you then?
This is the very reason the Nuremberg trials for the Nazi's came to be, started and championed i may add by the USA.
The crime of Pre-emtive and Aggresive war.
Not to mention backing a man you consider mad and evil with WMD into a corner, who has not used them when you attacked last time and he DID have them, but this time only MAY have them, back him into a corner after winding him up for this long saying he is dead....this is the very picture of asking for shit to happen, maybe a lot of you want that to justify this war and the next and the next?

Btw Our boys over there have chemical suits and anti-chemical warfare agents as standard issue for this war..does this mean they have chemical WMD as well and intend to use them????

I also dont see how ignoring why you are the subject of so much hate and dealing with it, instead making a list of everyone you dont like, saying you are going to re-make the world in your favour and then make such a show of using overwhelming force on the first on that list against the will of the world, is going to make you safer or reduce terrorism, no matter how many regiems you overthrow or countries you bomb when you placate one country and leave to with a new government installed but an unhappy people and less opinion from the world if your track record is accurate and this will go on until something will snap and that will be WWIII

Originally posted by Chris63
I have to tell you somethink: almost every day in whole world as many children dying from lack of water or food as died on 9.11. Every of these child had it’s father and mother who suffer much. But we, day after day do not realize this tragedy. Many of these cases are connected with economical conquer of west countries, therefore I’am angry when the 9.11 tragedy is still called as a reason for more and more tragedies in third world.
Why (Who gave you authorization to do so) you using victims to produce more victims. Or US victims are more valid than other countries ones?

And also shouldnt the people who are the victims you claim are the reason you are doing this have a say, you say they have no voice but.

Survivors and relatives of victims are against this war "Not in my name".
But you ignore them and say we are doing this for you.
"War for peace"
You say you are doing this for the Iraqi people but the Iraqi people dont want you and fight against you but you ignore them and go on saying we know you want us really and your just scared of Saddam dont worry we will keep bombing you into liberation.

Originally posted by (Q)
All those who had a knot in their guts and were shocked and infuriated, raise your hand and say, "Aye!"


If you cannot support what America is doing now and will continue to do to free the world of terrorists, stop for a moment and remember those who died and had no chance to voice their opinions. And if they could have foreseen their futures on that morning of September 11, 2001, would they have raised their hands in support?

We were all “Shocked and Awed” by the 9/11 attacks. The most important thing we forgot to do is ask the question “WHY?”. WHY did 9/11 happen? WHY did those terrorist do what they did. The war mongers’ answer and the answer we gave all our children was “because they’re evil”. The American government and the media led us to believe that the devil just appeared out of thin air and 9/11 happened. Obviously, the reaction to that was to kill and destroy all “evil” things.
This whole thing (since 9/11) is as simple as that. The basis of any war-monger’s argument for the war is to eliminate “evil”. They think individuals such as Saddam or Bin Laden or governments are actually evil.

There are no “evil” people or governments. There are only evil acts triggered by previous evil acts.

Btw Our boys over there have chemical suits and anti-chemical warfare agents as standard issue for this war..does this mean they have chemical WMD as well and intend to use them???? Just thought that I'd point out that we have the suits in case the weapons are used against us. Last I knew, we use nukes, not sarin.

If you consider this war justified it seems to me that for consistency you should also consider the 9/11 attacks justified.
The same type of reasoning is behind both.

Chris63

almost every day in whole world as many children dying from lack of water or food as died on 9.11. Every of these child had it’s father and mother who suffer much. But we, day after day do not realize this tragedy. Many of these cases are connected with economical conquer of west countries therefore I’am angry when the 9.11 tragedy is still called as a reason for more and more tragedies in third world.

Before you continue this senseless rant, please clarify which non-communist, non-fascist, non-dictatorship regime, freedom hating, undemocratic, terrorist supporting third world countries you refer. And from that list, please indicate which countries are not provided massive aid and support from the US.

Then we’ll talk.

AYE!
:mad:

Dsdsds

WHY did those terrorist do what they did. The war mongers’ answer and the answer we gave all our children was “because they’re evil”. This whole thing (since 9/11) is as simple as that.

Your simplistic worldview of black and white is as ineffective as your argument.

There are no “evil” people or governments. There are only evil acts triggered by previous evil acts.

And people don’t kill people, guns and bullets do, right?

Psycho

oh comon not this 9/11 again.
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Gee, I don’t know… the support of terrorism, maybe? :rolleyes:

This linking SH to OBL is a sick joke that insults the intellegence of anyone with a basic understanding of what these people represent.

You would first have to have a basic understanding of what goes on outside your backyard, which quite apparently, you don’t.

When this war is over and you find no WMD then what will they say i would like to know?

The will say that they have eliminated another terrorist threat to the world and a murderous dictator to Iraq.

Feel free to point at me and say i told you so.

That is becoming a foregone conclusion.

The crime of Pre-emtive and Aggresive war.

And what of the crime of pre-emptive terrorism and the crime of sadistic murder and torture?

Btw Our boys over there have chemical suits and anti-chemical warfare agents as standard issue for this war..does this mean they have chemical WMD as well and intend to use them????

Stop beating yourself over the head with a stupid stick.

You say you are doing this for the Iraqi people but the Iraqi people dont want you and fight against you but you ignore them and go on saying we know you want us really and your just scared of Saddam dont worry we will keep bombing you into liberation.

Yes, the pictures of Iraqi people hugging the US soldiers as they cry with tears of joy is most liberating.

Jps

If you consider this war justified it seems to me that for consistency you should also consider the 9/11 attacks justified.
The same type of reasoning is behind both.

You’ll have to explain your line of reasoning – I don’t see the connection.

there is no evidence that al qaeda and iraq had any relations... to pin 9/11 on iraq is ridiculous...

And everyone forgets all the butts weve saved in the past. Wish we saved the reciept. We could demand them all back.

The attacks on 9/11 were motivated by attacks and offenses against the Muslim world by our government. Now our government is doing basically the same thing, but on a larger scale due to an attack on the US. If anything the reasoning behind 9/11 was more justified as the US really has done terrible things in the region(although the people in the WTC didn't), whereas Iraq has done nothing against the US.

the US just thinks it needs to be a global police force. the whole reason we're in iraqq is they didnt submit to complete inspection of their weapons. The fact that they were having their shit inspected was stupid in the first place. you'll never see the us or england, or france, or any other country splaying themselves open for inspection, so why should they? well they agreed to it, they shouldnt have signed the treaty if they wern't going to follow it, so they really deserve to have the shit kicked out of them, i guess you can relate it to a loan shark breaking your legs when you dont follow through with your obligations

I wish people would understand WE DONT GIVE A RAT'S PATOOTIE WHAT THEIR RELIGION IS!!! We only care how 1.you behave towards those residing in your country 2.you behave to us and 3.how you behave to our allies.
Help us out in our times of need and we will help you in return. Show something negative and we will show it right back. Kick us when were down and we kick back.

Saddam violated all 3 rules. He was bad to his own people, bad to us, and bad to our allies. France is straining one.

Jps

The attacks on 9/11 were motivated by attacks and offenses against the Muslim world by our government.

That is not quite the stupidest thing I’ve ever read, but it comes close.

If anything the reasoning behind 9/11 was more justified

You are one sick and twisted individual. Do not procreate.

Sycoindian

there is no evidence that al qaeda and iraq had any relations... to pin 9/11 on iraq is ridiculous...

I don’t remember anyone making that connection. However, Hussein does support terrorism and he does support Al Qaeda. He should be eliminated without prejudice.

Originally posted by Chris63
I have to tell you somethink: almost every day in whole world as many children dying from lack of water or food as died on 9.11. Every of these child had it’s father and mother who suffer much. But we, day after day do not realize this tragedy. Many of these cases are connected with economical conquer of west countries, therefore I’am angry when the 9.11 tragedy is still called as a reason for more and more tragedies in third world.
Why (Who gave you authorization to do so) you using victims to produce more victims. Or US victims are more valid than other countries ones?

I am afraid you are way off base. The western countries are pumping billions of dollars in aid in to these countries annually. The problem is rather, that they are clutching onto the failed system of communism. Which is the major source of poverty. When a capitalistic system is finally installed wealth will be created, and even out. A second major problem is the egomaniac dictators that are running these countries. Once democracy is installed, there will be greater stability.

that doesnt make any sense, theres just as many people under the pverty line in the united states, theres not a uiniversal higher standard of living in the united states, here the few still get wealthy, and the majority are poor, capitalism isnt a bringer of wealth, its just a different way to have the same bullshit around

Originally posted by (Q)


This analysis is the best explanation as to why the US is willing to go to war with Saddam Hussein, even though many of its traditional allies are not. George Bush and his advisors have determined that Hussein has many links to terrorists, and they are probably correct. Certainly, Saddam has no love for the US after the Persian Gulf War and any organization that sees the US as a "Great Satan" would likely get a warm reception from him.

And that is why America will leave no stone unturned in its search for terrorists, enemies that are for more difficult to identify or track down than any specific country or leader.





The saddest thing about what is going on now, is that in this country citizens like you actually believe that garbage. How is that possible? Do you only watch FOX News?

9/11 did not do anything with Bush's aggresive and immoral actions.. Stop being that naive please..

lets talk about some economy..

for the last 50 years, in world markets, dollar talks.. and only Federal Reserve (which consists from Jewish bankers- another excuse to protect Israel) USA can publish it. for example, if Germany, China or another country wants to buy something which costs 50 billion $, they have to give something which will equal to this amount.. but if america wants to buy something from abroad, they just simply publish dollars..

amerika did that for the last 50 years, without putting equal value of gold, published dollars..and today, american economy is faced with 2500 billion $ budgetary deficit..and according to Bush's economists, this amount will be 3500 billion $ in the next 3 years..

as long as dollar stays as the king of the world markets, this is not gonna be a problem..US continues to publish money whenever he needs.

but here is the problem;

at 11/06/2000 Iraq is decided to become a OPEC member and decided to sell his oil using EURO instead of dollar.. THAT WAS SADDAM'S BIGGEST MISTAKE.. after Iraq, Iran and Syria prepared to use Euro as well..and all world countries (including Venezuella-who has %7 of world oil reserves,Russia,China etc..) decided to follow Iraq..and as you know, dollar started to lose..

in the long term it will be a great lost for american economy- US will not able to publish money whenever needs.. Worlds biggest investors will try to get rid of $'s they have and invest on euro instead- which means they will NOT prefer american market..

and you all know the Asia- america relationships which keeps $ valuable..(america is lending money to them and these countries are satisfying most of the american market needs).. but if Asian countries starts to prefer euro?????? at the end, they need oil too...

that will be the end of the american economy..

sooo.... Bush prepared a ''Black list'' which includes the countries who wants to sell their oil using EURO. and planned to create some mass in their governments (or like Iraq-w/out creating mass) and will change their governments according to his own desire..

america is in war with UN. trying to keep his economy alive..

soo, guys, please lets talk about these, its really waste of time talking saddam's personality etc..

RMC

The saddest thing about what is going on now, is that in this country citizens like you actually believe that garbage.

And what is it you believe – or are you unable to form an intelligent opinion?

This analysis is the best explanation as to why the US is willing to go to war with Saddam Hussein, even though many of its traditional allies are not. George Bush and his advisors have determined that Hussein has many links to terrorists, and they are probably correct. Certainly, Saddam has no love for the US after the Persian Gulf War and any organization that sees the US as a "Great Satan" would likely get a warm reception from him.

What is sad is that you're right about why the US is so willing to go to war. Hussein has very paltry links to terrorists compared to the Saudis, for example. The only proven terrorism links that I have seen are the payments to the family of suicide bombers. And that is just to gain Arab support.

Originally posted by (Q)
Jps

The attacks on 9/11 were motivated by attacks and offenses against the Muslim world by our government.

That is not quite the stupidest thing I?ve ever read, but it comes close.

If anything the reasoning behind 9/11 was more justified

You are one sick and twisted individual. Do not procreate.
Care to explain why?

America is doing the best thing for Iraq!

how are they doing th e"best thing for iraq" arent we supposed to support freedom in any of its forms, including religion, and choice? from all the news feeds i've seen, the iraqii people support saddamm

Jps

Care to explain why?

I cannot explain why you would write something so stupid nor can I explain why you choose to be a sick and twisted individual – only your therapist knows for sure.

Originally posted by (Q)
Sycoindian

there is no evidence that al qaeda and iraq had any relations... to pin 9/11 on iraq is ridiculous...

I don’t remember anyone making that connection. However, Hussein does support terrorism and he does support Al Qaeda. He should be eliminated without prejudice.

but thats not the US's justification of invading iraq, the main justification i've heard is treaty violations, not the whole TWAT business

Originally posted by (Q)
Jps

Care to explain why?

I cannot explain why you would write something so stupid nor can I explain why you choose to be a sick and twisted individual ? only your therapist knows for sure.
Apparently you can not explain why you believe it to be stupid.
You're in good company, no one else has been able to either. I can only assume this is because I am correct.

you are correct,a nd i really dont care if i get flamed for saying it, the US provoke attacks on itself, its been doing it for years, we're a bully who doesnt like it when the little kids we're stealing lunch money from fight back, when those planes hit, i was expecting it, it didnt shock me, why? because we've been pushing those people for years , its about time they did something about it that got the worlds notice. They could have gone about it a different way, but that was there's, it was provoked, neitehr attack is justified, violence can be provoked, but there isnt an instance in all of history that anyone can seriously justify the use of force

Originally posted by (Q)
Jps

Care to explain why?

I cannot explain why you would write something so stupid nor can I explain why you choose to be a sick and twisted individual – only your therapist knows for sure.

Oh you Q.....poor little product of Conservative radio talk shows. lol. Since you have been calling every one's opinoin stupid and pathetic and etc etc, ever thought about ur own ??? how stupid your thinking is?? I guess not. if not then think now and see how stupid it is or maybe the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and it doesn't make them stupid.......................but only YOU. :rolleyes:

567

I guess not. if not then think now and see how stupid it is or maybe the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and it doesn't make them stupid.......................but only YOU.

Huh?

No habla las tonterías!

According to this CBS network news item. Rumsfeld started planning to attack iraq only hours after the planes hit the WTC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

i say bush should declare war on france. i would bet you the majority of americans would support that too! we have simply been too traumatised to think rationally anymore so:onward brave soldiers! lets give em hell! lets roll!

spookz,
Are you kidding? that would be as dangerous as attacking N. Korea! France has Nukes! I think Germany should be the next target.

yah good idea! bush wouldnt mind his approval rating go up some more!
besides these terror guys were planning shit in germany. i sure a connection could be found b/w the govt and them. arright! lets frikkin roll!

(we wont forget the frogs tho!)

"I say Bush should declare war on France".

He can't , a French company has the food service contract with the Marine corp. This company also has food service contracts with over 400 American Colleges and universities. oh what a tangled web we weave..........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2894383.stm

And if you think we (US) are too closly tied to France to re-liberate them, then go to your local Kmart etc. and look where most of the goods are made. China. Hopefully we are now too closely tied to go to war with each other. Without China there would be no Christmas. (nearly all the decorations and gifts, Chinese!)

China makes a lot more than Christmas decorations. Last week at Costco I fould the following items made in China. VCR, VCR+TV,
DVD player, 35mm Camera, two different microwave ovens, toaster oven, all of the toasters, all of the coffee makers, can openers, Rival crock pot. Most athletic shoes especially NIKE are made in china. Black and Decker just signed a big contract to have tools made in China.

It is not so much, what is being made in China, as it is a matter of what no longer is made in the USA. Haynes underwear, which is owned by the "Sara Lee" corporation just opend a factory in China.

We wouldn't dare have a war with China because we wouldn't have any clean underwear to put on. And you know what moms say about clean underwear and accidents.:)

Murdering 6,000 civilians in Panama didn't do much for American sensitivities. Hell, those are brown people, why should I care was the average American's actitude.

But WTC was different--Hey, dems' Americans(!) everyone hollored.

3,000,000 massacred civilians in Vietnam was: "NO BIGGIE!" ( more yellow skinned minorities ) Note: Ever wonder what 3,000,000 coffins end-to-end look like? :mad:

In the US' "illegal" bombing of Laos and Cambodia---700,000 massacred civilians--more of the same, huh? :(

In Palestine, over 200,000 Palestinians have been murdered, maimed and left homeless by the ZioNazi's with US financing over the past 29 months of Asqa-Intifada II.

Oh well, but they are "rag heads" and "terrorists" to boot, so who cares, right?!

Lets skip the US' "nuking" of Hiroshima & Nagazaki-OK ( too old to rate ) and the 200,000+ dead "Japs," well, "merely" history, right?"

In the Middle East the double standard continues and one has to wonder what will happen when WTC II arrives.

Let's hope WTC II occurs in Israel--couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Neo-ZioNazis, huh?

TheAZCowBoy,

Originally posted by SuperFudd
Without China there would be no Christmas. (nearly all the decorations and gifts, Chinese!)

Damn right. Almost all toys are made in China. My kid thinks santa's workshop is call "China".

Originally posted by dsdsds
Damn right. Almost all toys are made in China. My kid thinks santa's workshop is call "China".

TAC: Interesting, huh"

The "bastion" of democracy exports more WMD's than the whole world combined.

China supplies the world with durable goods and trinkets and the US points fingers at the "Commies?!" :eek:

Meanwhile, Israel exports US technology ( currently trying to export US Raytheon patriot anti-missile-missile techology to China ), 2 years ago it was Israeli advanced copies of the US AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile the Chinese F-8 now carries on its wing tips--you saw this missile on the F-8's that intercepted and downed our spy P-3 some 23 months ago.

Before that it was US AWACS technology for China--but the US stepped on their di**s and promised to cut off their welfare/warfare checks if they dared and they relented! :p

So who 'are' the real "Evil Twins," huh? :p

TheAZCowBoy,

(Q):

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that you are taking a somewhat simplistic view of this war.

Do you have personal connections to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? If so, it is understandable that you will have an emotional response to those events. It is quite justifiable to condemn the terrorist organisation responsible, and those who support it.

Iraq is a different matter. What <b>should</b> matter is evidence. The key questions seem to have been forgotten as Saddam Hussein is a convenient and easier to find substitute for Osama bin Laden. Those questions include:

* Does Iraq have, or is it developing, WMD? (Actual evidence required.)
* Does Iraq have links to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups? (Actual evidence required.)

If there is no actual evidence for either of these things, then the main justifications given for the attack on Iraq are little more than smokescreens. Obviously, the US government does not like Saddam Hussein or his regime. Few people would argue with you if you asserted he is a bad man and a bad leader of a country. But does that justify a war where thousands of civilians and soldiers from both sides will die?

I'm not so sure.

James

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that you are taking a somewhat simplistic view of this war.

I could just as easily say you are being naïve.

The validity of this war is not a simple matter. Its merits and justification will be debated in coffee shops and boardrooms for a long time to come. What cannot be ignored is its impact, and the rift between nations, and even countrymen, that will likely be its longer legacy.

Saddam Hussein is not simply a substitute for Osama bin Laden – he is a target in addition. And there is more to this conflict than just finding evidence for WMD and links to Al Qaeda. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – you yourself should understand this fallacy. The UN would not have sent inspectors to Iraq without strong supporting evidence that WMD exists. And evidence for links to Al Qaeda is becoming a reality as links to the Saudi’s are being confirmed as those investigations continue.

Nobody really wants war, not you or me or anyone else – and this war will be a sustained and bloody battle. Make no mistake; the cowboy in charge will give no quarter. Bush is bolstered by the American will galvanized in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, which is one of the main points to my opening address of this thread. Whether that will is resolute when the body bags start coming home, remains to be seen.

But those who believe there could ever be a negotiated end to this impasse with Iraqi leadership are naïve. And those who thought an allied juggernaut would roll up to Baghdad and slap Saddam Hussein in cuffs are equally naïve.

The validity of this war is not a simple matter. Its merits and justification will be debated in coffee shops and boardrooms for a long time to come.

who gets to interpret and put into effect the "serious consequences"?
since you are obviously for the us, make its case for me. get legalistic. gimme sources. screw the coffeeshops and boardrooms (commies and capitalist pigs;))

What cannot be ignored is its impact, and the rift between nations, and even countrymen, that will likely be its longer legacy.

reasonable folks are concerned about first; the needless slaughter of humans in this war, and second; the consequences of america's mindless militaristic adventures abroad. we do not ignore these issues at all! on the contrary, it is bush and co that do not give a damn

Saddam Hussein is not simply a substitute for Osama bin Laden – he is a target in addition.

he is a target for very specific reasons, most have been proved to be bogus reasons (wmd issue will be resolved soon)

And there is more to this conflict than just finding evidence for WMD and links to Al Qaeda. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – you yourself should understand this fallacy.

that seems disingenous! do you understand that i can accuse you of any crime now using that reasoning? (just cos your wife aint got no bruises on her doesnt mean you aint using her as a punching bag - i am placing you under arrest)

The UN would not have sent inspectors to Iraq without strong supporting evidence that WMD exists.

the us govt has in its possession, bills of sale for various wmd stuff. that is how they are so sure iraq has em!

;)

what is this "strong supporting evidence"? is this secret evidence? who knows about it? should'nt this evidence be presented before going to war?

And evidence for links to Al Qaeda is becoming a reality as links to the Saudi’s are being confirmed as those investigations continue.

really? how long before we know? after the war is over? is this not this one of the reasons why bush decided to go to war? you are telling me now that we are still trying to establish a connection?

Nobody really wants war, not you or me or anyone else – and this war will be a sustained and bloody battle.

you seriously undestimate bush and co. they have a new vision and policy regarding the usa and its role in the world. very proactive (read warmongering) type policy. (google to read all about it)

But those who believe there could ever be a negotiated end to this impasse with Iraqi leadership are naïve.

we wanted another 30 frikkin days. thats it! inspections would not have lasted indefinitely. what is this impasse?

And those who thought an allied juggernaut would roll up to Baghdad and slap Saddam Hussein in cuffs are equally naïve.

really? if turkey did not stymie the us effort, things could have been a bit different

Excerpts from a speech by Robin Cook who resigned as leader of the house of Commons last week and was Foreign Secretary:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was meant to be a quick, easy war. Shortly before I resigned a Cabinet colleague told me not to worry about the political fall-out.

The war would be finished long before polling day for the May local elections.

I just hope those who expected a quick victory are proved right. I have already had my fill of this bloody and unnecessary war. I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed.

It is OK for Bush to say the war will go on for as long as it takes. He is sitting pretty in the comfort of Camp David protected by scores of security men to keep him safe.

It is easy to show you are resolute when you are not one of the poor guys stuck in a sandstorm peering around for snipers.

This week British forces have shown bravery under attack and determination in atrocious weather conditions. They are too disciplined to say it, but they must have asked each other how British forces ended up exposed by the mistakes of US politicians.

We were told the Iraqi army would be so joyful to be attacked that it would not fight. A close colleague of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted the march to Baghdad would be "a cakewalk".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were told Saddam's troops would surrender. A few days before the war Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that the Republican Guard would lay down their weapons.

We were told that the local population would welcome their invaders as liberators. Paul Wolfowitz, No.2 at the Pentagon, promised that our tanks would be greeted "with an explosion of joy and relief".

Personally I would like to volunteer Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz to be "embedded" alongside the journalists with the forward units.

That would give them a chance to hear what the troops fighting for every bridge over the Euphrates think about their promises.

The top US General, William Wallace, has let the cat out of the bag. "The enemy we are fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed".

War is not some kind of harmless arcade game. Nobody should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate. But that is exactly what President Bush has done. And now his Marines have reached the outskirts of Baghdad he does not seem to know what to do next.

It was not meant to be like this. By the time we got to Baghdad Saddam was supposed to have crumpled. A few days before I resigned I was assured that Saddam would be overthrown by his associates to save their own skins. But they would only do it "at five minutes past midnight". It is now long past that time and Saddam is still there. To compensate yesterday we blew up a statue of Saddam in Basra. A statue! It is not the statue that terrifies local people but the man himself and they know Saddam is still in control of Baghdad.

Having marched us up this cul-de-sac, Donald Rumsfeld has now come up with a new tactic. Instead of going into Baghdad we should sit down outside it until Saddam surrenders. There is no more brutal form of warfare than a siege. People go hungry. The water and power to provide the sinews of a city snap. Children die.

You can catch a glimpse of what would happen in Baghdad under siege by looking at Basra. Its residents have endured several days of summer heat without water.

In desperation they have been drinking water from the river into which the sewage empties. Those conditions are ripe for cholera.

Last week President Bush promised that "Iraqis will see the great compassion of the US". They certainly do not see it now. They don't see it in Baghdad. What they see are women and children killed when missiles fall on market places. They don't see it in Basra. What they see is the suffering of their families with no water, precious little food, and no power to cook. There will be a long-term legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqi people continue to suffer from the effects of the war we started.

Washington got it wrong over the ease with which the war could be won. Washington could be just as wrong about the difficulty of running Iraq when the fighting stops. Already there are real differences between Britain and America over how to run post-war Iraq.

The dispute over the management of the port of Umm Qasr is a good example. British officers sensibly took the view that the best and the most popular solution would be to find local Iraqis who knew how to do it. Instead the US have appointed an American company to take over the Iraqi asset. And guess what? Stevedore Services of America who got the contract have a chairman known for his donations to the Republican Party.

The argument between Blair and Bush over whether the UN will be in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq is about more than international legitimacy. It is about whether the Iraqi people can have confidence that their country is being run for the benefit of them-selves or for the benefit of the US.

Yesterday there was a sad and moving ceremony as the bodies of our brave soldiers were brought back to Britain.

The Ministry of Defence announced that they were to be buried in Britain out of consideration for their families. We must do all we can to ease the grief of those who have lost a husband or a son, cut down in their prime.

Yet I can't help asking myself if there was not a better way to show consideration for their families.

A better way could have been not to start a war which was never necessary and is turning out to be badly planned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What more need be said?

:cool:

Chagur

It's an excellent speech. Unfortunately, either quite a bit remains to be said or else nothing at all.

By that I refer to the constant demonization of peaceful ideas by those who advocate this war. I would be kinder in my rhetoric toward them if it was not for the mass demonization and ridicule aimed at the idea of peace. But though it would be hard to argue with Cook's speech, that has not stopped the present war party in the past. They simply ignore what they don't understand, or refuse to understand, or whatever they find inconvenient, or however it is they manage to find a way to justify that bombs are the answer to anything. Heck: right now, if I thought it would work, I would go for a tax cut for the rich. It'll solve anything else in the world, why not Iraq ( ;) )?

So there's no subtlety to me at the moment. Whoops. At any rate, thank you for posting that speech.

A dangerously loose analogy: politicians are like bacteria, and this war is an antibiotic of sorts; like many antibiotics, it doesn't necessarily discriminate between the good and the bad microorganisms inside the body politic. But as people like Cook fall away from direct influence by resigning in protest, and as American officials begin to answer (ha!) for their miscalculations in Iraq, it seems that those who survive the trial of fire, as such, will be the more resilient, the more hardy specimens. Thus, while a more pacifistic voice like Cook's falls away from influence, the hardened war dogs will survive the antibiotic, and, just like your body, it is the stronger organisms that remain. In this case, it's kind of like taking extraneous cycles of antibiotics (I had a friend who used to do that): when you get sick, you really get sick because only the strongest can survive and flourish in that environment. That would seem to suggest that Cook should not have resigned; I do not know what to say of that; perhaps influence was already lost to the malady of what seems to be bloodlust. But think about it: Rumsfeld might actually shake out for the mistake of overriding his generals' good authority and creating a war that is less sanitary than Americans were led to believe it would be. (Really, what is so "crisis" about this war? Sure, it's not the clean parade Americans expected, but so far it looks ... well, it looks like a war.) But other than that, the hawks have a good chance of surviving; Wolfowitz might even get a promotion. What happens in this war will have a great affect, obviously, on next year's presidential election; you might call it the Tequin of the analogy--the big guns, the one that nothing is supposed to survive (it's a great little antibiotic, let me tell you)--and if the hawks survive that, the future looks bloody.

Of course, that's one of the benefits of the US: we get to try to fix our mistakes every four years instead of every thirty. Given the boys and their toys, though, that could be a lot of damage done in the next twenty months, speak nothing of the fifty-one beyond that (I think I did my addition right) ...

At any rate, I should just stop babbling and go smoke ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Robin Who?

What a twit.
-----------------------------------

It's times like these that Darwin speaks best: those that can do, and those that can't do are left to talk about what's not being done (even by themselves).

It's too funny watching all this aggrandizing verbosity wafting into situational insignificance -- where it belongs.

3,000,000 massacred civilians in Vietnam was: "NO BIGGIE!" ( more yellow skinned minorities ) Note: Ever wonder what 3,000,000 coffins end-to-end look like?I would prefer them side-by-side in ranks.

3m coffins laid end to end would stretch beyond reasonable sight, and thus remain a mysterious concept to people.

2,000 long by 1,500 deep? Take people up and fly circles around it so they can see. Take them down low in a crop duster; roll the plane over and give them the sensation you get at the beginning of Star Wars (IV) with a massive Star Destroyer rolling out from the top of the screen; it just goes on and on and on ....

Arrange the coffins like a maze; drop some people into the middle and film them trying to get out. It could be a reality TV show called "The Killing Field".

People need a way to get some scale of what such an abstract number is.

It's more than the "obscene" number Alex Rodriguez makes each month, I think. Of course, my memory might be underestimating that contract ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

This is going to be a long drawn out mess that can only end in the devastation of the muslim world and the beginings of the end to the way people see each other and this world.

The reason so much of this stuff is "made in china" or for many other products in India etc is because for the western world to work they need cheap labour from countries like that to do the mass production.
If those countries got into the state the the more "Advanced" countries are in it would all fall apart.
Without the sweatshop nations the rest of them won't work.

Originally posted by TheAZCowBoy

Hey Tiassa; This "racist" post of your tells me "They may not have been "totally" wrong! :)

What do you say folks---should we quarter the b***h and bury her before she stinks up the place anymore than she already has with her sick posts?


I'm sure Tiassa can fend for herself very nice, but come on now, you are the one that started and made the sick language that Tiasa was only responding to. She even implied that maybe the scene that YOU suggested be made public, so people know what is going on.? After all it was you that said:

Quote for TheAZCowBoy:
"NO BIGGIE!" ( more yellow skinned minorities ) Note: Ever wonder what 3,000,000 coffins end-to-end look like?

The only sick b***h around here, as far as I can see, is TheAZCowboy.

Oh, and by the way, tiassa is a male, dumb-a**.

:cool:

Chag,

Stop please... I cant stop laughing....

:D:D:D

Hi,*stRgrL*.

How ya been?

Glad to have given you a laugh, 'mam.
*** Said in my best J.Wayne voice ***

:cool:

Never let it be said, sir, that you aren't an amazingly unique individual.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool: