The United States of America has gone mad

growler

twice now posters have made reference to the celebrations of the palestinians after 9/11 , this was subsequently shown to be OLD FOOTAGE from the west bank and was shown completely out of context.... in order to polarize american sentiment.

I honestly believe (and I am not naive) that the USA will ultimatley be directly responsible for the first use of WMD (again), they possess enough hardware to destroy the planet, are paranoid, and see their self imposed world's-cop role as giving them a mandate for anything they see fit.

My opinion would be radically different if the US was to take such a moral stance over palestine, congo, sierra leone, zimbabwe etc. it's the hypocrisy of their dual-track foreign policy that pisses me off.

Meh

Originally posted by growler
twice now posters have made reference to the celebrations of the palestinians after 9/11 , this was subsequently shown to be OLD FOOTAGE from the west bank and was shown completely out of context.... in order to polarize american sentiment.

No it wasn't. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

Claim: CNN used old footage to fake images of 'Palestinians dancing in the street' after the terrorist attack on the USA.

Status: False.

There is absolutely no truth to the information that is now distributed on the Internet that CNN used 10-year-old video when showing the celebrating of some Palestinians in East Jerusalem after the terror attacks in the U.S. The video was shot that day by a Reuters camera crew. CNN is a client of Reuters and like other clients, received the video and broadcast it. Reuters officials have publicly made the facts clear as well.

The allegation is false. The source of the allegation has withdrawn it and apologized. It was started by a Brazilian student who now says he immediately posted a correction once he knew the information was not true. This is the statement by his university -- UNICAMP -- Universidad Estatal de Campinas-Brasil.

Looks like you've been the victim of anti-American propaganda. Perhaps you should be a little more sceptical before you believe every story that shows the USA in a bad light...

Hobart

Cork you seem to be very confused. In your last post you said that everybody wanst peace. However in your previous post you claim that "The United States of America has gone mad - No
I think - they are pretty sane."

Now, even the most pro-Amercian would have to accept that with the build up of troops in the Middle East, the US is preparing for WAR. PLEASE TRY TO BE CONSISTENT CORK!!

Secondly, and I believe that this is the thrid time I have asked this question. What Threat is Iraq to the US or the UK?

Originally posted by Hobart
Secondly, and I believe that this is the thrid time I have asked this question. What Threat is Iraq to the US or the UK?

To answer that, I'd have to assume at this stage, as a given that the Sadamites are not too happy with the West at the moment, and at this stage in proceedings, would be only too happy to give safe haven to every anti western extremist that wants it.
And I'd have to mention the unmentionable
Oil .

Clearly it would be a bad thing, if the sadamites were to promote instability in the region and if that were to spread to neighbouring countries, supplies of the Black gold would tighten, rising the price and dulling western Economies.

and then as mentioned in various media over the week end in the U.K , it would be easy enough, at the moment for potentially nasty characters to get into the UK as asylum seekers and rustle up some Ricin.
I tend to think it's a good thing that, a lot of attention is being given at the moment to the potential for terrorism.
It's a pity though that, the country with the most might, needs an incentive , like oil to make it worth their while to protect the rest of Society, against such threats....

But then, I wouldn't blame them for not acting, if it didn't secure oil supplies, for all the grief the U.S get while on away missions.

mm

Cork

There is no war. The US forces are in the Gulf to put pressure on Saddam to comply with the US resolution.

Why did Saddam invade Kuwait?
Oil.

Why did his forces burn oil fields?

Hobart

I, like you Man, are scrambling for answers to that question. To say that

To answer that, I'd have to assume at this stage, as a given that the Sadamites are not too happy with the West at the moment, and at this stage in proceedings, would be only too happy to give safe haven to every anti western extremist that wants it.

is a HUGE presumption. If the facts are to be believed then it is Iran that is a bigger threat to the West, in terms of State Sponsered Terrorism, than Iraq.

But you have hit the nail on the head "OIL". America produces about 2% of the worlds oil. And yet it consumes about 20% of the annually produced Oil.

Clearly it would be a bad thing, if the sadamites were to promote instability in the region and if that were to spread to neighbouring countries, supplies of the Black gold would tighten, rising the price and dulling western Economies.

Yes it would. But hang on a second! Look who surrounds Iraq! Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Isreal. Hardly the bussom of stability. But that's no excuse either. You could look at any region/continent in the world and you could pick out potential pockets of instability.

and then as mentioned in various media over the week end in the U.K , it would be easy enough, at the moment for potentially nasty characters to get into the UK as asylum seekers and rustle up some Ricin.

What has that got to do with Iraq. I saw a piece in the Sunday Times yesterday that tried to `link the Ricin find to Al'Queda and onto Iraq. It was pure MI5 crap.

It's a pity though that, the country with the most might, needs an incentive , like oil to make it worth their while to protect the rest of Society, against such threats....

WHAT THREATS? It's all hear'sy and innuendo. IF Iraq do this and IF Iraq do that and What about this and What about that. I am not saying that we shoould wait for Saddam to drop a 'H' bomb on London before we do anything. But show me the evidence that he plans to do this and I will be the first in the queue to condemn him. Let me be 100% clear on this .

IRAQ WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11
AFAIK IRAQ HAS NEVER BOMBED THE UK OR USA
AFAIK IRAQ HAS SUBMITTED AN ARMS DOSSIER TO THE UN

Hobart

Oh God, this is getting tedious.

The US forces are in the Gulf to put pressure on Saddam to comply with the US resolution.

It's a UN resolution not a US resolution, although It might well have been.

Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Oil

Yes and No. Ofically It started over a border conflict.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Hobart
It's a UN resolution not a US resolution, although It might well have been.

It's a US led UN resolution, just like the last time. Just because America is kowtowing to the UN doesn't make it OK.

Yes and No. Ofically It started over a border conflict.

Yeah, a conflict that Washington didn't initially object to.

Sure it's about oil. It's an attempt by America to circumvent OPEC by siphoning off oil by abusing the Oil for Food programme. But it's also about rebuilding Iraq (having already demolished it) through fat business deals led by the US and the UK. They're creating a market.

What threat does Iraq pose to the US and UK? None, security-wise. But as far as their economic interests are concerned: a lot. Unfortunately, Iraq is in an impossible position. They can't tell the IMF or WTO to f*** off when they come knocking on their door.

halkar

Originally posted by Hobart
Oh God, this is getting tedious. It's a UN resolution not a US resolution, although It might well have been. Yes and No. Ofically It started over a border conflict.

Nope, not UN. They have not decided yet about what to do with Iraq and US started to build up in the area months ago. I am sure they are not there for a sunny holiday . American ships waiting in open seas south of Turkey but they can not use the docks as Turkey not allowing them. If it was for UN decision I am sure Turkey would let these ships to use the facilities there as they are with UN too.

To me, UN is not so keen on war against Saddam as much as US is and it is clear that UN's slow responses are p!!ss!ng US off .

As for the Oil. I am sure US has the biggest eye on the oil there. After all I don't believe they are going in a war that will cost them 10 times more than the cost of freeing Kuwait. Most of the cost for freeing Kuwait was provided by Saudis and Kuwait but they don't have anything like that now to recover their costs so it is clear that they will suck the oil for years to come while people there still struggle to survive.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Oh God, this is getting tedious. It's a UN resolution not a US resolution, although It might well have been. Yes and No. Ofically It started over a border conflict.

Or, alternately, it was an attempt by Saddam to reunite what are historically the lands of Iraq.

Even were it about oil, the burning of the fields makes sense. If you cant have it, then depriving other of it will make your own oil stocks worth more....so you still gain.

I'm willing to bet that Iraq was never presented the bill for the cleanup of the Kuwaiti fields.

jc

Originally posted by Hobart
I, like you Man, are scrambling for answers to that question. To say that is a HUGE presumption. If the facts are to be believed then it is Iran that is a bigger threat to the West, in terms of State Sponsered Terrorism, than Iraq.

But I said:

at this stage, as a given that the Sadamites are not too happy with the West at the moment, and at this stage in proceedings, would be only too happy to give safe haven to every anti western extremist that wants it.

At this stage,I myself would be worried that the Sadamites might conclude,helping, anti american extremists would be the way to go-now thats a threat!

Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Isreal. Hardly the bussom of stability. But that's no excuse either. You could look at any region/continent in the world and you could pick out potential pockets of instability.

All the more reason, to put the Sadamites in check, the region is unstable enough already.

But you have hit the nail on the head "OIL". America produces about 2% of the worlds oil. And yet it consumes about 20% of the annually produced Oil.

Yeap and Ireland produces none, All the more reason , why I'd like to see, the Sadamites in check.

What has that got to do with Iraq. I saw a piece in the Sunday Times yesterday that tried to `link the Ricin find to Al'Queda and onto Iraq. It was pure MI5 crap.

you do not believe, Islamic extremist fundamentalism is a threat to Western society or that,the Sadamites, would harbour them, fair enough, but I do firmly believe that they are.

WHAT THREATS? It's all hear'sy and innuendo. IF Iraq do this and IF Iraq do that and What about this and What about that. I am not saying that we shoould wait for Saddam to drop a 'H' bomb on London before we do anything. But show me the evidence that he plans to do this and I will be the first in the queue to condemn him. Let me be 100% clear on this .

Thats the thing , you see, the U.K and the U.S taxpayer, funds organisations like MI5, the CIA etc to look after all that, and the indirect benefit, to you and me is the lifestyle, we lead here in the west.
I like you will reserve full judgement on that, untill, the "smoking gun" is revealed or shown not to exist in the next month or so.
Then we will be somewhat 100% clear on whether this fuss is justified or not.
mm

gandalf

Originally posted by bonkey

I'm willing to bet that Iraq was never presented the bill for the cleanup of the Kuwaiti fields.

jc

Sorry bonkey I believe your wrong there. Part of the Oil for Food program includes a cut of 30-35% of the oils value (I'll have to check that, if I remember where I read it !!) to be paid directly to Kuwait as reparations for the Gulf War. The remainder goes on Aid.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Actually got my figures wrong there. Here are the figures according to the UN.

59% is earmarked for the contracting of supplies and equipment by the Government of Iraq for the 15 central and southern governorates

13% for the three northern governorates, where the United Nations implements the programme on behalf of the Government of Iraq.

25% goes to the Compensation Fund for war reparation payments

2.2% covers the United Nations administrative and operational costs for administering the programme

0.8% is allocated to the weapons inspection programme.

Details here http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact-sheet.html

(thats just for those who say I don't back up what I say )

Gandalf.

Hobart

OK, Man. So you believe that every, as you put it, 'anti western' state/country would be willing to allow extremists into their country. Quite a wide-sweeping statement, if you don't mind me saying so. And then you go on to say:

All the more reason, to put the Sadamites in check, the region is unstable enough already.

What to do you mean by keeping them in check? Kill a few thousand of the population? Murder a few soldiers? or Just keep bombing the F**K out of the country and stop them exporting or importing anything of material value over the next 10 years? Well?

And then the beaut:

Yeap and Ireland produces none, All the more reason , why I'd like to see, the Sadamites in check.

Have you read Mein Kampf lately? Cop on.

you do not believe, Islamic extremist fundamentalism is a threat to Western society or that,the Sadamites, would harbour them, fair enough, but I do firmly believe that they are.

Yes I do. But I also think that American Propaganda, such as the "We are right they are Wrong" message you are portraying is a bigger threat to our society. Ideally I would like to see a tolerent society where I don't give a F**K if you believe in Mohammed and I believe in Budda. Personnely I am pro-preace pro-people and I can guarantee you that most people in Iraq just want to get on with their lifes and not be under the constant threat of bombing by the US/UK alliance.

Thats the thing , you see, the U.K and the U.S taxpayer, funds organisations like MI5, the CIA etc to look after all that, and the indirect benefit, to you and me is the lifestyle, we lead here in the west.

Talk about being brain-washed. Grow up.

Originally posted by Hobart
OK, Man. So you believe that every, as you put it, 'anti western' state/country would be willing to allow extremists into their country.

I did not say state or country at all, I said:

the Sadamites might conclude,helping, anti american extremists would be the way to go-now thats a threat!

wheres the word State or Country in that...?This is your second answer to me and the second time you misquote me. I think it's logical to assume, that if you dislike America and you rule a country, you aren't exactly going to call immigration officials if you find AlQ'ueda sympathisers have wandered across your borders.

What to do you mean by keeping them in check?

Well,what the UN want, really, is what I mean.
Incidently, before, you get mad with me again,I've coined the phrase "Sadamite" to mean supporter of Sadam, and not the Iraqi people.

Have you read Mein Kampf lately? Cop on.

wheres that coming from??
Are you suggesting I am a Nazi?? Thats a horrible thing to say.
I by saying, that Ireland produces no oil was making a simple point, that we would suffer from it's scarcity and high price, just like the U.S would.

Talk about being brain-washed. Grow up.

Another Bizarre comment:rolleyes:
mm

Cork

Just because America is kowtowing to the UN doesn't make it OK.

America is to blame again. What would the arab world hate if America did not exist.

I think that when your look at the international conference on racisim & look who hijacked that.

American Propaganda, such as the "We are right they are Wrong" message you are portraying is a bigger threat to our society

How is Saddam right?

Was he right in not offering full cooperation to UN inspectors over the last 10 years?


I think his chickens are coming home to roost.

At least the US is standing up to him.

The Franch & Germans really have not a clue how to deal with the situation.

I would not hold my breath waiting for Germany or France to express an openion on how to deal with Iraq.

Snowball

Originally posted by TmB
A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre.

I know there are alot of stupid Americans, but one in two? Where did they take the poll? Trailerparksville, Louisiana?

- Dave.

My uncle lives in the states and he can't beleve the amount of bad information being told and also the amount of information that is just not being aired.
Most of the press are owned by big buisness which is in turn owned by oil companies. The big press orginazations that are not are afrid to spread any information that Bush might not like because if you get banned for the White house press rooms you get no real national news, and they do get banned. Thats why they can't ask the right questions to the White house officers or Bush.

Hobart

wheres the word State or Country in that...?This is your second answer to me and the second time you misquote me.

Where did I mis-quote you??????? I never said you mentioned the word state or country. I merely extrapilated that meaning from the word 'Sadamites' you have come up with. Ok then. SO maybe you meant Sadam, His Family and his 2 mates Muckram and Sodtham. Explain what you meant then! I was merely assuming that you meant Saddam and his supporters. Now assuming, that at the time of this post Saddam is still the head of state in Iraq, and that you would also describe supporters of his, such as Gaddaffi, who is also a head of state, well then I feel I was justified in assuming Sadamites meant Heads of States/Countries whom supported Saddam. If I am wrong I apologise. However I still did not mis-quote you.

Well,what the UN want, really, is what I mean

So the UN is 'keeping them in check' eh? Please expand. What do you mean by keeping them in check???

Are you suggesting I am a Nazi

No. If I was I would say you are a Nazi.

I by saying, that Ireland produces no oil was making a simple point, that we would suffer from it's scarcity and high price, just like the U.S would.

So by that an analagy we should send gun ships, aircraft carriers and 100,000 troops to the borders of every oil producing country to safe guard the production of oil and the subsequent flow of Oil in Ireland. Hang on! I like Kangaroo Steaks. Lets send the 3 or 4 Irish Navy Ship off to Aussie to safe guard the supply of Kangaroo to Ireland.

Your Quote Thats the thing , you see, the U.K and the U.S taxpayer, funds organisations like MI5, the CIA etc to look after all that, and the indirect benefit, to you and me is the lifestyle, we lead here in the west.

My Reply Talk about being brain-washed. Grow up

What do I mean? Firstly I would assume you know F**K ALL about the operations of MI5 and the CIA. Secondly we are not talking about 'keeping in check' a class room of 12 year olds who have stolen the teachers chalk. We are talking about a potential war here where thousands will loose their lives. The CIA and MI5 have never knocked on my door and said 'there you go were save guarding your lifestyle' and do you know what? They never will. So just what are you talking about????

Cork

Most of the press are owned by big buisness which is in turn owned by oil companies. The big press orginazations that are not are afrid to spread any information that Bush might not like because if you get banned for the White house press rooms you get no real national news, and they do get banned. Thats why they can't ask the right questions to the White house officers or Bush.

They are many media outlets in the US. They have the internet as well. It is the people of Iraq that don't have access to the net.

I think that internet cafes were recently closed down in Red China.


America has Freedom of Speech.

Iraq does not.

Hobart

Ping Pong Ping Pong Ping Pong

They are many media outlets in the US. They have the internet as well. It is the people of Iraq that don't have access to the net.

So nobody in Iraq can access the internet?? So there must be no land line phones, no mobile phones.

I think that internet cafes were recently closed down in Red China.

NO! Unlicensed Int Cafes where closed in China for Safety/Tax reasons. What has China got to do with it?

America has Freedom of Speech.

If you agree with the general populus. Anybody remember the McArthur Trials????

Hobart

I'm a bit confused. Did not the UK draw up the borders for Iraq in 1919 or something? It didn't exist before

Yes you are very confused. Have a look here Never heard of the Hanging Garderns of Babylon?To answer the second part of your question have a look here

Meh

Originally posted by Hobart
So by that an analagy we should send gun ships, aircraft carriers and 100,000 troops to the borders of every oil producing country to safe guard the production of oil and the subsequent flow of Oil in Ireland.

If that specific country is a military threat to its neighbours (and hence to the world economy), is run by an aggressive tyrannical dictator and has been in defiance of UN resolutions for years, then we should send troops if the UN Security Council so decides, yes.

So nobody in Iraq can access the internet?? So there must be no land line phones, no mobile phones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2655315.stm

Iraq has blocked access to e-mail following an electronic campaign by the US urging key military and civilian figures to turn against President Saddam Hussein.

Experts say that the fact that foreign e-mail servers are banned in Iraq would have made the campaign much easier as all recipients receive their mail on the same provider.

If you agree with the general populus.

Noam Chomsky seems to have no problems getting his voice heard. And those 200,000 people at the anti-war demo in Washington at the weekend were perfectly free to express their opinions.

Hobart

Originally by Meh If that specific country is a military threat to its neighbours (and hence to the world economy),

Not every country that is a military threat to it's neighbours is a threat to the world economy. Iraq has made very little contribution to the world economy in the last 12 years so the how would it be a threat to the world economy??

Originally by Meh is run by an aggressive tyrannical dictator and has been in defiance of UN resolutions for years, then we should send troops if the UN Security Council so decides, yes.

Isreal had better watch out!!

Originally by Meh http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2655315.stm

What has that got to do with internet access??? So the Iraq government banned e-mail from1 ISP? Did you read the piece? Do you know how to setup internet access on a PC?

And those 200,000 people at the anti-war demo in Washington at the weekend were perfectly free to express their opinions

I would clasify that as the general populous! What would you clasify it as??

Meh

Originally posted by Hobart
Iraq has made very little contribution to the world economy in the last 12 years so the how would it be a threat to the world economy??

It's an agressive expansionist military dictatorship in the Middle East, which, as you may know, is the world's largest oil-producing region.

Isreal had better watch out!!

Yes, I was expecting that reply. For a start, Israel is a democracy, not a dictatorship. I don't have much time for Sharon, but like it or not, he was democratically elected. And more importantly, there are no Security Council resolutions under which Israel could face military action. The SC resolutions dealing with Israel's occupation of Palestinian land are under Chapter VI of the UN charter, which deal with peaceful resolution of disputes. Those resolutions regarding Iraq's refusal to disarm are under Chapter VII, which allows military action to be taken in response to breaches. See this article for more information.

What has that got to do with internet access??? So the Iraq government banned e-mail from1 ISP?

The point is: Iraqis do not have free access to the Internet. If you post "Saddam sucks!" on www.boards.iq you will be getting a visit from the secret police.

I would clasify that as the general populous! What would you clasify it as??

Since the US government does not share their views, I would classify it as an opposition demonstration. You don't see many of those in Baghdad...

growler

without trivializing the subject , did anyone see the Bremner, Bird and Fortune "between iraq and a hard place" special last night ?

satire at it's best from C4 , (good historical stuff on the creation of iraq from a bunch of warring tribes , who only ever united to kick out the british) even had records of the british governors requesting poison gas to sort out kurdish villages , and foreign office approval of the killing on civilians if it brought tribes under control, along with all the oil connections etc.

basically saying that sadam is just history repeating and that he is no worse than the british were when they were there , kinda pulls the rug out from under those on a moral high ground.

great to see a bit of intelligent humour on the subject , the sketch about Sadams "this is your life" was hysterical... as he had shot all past friends and family

i suppose if there was a moral to the story it would be "let he who is without sin...... etc"

Originally posted by Hobart
Where did I mis-quote you??????? I never said you mentioned the word state or country. I merely extrapilated that meaning from the word 'Sadamites' you have come up with. Ok then. SO maybe you meant Sadam, His Family and his 2 mates Muckram and Sodtham. Explain what you meant then! I was merely assuming that you meant Saddam and his supporters.

well, I'm here, not anywhere else, it would have been friendly of you, to just ask me, if I wasn't making my stance clear enough for you.

Where did I mis-quote you??????? I never said you mentioned the word state or country.

well you said that I said:

So you believe that every, as you put it, 'anti western' state/country would be willing to allow extremists into their country. Quite a wide-sweeping statement, if you don't mind me saying so.

There you have me saying State and Country whereas I actually said:

the Sadamites might conclude,helping, anti american extremists would be the way to go-now thats a threat!

And then you went on to further mis interpret me, by being inflamatory with:

Have you read Mein Kampf lately? Cop on.

which is a thinly veiled insult.
and:

Talk about being brain-washed. Grow up.

which is a meaningless retort.

Now after that Tirade, it's little wonder that I have a poor opinion of your style of debate
mm

Hobart

Originally posted by Meh
It's an agressive expansionist military dictatorship in the Middle East, which, as you may know, is the world's largest oil-producing region.

As I have said. How is it a threat to the World Economy? Do you honestly believe that it would re-invade Kuwait? Or Iran?

Originally posted by Meh For a start, Israel is a democracy, not a dictatorship

Yea some Democracy

And more importantly, there are no Security Council resolutions under which Israel could face military action. The SC resolutions dealing with Israel's occupation of Palestinian land are under Chapter VI of the UN charter, which deal with peaceful resolution of disputes.

Yea. That has really worked in that region. I suppose that there is absoulutley no link between the massive US aid program to Israel on the fact that virtually nothing has been done about the issue, despite acts of terrorism like this perpatrtated by Isreal on innoncent people. And yet the US refuses condemn them. And don't come back with links to GW Bush saying this and that. He was asked to sign up to the UN condemnation and did not.

The point is: Iraqis do not have free access to the Internet. If you post "Saddam sucks!" on www.boards.iq you will be getting a visit from the secret police.

If they are able to access www.boards.iq, well then I presume that they have got free access to the internet. You have obviously been there, as you seem to know quite a bit about the Iraqi Secret Police, where you locked up for it? Anyway your article was about blocking propaganda e-mail from the west. It said NOTHING about Iraqi's having no access to the internet. So I will ask you again. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF YOUR LINK???

Since the US government does not share their views, I would classify it as an opposition demonstration. You don't see many of those in Baghdad...

Populous Definition:"populous - c.1425, from L. populosus "full of people, populous," from populus "people."

I see no reference to opposition or government there?

Hobart

Let me just clear up the percieved insult to you, Man, before I go any further. I did not mean to insinuate that you are a NAZI. Mein Kampf was written in 1923, before the formation of the Nazi party. It is the Blueprint for the Third Reich. To quote a recent reviewer

Mein Kampf, in the mind of an evil genius
I believe that Mein Kampf is perhaps one of my most enjoyed, and probably my favorite books that I have read about history. It takes you into the mind of this evil genius and megalomaniac of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler. Being only a sophomore in High School, about 10% of the book I didn't understand to well but the rest I completely enjoyed and all though Hitler made a few good points here and there, his analogies were quite on target,.but his overall effort to persuade the masses just wasn't enough to persuade me , his ideas were to sick and didn't go in enough detail. This book I couldn't put down, even though i was criticized for being a racist Nazi, for reading this, who ever doesn't read this is ignorant and should read this before judging Hitler on his systematic extermination of the Jews. His ideas proved a lot of things, but you shouldn't judge him just because he killed a plethora of people, yeah of course it is wrong, but read this book to get the in depth argumentation of his ideas. This is by far the leading book in my desultory reading of History books, now I think I am a WWII, Holocaust buff. Just take my advice please read this book for your own benefit to understand Hitler's perspective before criticizing him like I hope that I require no further explanation.

If you still believe I was calling you a Nazi I apologise. Can I shake your virtual hand on that?

I did not mis quote you. I used the quotes on the words "anti western" no where else! I also thought that I had a pretty good idea about where you were coming from with the use of the word Sadamite. Did I not explain that correctly?

Now after that Tirade, it's little wonder that I have a poor opinion of your style of

That's your opinion, and You are welcome to it. OK

Meh

Originally posted by Hobart
As I have said. How is it a threat to the World Economy? Do you honestly believe that it would re-invade Kuwait? Or Iran?

Well, Saddam isn't building his WMDs just for the fun of it. He intends to either use them or threaten to use them.

Yea. That has really worked in that region. I suppose that there is absoulutley no link between the massive US aid program to Israel on the fact that virtually nothing has been done about the issue, despite acts of terrorism like this perpatrtated by Isreal on innoncent people. And yet the US refuses condemn them. And don't come back with links to GW Bush saying this and that. He was asked to sign up to the UN condemnation and did not.

All that doesn't change the fact that there is no legal basis under international law to threaten Israel with military force. In contrast to Iraq. It seems you want to pay attention to UN resolutions only when they suit you. In that respect, you have more in common with George Bush than you think.

If they are able to access www.boards.iq, well then I presume that they have got free access to the internet.

And what grounds do you have for this presumption? China, for example, allows access to google while blocking access to cnn and tibet-related sites.

You have obviously been there, as you seem to know quite a bit about the Iraqi Secret Police, where you locked up for it?

Actually, I've never been to Iraq, and I know very little about the Iraqi secret police (what with them being secret and all).

Anyway your article was about blocking propaganda e-mail from the west. It said NOTHING about Iraqi's having no access to the internet. So I will ask you again. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF YOUR LINK???

To demonstrate Iraqi censorship of the Internet. It seems that Cork's information was a little out of date; however as recently as 1999, Iraq had no internet connections.

Populous Definition:"populous - c.1425, from L. populosus "full of people, populous," from populus "people."

If we're going to pull out the dictionaries, "populous" is is an adjective and not a noun. You obviously meant "populace".

And 200,000 people, while it is an impressive number, is less than 0.1% of the populace of the USA.

Hobart

Well, Saddam isn't building his WMDs just for the fun of it

What WMDs?

All that doesn't change the fact that there is no legal basis under international law to threaten Israel with military force

Don't disagree. And I never said it did. But that does not make it right.

And what grounds do you have for this presumption? China, for example, allows access to google while blocking access to cnn and tibet-related sites.

What if some bright spark decided to use an ISP OUTSIDE of China, or Iraq, or wherever??

Actually, I've never been to Iraq, and I know very little about the Iraqi secret police

Where did you dig up your gem about the www.boards.iq analagy then? I suppose you where just being presumptive (Is that a Noun or an Adjective? )

If we're going to pull out the dictionaries, "populous" is is an adjective and not a noun. You obviously meant "populace".

Got me there on the spelling. I'll have to watch me pee's n queues so. However there is no denying that with 200,000 people it is a popular believe.