19down5000togo
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:41 am)
Draw out the DUMMIES
Here is the Bush Strategy... find out who is with us and who is against us. Once the lines are drawn, release the evidence - embarass the hell out of everyone who was against us causing them to fold to future US demands. Nobody wants to look foolish twice.
Bush is a good poker player... he has played his hand steadfastly with regard to Iraq... he either has the evidence and everyone else will be sorry for calling him, or he does not have the evidence and will look like a fool. Pretty high stakes for him and the US... I would bet that he has the evidence.
scumbuster
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:43 am)
Why focus on Iraq?
Most of the 9/11 attack was organized in Saudi Arabia. I haven't seen any evidence of Iraqi involvement in that.
An attack of the United States on Iraq without U.N. sanction will unleash a wave of terrorism against the U.S. such as not been seen yet. And if the fear is that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then what better way to provoke them into using them then to attack them.
Iraq is a threat to Israel, not the US
Saddam has a history of trying to acquire weapons to use against Israel, but not against the US.
davidpatte
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:46 am)
US is a threat to all Arab Nations if
... Iraq is invaded and taken over. Good central location to conduct operations in that region of the world. Based upon Bush's conduct, those countries have a right to be very concerned with the United States taking over Iraq. Perhaps it would be best for those countries to send their troops into Iraq to block the US? lol
Bush succeeded in uniting the Arabs And uniting France&Germany And improving the alignment between Canada and Europe.
Thanks George.
SHOCKWAVE 0
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:16 pm)
THE PROBLEM WITH AMERICA IS...
America has been overrun by Liberalism and by third world citizens. We are not the only ones so plagued. A recent study showed that 75% of all rapes in Norway were committed by non-western, third worlders.
Most of these third worlders were Muslims...yes..those "holier than thou" Muslims. Their defense was that western women dress too provactively.
There lies the problem with most third worlders and muslims in particular. They simply have not yet attained a level of civilization that allows them to interact properly with the rest of the world. It's this lack of civilization that breeds religious zealots.
Until we figure out a way to civilize them, we'll never have peace in the world.
voiceofreason
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:19 pm)
PROBLEM WITH (WHIITE) AMERICA IS...
Sir, You sound like Hitler. Read you remark in the following context:
Germany has been overrun by Liberalism and by third world citizens. We are not the only ones so plagued. A recent study showed that 75% of all rapes in Norway were committed by non-western, third worlders.
Most of these third worlders were Jews...yes..those "holier than thou" Jews.
There lies the problem with most third worlders and Jews in particular. They simply have not yet attained a level of civilization that allows them to interact properly with the rest of the world. It's this lack of civilization that breeds religious zealots.
Until we figure out a way to civilize them, we'll never have peace in the world.
DblDamage
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:22 pm)
Now you're getting it!"Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are worried that a war that would remove Saddam from power may also set a precedent and endanger their own regimes."
That's the whole idea. Iraq is just a stepping stone, a place to set up a base so the US can finally stabilize the Middle East.
Those of you who believe this is a war over oil are terribly short sighted.
DblDamage
jackoffalltrade
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:25 pm)
Message to France and Germany
Now that even Arabs and neighbour countries ask Saddam to FULLY comply with the UN...maybe now These two European contries will see that it is not to underestimate Irak. Arabs usually dont go against there own, this is a proof thatSaddam is indeed hidding something for that it s own "brothers" dont trust him.
Take that as a hint Europe.
spgraf
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:27 pm)
Re: Message to France and Germany
I don't think the Middle Eastern countries are worried about Saddam. I think they are worried that the U.S has a psycho in office who will launchnukes in the region.
astrapower
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:32 pm)
and then
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."
Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."
Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction was hardly a call to action.
Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department "evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984,"American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name."
A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld's aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.
During his meeting with Arab diplomats Sinha emphatically stated that if the world did not refuse U.S. behavior against anti-imperialist regimes and patriotic governments, such as Iraq, it would be a license for the U.S. to have more attacks on other states.
He said, "In the name of Indian government I call on all the world states, especially Arabs, to announce their solidarity with Iraq and to refuse any military action against it."
amine c
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:35 pm)
Re: Message to France and Germany
You missing the point, if the UN vopted for war, then we should support them, but if bush went alone then we will be looking bad ... even the polls shows 64% of all amercian do not support Bush if he doesnot have full UN backing..
Get it
lucksir
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:37 pm)
sanction on saudis
fukk's up with friendly relations with saudis?
they fukkin killed 300 americans. the govt ain't doing shiet about their culture and extreme views about western culutres.
sanctions on saudis more then anything. fukk the iraqis are pretty modernized and we pick on them.
iraq would be a nice ally in the region. fukkin saudis, IRAN is NEXT
spgraf
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:41 pm)
Re: Message to France and Germany
So, even though we are claiming the right to invade Iraq because they possess WMDs and took part in 9/11, but we have failed to prove either of those theories definitively up to this point, we should go in anyways? Doesn't that set a precedent for the U.S invading any country we want for no reason?
astrapower
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:43 pm)
Forbidden Truth
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Journalists who would give up some credibility for a little government access deserve neither." Too many members of the Washington press corps have become nothing more than toadies for the current administration. While every administration can be expected to have its fair share of loyalists penning favorable pieces on the news, editorial, and op-ed pages, what is amazing in the current environment is the lemming-like rush by a number of heretofore liberal and progressive reporters to support the Bush II administration's extreme right-wing policies. These modern day quislings in the media even provide the White House with helpful cover from investigations by more independent-minded journalists.
Such has certainly been the case with the recent publication in English of "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban, Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia, and the Failed Search for Bin Laden." Written by French journalists Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, the book's first French language publication in Europe caused a major furor. But it was not with the French government or its friends in the media. The angst was among members of the Bin Laden family -- the so-called "good bin Ladens" and those who have done business in the past with George W. Bush and his father. Yeslam bin Laden, one of the "good" bin Ladens in Switzerland sued the authors for the information they provided on the bin Laden family's past business dealings. The suit went no where because the authors had absolute proof that not everything the bin Ladens have done in finance and business has been on the up and up.
But now, some self-appointed media spokespeople in Washington have taken up the cause that the bin Ladens wisely decided to drop. They have criticized Forbidden Truth without having read it or only having read snippets from it. It would appear that they have taken their cue from a White House family, who, like the bin Ladens, seem to have an awful lot to hide. The book has also been criticized for being unsourced when, in fact, it has over 500 footnotes. Footnoting and providing references is a practice that some of Washington penultimate journalistic insiders, including Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, should adopt in their own future docu-novels concerning administration cover-ups and malfeasance.
butcherofsatila
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:45 pm)
Warmongers will be crying in 2004
Heed my words, pigs! Your Prez isn't smart enough to pull this through. Iraq is going to be a nightmare, Osama gets as many recruits as he wants, killing americans in the middle east becomes normal, suicide bombs hit U.S. cities (maybe the subways), saddam blows up his refineries, gas becomes $45/barrel, U.S. forced to pick the entire tab for its adventure, the economy crashes, americans actually start starving, anti-war movement becomes mainstream. If this war starts, no way can a moron like Bush get his @#%$ together. He is sure to lose in 2004.
astrapower
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:47 pm)
forbidden truth 2
That Washington's media elite appears to be anesthetized to Bush's current drive to turning the United States into some mirror image of East Germany, China, or Pinochet's Chile cannot be overstated. The creation of the Freedom Corps, with neighbors turning in neighbors under the Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), the scrapping the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 to once again permit Federal troops to engage in civil law enforcement (including the possibility of their providing "security" at polling places this November and in November 2004), having booksellers, librarians, and video rental clerks report on the reading and viewing habits if their customers, and even the suggestion by a Bush appointee to the US Civil Rights Commission that internment camps may be necessary for Arab-Americans all point to an administration that is hell bent on destroying this country in order to save it.
So the media elite, in some perverted and confused quest to show its loyalty to the Bush family, has decided that linking its policies in Afghanistan and the Middle east to its past oil dealings, is somehow off the mark, "out there," unworthy of consideration. Reconstructed liberal and progressive journalists throw around the "C word" (conspiracy) to detract from those who write about the massive evidence that points to the Bushes having traded the nation's economic well-being and national security for personal profit. Grandfather Bush, Prescott, certainly did this during World War II when his investments included companies that supported Nazi Germany's war effort.
Now we have Neil Bush, from Silverado Savings and Loan infamy, cutting deals all over the Middle East using Daddy's and Dubya's business and political connections in that part of the world. And why shouldn't he? Dubya did this with a lucrative pipeline deal in Argentina for Enron in 1989 when he was pimping for Enron and Daddy was in the White House gearing up for a war with Iraq, another act that would eventually line the pockets of the Bushes.
Brisard and Dasquie provide concrete evidence how this same self-serving approach to business permitted the Taliban to negotiate with senior members of the Bush administration on a lucrative pipeline deal just weeks prior to the al Qaeda terrorists slamming commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. It's the same mind set that in 1990 convinced U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to tell Sadaam Hussein that the Bush I administration had no interest in his inter-Arab border dispute involving Kuwait. We now all know why the Bush family had no great interest in that "minor" dispute. They made a fortune from it, along with then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, whose Halliburton company helped rebuild the oil infrastructures of both Kuwait and Iraq.
nicekarachibreeze
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:52 pm)
Re: INDIA CALLS 4 SOLIDARITY W / IRAQ
India is unreliable and stood with the USSR during the cold war.
Indias sound backing of Iraq this time round is not without any reason. New Delhi has high stakes particularly in the Gulf region because it imports most of its crude oil from here. Besides, 3.5 million Indian expatriates are presently working in Iraq.
Also, historically and traditionally, India has strong political and economic relations with that country. Among few Arab states, Iraq is one of them to have supported India on Kashmir issue. Besides, the infrastructure in Iraq has been largely built by Indian firms.
However, during the 1991 Gulf War, India, for reasons best known to its leaders, demonstrated a flip-flop attitude regarding its stand on Iraq. On one hand, the then external affairs minister Inder Kumar Gujral flew to Baghdad to commiserate with Saddam Hussein, while on the other Chandrashekhar government surreptitiously allowed refueling facilities to U.S. military planes in India.
Now that the Gujarat elections are about to take place, Indian Muslims, the second-largest Muslim community in terms of population in the world after Indonesia, would feel further alienated if India tries to deviate from its self-professed stand and rashly supports a war, overtly or covertly, against Iraq without UN sanction.
spgraf
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:55 pm)
Re: Message to France and Germany
I agree that the world would be better without Saddam in power in Iraq. But, that doesn't answer the question of whether the U.S has the right to make that happen.
Ideally, the Iraqi people would band together, and kick Saddam out. The next best option would be for everyone in the UN to agree that Saddam needs to be removed, and it is done by a UN force.
The least attractive option would be for the U.S to do it alone, against the UN's wishes.
If we thumb our nose at the UN on this, and need their help on something else in the future, will we get it?
denraju
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 4:58 pm)
Iraq's spineless neighbours
If Iraq's neighbours do want war, they can certainly stop it. Countries like Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman etc can show some spine and tell the U S that their countries can't be used as bases for this unwanted war. But they are all beggar nations and can be purchased for a buck. At least they can insist that there should be a firn U N resolution to go to war!
difftone
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 5:02 pm)
To the Nations of the World
Please don't kill Americans. Just don't buy U.S. products. The Bush family are a bad seed. They've helped criminal anti-American regimes come to power from Hitler, to Castro, to Sadam Hussein, to the Taliban and al-Quaida, formerly known as the Mujahadeen, to the bin Laden family itself.
During the years leading up to WWII, Prescott Bush and his father in law, Herbert Walker, directed banking transactions that financed the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. When war broke out they continued financing German factory production. The Wall Street lawyer who laundered their transactions was Allen Dulles, who later created the CIA under Truman.
From "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush."
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.
Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking
Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland ``Bunny'' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush's.
------------------
After the war, George Bush Sr borrowed money from his traitorous father's bank to start Zapata Petroleum. They drilled offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, near Cuba. Operation Zapata was the CIA code name for the secret invasion of Cuba, also known as the Bay of Pigs, that ended in humiliation and defeat for the U.S., as did the Viet Nam war which followed.
The CIA had actually been supporting Castro, apparently unaware he was really a Marxist-Leninist. The Kennedy Administration inherited the Cuba problem
from Eisenhower and Nixon. JFK took the advice of General Ed Lansdale of the CIA, who proposed that terrorism and assassinations were an alternative to conventional warfare, and that we had to "fight fire with fire" against communist subversion. Scores of illegal operations were launched against Cuba alone, and covert warfare became official U.S./NATO policy.
But these measures failed to oust Castro, and JFK was putting a stop to them when he himself was assassinated. Ed Lansdale had been transferred to a post in the Pentagon where, shunned by most of his peers, he'd promoted his bizarre ideas to Army Intelligence. The NSA recently revealed that in 1962, JKF also learned that General Lemnitzer, the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had made plans to carry out terrorist attacks on American cities, and blame it on Cuba. He transferred Lemnitzer to Europe. Most CIA officers involved in the Cuba fiasco had been fired, including Allen Dulles.
Zapata Petroleum drilled all the original wells in Kuwait beginning in the 60's and 70's. U.S. jets have flown missions over Iraq 24/7 for 12 years now, their pilots high on speed supplied by the government, protecting oil industry investments. In the early 90's when Bush Sr was president, the Mujahadeen were OUR guys in Afghanistan. And in the 80's Sadam Hussein was our guy in Iraq. On 9/11, the bin Laden family members living in the US were quietly rounded up and escorted back to Saudi Arabia on private jets.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies