"Wait! Don't leave!"

[Resolute Optimist]

Hmmm... looks like we can expect a happy future all together.
Charity in international politics and strategy dosen't exist. Why do you think it took so long for the Americans to turn up in France during WWII? And don't bother with the "we should have let you dumb fucking sheep rooters die" crap Gai... Although I'm sure you can't resist it.

[Jack]

Nobody controls the United States of America you blithering idiot.

Brings to mind the term "loose cannon".

Uhhh....how about "democracy" instead you dumb ass. No one person or special interest group controls America.

Bye!

The Jewish lobby and hence Israel controls the US government. The Iraq situation is Israel's war. The Jewish lobby is forcing the US government to send troops to protect Israel. Wake up and smell the roses, Gai. Sorry I will not lower myself to your level and call you names.

[StickyRiceLover]

From Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80768,00.html

WASHINGTON ; A group of Northern Virginia rabbis is calling on Congressman Jim Moran to resign over comments he made at a public meeting.

While discussing a possible Iraq war, Moran told a group at a Reston church: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this."

"The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should, Moran said.
...................................................................................................
.... This is from a U.S. Congressman - so "Jack" does have a reasonable defendable point.

I agree with Gai on this issue though.

Later... SRL

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Are you always this easy to wind up?

you fucking backpacking vagabond from a dirt poor country with no ideals.

I like that, can I add it to my resume?

Sure, put it on your resume. At least then there will be a grain of truth in that glorified piece of toilet paper.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Hmmm... looks like we can expect a happy future all together.
Charity in international politics and strategy dosen't exist. Why do you think it took so long for the Americans to turn up in France during WWII? And don't bother with the "we should have let you dumb fucking sheep rooters die" crap Gai... Although I'm sure you can't resist it.

At this juncture I am glad we did stay out of WWII until we were drug into your filthy continental war. It's a shame more of the French weren't knocked off. Pieces of dirt.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Nobody controls the United States of America you blithering idiot.

Brings to mind the term "loose cannon".

Uhhh....how about "democracy" instead you dumb ass. No one person or special interest group controls America.

Bye!

The Jewish lobby and hence Israel controls the US government. The Iraq situation is Israel's war. The Jewish lobby is forcing the US government to send troops to protect Israel. Wake up and smell the roses, Gai. Sorry I will not lower myself to your level and call you names.

You say that because the idiot Israelis are clueless enough to believe it themselves. Here are the facts. Most Americans know nothing about Israel, its history and the claim (if any) on the land. The amount of money we send there, which is large for them, is a pittance for America. In short, until now they have been a blip on the radar screen or a pimple on our ass depending on your point of view. In short, we have not thought much about them. For that matter neither has anyone else outside of the Middle East.

Historically we have viewed the state of Israel in a positive light. We love an underdog which is our perception of the Jewish nation (having undergone the holocaust). It is indeed ironic, however, that this supposed underdog is armed to the teeth with our weaponry. In fact, it is the Palestinians who are the underdogs. Now that this filthy desert war is invading our soil I predict that America will focus more closely on Israel. Discussion about the claim that Israel has on the land will be more freely discussed. Until now it was just taken as a given and anyone who challenged the startling assumptions would probably be viewed as anti-semetic. It was also taken as a given that we should support any fellow democracy and Israel fits the bill here.

However, when the American people realize that the Israeli democracy is never going to spread, that their claim on the land is remote at best, that they are a nation of immigrants in a sea of natives, that the long term success of Israel is remote and that the ill will it generates in the region is not in America's interest, the majority of Americans will speak. It is unclear to me what will be the answer that emanates from America's lips. But this much is true, the world will hear us speak.

Don't believe for a minute that Israel or any other small lobby controls America. Small groups can be effective in lobbying and getting great favors. This makes them no different from the NRA, the pharmaceutical lobbies, the lobbies for accounting firms, the lobbies for trial lawyers, etc. However, pigs get slaughtered. The day is coming when the American people will review the tally and make a decision and there will be no outside influence. No one controls America but you can grab a piece for yourself if the piece your grabbing is small plenty have done it before. Israel is nearing the end of its era of blissful ignorance from the American people.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

PS: We aren't going to wipe out Saddam and his military for Israel. We are going to wipe them out because of the twin towers that have been removed from our landscape. Israel may support this move but America would never fight their war for them.

In fact, Iraq is not even the greatest threat to Israel. If we were clearing away Israel's enemies there would be better places to start. Just because Israel's interest coincides with ours doesn't mean we are their mercenaries.

The ultimate question is this. Is Saddam a long term threat? Some say yes and want to wipe him out. Others say no and feel no intervention is necessary or will cause more problems in the end.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think war is now a forgone conclusion. In the end I think the US will be a long term player in Iraq and to appease the Arab street we will steadily drop our support for Israel. In the end Israel is going to lose here so I completely disagree with you.

In fact, if I were an Israeli politician I would be against the war because it definitely will increase the pressure on Israel. Of course, Israeli politicians are absolute morons these days so God knows how far ahead they are capable of seeing.

[Resolute Optimist]

War is not conducted as a moral principal and especially not in America. Waging war on Iraq has nothing to do with the 9/11; if you knew a bit more about the relationships between arabic nations, you'd know that everyone hates Saddam, terrorists included. But its a "smart"( ) excuse for traumatised American people.

American and muslim culture actually have a lot in common : two religious communities (I love the "America is laic", on the background of "God save this, god save that"), easily moved by symbols and moral principals fed to them by people who have NO moral principals, so that they can get away with anything.

But Gai's lash-out attitude is symptomatic, it shows how nervous the Americans are about all of this. Otherwise he'd be much cooler about it all.
Whatever is going to happen will happen without asking you or me if we're ok about it ,and I don't think anyone's point is more valid than another's at this very confused point seeing as history and information varies from wherever someone stands.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Hmmm... looks like we can expect a happy future all together.
Charity in international politics and strategy dosen't exist. Why do you think it took so long for the Americans to turn up in France during WWII? And don't bother with the "we should have let you dumb fucking sheep rooters die" crap Gai... Although I'm sure you can't resist it.

furthermore, you Europeans were cowards in dealing with Hitler in his run up to WWII. Had the European allies taken a more united stance with Hitler when he defied the league of nations during his run up to WWII we may not have had WWII.

Same thing today. Saddam defies and drags his feet with the UN and you waffle and make excuses until the barrel of a gun is pointed at your stupid heads. What is it with you people. Did every European with a brain in his head emigrate to the Americas? You seem hopeless and slow. Cowardly yet haughty at the same time you useless tea and crumpet eaters really piss me off.

[Jack]

Gai,

Your avatar gives me a hard on, especially when you write long replies, as I am forced to watch the turn of the tongue a dozen or so times. She's a hot looking chick.

[Resolute Optimist]

Tea and crumpets rule.
Its easy to be smart and clever about these things. Two towers fall down and you're pissing yourselves. I would be too. As far as I'm concerned simply asking for the correct protocol to be respected (of course Saddam should be kicked out) is a way of making sure that the consequences of this war are minimized, and as its your only interest, in the best interests of the Americans that will be posted in Arab countries and to make sure that other arabic countries don't end up in an uncontrolled spiral of war. That's all. Of course Saddam wants to build up his arsenal. Do you think that only Americans can work this shit out?
The french have never forgotten the sacrifice in American lives in WWII.
Of course we also now know that they arrived so late because the more destroyed Europe was the money was going to roll in.
Stop feeling so sympathetic towards your countrie's leaders.
They aren't doing much about North Korea who is already pointing a nuke missile at the west coast so what makes this a priority?

The creation of Israel was total madness. A radical religious state, implanted on someone else's land in the Middle East... The mind boggles.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Tea and crumpets rule.

No, the Egg McMuffin rules.

two towers fall down and you're pissing yourselves.

Knocked down. You would be pissing yourself and will be unless you want to submit to blackmail instead of negotiations.

Of course we also now know that they arrived so late because the more destroyed Europe was the money was going to roll in.

Excuse me? money rolled from the US towards the European countries. You were on welfare for awhile. We also greatly subsidized your ability to hold off the Soviets. Battleground 1 was going to be Europe. We stopped them. You people could never have held them off. The money and lives saved by the cold war intervention are incalculable. Moreover, the money and lives would have been primarily your own. Never a thought about this. You just assume we should be your policemen.

Stop feeling so sympathetic towards your countrie's leaders. They aren't doing much about North Korea who is already pointing a nuke missile at the west coast so what makes this a priority?

Wrong on two points. The North Koreans don't yet have the capacity to reach us and are using this interlude to rattle their sabers. How long this posturing continues is uncertain. If they continue they will be going down as well. We can only deal with one manaical dictator at a time. Maybe you guys could step in and deal with North Korea. Naw, why make yourselves useful when you can just stand around and bitch and moan with your thumbs up your collective asses. Where indeed is the European input on North Korea? What is really annoying is that you can post questions like this and not even give a thought to your own country's necessary contributions (which are sorely lacking).

The creation of Israel was total madness. A radical religious state, implanted on someone else's land in the Middle East... The mind boggles.

We may finally agree on some of this. My mind is not yet made up. However, Israel was not the creation of the United States of America. It was a product of the UN and, more specifically, Germany. The Holocaust is what brought this about and the UK was a continual meddler in the region. The mess we have in the Middle East today is the product of the mass idiocy that pervaded Europe. We have been trying to keep the peace but there will be none. The indians are surrounding that Little Bighorn and the troops in reserve (the US and the trifling European contingent) may not have the will. Hope about that. We sort of agree.

[Resolute Optimist]

We reconstructed Europe using only American companies, hence the wonderful economic boom in the USA.
I said in my previous post that I would be pissing myself too if we had had similar to the Twin Towers. So you don't need to tell what I will or won't be doing.
Thankyou for helping me out with the NK issue; glad to hear it isn't as bad as I thought. As far as I'm probably wrongly aware, it seemed to me that NK has been getting all sorts of welfare from America (and maybe others, maybe you could fill me in) and I also heard that the USA had said that they would start giving them oil again. Unless that source was wrong, then that is giving in to blackmail.
On the contrary to you, and this is why we are obviously two fundamentally different people, I don't hold everything my country stands for as gospel. Listening to you makes the USA sound like some kind of self-sacrificing land of love.
Another big difference is that I'm not in a "my country is bigger and better than your's" syndrome. Europe has a lot to answer for, especially during the last war in Yugoslavia when it did fuck all. So do you suppose that every european thought that was normal?
You could play the "all the great europeans came to the Americas anyway" key, but then again , they enjoyed slaying local populations. I personaly think that jerks spring up indefinitely, wherever. But I'm not as shallow as the guys on FuckFrance.com (hey you might like it!) that still call the french Vichy-Nazis...
I can see one similarity though: you're tired of your country being shat on constantly by people who are all too grateful to take what is given. I've never thought any differently and would be tempted to leave people in their own mess too. But in international affairs people rarely do things they can't gain from.

Egg McMuffin is ok. But I prefer crumpet and Marmite any day.

[cstaylor]

Of course we also now know that they arrived so late because the more destroyed Europe was the money was going to roll in.

Sorry, I have to wade into this one. BULLSHIT. You think the Allies were ready in '43 to invade? Stalin was pushing for a second front, but the Americans were getting their hats handed to them by Rommel... until Allied planes bombed most of the oil production facilities.

Here's my problem with the French: they have to find a conspiracy in everything. Anyone here read that trash that passed as "facts" from that French "author", Thierry Meyssan? Yet the French public lapped that crap up.

[DJEB]

Here's my problem with the French: they have to find a conspiracy in everything. Anyone here read that trash that passed as "facts" from that French "author", Thierry Meyssan? Yet the French public lapped that crap up.

Chris, that 's hardly something that you can pin on just the French. Ever heard of Mike Ruppert? Now there is a conspiracy nut.

DJEB

[cstaylor]

That's true... the French aren't the only nuts on the planet.

[GomiGirl]

PS: We aren't going to wipe out Saddam and his military for Israel. We are going to wipe them out because of the twin towers that have been removed from our landscape.

eerrr no.. the tragedy that is 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

What is scary is that the Bush regime is leveraging off the anger and sadness to pick a fight with a long term adversary.. Personally I think that a big reason (not the only one) that Bush wanted to go forward is that it is a winable fight with minimal US casulties and making Bagdad into a moonscape will prove who is the king of the sandpit..

The recent stories in the media about closing in on Bin Laden is all smoke and mirrors.. think for yourselves..

It is too easy to be an armchair General and politicial..

[GuyJean]

That's true... the French aren't the only nuts on the planet. ]
House cafeterias change names for 'french fries' and 'french toast'
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/index.html

The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country's refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq.

That'll teach those Manaje-twits!

Side note: Don't those 'peaceful' countries vehemently opposing an Iraqi invasion have existing contracts with Saddam right now? With Saddam being ousted, wouldn't those contracts be 're-evaluted'?..

NO PEACE FOR OIL!

I kinda snicker when I hear Russia and China opposing violence.

GJ

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

PS: We aren't going to wipe out Saddam and his military for Israel. We are going to wipe them out because of the twin towers that have been removed from our landscape.

eerrr no.. the tragedy that is 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

What is scary is that the Bush regime is leveraging off the anger and sadness to pick a fight with a long term adversary.. Personally I think that a big reason (not the only one) that Bush wanted to go forward is that it is a winable fight with minimal US casulties and making Bagdad into a moonscape will prove who is the king of the sandpit..

The recent stories in the media about closing in on Bin Laden is all smoke and mirrors.. think for yourselves..

It is too easy to be an armchair General and politicial..

Yep, hypothekatin, ain't your strong suit is it? The tragedy of 9/11 has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. No... that is not true. We know that Iraq supports terrorist organizations. We have announced a terror campaign on terrorists and the states that fund them. First Afghanistan and now Iraq. More states may also come under the gun but more likely the war on terrorism is going to go underground after this.

What do you mean King of the Sandpit? What does this mean? Speak in concrete terms please.

Not closing in on Bin Laden???? We now have his number two and some of his sons. Excuse me but can you read?

[GomiGirl]

What do you mean King of the Sandpit? What does this mean? Speak in concrete terms please.

I am drawing an analogy between the recent warmongering to child-like bullying and power plays for who is "king of the sandpit". If I use words of one syllable or less would this help you?

Not closing in on Bin Laden???? We now have his number two and some of his sons. Excuse me but can you read?

Yes but it is all very convenient to dredge up and litter the media with an even more hated enemy who is also from the middle east to maintain support for a globally unpopular war.. Is the tail wagging the dog again?

Keep in mind a healthy scepticism when watching the news..

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

What do you mean King of the Sandpit? What does this mean? Speak in concrete terms please.

I am drawing an analogy between the recent warmongering to child-like bullying and power plays for who is "king of the sandpit". If I use words of one syllable or less would this help you?

Thanks for the clarification. Now I can reach down to you and explain things to you in a manner that even the most bucktoothed of Aussies may be capable of understanding.

Miss, the world has changed. Neither the United States nor George Bush is bullying anyone. Frankly, the assertion that we are bullying Saddam is absurd. Shouldn't a dictator who kills his own people, who funds terrorist organizations, who has invaded neighboring countries and launched missiles into neighboring countries be held accountable. Lord no. We wouldn't want to bully poor Saddam. Thanks for the chuckle. Furthermore the US is not even yet firing away at him. No invasion has been launched. We are at this point merely cajoling some of our supposed allies into supporting us in making sure that Saddam fully disarms. Russia and France are the real footdraggers here. They would rather do business with Saddam and put the money in front of world peace.

Really Gomi, bullying. Did we bully Afghanistan. The same thing is going to go down in all likelihood in Iraq. The people will be glad to be rid of Saddam and their situation will undoubtedly improve. Equally true is that they will resent us for pulling them out of their quagmire. So be it. The United States was a country born to lead the world. This is our cross to bear and we will make you our backward cousins understand.

Not closing in on Bin Laden???? We now have his number two and some of his sons. Excuse me but can you read?

Yes but it is all very convenient to dredge up and litter the media with an even more hated enemy who is also from the middle east to maintain support for a globally unpopular war.. Is the tail wagging the dog again?

Keep in mind a healthy scepticism when watching the news..

Ahem. The question was are we closing in on OBL. Now you deflect. We are closing in. What tail, what dog??????

[Resolute Optimist]

Actually a lot of french people thought Thierry Meissan was garbage. And so did I.
History books differ from place to place. I wonder in the end who really does have the right facts. One case where the facts are definitely wrong is something that is happening right now in some of the worst suburbs in France. You may or may not be aware (or indeed may not give a shit) that there are very bad social tensions in France. It has stemmed from a psychological approach to education rather than a disciplinary one that developped after the 70's, that has meant that kids have been progressively getting their own way more and more, turning into delinquants and not getting punished. And of course the community that has been the most affected by this is the arab community who were already struggling with their own identity. In some schools, history teachers have not been able to do their job and teach the kids about concentration camps because the kids refuse to believe it and say that they were invented by the jews so that they would obtain Israel...
I'm saying this to illustrate the fact that arab communities, indifferent to their country of origin generally feel concerned about the Israel/Palestine issue regardless of whether it has anything to do with them or not. Where it is seemingly fine in France to criticize catholics, jews,etc, you don't get away with criticizing muslims who themselves are allowed to be openly antisemitic.
I think PART of Chirac's attitude was to prevent a social uphaul IN FRANCE.
During the last presidential elections 20% voted for Le Pen, an extreme right-wing maniac, another 20% voted for trotskist communist parties... and he has a community of 5 million arabs to watch over. The consequences of this war, had he been enthusiastic about it, could be pretty awful for France in 4 years time. I will say this much: the french rarely learn their lessons. And this is coming from someone who loves France...

[GomiGirl]

Really Gomi, bullying. Did we bully Afghanistan. The same thing is going to go down in all likelihood in Iraq. The people will be glad to be rid of Saddam and their situation will undoubtedly improve. Equally true is that they will resent us for pulling them out of their quagmire. So be it. The United States was a country born to lead the world. This is our cross to bear and we will make you our backward cousins understand.

Ahem. The question was are we closing in on OBL. Now you deflect. We are closing in. What tail, what dog??????

Actually what I was suggesting is that is very convenient that OBL was back in the news at this time..

p.s. wag the dog...

Wickedly fictional with historical overtones truer than many care to admit, Wag The Dog examines the blurred lines between politics, the media and show business.

[DJEB]

The tragedy of 9/11 has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. No... that is not true. We know that Iraq supports terrorist organizations.

There has been no link made between 9-11 and Iraq. There have been a number of failed attempts to make a link, but all these have been debunked. Even the head of the CIA George Tenet said there was no link. As for Iraq links to terrorist groups, these have not existed for 15 years, ie. since Iraq was a U.S. ally. More fact, less assertions, please.

In early months of Bush administration, the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was not near the top of the foreign policy agenda. Revival of the issue after September 11 appeared primarily to be a pretext for settling unfinished business. Iraq's links to al-Qaeda have proved too tenuous to include Iraq directly in the "war on terrorism." Most recently, the FBI itself has raised doubts about the veracity of the story that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. Hence the weapons issue has now taken center stage, with the US invoking UN resolutions and hoping to rally international support on this basis. - http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/merip_graham.cfm ( MERIP Press Information Note 96, "Sanctions Renewed on Iraq," by Sarah Graham-Brown, May 14, 2002.)

The United States is now set on war with Iraq. What justification is there for such a war? Occasionally it has been suggested that Iraq was somehow linked to the 11 September attacks. The strongest alleged link has been the supposed meeting of Mohammed Atta, the 11 September ringleader, and an Iraqi diplomat expelled from the Czech Republic for spying. The two are meant to have met in Prague in 2001, a 'fact' confirmed by Czech interior minister Stanislav Gross in Oct. 2001. When the Czech police completed their inquiry in Dec. 2001, however, 'Jiri Kolar, the police chief, said there were no documents showing that Atta visited Prague at any time this year [2001], although he had visited twice in 2000'. Another man by the name of Mohammed Atta did visit Prague in 2001, but according to a Czech intelligence source, 'He didn't have the same identity card number, there was a great difference in their ages, their nationalities didn't match, basically nothing. It was someone else.' (Daily Telegraph, 18 Dec. 2001, p. 10) Despite the disintegration of this fable, it continues to circulate and to be repeated as fact. Useful lies can live for a long time. As for any links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, an anonymous former CIA officer has remarked that, 'The reality is that Osama bin Laden doesn't like Saddam Hussein. Saddam is a secularist who has killed more Islamic clergy than he has Americans. They have almost nothing in common except a hatred of the US. Saddam is the ultimate control freak, and for him terrorists are the ultimate loose cannon.' (Daily Telegraph, 20 Sept. 2001, p. 10)

Initially, Washington included Iraq on its list of countries with links to al-Qaeda, but when European governments insisted that there was no intelligence evidence connecting Baghdad to Osama bin Laden's organisation, the US changed tack. "Now the emphasis is on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme and the danger that Saddam might send out his own agents armed with chemical or biological devices", one [British] official said.' (Times, 16 Feb. 2002, p. 19) The latest CIA report on the topic (Jan. 2002) says, that without 'an inspection-monitoring program' 'it is more difficult to determine the current status' of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons programmes. No smoking gun, then. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has written, 'Given the comprehensive nature of the monitoring regime put in place by UNSCOM [UN Special Commission weapons inspectors], which included a strict export-import control regime, it was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.' (Arms Control Today, June 2000) According to Ritter, a former US Marine, 'manufacturing CW [chemical weapons] would require the assembling of production equipment into a single integrated facility, creating an infrastructure readily detectable by the strategic intelligence capabilities of the United States. The CIA has clearly stated on several occasions since the termination of inspections in December 1998 that no such activity has been detected.' As for biological weapons, 'The Iraqis do have enough equipment to carry out laboratory-scale production of BW agent. However, without an infusion of money and technology, expanding such a capability into a viable weapons program is a virtual impossibility. Contrary to popular belief, BW cannot simply be cooked up in the basement]http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/rai_no_justification_for_war.cfm[/url]

It is now clear that (despite intensive investigative efforts) there is simply no evidence of any Iraqi involvement in the terror attacks of September 11. The most popular theory, of a Prague-based collaboration between one of the 9/11 terrorists and an Iraqi official, has now collapsed. Just two weeks ago, the Prague Post quoted the director general of the Czech foreign intelligence service UZSI (Office of Foreign Relations and Information), Frantisek Bublan, denying the much-touted meeting between Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, and an Iraqi agent.

More significantly, the Iraqi regime's brutal treatment of its own population has generally not extended to international terrorist attacks. The State Department's own compilation of terrorist activity in its 2001 Patterns of Global Terrorism, released May 2002, does not document a single serious act of international terrorism by Iraq. Almost all references are either to political statements made or not made or hosting virtually defunct militant organizations.

We are told that we must go to war preemptively against Iraq because Baghdad might, some time in the future, succeed in crafting a dangerous weapon and might, some time in the future, give that weapon to some unknown terrorist group --maybe Osama bin Laden-- who might, some time in the future, use that weapon against the U.S. The problem with this analysis, aside from the fact that preemptive strikes are simply illegal under international law, is that it ignores the widely known historic antagonism between Iraq and bin Laden. According to the New York Times, "shortly after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, Osama bin Laden approached Prince Sultan bin Abdelaziz al-Saud, the Saudi defense minister, with an unusual proposition. c Arriving with maps and many diagrams, Mr. Bin Laden told Prince Sultan that the kingdom could avoid the indignity of allowing an army of American unbelievers to enter the kingdom to repel Iraq from Kuwait. He could lead the fight himself, he said, at the head of a group of former mujahideen that he said could number 100,000 men." Even if bin Laden's claim to be able to provide those troops was clearly false, bin Laden's hostility towards the ruthlessly secular Iraq remained evident. There is simply no evidence that that has changed.

Ironically, an attack on Iraq would increase the threat to U.S. citizens throughout the Middle East and perhaps beyond, as another generation of young Iraqis come to identify Americans only as the pilots of high-flying jet bombers and as troops occupying their country. While today American citizens face no problems from ordinary people in the streets of Baghdad or elsewhere in Iraq, as I documented during my visit to Iraq with five Congressional staffers in August 1999, that situation would likely change in the wake of a U.S. attack on Iraq. In other countries throughout the Middle East, already palpable anger directed at U.S. threats would dramatically escalate and would provide a new recruiting tool for extremist elements bent on harm to U.S. interests or U.S. citizens. It would become far more risky for U.S. citizens to travel abroad. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm

...after the September 11 attacks, many in the Bush Administration said, "Osama bin Laden could not have carried out this attack without state sponsorship..."... "Iraq had to be the ones responsible for this." And conveniently at that point in time defectors started coming out. Defectors talked about a terrorist training camp south of Bagdad in Salman Pak where they train people to take over airplanes conveniently in groups of four and five armed with knives. Amazing how this information came out after September 11. It's not true. I've been to that terrorist training camp. It's not a terrorist training camp, it's a hostage rescue camp put in place in the 1980s by by the British government to support Saddam Hussein because any nation that has a national airlines has an assault force capable of conducting hostage rescue of aircraft that have been subject to hijacking. We have it. Iraq has it. That's what Salman Pak is plain and simple.

As we speak, American Marines, soldiers, Seal commandos, Air Force personell are in Afghanistan. We've deafeted al Qaeda, at least militarily. We've occupied their camps. We've captured their caves. We've captured computers with harddrives. We've captured documents - thousands of them. And guess what we're finding? And in the months since we've captured these, we've arrested over a thousand al Qaeda members across the world because these documents give 'em up. We know who al Qaeda met with. We know who they plotted with. We know what they were trying to do. And guess what these documents don't show? Any linkage whatsoever with Iraq. See, there is no linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq. These are two totally separate entities. Two totally separate problems. That didn't stop the administration though, from keeping the beat of the war drum against Iraq. - http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3

As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.



In his latest attempt to link Iraq and al-Qaeda, Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." But the administration has given no indication that Abu Musab Zarqawi collaborated with senior Iraqi officials.

Bush also charged that "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases." Former CIA officer Robert Baer, who spent years following al-Qaeda, told The Guardian that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998. "But," he added, "there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States." - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-10-24-oped-bamford_x.htm

[GuyJean]

About the Al Qaeda/Iraq link: Again, I think waiting til the US can torture some info out of Ron Jeremy Mohammad would be the best 'selling' point for this supposed Iraq/Qaeda link... But so far, I've seen nuttin'.

Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and even the US (Floridian terrorist flight schools); Yes
Iraq; nothing yet.

Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/index.html

These assertions, however, might be as good as the case gets for U.S. officials linking the terror network to Iraq. While some members of al Qaeda could be operating out of Iraq, intelligence and investigative sources said there is evidence the group also operates out of Iran and Pakistan. And while there is evidence Iraqi officials might have helped al Qaeda years ago, the same case could be made for Pakistani, Yemeni and Saudi officials.

Bin Laden recently declared solidarity with the Iraqi people, but he lashed out at Saddam's government. In the latest audiotaped message purported to be recorded by the al Qaeda leader, bin Laden denounced Saddam's socialist Baath party as "infidels."

Bottom line: U.S. officials claim there is evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection -- but there is no "smoking gun."

Shit. The US should attack Florida for not only training terrorists, but electing George Double Idiot..

Ron Jeremy Mohammed


GJ

[DJEB]

The about info I posted had nothing on Ansar al-Islam ,so while I'm at it I might as well debunk that lie, too.

If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.'

Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html

Colin Powell thinks we're all stupid. Like the one relatively autonomous region of Iraq that has UN people all over the place and is under the U.S.-U.K. imposed "no-fly-zone" is going to be where Iraq has a state sanctioned terrorist camp. Riiiiight.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

The tragedy of 9/11 has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. No... that is not true. We know that Iraq supports terrorist organizations.

There has been no link made between 9-11 and Iraq. There have been a number of failed attempts to make a link, but all these have been debunked. Even the head of the CIA George Tenet said there was no link. As for Iraq links to terrorist groups, these have not existed for 15 years, ie. since Iraq was a U.S. ally. More fact, less assertions, please.

Excuse me. More reading and less distortion please. Since you quoted me above show me where I stated there was a proven direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. What I said was there is a connection between Iraq and terrorist movements including their direct support of suicide bombers. You are completely full of shit and a buffoon for even thinking that Iraq has not had any connection to terrorist organization for 15 years. In addition, the costs are high here and there is no requirement that we give Saddam the benefit of being treated as innocent until proven guilty. Given the nature of his regime, his use of force on neighbors, his probable use of nerve agents against US servicemen during the gulf war and his continued recalcitrance in face of a direct order to disarm he has done enough. We don't need a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq to move him out.

What the fuck more do you need. Does he have to fly a plane into Picadilly Square before you will get off your fishbelly white ignorant British ass and deal with him while there is still time.

Here's a link for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/17/palestinians.iraq/

[StickyRiceLover]

After all of the Debates the fact remains that Iraq's going to get a visit from the U.S. Who's next on the list? It will happen country by country.
It is hard to describe how much more powerful we are than any other country in the world.

The fact that the U.S. is going to have its way with the world must burn some of you guys up. I'm not saying it's right but I'm saying that's how it looks like it's going to roll out. Time will tell if this post is true and if it is then that means most of the opinions contrary to the U.S. opinion doesn't matter much. I will make it a point to bring this back up in 6 months for you regulars. (not to rub it in of course) Until then I will stick to topics related to Japan.

Peace to All,

SRL.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

After all of the Debates the fact remains that Iraq's going to get a visit from the U.S. Who's next on the list? It will happen country by country.
It is hard to describe how much more powerful we are than any other country in the world.

The fact that the U.S. is going to have its way with the world must burn some of you guys up. I'm not saying it's right but I'm saying that's how it looks like it's going to roll out. Time will tell if this post is true and if it is then that means most of the opinions contrary to the U.S. opinion doesn't matter much. I will make it a point to bring this back up in 6 months for you regulars. (not to rub it in of course) Until then I will stick to topics related to Japan.

Peace to All,

SRL.

You know I've got to say that this issue is on of the few issues that I have flipped flopped on repeatedly. Months ago I was firmly opposed to the war. Recently, I have been convinced that we must go in.

Actually, I am beginning to think now that it is more and more likely that we will not go in at all.

[ramchop]

You know I've got to say that this issue is on of the few issues that I have flipped flopped on repeatedly. Months ago I was firmly opposed to the war. Recently, I have been convinced that we must go in.

Actually, I am beginning to think now that it is more and more likely that we will not go in at all.

Interesting, days ago I was firmly against the war. More recently I've had a "fuck it!" sort of an attitude.

Saddam is an evil bastard. If he falls it's good. Who cares if it's for the wrong reasons? If he falls it's good. If he's replaced by another evil bastard, then that's a shame... better the devil you know? I don't think so.

I thought the UN was who should have the final say... but then look at the dickhead tinpot dictator "guest" members on the security council. Hands out for aid, selling their vote to the highest bidder. The US/UK snubbing the UN will have consequences. Resulting in what? The end of the UN (not good) or a decent shake up (good)?

What is not good are the innocent victims that inevitably happen in a war. What also is not good are is the inevitable increase in anti-US terrorists.

I think I'll stay on the fence, the view is good from up here.