NationStates Jolt Archive

So...did I win the discussion prior to talking about President Bush's ever-amusing vocabulary?

So...did I win the discussion prior to talking about President Bush's ever-amusing vocabulary?
Well you certainly didn't win the discussion but you did a good job getting the topic moved over to a side rail, then you tried to discredit the original poster, and then you changed the subject.

Actually if you re-read the first post (if in fact you did read it all), you will find some information pertinent to your request for proof that you obviously overlooked. If I had been online while you were making your diversion, I would have been able to point you to the information you needed to fill in the blanks. You certainly wouldn't win the discussion with the bare minimum of input that you provided.

He hasn't created terrorists, he's brought a bunch of them to a common battleground.

Oh believe me, he has. I've seen two North African friends drop out of college in Europe to go toot an AK-47 in Iraq. The first studied sociology, the second systems engineering. Great kids, both of them.

They hate freedom. Is that Bush's fault?

They hate the neverending oppression and humiliation of Arab peoples at least since the 19th century, and they act out of solidarity. If ever you were to wonder where the hell the present Islamist fundamentalists sprang out of, you might notice that they grew out of crushed Arab nationalist, anti-colonial movements. They fought for freedom then, they fight for freedom now, albeit with a misguided ideology.

would you let them have their way?

I'll do anything I can to help them have their way.


And if my government aids the illegal assault, then I shall strike them too in targetted acts of civil disobedience designed to slow down the assault. Invading bases, blocking runways, entering defense compounds, whatever it takes.

Ommm, you've just made my day. Thank you, and God bless you. :)

First and foremost, I'd appreciate some links to trustworthy sources. I haven't heard of a large number of cases such as these.

I saw the first reports of this on 60 Minutes before I left for China in June. A number of newspapers have written about some of the "problems" with the Patriot Act and the occasional harrassment of "suspects" that were created on very dubious leads, usually through word of mouth.

Second, how is it Bush's fault if "terrorist" is misinterpreted? Sounds more like intel/police oversight, coupled with possible poor wording-which will probably be corrected when the Act's reviewed, if present.

Would you prefer I blame the staff who helped write the Act that Bush promoted, or the people who pushed it through at a late hour so half the senators couldn't read it? I DO of course blame them as well the "faulty" intel, but I see no reason to exonerate Bush for creating the atmosphere in the first place.


EDIT: Bah, I always forget something >_> The point is the Act is not designed to violate any rights, and is not intended to. It's not the administration's fault if it was poorly worded by Congress, or misinterpreted by police/intel. However, the libs insist that the Act is designed to invade the average citizen's privacy, and is intended to do so.

Whether it is "intended" or not is hardly the issue. It's the fact that it DOES.

GE-REN

I feel compelled to mention that the Patriot act does a heck of a lot more than give FBI/CIA special powers for dealing with terrorism. It's 300 pages long. It also edits existing laws, such that no one can even understand every aspect of it unless they study it for months, even years. Much of what the Patriot Act does is still a mystery to most people. However, pretty much every statement I have heard about what it contains is true. It does give the FBI/CIA special powers, and it does, in fact, reduce our freedoms as a result.

So in essence, each of you is mostly right about the patriot act.

I could also comment (with sources) on exactly how free this "free" country really is, but that would be yet another side track, and I really don't want to cause that. I'd rather start a new thread, which I probably won't even do that :P

I am glad to see that lots of people here actually debate with facts however.

Well you certainly didn't win the discussion but you did a good job getting the topic moved over to a side rail, then you tried to discredit the original poster, and then you changed the subject.

Actually if you re-read the first post (if in fact you did read it all), you will find some information pertinent to your request for proof that you obviously overlooked. If I had been online while you were making your diversion, I would have been able to point you to the information you needed to fill in the blanks. You certainly wouldn't win the discussion with the bare minimum of input that you provided.

Christ, it was a joke -_- Don't insult me by accusing me of trying to derail the topic; if you'd noticed, all I've done is respond to other posts. And I hope you're not serious about accusing me of trying to "discredit the original poster"; he was claiming he had proof that Bush was Satan, but was too busy to post it. Anyone who believes that deserves to be bludgeoned with a tire iron. I didn't have to do much work -_-. Note that the article in question isn't authored by Skap.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

Alright, so he's claiming that the source was Reporter Seymour M. Hersh-of quite an esteemed background; albeit seeming to be rather liberal/anti-war, he has done important expose's.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

"the well-known investigative journalist [I]claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer."

Reread it. He threw a claim, a speculation, in with known facts that were related to the claim. I see nothing relating to the 9-11 conspiracy theory in the article, as well.

Oh believe me, he has. I've seen two North African friends drop out of college in Europe to go toot an AK-47 in Iraq. The first studied sociology, the second systems engineering. Great kids, both of them.

And? People tend to take sides in conflicts. If your friends hadn't gone now, they would have eventually; although, spins in the media are making the war out to be "evil", which is probably drawing more to the terrorists' numbers.



They hate the neverending oppression and humiliation of Arab peoples at least since the 19th century, and they act out of solidarity. If ever you were to wonder where the hell the present Islamist fundamentalists sprang out of, you might notice that they grew out of crushed Arab nationalist, anti-colonial movements. They fought for freedom then, they fight for freedom now, albeit with a misguided ideology.

As you said-misguided ideology. Note most recent foreign presence in a middle-eastern war-the gulf war, intervening in an invasion. While they have been oppressed, as you've said, that doesn't give them the right to murder civillians. The middle east, at this point, is on a large scale a culture of violence; if we don't change that, it'll only result if further warfare, regardless of foreign intervention, or a lack thereof.



I'll do anything I can to help them have their way.



So then, you would support the murder of civillians? You people disgust me-you simply accept the romanticized propoganda shoved at you by insurgents. Hell, in Germany, one of the strong pacifists in the UN, a video recorder was snuck into a radical Islamic Masque; the Mhula (I probably butchered that spelling) was literally preaching the death of infidels, anyone who would not accept Islam. This hostility is by no means isolated to the US; it's merely focused there at the present moment, as our President chose to take a stand.

Finally, Ge-Ren; honestly, I can't comment on that topic, as I haven't heard enough about it. If it does indeed pose as large a problem as you imply, then perhaps a review of the document is necessary; there's a reason why it's up again at the Senate. As I said, the truth regarding controversy surrounding the Patriot Act probably lies somewhere between both sides of the spectrum.

thread by skapedroe = ignored

at one time the entire world believed this but not in very recent times when all the evidence suggesterd the new reality in Iraq it was impossible for Saddam to acquire any such thing in the near future. Iraq was 100% contained and harmless. Now its not tho
No, even right before the invasion, all intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD. The fact is, he bluffed, and we fell for it. And as for "impossible to get such things in the near future", well, it depends on your definition of near future. He did have active programs developing them. From what I've seen, I'd give him a decade for a nuke, much less for other things. (He did already have some Ricin.) And harmless? NO! He did actively fund and train terrorists, and he had plenty of contacts with terrorists. Ah, and I'm sure the guys who got their wives raped in front of their eyes, and then had their genitals chopped off thought that too.

Finally, Ge-Ren; honestly, I can't comment on that topic, as I haven't heard enough about it. If it does indeed pose as large a problem as you imply, then perhaps a review of the document is necessary; there's a reason why it's up again at the Senate. As I said, the truth regarding controversy surrounding the Patriot Act probably lies somewhere between both sides of the spectrum.

There is plenty of information about it out there.

I see very much that there is a serious problem with violence and hatred in the Islamic community, especially in the Middle East and Central Asia. Part of it has been created as a result of our actions in these countries, and the Bush family has been very heavily involved with enterprises that contributed to resentment and violence because of their oil interests. The most senior Bushes also made deals with Nazi Germany -- that's how they got their money in the first place.

Now, the Bush family has taken over the White House, instilled a "loyalty" system with apocalyptic overtones, and calls for crusades against Muslims that sound BARELY under the radical rants of the mulahs calling for death to infidels. Bush, to my ears, sounds just about as insane, barely cloaked in the respectablity of his office, which I believe strongly has been seriously degraded by his presence. People talk about how Clinton had a bad name -- personally, I don't care if he got sucked off behind the Oval Office and sullied it with his own semen, because the office of the President and the person who occupies it are two seperate issues. Not to mention, that sort of sully is easily cleaned up with a Swiffer cloth and you move on. Not so with Dubya, who sullies the OFFICE in its most revered sense. The Patriot Act is but one of Bush's misuses of his position that I hope is repealed and the President is impeached for. I strongly believe there is MUCH the President should be impeached for, and the fact that our congressmen and senators are too weak-willed or too well-paid-off to do it is an element of shame that pains me every time I think about it.

Ge-Ren

I think they make him look like a little kid. When he is waiting his turn in debates, he looks hillarious. I don't know where you get legions of hell from, perhaps a fantasy of yours?
Bush is infested with the demonism of a very wicked child

Bush is infested with the demonism of a very wicked child
"hes not the masiah he's a very naughty boy!)

No, even right before the invasion, all intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD. The fact is, he bluffed, and we fell for it. And as for "impossible to get such things in the near future", well, it depends on your definition of near future. He did have active programs developing them. From what I've seen, I'd give him a decade for a nuke, much less for other things. (He did already have some Ricin.) And harmless? NO! He did actively fund and train terrorists, and he had plenty of contacts with terrorists. Ah, and I'm sure the guys who got their wives raped in front of their eyes, and then had their genitals chopped off thought that too.
the terrorist connections to him were weak (according to the usual standards of Arab country Leaders) and al queda celebrated the downfall of their arch-rival Saddam. Weapons Inspectors who Saddam passively complied with all agreed there were no WMDs but Bush doesnt listen to people who tell him inconvienent facts

"hes not the masiah he's a very naughty boy!)
LOL

LOL
Sorry lots of things remind me of python :D

Sorry lots of things remind me of python :D
theyre comic geniuses :D

theyre comic geniuses :D
Yup Why do you think I am the leader of the monty python region ;)

Yup Why do you think I am the leader of the monty python region ;)
Schweet :D

Scott Ritter, Now theres a name you can trust! LOL

Wasnt scott ritter completely and fully correct in everything he said about WMDs and WMD programs in iraq?

Didnt bush lie to everybody?

Wasnt scott ritter completely and fully correct in everything he said about WMDs and WMD programs in iraq?

Didnt bush lie to everybody?
Yes and Yes!!

Christ, it was a joke -_- Don't insult me by accusing me of trying to derail the topic; if you'd noticed, all I've done is respond to other posts.
Being that you claim to be a “religious” person, I am somewhat surprised that you would use our Lord’s name to initiate your rebuttal. Sorry for the digression…..

Actually I wasn’t insulting you, I stated that you “did a good job getting the topic moved over to a side rail”.

And I hope you're not serious about accusing me of trying to "discredit the original poster"; he was claiming he had proof that Bush was Satan, but was too busy to post it. Anyone who believes that deserves to be bludgeoned with a tire iron. I didn't have to do much work -_-. Note that the article in question isn't authored by Skap.
Well of course you were trying to discredit the original poster by stating….” Please, please don't repsond to his posts. He might come back if you do.”

IF Skapedroe so happens to believe that Bush is Satan, does that mean “that he deserves to be bludgeoned with a tire iron”, as you suggest, as punishment for his beliefs? If that is true then so much for freedom of speech in your world? Again, I refer you to your claim of being “rather religious” and question whether your religion would condone such a violent action on your part?

Alright, so he's claiming that the source was Reporter Seymour M. Hersh-of quite an esteemed background; albeit seeming to be rather liberal/anti-war, he has done important expose's.
So here we have a credible person (Scott Ritter), delivering the message of another credible person (Seymour M. Hersh), which might lead us to believe that there is a certain amount of credibility to the article? But hold on now, you want to question this part:

"the well-known investigative journalist [I]claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer."

Reread it. He threw a claim, a speculation, in with known facts that were related to the claim. I see nothing relating to the 9-11 conspiracy theory in the article, as well.
Well this is why I question whether you actually read the article, or whether you understand the intent of the article. There is absolutely nothing to do with a 9-11 “conspiracy theory” in the article and it was you that first mentioned 9-11 in post # 220.

Also in post # 220 you state:

“Sure, there's a *slim* margin that Ritter's correct, but recall that he's doing the original attack; it's up to him to provide proof, and an anonymous source does not consitute proof.”
Why is it that there is only a “slim margin” that Ritter is correct? Your estimation is rooted purely in speculation, and can only be based on your limited intelligence in this matter?.

Next, you want “proof”. Well if you read the article, the “proof” is forth coming. The article is only an advanced warning to allow individuals that may be opposed to expansion of the war, to get involved now and start asking questions.

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.
Now perhaps you have an ulterior motive in dismissing the claims made in this article? Perhaps it is what you have expressed in the following comment?

You people disgust me-you simply accept the romanticized propoganda shoved at you by insurgents. Hell, in Germany, one of the strong pacifists in the UN, a video recorder was snuck into a radical Islamic Masque; the Mhula (I probably butchered that spelling) was literally preaching the death of infidels, anyone who would not accept Islam. This hostility is by no means isolated to the US; it's merely focused there at the present moment, as our President chose to take a stand.
Now the shoe is on the other foot? Could you please provide proof for the two above "claims" that you have just stated?

Whoever that Ritter guy is, he's either wrong or right. Given Bush's history of gung-ho politics and him only surrounding himself with war-hawks, this Ritter is more likely to be right than wrong. Still, I wouldn't quote him.

After all the Ritter slagging, I'm still of the opinion that America does and will keep up to date plans for strikes and invasions against half the countries of the klnown world. This is a known and admitted fact, it's just part of strategic planning to be prepared in case of all eventualities.

Having said that America has been rattling her sabre in the face of Iran for quite some time now and has made more than a few threats about removing its nuclear program/regime change/invasion etc...

It does not seem unreasonable to me that they may be planning to carry out first steps of this for June this year, or at least making plans for it. The action of carrying out those plans would be unreasonable to me. America almost certainly will have had some of its personnel carrying out recon missions already for these purposes, well in advance of officially starting any actions, in much the same way that it and the British did well before the official start of the invasion of Iraq.

What has surprised me about this thread is not the smear campaign against Ritter, it's what I'd expect, but the outright denial from so many hawkish elements that it is even possibly true, when the US president has been threatening as much.

As for the statements regarding America interfering in the Iraqi elections, it's always going to be tricky. Iraq hasn't had real elections before or not in recent memory anyway, there are a whole bunch of people who want to denigrate anything that America touches over there, but America has a long history of interfering in the election processes of other countries anyway and the fact that they've just invaded the country in the first place makes them rather suspect in the eyes of the locals and many others...

I do think that the media has downplayed the death and destruction, allowing the US to sustain support for its actions too.

After all the Ritter slagging, I'm still of the opinion that America does and will keep up to date plans for strikes and invasions against half the countries of the klnown world. This is a known and admitted fact, it's just part of strategic planning to be prepared in case of all eventualities.

Known and admitted? Care to provide proof that it is known and admitted please? As for half the countries, that is also false.

Having said that America has been rattling her sabre in the face of Iran for quite some time now and has made more than a few threats about removing its nuclear program/regime change/invasion etc...

We have? All I know is that all options are on the table. We're trying the diplomatic process. Europe is trying it too. We want peace to prevail.

It does not seem unreasonable to me that they may be planning to carry out first steps of this for June this year, or at least making plans for it. The action of carrying out those plans would be unreasonable to me. America almost certainly will have had some of its personnel carrying out recon missions already for these purposes, well in advance of officially starting any actions, in much the same way that it and the British did well before the official start of the invasion of Iraq.

We've been doing recon for years. Nothing has happened yet. I doubt very much that Iran will be invaded or even hit with airstrikes very soon.

What has surprised me about this thread is not the smear campaign against Ritter, it's what I'd expect, but the outright denial from so many hawkish elements that it is even possibly true, when the US president has been threatening as much.

Care to show me where he threatened Iran? "All options on the table" is not a threat. As for the smear campaign. Half those people don't know what their talking about anyway. Ritter though, doesn't have access to any plans. He better hope and pray that an attack occurs in June! If it doesn't, his credibility would take a massive hit. Besides that, he doesn't HAVE ACCESS to any plans for anything military.

As for the statements regarding America interfering in the Iraqi elections, it's always going to be tricky. Iraq hasn't had real elections before or not in recent memory anyway, there are a whole bunch of people who want to denigrate anything that America touches over there, but America has a long history of interfering in the election processes of other countries anyway and the fact that they've just invaded the country in the first place makes them rather suspect in the eyes of the locals and many others...

It would make you suspect. Don't you think that if we were going to rig something that Allawi would still be Prime Minister? Sorry! Allawi isn't going to be Prime Minister. They have elected a new Prime Minister. As for it being tricky. Yea it was somewhat but at least they got out and voted. Now its time to for them to write the Constitution of Iraq.

I do think that the media has downplayed the death and destruction, allowing the US to sustain support for its actions too.

Then I guess you don't watch much television then. Everywhere I turn around its Car Bombing killing this number of People and they keep that up the rest of the day throughout their news casting.

Originally posted by CannukHeaven The problem here is that Scott Ritter's information regarding Iraq was ignored by the Bush administration. Ritter's assertation proved to be correct that there were no WMD in Iraq. Ritter was the Chief UN inspector in Iraq, up until 1998. So the man certainly has some past credibility.

And when Ritter was UN inspector he reported that Saddam had weapons in 1998 when the UN inspectors were kicked out by Saddam. This article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/) quoted Ritter as saying - "Iraq is 'not nearly disarmed,' he wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his 'entire nuclear weapons infrastructure.' Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs "within a period of six months,' he told a Senate committee that year. As for Saddam, Ritter said he 'remains an ugly threat to his neighbors and to world peace.'"

The reason so many people find Ritter to be not credible is that as inspector he said Saddam had weapons, resigned saying "neither the United States nor the United Nations had the stomach for disarming Iraq" and now he says that there were no weapons. Regardless of what he says now, he will never be credible because of his own statements.

Known and admitted? Care to provide proof that it is known and admitted please? As for half the countries, that is also false.

Check with your military friends if you have any, in fact send Eutrusca an email, I'm sure he'd confirm it. In much the same way that your government keeps emergency disaster plans for any eventuality they do the same for military actions around the world, these are kept up to date and new ones are made as alliances shift and policies change.

We have? All I know is that all options are on the table. We're trying the diplomatic process. Europe is trying it too. We want peace to prevail.

Care to show me where he threatened Iran? "All options on the table" is not a threat. As for the smear campaign. Half those people don't know what their talking about anyway. Ritter though, doesn't have access to any plans. He better hope and pray that an attack occurs in June! If it doesn't, his credibility would take a massive hit. Besides that, he doesn't HAVE ACCESS to any plans for anything military.
Yes, you have, your presidents idea of the diplomatic process is to make lots of barely concealed threats such as: letting it be known that Israel would be first to attack a nuclear capable Iran...
eg:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0501/24/politics-66874.htm America might take military action, Cheney hinting on Israeli action

http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/04/top19.htm American publication refers to menacing & threats

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june02/axis_1-30.html check out what Woolsey has to say regarding the intent, and the wording of Bush speeches. ie: careful, but with lots of implied threat.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-02.htm Note the line "Bush administration has made no secret of his desire for regime change"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4278563.stm Bush refuses to rule out military action
All options on the table can be viewed as a threat when it is used in this context, America refuses to rule out military action, read the links from earlier in this post and you'll see lots of people viewing this as threatening. America is playing bad cop to much of the rest of the worlds good cop, bad cops make the veiled threats...

On the Ritter access side of things, you may not be aware, but when somebody starts opening their mouth and voicing concerns they often end up in a situation whereby other members of the forces/security services see them as a usuable mouthpiece to make people aware of what is happening with lesser risk to their own careers. So some of his ex-colleagues who still have access rights are now getting in touch and letting him know what is going on so that he can tell the world... doesn't seem so unreasonable to me, I've seen it happening before and I think it's what's happening here.

We've been doing recon for years. Nothing has happened yet. I doubt very much that Iran will be invaded or even hit with airstrikes very soon.
OK, so you admit the recon thing, where we differ is in our opinion of whether anything is likely to happen.

It would make you suspect. Don't you think that if we were going to rig something that Allawi would still be Prime Minister? Sorry! Allawi isn't going to be Prime Minister. They have elected a new Prime Minister. As for it being tricky. Yea it was somewhat but at least they got out and voted. Now its time to for them to write the Constitution of Iraq.

Thankyou. No I don't think that they'd have tried to rig it so that Allawi became Prime minister, because it's too obvious and it's too close to what they've been caught doing before. I am glad that they got out and voted and pleasantly surprised at the turn out too, I think it's a good thing. When it comes to the writing of the constitution, i really hope that the USA and Britain step well back and don't interfere any more either.

Then I guess you don't watch much television then. Everywhere I turn around its Car Bombing killing this number of People and they keep that up the rest of the day throughout their news casting.
I do watch TV, not huge amounts, because I work, but I do watch it. Those images of car bombings are precisely what I'm on about, they show Iraqis attacking people etc... a reason to keep American forces there, what they're not good at is showing the damage that the Americans and British have been doing/done to the Iraqis themselves and the Iraqi infrastructure. We've razed towns and villages pretty much and knocked parts of their infrastructure back into the stone ages and instead of seeing them suffering we get to see the ones who are ungrateful for this. How many news reports do you get to see where they tell you the numbers of Iraqi casualties since the war began?

We get to see very little of the true costs and damage done to the Iraqis.

Well, if we're going to talk about damage to infrastructure, we could talk about the fact that Iraq has, since long before the first Gulf War, had a crap infrastructure - the area of Basra, for instance, has been in shambles since the Iran-Iraq War.

Want to know why the water treatment plant in Basra was wrecked. It wasn't the US or UK that bombed it - in either war.

Nor was it reduced by the sanctions.

Want to see how much damage you can do just trading unguided ballistics missiles?

If Iraq has been suffering, it's because for nearly 20 years, it's been in either a state of war, or a state of siege. They could have chosen otherwise.

And? People tend to take sides in conflicts. If your friends hadn't gone now, they would have eventually; although, spins in the media are making the war out to be "evil", which is probably drawing more to the terrorists' numbers.
???
You mean they would have gone because these crazed Arabs are all natural-born demented killers? As post-graduate students they were preparing to become faculty members, and had bright futures to look forward to. But there came a point where they took the difficult decision to give it all up, because more important things than their personal lives were at stake.


So then, you would support the murder of civillians?
Agreed, killing of civilians is inadmissible, even for resistance fighters. Aiming at occupation forces, on the other hand, I find perfectly legitimate. Especially since they seem to be overwhelmingly responsible for the civilian death toll:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

the Mhula (I probably butchered that spelling) was literally preaching the death of infidels, anyone who would not accept Islam. This hostility is by no means isolated to the US; it's merely focused there at the present moment, as our President chose to take a stand.

I think you're confused on the issues here.

On one hand, the past couple decades have seen the surge of violent Islamic fundamentalism, which is the direct result of flawed de-colonization. Western States insisted on replacing official colonialism with corrupt, dictatorial client regimes, bent on crushing every popular struggle for elementary civil liberties, let alone self-determination. The fundamentalists may have thrived on the resulting anger and despair, but their foremost enemy remains the majority of Muslims, who actively resist them. Decolonization has placed Middle-Eastern and North African populations between the hammer of dictatorship and the anvil of theocracy. For cases in point, see Algeria throughout the '90s or present-day Tunisia, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, etc...

On the other hand, there undeniably exists great hostility towards the US occupation of Iraq. But that is in no way limited to the Muslim or even to the Arab world. In fact, it seems to extend pretty much to the rest of the planet. Maybe your president should try to phrase his pure and generous stands a little better, because for the moment he seems to be totally misunderstood by everyone but half of the US voters.

@whispering legs
I know the country wasn't in the best of states, but to try to deny that we've made it a shed load worse is more naieve than I'd expect.

I also am aware that since the "end of the war" the insurgents have done lots of damage to the repairs that we've made, but don't deny what our weapons and armies did.

If Iraq has been suffering, it's because for nearly 20 years, it's been in either a state of war, or a state of siege. They could have chosen otherwise.

I am struggling to work out whether the "they" to which you refer is the United States or the Iraqi people.

I say the US because it could have chosen not to sell weapons to both sides, to use each side (Iran and Iraq) to counter the strength of the other and to destabilise the area so as to prevent the solidarity shown during the 70s oil crisis.

I ask whether you mean the Iraqis, because they have been (a) oppressed by Saddam, US pupper dictator; (b) oppressed by Saddam, enemy of the US and whose government controlled their access to food rations issued under the oil for food regime; (c) oppressed by sanctions, which are responsible for the deaths of 500,000 + children; (d) oppressed by cancer, at 10x the regular rates, due to depleted uranium shells expended in the first Gulf War; (e) killed by US bombs in the second Gulf War; (f) oppressed by the Coalition forces; (g) oppressed by the insurgents...

Check with your military friends if you have any, in fact send Eutrusca an email, I'm sure he'd confirm it.

Want to place bets? My father is in the service. I know many officers and enlisten personel in the service. I have a cousin in the navy. Another one was in the Army. I had an uncle who served in the marines and other relatives that were in the Air Force. Even my mom served 6 years in the USAF. I definitely have military friends! I'm asking you to back it up.

In much the same way that your government keeps emergency disaster plans for any eventuality they do the same for military actions around the world, these are kept up to date and new ones are made as alliances shift and policies change.

Every government has emergency disaster plans. How does this prove what you say though? It doesn't!

Yes, you have, your presidents idea of the diplomatic process is to make lots of barely concealed threats such as: letting it be known that Israel would be first to attack a nuclear capable Iran...
eg:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0501/24/politics-66874.htm America might take military action, Cheney hinting on Israeli action

Might being the key word. "All OPTIONS are on the table" Yea Options. Its an OPTION, never said it wasn't, but Peace attempts first.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/04/top19.htm American publication refers to menacing & threats

Well duh. Every nation threatens eachother. Iran has been threatening Israel (A US Ally), North Korea has been threatening South Korea (A US Ally) AND the USA. China has been threatening Tiawan (A nation we'll defend)! Everyone threatens eachother. Its nothing new.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june02/axis_1-30.html check out what Woolsey has to say regarding the intent, and the wording of Bush speeches. ie: careful, but with lots of implied threat.

Implied threats are also nothing new. China has been Impling to invade Taiwan with their exercises and moving military equipment to be in prime striking distance. I could go on but I won't.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-02.htm Note the line "Bush administration has made no secret of his desire for regime change"

Sighs! Everyone wants to see a regime change in Iran. Even Iranian citizens want to see a regime change. What's your point?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4278563.stm Bush refuses to rule out military action

Because it is an option. You don't want to rule anything out. Peace options come first then the military options. Take a political Science Course.

All options on the table can be viewed as a threat when it is used in this context, America refuses to rule out military action, read the links from earlier in this post and you'll see lots of people viewing this as threatening. America is playing bad cop to much of the rest of the worlds good cop, bad cops make the veiled threats...

Hello? Did you flunk your Poli Sci Course or haven't you taken one. You don't remove options from the table. That is bad. Very Very Bad if you do so. I've read some of the links but its the same old crap. As for veiled threats, that makes Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and Syria bad cops too?

On the Ritter access side of things, you may not be aware, but when somebody starts opening their mouth and voicing concerns they often end up in a situation whereby other members of the forces/security services see them as a usuable mouthpiece to make people aware of what is happening with lesser risk to their own careers. So some of his ex-colleagues who still have access rights are now getting in touch and letting him know what is going on so that he can tell the world... doesn't seem so unreasonable to me, I've seen it happening before and I think it's what's happening here.

I know all of that. However, that doesn't excuse him. I also would like to know his sources. IF it is accurate, then his sources should be brought up on trial for leaking State Secrets.

OK, so you admit the recon thing, where we differ is in our opinion of whether anything is likely to happen.

Nothing will happen right now. Peace will be given a chance.

Thankyou. No I don't think that they'd have tried to rig it so that Allawi became Prime minister, because it's too obvious and it's too
close to what they've been caught doing before. I am glad that they got out and voted and pleasantly surprised at the turn out too, I think it's a good thing. When it comes to the writing of the constitution, i really hope that the USA and Britain step well back and don't interfere any more either.

That makes 2 of us :)

I do watch TV, not huge amounts, because I work, but I do watch it. Those images of car bombings are precisely what I'm on about, they show Iraqis attacking people etc... a reason to keep American forces there, what they're not good at is showing the damage that the Americans and British have been doing/done to the Iraqis themselves and the Iraqi infrastructure.

I did during the war. Now, its mostly the terrorists wrecking havic.

We've razed towns and villages pretty much and knocked parts of their infrastructure back into the stone ages and instead of seeing them suffering we get to see the ones who are ungrateful for this. How many news reports do you get to see where they tell you the numbers of Iraqi casualties since the war began?

Not many! However, I see daily reports of civilians killed by the terrorists/insurgents. I'm sure if you add them all up, you'll get a bigger number than the ones that we've accidentally killed. But define a civilian?

We get to see very little of the true costs and damage done to the Iraqis.

Actually, you see it quite abit when it comes to the terrorists doing the damage and their doing far more than we are.

Good post Ommm :D

Want to place bets? My father is in the service. I know many officers and enlisten personel in the service. I have a cousin in the navy. Another one was in the Army. I had an uncle who served in the marines and other relatives that were in the Air Force. Even my mom served 6 years in the USAF. I definitely have military friends! I'm asking you to back it up.

So we're in a similar position then, maybe you should talk to them about it. My father was military, my brother was, I've done my share. I can't be arsed to trawl anymore web sites at work today. If I get the chance I may well over the weekend, but seriously, ask your relatives and save me the trouble, please. :)

You said yourself, "peace attempts first", your president makes threats in his diplomacy, I said America was being threatening... American diplomacy is full of threats. You tried to deny that Bush had made any threats, but now it's a case of "well everybody does."

What is bad, very very bad is the American approach to diplomacy.

Now you admit that Ritter may well actually have credible sources, but turn it into a traitor hunt, instead of acknowledging that their may be validity to his claims.

"Nothing will happen right now" maybe because it's more likely to happen in June? ;)

You've also just said that you see the terrorists doing more damage on TV, and that you see daily reports on civilians killed by terrorists and insurgents, thankyou, point made! :D

Take a look at the Iraq body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) and read some of the comments on it. I found Kimmits "change the channel" comment particularly amusing, but then I do have a slightly sick and twisted sense of humour.

Of special interest is http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/index.php#pr9
this page detailing the 600 or so casualties in Falluja in april, just to get you in the mood for a bit of eye opening.

So we're in a similar position then, maybe you should talk to them about it. My father was military, my brother was, I've done my share. I can't be arsed to trawl anymore web sites at work today. If I get the chance I may well over the weekend, but seriously, ask your relatives and save me the trouble, please. :)

Due to limited time, I'll just respond to this. When I get back to my dorm at 300, I'll respond to the rest!

I have talked to them about it but there is no plans to do anything with Iran right now. Frankly, I think it'll implode from the inside out. That is my opinion. If there is a war, I wouldn't be surprised to see a popular uprising against the Ayatolas. Will it happen? Probably but I don't know. I just don't think that an attack on Iran is as imminent as Ritter and other people are saying it is.

As for your family, I thank them for their service and I thank you as well. I will ask them but don't be surprised when I say that they'll say the same thing I'm saying, that an attack IS NOT imminent.

Cool, talk to them. :)

Please, remember that what I'm saying is that America does and will have plans for actions against many different countries, not whether or not they will be implemented. It's strategic planning, America keeps plans like these up to date for lots of different potential hot-spots.

What Ritter did was bring it to people attention that they were being updated and that some are trying to swing them into plans of action.

As to the change of regime, they were doing pretty well by themselves a while back, things were more liberal than they'd ever been before, society was opening up to the west in a big way, the clerics were losing power all over... then America started banging its drum in a big way (Afghanistan etc...) and all the good changes were quickly broken down again as the clerics came back into power riding on the climate of fear vote, much the same as Bush has kept things going in the states. Keep people in fear and you can keep a fundamentalist conservative regime in power, in Iran this means Ayatollahs, in america it means Bush/neocons and the christian right.

Due to limited time, I'll just respond to this. When I get back to my dorm at 300, I'll respond to the rest!


Cheers for the debate too, it's nice not having everything degenerating into a religious slanging match. :D

Originally posted by CannukHeaven

And when Ritter was UN inspector he reported that Saddam had weapons in 1998 when the UN inspectors were kicked out by Saddam. This article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/) quoted Ritter as saying - "Iraq is 'not nearly disarmed,' he wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his 'entire nuclear weapons infrastructure.' Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs "within a period of six months,' he told a Senate committee that year. As for Saddam, Ritter said he 'remains an ugly threat to his neighbors and to world peace.'"

The reason so many people find Ritter to be not credible is that as inspector he said Saddam had weapons, resigned saying "neither the United States nor the United Nations had the stomach for disarming Iraq" and now he says that there were no weapons. Regardless of what he says now, he will never be credible because of his own statements.
No matter what stories have been written about this guy, and Slate does seem to have his own agenda, the fact remains that before the US went to war with Iraq Ritter's claim that Iraq had no WMD was absolutely TRUE.

Ritter's claim has been verified by three independent inspection teams since. Iraq possessed NO WMD.

Everyone wants to go around and quibble about this man's credibility instead of focusing on the import of this article? Oh well!!

Known and admitted? Care to provide proof that it is known and admitted please? As for half the countries, that is also false.

Actually, you'd hardly need proof of that. The Pentagon has attacks plans for countries all over the world, under every circumstance, because that is their job. Even more blatant proof, in the Patriot Act (gotta puke) the USA gives itself the RIGHT (the nerve of these hawks!) to invade the Netherlands in case an US citizen or soldier has to stand trail in the International Criminal Court. Fortunately, no country in the world is stupid enough to acknowledge that right, for it's a complete breach of the NATO alliance.

[/QUOTE]
We have? All I know is that all options are on the table. We're trying the diplomatic process. Europe is trying it too. We want peace to prevail. [/QUOTE]

America said the same a few years ago concerning Iraq, and even the Taliban. What did they do? They invaded anyway. Looking at the circumstances, it's happening again. Only this time the target nation is indeed suspicious. But then again, Saddam Hussein's Iraq has been just as suspicious, right? It comes down to it this is likely going to be another low-point is America's world politics. Odds are that Iran's nuclear programs are also a red herring.

[/QUOTE]
We've been doing recon for years. Nothing has happened yet. I doubt very much that Iran will be invaded or even hit with airstrikes very soon.[/QUOTE]

There has been recon in Iraq for just as long. And the same argument was used. More proof this is more of the same.

[/QUOTE]
Care to show me where he threatened Iran? "All options on the table" is not a threat. As for the smear campaign. Half those people don't know what their talking about anyway. Ritter though, doesn't have access to any plans. He better hope and pray that an attack occurs in June! If it doesn't, his credibility would take a massive hit. Besides that, he doesn't HAVE ACCESS to any plans for anything military. [/QUOTE]

I don't need this Ritter guy to know the US's attitude toward Iran. It's getting close to a war. Ironically though, that person's name means knight in German. He could be a messenger, a defender of peace.

In all seriousness, Bush has a bad habit of invading Arab/Muslim nations recklessly. He has admitted (along with some staff and the British government) to this recklesness, though of course he didn't call the word by name. There is, for him, no reason not to invade. He's friends with the oppressive Saudi Arabian royals (the real terrorist sits on the throne there). He can count on Israel and some others like Turkey (which will likely ruin its chances at membership of the EU this way, but Bush won't care). He's most definately not interested in Libya and Libanon, which are both teethless now. The Iranian-Syrian alliance is not going to mean a difference. The administration never cared about world and public opinion. All restraints are gone. They'll take out Iran sooner rather than later, before they have a nuclear missile to strike. There are no reasons for Bush not to invade. There are (this time around) only reasons why they SHOULD invade. One ignored detail, which is overlooked by many conquerers, remains: the US sphere of influence is overextended. Failure in Iran, and it will snap back like was the case with Napoleon and Hitler.


[/QUOTE]
It would make you suspect. Don't you think that if we were going to rig something that Allawi would still be Prime Minister? Sorry! Allawi isn't going to be Prime Minister. They have elected a new Prime Minister. As for it being tricky. Yea it was somewhat but at least they got out and voted. Now its time to for them to write the Constitution of Iraq. [/QUOTE]

Who says Allawi was the US's choice from the start? Iraq has gone to vote but that doesn't dispel the USA's history of installing like-minded governments after an invasion.

It's even too early to say if this government is anything like democratic. The Shi'ites are dangerously close to having full control of the country. The only existing parties are all based on religion or ethnicity. Saddam turned Iraq into a powderkeg that only he could keep from exploding, through tyranny and opression. Countries with little to no experience with democracy are vulnerable to chaos, corruption and more dictatorships. Iraq is one such countries.

[/QUOTE]
Then I guess you don't watch much television then. Everywhere I turn around its Car Bombing killing this number of People and they keep that up the rest of the day throughout their news casting.[/QUOTE]

What you won't see on TV (or at least on Fox News) is how an American chopper pilot shoots an injured Iraqi. Why? Maybe he was a terrorist, maybe he was totally innocent. Doesn't even matter, it's a voilation of the Geneva laws. And these laws are all about moral behavior, which the pilot and his superior lack.

There are dozens rumours and true stories about misbehaviour of American soldiers and coalition troops. What makes these less important than the occasional terrorist attack? In fact, they're worse because we constantly hear people such as Bush tell us the coaltion is so good and all they do is out of love for their country and humanity. Even if only the confirmed scandals are true, I must seriously consider just how much this coalition loves humanity. If mister Bush even lies about the goodness of his army, how can you trust him he won't invade Iran?

And frankly, he's either enjoying all the torture, disrespect and voilations, ham-strung by his interventionist cabinet, or incapable of taking matters in his own hand. Rumsfeld, responsible for the scandals at Abu Ghraib and many more, is still not fired. Torture continues on Guantanamo Bay even though the entire world knows it, Bush's cohorts only tell us that there is no reason why they SHOULD stop it, even though they CAN stop it. When US forces assault a city or neighbourhood, they still enter Mosques in a completely inapropriate fashion, execute survivors on the spot (which is voilation of the Islam AND Geneva) or even blow up the whole place when they suspect there's a sniper on a minaret or a force of insurgents hiding inside. Is this the way the US army says hello or something? This has been happening for so long. The oldest piece of evidence of a US atrocity I remember (and note that there is probably older evidence) is of a naked, burning Vietnamese girl fleeing her village after a US napalm strike. I liked your country better the way it was in the 40's. If this is how the USA behaves in war, then maybe it's time they stopped getting into wars.

Excuse me if I drifted away from the point on some occasions, I tend to rant.

No matter what stories have been written about this guy, and Slate does seem to have his own agenda, the fact remains that before the US went to war with Iraq Ritter's claim that Iraq had no WMD was absolutely TRUE.

Ritter's claim has been verified by three independent inspection teams since. Iraq possessed NO WMD.

Everyone wants to go around and quibble about this man's credibility instead of focusing on the import of this article? Oh well!!

Consider that 50 percent of chimpanzees could get the answer to that question right (Does Iraq have WMDs?).

Consider that he changed his tune within a week's time - from bitterly accusing the UN of being soft on an Iraq he viewed strongly as having WMD - to suddenly saying there were no WMD.

All of that aside, he has no proof to offer for the statements he's pulling out of his rectum at this time.

It's quite clear that he's someone who has no access to official policy meetings, or to top secret material, and I know of no one in a position of authority with such access who would jeopardize their career by even being seen with Mr. Ritter.

He's an official pariah.

I won't dismiss it. We surround Iran on several fronts.

I won't dismiss it. We surround Iran on several fronts.

Logically, that could be used to determine if the US intends to attack Iran.

It does not, however, prove anything about Scott Ritter, or his veracity.

We can ask the same group of chimpanzees, "will the US attack Iran, yes or no?"

Half of them will be as right or wrong as Scott Ritter.

No matter what stories have been written about this guy, and Slate does seem to have his own agenda, the fact remains that before the US went to war with Iraq Ritter's claim that Iraq had no WMD was absolutely TRUE.

Ritter's claim has been verified by three independent inspection teams since. Iraq possessed NO WMD.

Everyone wants to go around and quibble about this man's credibility instead of focusing on the import of this article? Oh well!!

The premise of the original poster was Ritter's claims about impending U.S. military action, thus the hits on Ritter's credibility as a source for such information. I would reply that that IS the import of the article.

Iraq HAD weapons according to UN inspectors when Saddam kicked the inspectors out. Additionally, worldwide intelligence indicated Iraq had WMD's which is why there were multiple UN resolutions - agreed to by Saddam - to get rid of them. That is what the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on. The fact that it has now, after the fact, been shown that there are no longer weapons there does nothing to diminish the threat that existed when there WERE.

Cool, talk to them. :)

I will if and when I see them. Frankly, I'll talk to my dad first because he is currently over there and will be home soon.

Please, remember that what I'm saying is that America does and will have plans for actions against many different countries, not whether or not they will be implemented. It's strategic planning, America keeps plans like these up to date for lots of different potential hot-spots.

Correct they do. Most nations have these types of plans and update them as needed. Just because they have the plans doesn't mean they'll be used.

What Ritter did was bring it to people attention that they were being updated and that some are trying to swing them into plans of action.

And this should go without saying. If you don't update them and you do go to war with old plans, your screwed.

As to the change of regime, they were doing pretty well by themselves a while back, things were more liberal than they'd ever been before, society was opening up to the west in a big way, the clerics were losing power all over... then America started banging its drum in a big way (Afghanistan etc...) and all the good changes were quickly broken down again as the clerics came back into power riding on the climate of fear vote, much the same as Bush has kept things going in the states. Keep people in fear and you can keep a fundamentalist conservative regime in power, in Iran this means Ayatollahs, in america it means Bush/neocons and the christian right.

They may have been close to it but the clerics saw it and clamped down. Why do you think that they only allow a certain number of reformers into Parliment? The people, most notably students, are not happy. I do think though that the people will start it. If the people start it, look for the USA to back them. It has nothing to do with wardrums but the clerics ability to maintain power.

Cheers for the debate too, it's nice not having everything degenerating into a religious slanging match. :D

Though I am a religious man, I try to keep religion out of a debate. Your right though. It was a good debate that didn't resort to petty insults of mudslinging :)

Actually, you'd hardly need proof of that. The Pentagon has attacks plans for countries all over the world, under every circumstance, because that is their job. Even more blatant proof, in the Patriot Act (gotta puke) the USA gives itself the RIGHT (the nerve of these hawks!) to invade the Netherlands in case an US citizen or soldier has to stand trail in the International Criminal Court. Fortunately, no country in the world is stupid enough to acknowledge that right, for it's a complete breach of the NATO alliance.

Ok! I see alot of BS here and no one has called Water Cove on it.
1)Pentagon--Well duh it has attack plans. Its the seat of the US Military. He who doesn't have warplans and goes to war will lose the war. Warplans are also updated too just to let you know.
2)Patriot Act--Nowhere does it state that the US will invade the Netherlands if a US Citizen or Soldier has to stand trial. We prosecute our own military criminals. Why should US Military soldiers stand trial at the ICC? They don't because our JAG (Judge Advocate General) prosecutes them.
3)And where in NATO does it state that a soldier has to stand trial at the ICC?


We have? All I know is that all options are on the table. We're trying the diplomatic process. Europe is trying it too. We want peace to prevail.

America said the same a few years ago concerning Iraq, and even the Taliban. What did they do? They invaded anyway. Looking at the circumstances, it's happening again. Only this time the target nation is indeed suspicious. But then again, Saddam Hussein's Iraq has been just as suspicious, right? It comes down to it this is likely going to be another low-point is America's world politics. Odds are that Iran's nuclear programs are also a red herring.

1)(a)Afganistan--The reason they were invaded was because Osama Bin Laden was hiding there. We asked the Talibab to hand them over and nothing will happen. They didn't and we supported the North Alliance and now Afghanistan is a free nation today. (b)Iraq--Invaded because of BAD INTELLIGENCE. Besides that, it was Bad Intel on the entire world. The whole world thought he had them (INCLUDING RITTER)! He had 17 UN Resolutions, none of which were followed. We gave him one more chance and he blew it so we toppled him. After all we were still technically in a state of war with him since we only had a cease fire and NOT a peace treaty.
2)Iran--Its nuclear program is most definitely NOT a red Herring. They are doing what they say they're doing. If the do get Nuclear Bombs/Missiles(And you will probably call me crazy but this is coming from a Rhodes Scholar from JORDAN), they'll use them on Russia first.


We've been doing recon for years. Nothing has happened yet. I doubt very much that Iran will be invaded or even hit with airstrikes very soon.

There has been recon in Iraq for just as long. And the same argument was used. More proof this is more of the same.

Each situation is different. Iran won't be attacked anytime soon. We are giving diplomacy a chance just like we did in Iraq. We gave peace a chance there too but Saddam didn't want it.


Care to show me where he threatened Iran? "All options on the table" is not a threat. As for the smear campaign. Half those people don't know what their talking about anyway. Ritter though, doesn't have access to any plans. He better hope and pray that an attack occurs in June! If it doesn't, his credibility would take a massive hit. Besides that, he doesn't HAVE ACCESS to any plans for anything military.

I don't need this Ritter guy to know the US's attitude toward Iran. It's getting close to a war. Ironically though, that person's name means knight in German. He could be a messenger, a defender of peace.

Its not even close to a war. You'll know when a war is imminent and we're not there yet. There has been no resolution in the UN and yes, we'll be using the UN much like we did with Iraq though with Iraq, we saw how the corruption got in the way of doing anything mainly nothing.

In all seriousness, Bush has a bad habit of invading Arab/Muslim nations recklessly. He has admitted (along with some staff and the British government) to this recklesness, though of course he didn't call the word by name. There is, for him, no reason not to invade. He's friends with the oppressive Saudi Arabian royals (the real terrorist sits on the throne there). He can count on Israel and some others like Turkey (which will likely ruin its chances at membership of the EU this way, but Bush won't care). He's most definately not interested in Libya and Libanon, which are both teethless now. The Iranian-Syrian alliance is not going to mean a difference.

Do you know what the Rhode Scholar said regarding Iraq? It Was Necessary. He also called Bush a BRAVE MAN for pointing his finger at the heart of the Middle East. He also said that the Middle East needs to be democratized. And this is coming from a Rhode Scholar from JORDAN. As for the Saudi Arabia, they are beginning reforms, albeit slowly. Kuwait is too. Most other nations in the Middle East are also starting to change. Those that won't will suffer and not from the US either. As for the Iran-Syria Alliance. Its nothing.

The administration never cared about world and public opinion. All restraints are gone. They'll take out Iran sooner rather than later, before they have a nuclear missile to strike. There are no reasons for Bush not to invade. There are (this time around) only reasons why they SHOULD invade. One ignored detail, which is overlooked by many conquerers, remains: the US sphere of influence is overextended. Failure in Iran, and it will snap back like was the case with Napoleon and Hitler.

That's because he's the President of the USA! He doesn't have to listen to the World Opinion. He only has to listen to the US Public Opinion. Remember our Elections? That was sorta like a referendum on his presidency. Obviously the people wanted Bush. As for restraints, there are restraints. Its called Congress. Congress, if they should choose to do so, doesn't have to give him authorization to use force. As for Hitler? Hitler prosecuted a war against Soviet Union without adaquet planning for the Russian Winter. He also let up on the RAF when they were on the ropes. Its called Micromanagement. Napoleon had the same problem with the Russian Winter and was tossed out of there as well.


It would make you suspect. Don't you think that if we were going to rig something that Allawi would still be Prime Minister? Sorry! Allawi isn't going to be Prime Minister. They have elected a new Prime Minister. As for it being tricky. Yea it was somewhat but at least they got out and voted. Now its time to for them to write the Constitution of Iraq.

Who says Allawi was the US's choice from the start? Iraq has gone to vote but that doesn't dispel the USA's history of installing like-minded governments after an invasion.

Not me because I know differently. Allawi wasn't anyone's first choice but the Iraqi people. As for the vote, we didn't rig it. It was a free vote and they rejoiced.

It's even too early to say if this government is anything like democratic. The Shi'ites are dangerously close to having full control of the country. The only existing parties are all based on religion or ethnicity. Saddam turned Iraq into a powderkeg that only he could keep from exploding, through tyranny and opression. Countries with little to no experience with democracy are vulnerable to chaos, corruption and more dictatorships. Iraq is one such countries.

But they don't have full control thanks to the Kurds doing better than expected and that the Sunnis have control of 3 provinces that can veto ANY Constitution.


Then I guess you don't watch much television then. Everywhere I turn around its Car Bombing killing this number of People and they keep that up the rest of the day throughout their news casting.

What you won't see on TV (or at least on Fox News) is how an American chopper pilot shoots an injured Iraqi. Why? Maybe he was a terrorist, maybe he was totally innocent. Doesn't even matter, it's a voilation of the Geneva laws. And these laws are all about moral behavior, which the pilot and his superior lack.

Can I see proof of this shooting please since obviously it was not reported in the Washington Post. I would like to read the article please. Oh, wait. Isn't that the soldier that is being tried by a Military Court?

There are dozens rumours and true stories about misbehaviour of American soldiers and coalition troops. What makes these less important than the occasional terrorist attack? In fact, they're worse because we constantly hear people such as Bush tell us the coaltion is so good and all they do is out of love for their country and humanity. Even if only the confirmed scandals are true, I must seriously consider just how much this coalition loves humanity. If mister Bush even lies about the goodness of his army, how can you trust him he won't invade Iran?

Did you know that those that break the law are punished? Britain is having such trials, the Dutch are too. America is already sending people to jail. We're making no secret of this fact either. Don't know what channel you've been watching or paper, but people are being sent to jail and getting a dishonorable discharge for their actions.

And frankly, he's either enjoying all the torture, disrespect and voilations, ham-strung by his interventionist cabinet, or incapable of taking matters in his own hand. Rumsfeld, responsible for the scandals at Abu Ghraib and many more, is still not fired. Torture continues on Guantanamo Bay even though the entire world knows it, Bush's cohorts only tell us that there is no reason why they SHOULD stop it, even though they CAN stop it. When US forces assault a city or neighbourhood, they still enter Mosques in a completely inapropriate fashion, execute survivors on the spot (which is voilation of the Islam AND Geneva) or even blow up the whole place when they suspect there's a sniper on a minaret or a force of insurgents hiding inside. Is this the way the US army says hello or something? This has been happening for so long. The oldest piece of evidence of a US atrocity I remember (and note that there is probably older evidence) is of a naked, burning Vietnamese girl fleeing her village after a US napalm strike. I liked your country better the way it was in the 40's. If this is how the USA behaves in war, then maybe it's time they stopped getting into wars.

Bush is not enjoying anything. I love how you try to pin everything on Bush when hardly any of it is his fault. Rumsfeld was NOT responsible for Abu Ghraib. He was just as appaled by it as the President was. Abu Ghraib was an anomoly and the people responsible for it have either resigned, forced to resign, or are being prosecuted or have already been sent to the Brig. What torture is being done at Gitmo. Please elaborate because what you constitution torture probably isn't. If there was rampant torture, it'll be all over the news (And I mean on ALL CHANNELS and PAPERS) and it isn't. As for entering Mosques, if people are firing on Soldiers from inside them, they are no longer consider religious and/or civilian targets. They immediately become military targets and we have the duty to defend ourselves. BTW: The Geneva Convention grants us the right to do so, ONLY IF the enemy is firing from inside them and the terrorists/insurgents have. As for the Napalm strike, I haven't studied Vietnam as indepth as I would like too. I probably will one of these days.

Excuse me if I drifted away from the point on some occasions, I tend to rant.

And a nice rant it was too.

You said yourself, "peace attempts first", your president makes threats in his diplomacy, I said America was being threatening... American diplomacy is full of threats. You tried to deny that Bush had made any threats, but now it's a case of "well everybody does."

Yes I know I'm 3.5 hours late but a promise is a promise! It is a case of everyone, if not everyone then the most stubborn. China is making threats on Taiwan. North Korea is making threats on South Korea, Japan, USA. Iran has threatened USA and is currently supporting the terrorists in Iraq. Syria has threatened Israel and the US and is also supporting Terrorism in Iraq. As for Bush threats, all I'm hearing from him is that we want to talk but we're not removing any option from the table.

What is bad, very very bad is the American approach to diplomacy.

What about the approach of diplomacy from Iran? China? North Korea? Syria? I'm making no excuses but it seems to me that people pick on the US when every other nation does the same thing. Saying we won't remove options from the table is the correct way to go about it. The minute you take options off the table, you lose your advantages with those options.

Now you admit that Ritter may well actually have credible sources, but turn it into a traitor hunt, instead of acknowledging that their may be validity to his claims.

I'm not trying to turn this into a witch hunt. However, by coming out and saying this, IF IT IS EVEN TRUE, violates US Fedral Law. I have an obligation to know who these people are and to have them prosecuted. Frankly, I don't think it is true that we'll attack Iran this year. Will we attack Iran? Don't know. We are more than likely to support an uprising than invade. Again, my opinion.

"Nothing will happen right now" maybe because it's more likely to happen in June? ;)

HAHA!! It won't happen in June either! I like the comment though :)

You've also just said that you see the terrorists doing more damage on TV, and that you see daily reports on civilians killed by terrorists and insurgents, thankyou, point made! :D

Thank You!

Take a look at the Iraq body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) and read some of the comments on it. I found Kimmits "change the channel" comment particularly amusing, but then I do have a slightly sick and twisted sense of humour.

LOL! Frankly, the body count is probably misleading. I'm not saying it isn't but does it distinguish between an insurgent/terrorist and an actual civilian? And do they break it down by attacks? It makes a difference when it comes to establishing an actual body count.

Of special interest is http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/index.php#pr9
this page detailing the 600 or so casualties in Falluja in april, just to get you in the mood for a bit of eye opening.

Were those 600 actually civilians or Terrorists/Insurgents or a combination of both?

Consider that 50 percent of chimpanzees could get the answer to that question right (Does Iraq have WMDs?).
Ummm chimpanzees know what WMD are? I cannot believe that you would make such a nonsensical claim.

Consider that he changed his tune within a week's time - from bitterly accusing the UN of being soft on an Iraq he viewed strongly as having WMD - to suddenly saying there were no WMD.
Perhaps some more research would be required on this, as to what the motivation was for his comments back then, if in fact he made those comments?

All of that aside, he has no proof to offer for the statements he's pulling out of his rectum at this time.
The article says that the proof is forth coming. I doubt that you can personally refute what he claims to be true.

It's quite clear that he's someone who has no access to official policy meetings, or to top secret material, and I know of no one in a position of authority with such access who would jeopardize their career by even being seen with Mr. Ritter.
How do you know what information he and/or his associates have access to? You are guessing. Because you do not know of anyone "in a position of authority with such access who would jeopardize their career ", does not preclude the possibility that he does? Again you are guessing.

Another question that you might want to ask yourself (since you are playing a guessing game), is why would he be bothered bringing this information forward IF he had no proof?

He's an official pariah.
That is your opinion, of which you are entitled, but it doesn't negate that he just might be telling the truth?

the out of control Bush administration has a policy of smearing anyone who dares to expose their motives so whatever they say about Ritter personally is not only totally irrelevent but only further proves Ritter is telling the truth since theyre attacking him on such a disgusting level

Well I guess if there is going to a war in Iran soon, and Americans are not too concerned, perhaps I will just have to shrug my shoulders, and play the capitalist game.

*Canuckheaven* writes memos:

1. Invest money in companies that make body bags and prosthesis.

2. Check Nevada betting boards to see if I can bet on war in Iran for June.

3. Buy stock in Uncle "Bucky" Bush's (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-bucky23feb23,0,2285985.story) company (Engineered Support Systems Inc), because the firm's war-related profits have skyrocketed.

the out of control Bush administration has a policy of smearing anyone who dares to expose their motives so whatever they say about Ritter personally is not only totally irrelevent but only further proves Ritter is telling the truth since theyre attacking him on such a disgusting level
All it proves is that Scott Ritter is an indicted (was he convicted? I don't remember) child molester. The Bush administration doesn't need to lift a finger to discredit Scott Ritter, he did it himself.

All it proves is that Scott Ritter is an indicted (was he convicted? I don't remember) child molester. The Bush administration doesn't need to lift a finger to discredit Scott Ritter, he did it himself.
You cannot prove any of that and if anyone is discredited it is you? You tend to go for the sensational but you are less than brilliant?

Ok! I see alot of BS here and no one has called Water Cove on it.
1)Pentagon--Well duh it has attack plans. Its the seat of the US Military. He who doesn't have warplans and goes to war will lose the war. Warplans are also updated too just to let you know.
2)Patriot Act--Nowhere does it state that the US will invade the Netherlands if a US Citizen or Soldier has to stand trial. We prosecute our own military criminals. Why should US Military soldiers stand trial at the ICC? They don't because our JAG (Judge Advocate General) prosecutes them.
3)And where in NATO does it state that a soldier has to stand trial at the ICC?

1: In the strictest interpretation of Bush's words, he's lying when he says the US has no plans to invade Iran. That, and you can assume they're working overtime right now to include Syria in that plan and to find a way to disable Iran's reactors, tests sites and silos. And you don't need to tell me the Pentagon handles all miliraty affairs.
2: The Patriot Act certainly does have something in it that they'll pull out the moment a US soldiers is imprisoned, anywhere. They simply have the ICC and The Hague in mind because they consider it the greatest threat to the US military. And if it wasn't the Patriot Act, it was some other darn act Bush pressed through after 911.
3: Invasion of The Hague is a breach of the NATO alliance, under any circumstance. The US would have to leave it before they could do such a thing.


1)(a)Afganistan--The reason they were invaded was because Osama Bin Laden was hiding there. We asked the Talibab to hand them over and nothing will happen. They didn't and we supported the North Alliance and now Afghanistan is a free nation today. (b)Iraq--Invaded because of BAD INTELLIGENCE. Besides that, it was Bad Intel on the entire world. The whole world thought he had them (INCLUDING RITTER)! He had 17 UN Resolutions, none of which were followed. We gave him one more chance and he blew it so we toppled him. After all we were still technically in a state of war with him since we only had a cease fire and NOT a peace treaty.
2)Iran--Its nuclear program is most definitely NOT a red Herring. They are doing what they say they're doing. If the do get Nuclear Bombs/Missiles(And you will probably call me crazy but this is coming from a Rhodes Scholar from JORDAN), they'll use them on Russia first.

1(a) This is exactly what I was talking about: If the US can't achieve their goals through diplomacy nowadays, they invade. Now I don't mind as much with Afghanistan. It would have been nicer though if the US focused more on rebuilding the country instead of heading for the next target.
(b) Bush has been relying on CIA intelligence for all his arguements for war. That means that either Bush was lying, or the CIA has been incompetent. And it's hard to make me believe the meanest, most feared and accomplished spy network in the world is incompetent. Bush says it was bad intelligence now, but why invade when you admit now you 'worked with what you had'? He wanted to make it sound convincing, he completely believed Iraq had WMDs. Tony Blair also hopped onto the bandwagon, along with the governments of Spain, the Netherlands and Poland (etc). All of them spoke of 'convincing evidecne'. Honestly, it sounded like they where stating a fact like 'sometimes, I need to poop'. And now all of them admit maybe their information was innacurate? Sorry, I don't buy that. They should have said they didn't like Saddam and I would have been all for the war. If they're gonna lie about their intents, I'd almost go so far as cheer on Hussein. Oh, and before I forget, weapons inspectors (using state-of-the-art technology, and using all ways to pressure Saddam into revealing everything) confirmed for the most part, Iraq was free of WMDs. They could have proven that twice with more time on their hands. They where given more cooperation than the CIA ever got from Iraqi authorities. Now, the entire coalition confirms what the inspectors said: there are no WMDs in Iraq. Saddam might have yelled 'Fire!' too frequently, but you still can never be careful enough. Bush was careless.
2: If Iran is doing what it says it is doing, you ruin your own arguement. Iran says it uses all nuclear equipment for civilian purposes. You're cutting your own arguement short. With 'red herring' I mean what the US government makes Iran's nuclear program out to be. The WMDs in Iraq where also a red herring. Of course, just like with Iraq, it's easy to believe Iran wants nuclear missiles. But is it true? Everyone loved to believe Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't true.



Each situation is different. Iran won't be attacked anytime soon. We are giving diplomacy a chance just like we did in Iraq. We gave peace a chance there too but Saddam didn't want it.

I see a lot of similarities though. How diplomacy is played this time around is unimportant. Iran is going to be attacked. And actually, I'm all for it. Just don't lie about it again. Don't ask us to help clean up your mess. And keep your bombs to yourself, my uncle has relatives living there.


Its not even close to a war. You'll know when a war is imminent and we're not there yet. There has been no resolution in the UN and yes, we'll be using the UN much like we did with Iraq though with Iraq, we saw how the corruption got in the way of doing anything mainly nothing.

If you're using the UN like with Iraq, that means the US will talk, but not listen. When the US has talks inside the UN, the end of the story is war and hostilities. Which isn't so strange considering most of its lifetime the USSR was in it and had a veto. And when I see corruption in the UN, I see member states elevating their agendas to a higher level.


Do you know what the Rhode Scholar said regarding Iraq? It Was Necessary. He also called Bush a BRAVE MAN for pointing his finger at the heart of the Middle East. He also said that the Middle East needs to be democratized. And this is coming from a Rhode Scholar from JORDAN. As for the Saudi Arabia, they are beginning reforms, albeit slowly. Kuwait is too. Most other nations in the Middle East are also starting to change. Those that won't will suffer and not from the US either. As for the Iran-Syria Alliance. Its nothing.

I have no idea who this Rhode Scholar is, but I just know he can't be a Greek Rhodian.

Saudi Arabia's reforms are nothing more than a carrot-on-a-stick that it holds out in front of its populous. If you want real reforms in the Muslim world, look at Morocco and to a lesser degree Turkey. I wouldn't trust the ruler of a country that cuts of hands for thievery with even a toy gun. It's pro-US, the feudal system allows for the sheiks themselves to be benevolent, it exports oil and leads organizations like OPEC. But otherwise, it's a conservative and authoritarian monarchy that got stuck in the 8th century.


That's because he's the President of the USA! He doesn't have to listen to the World Opinion. He only has to listen to the US Public Opinion. Remember our Elections? That was sorta like a referendum on his presidency. Obviously the people wanted Bush. As for restraints, there are restraints. Its called Congress. Congress, if they should choose to do so, doesn't have to give him authorization to use force. As for Hitler? Hitler prosecuted a war against Soviet Union without adaquet planning for the Russian Winter. He also let up on the RAF when they were on the ropes. Its called Micromanagement. Napoleon had the same problem with the Russian Winter and was tossed out of there as well.

That makes you sound like a neo conservative. And it is this neocon attitude from the US that makes people want to carry out attacks like 911. It also isolates America from its formar allies. One day, when nobody listens to the US anymore, you'll understand the importance of world opinion. This world belong to others as well.


Not me because I know differently. Allawi wasn't anyone's first choice but the Iraqi people. As for the vote, we didn't rig it. It was a free vote and they rejoiced.

And still, we have yet to see if the Iraq government isn't like the Batista regime. The chances at democracy failing in Iraq are as big as succeeding.


But they don't have full control thanks to the Kurds doing better than expected and that the Sunnis have control of 3 provinces that can veto ANY Constitution.

And what if they can't agree on anything? No matter how, they have very painful relationships. Integration seems unlikely. And how do we know they won't turn Iraq into a theocracy or something equally bad? The foundations of a civil war are in place for a long time already. Saddam's dissapearance could be a green light to start fighting. Maybe it already began, looking at the bombings on Sunnite targets and the Sunnite's stubborn dislike of the turn of events.



Can I see proof of this shooting please since obviously it was not reported in the Washington Post. I would like to read the article please. Oh, wait. Isn't that the soldier that is being tried by a Military Court?

Often, the images are considered too shocking anyway to appear in the news. Often, they're conviniently fed to Jihad-recruits as evidence of the US's cruelty. Western media uses them in some documentaries, but censor the actual shooting of injured civilians/insurgents/whatever they are. My first choice would be to look at sites like rotten.com or baised sources like Islamic media. The only site I know has deleted it to make room for new material, it it wasn't in english anyway. Still, if you're actually interested in it I suppose they wouldn't as hard to find as those beheading movies by insurgents.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]
Did you know that those that break the law are punished? Britain is having such trials, the Dutch are too. America is already sending people to jail. We're making no secret of this fact either. Don't know what channel you've been watching or paper, but people are being sent to jail and getting a dishonorable discharge for their actions.

I never said they didn't. And I like the way they're treated. But still, there's rome for improvement there. When Dutch soldiers as much as sleep on the job they're in trouble. When somebody dies near them for whatever reason, those soldiers are held responsible and could face a prison sentence. A whole lot of trouble over nothing. But when there are abuses in Guantanamo Bay, which gets even more attention, the US government refuses to do something. The notority of that prison camp is five times that of Aby Ghraib yet it hasn't been closed down yet. It seems there is a wide gap between European peacekeepers and governments and American ones. If you have any doubts of that, just look at Bosnia. Why are dutch soldiers held responsible for the failure at Srebrenica and can the US government get away with its 'Shock and Awe' terror in the Balkan? If they ask Wim Kok to resign or be held accountable, why does it take an affair out of marriage for a US president to be asked to resign?


Bush is not enjoying anything. I love how you try to pin everything on Bush when hardly any of it is his fault. Rumsfeld was NOT responsible for Abu Ghraib. He was just as appaled by it as the President was. Abu Ghraib was an anomoly and the people responsible for it have either resigned, forced to resign, or are being prosecuted or have already been sent to the Brig. What torture is being done at Gitmo. Please elaborate because what you constitution torture probably isn't. If there was rampant torture, it'll be all over the news (And I mean on ALL CHANNELS and PAPERS) and it isn't. As for entering Mosques, if people are firing on Soldiers from inside them, they are no longer consider religious and/or civilian targets. They immediately become military targets and we have the duty to defend ourselves. BTW: The Geneva Convention grants us the right to do so, ONLY IF the enemy is firing from inside them and the terrorists/insurgents have. As for the Napalm strike, I haven't studied Vietnam as indepth as I would like too. I probably will one of these days.

Bush refuses to do anything about Guantanamo Bay. If there is someone who has the authority to at least try something then it's him. Rumsfeld did not order or commit any abuses in Aby Ghraib or Guantanamo, but his is still responsible. The same way Tony Blair and his ministers are responsible for the Queen, even though they cannot control her actions. Bush and his men have only reacted and stopped abuses when there was a legal reason to do it, not a moral one. Even if they announced the closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay today, they have been avoiding responsibility for way too long. The scary thing is, the longer we wait, we only get more and more evidence of abuse and torture, and it starts rising up towards the presidential level.

I've seen Muslims see US soldiers enter Mosques on TV, and they where greatly disapointed and angry. It's the same thing if you shoot at an English colonial soldier from a church and he enters because he'll neither let you get away with it and neither respects your beliefs. Whether or not blowing up Mosques is legal, it's not making people happy. The Islam firstly doesn't look kindly on non-Muslims entering Mosques ignoring tradition and customs, and it forbids all kinds of voilence inside a Mosque. I can understand the soldiers would stoop down to the terrorists' level and enter the Mosque with weapons. What I cannot understand is that these soldiers execute an injured insurgent (?) on the spot. That voilates both the Islam AND Geneva. They won't even bother to drag the man outside before killing him, which would still leave them voilating Geneva. These soldiers have acted wrongfully by killing a defenseless enemy in presence of a dutch camera group no less. The stupidity of some people in simply aweful. Dishonorably discharged or not, this is why people hate the US. To them, these images mean that the US sends ignorant morons. No wonder Iraq is dangerous.

1: In the strictest interpretation of Bush's words, he's lying when he says the US has no plans to invade Iran. That, and you can assume they're working overtime right now to include Syria in that plan and to find a way to disable Iran's reactors, tests sites and silos. And you don't need to tell me the Pentagon handles all miliraty affairs.
2: The Patriot Act certainly does have something in it that they'll pull out the moment a US soldiers is imprisoned, anywhere. They simply have the ICC and The Hague in mind because they consider it the greatest threat to the US military. And if it wasn't the Patriot Act, it was some other darn act Bush pressed through after 911.
3: Invasion of The Hague is a breach of the NATO alliance, under any circumstance. The US would have to leave it before they could do such a thing.

1. Strictest interpretation? You can strictly interpret his speeches in any way. However, all I'm hearing from him and the people around him is that all options are on the table. Yes we have plans to go into Iran. We've probably been updating them too. As fo Syria, I don't know to much about the Syrians. However, they are in hot water as it is over Lebanon. The UN should do something to make Syria comply with a UN Resolution requiring them to pull out.
2. Care to show me WHERE in the Patriot Act it says this please?
3. Why should we invade the Hague? Where in the NATO Treaty mentions the Hague?

1(a) This is exactly what I was talking about: If the US can't achieve their goals through diplomacy nowadays, they invade. Now I don't mind as much with Afghanistan. It would have been nicer though if the US focused more on rebuilding the country instead of heading for the next target.

No! We only invade nation that have declared us enemies and only then if its deserved. Iraq has declared that we are their enemy. Afghanistan was sheltering Mr. Bin Laden and refused to give him up. As for rebuilding, WE ARE REBUILDING BOTH NATIONS!

(b) Bush has been relying on CIA intelligence for all his arguements for war. That means that either Bush was lying, or the CIA has been incompetent. And it's hard to make me believe the meanest, most feared and accomplished spy network in the world is incompetent. Bush says it was bad intelligence now, but why invade when you admit now you 'worked with what you had'? He wanted to make it sound convincing, he completely believed Iraq had WMDs.

Yes I altered it so I could reply properly. Did you know where the CIA got most of their info from? Iraqi dissendents and Israel. Never trust one source. The CIAs biggest problem, and this has come out before, is manpower. They are relying to much on technology and not enough of boots on the ground. As for Bush lying or the CIA being incompetent, I'll go with the CIA being incompetent in this case. Our intel agencies wasn't the only one duped. Russia, France, Britain, Polish, Italian, and others were too. As for Bush, he can only make decisions based on the intelligence he has.

Tony Blair also hopped onto the bandwagon, along with the governments of Spain, the Netherlands and Poland (etc). All of them spoke of 'convincing evidecne'. Honestly, it sounded like they where stating a fact like 'sometimes, I need to poop'. And now all of them admit maybe their information was innacurate? Sorry, I don't buy that. They should have said they didn't like Saddam and I would have been all for the war. If they're gonna lie about their intents, I'd almost go so far as cheer on Hussein. Oh, and before I forget, weapons inspectors (using state-of-the-art technology, and using all ways to pressure Saddam into revealing everything) confirmed for the most part, Iraq was free of WMDs. They could have proven that twice with more time on their hands. They where given more cooperation than the CIA ever got from Iraqi authorities. Now, the entire coalition confirms what the inspectors said: there are no WMDs in Iraq. Saddam might have yelled 'Fire!' too frequently, but you still can never be careful enough. Bush was careless.

EVERYONE Water Cove thought he had WMD. That explains why they said they had convincing evidence. As for being inaccurate, yea the intel was inaccurate. I feel sorry for you that you don't believe it but that was the reason, FAULTY INTEL! I bet that if you search in Syria, you find them. Saddam ain't stupid. He had years in which to bury and to move his WMD stockpiles. Did he? Don't know and to be honest, I don't care if he had them or not. As for the weapons inspectors receiving cooperation, that is 100% false. Saddam never complied with ANY UN Resolution or the Cease-fire! As for screaming fire, you do that often enough, someone will either punch you out or just flat out ignore you. Besides, I don't care what the reasons for war was, I rejoiced when we started to oust Saddam and cheered even louder when his statue fell.

2: If Iran is doing what it says it is doing, you ruin your own arguement. Iran says it uses all nuclear equipment for civilian purposes. You're cutting your own arguement short. With 'red herring' I mean what the US government makes Iran's nuclear program out to be. The WMDs in Iraq where also a red herring. Of course, just like with Iraq, it's easy to believe Iran wants nuclear missiles. But is it true? Everyone loved to believe Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't true.

HAHA! If you believe that then you are a bigger idiot than I first thought you were. Iran doesn't want to us it for peaceful purposes! They don't even need nuclear technology with all the natural gas that's there. As for making it out to be more than what we're saying, you have to know history. Iran doesn't want nuclear power for peace. They want influence. The best way to get that influence is to have nuclear weapons. You should contemplate taking a Poli Sci Course. Might help you understand better. As for WMD being a redherring, yea it was but so what. Saddam is gone and the world is better of for it. As for Iran, frankly, until Iran shows us that they are actually going to use it for peace, then maybe I might believe them. So far they have not.

I see a lot of similarities though. How diplomacy is played this time around is unimportant. Iran is going to be attacked. And actually, I'm all for it. Just don't lie about it again. Don't ask us to help clean up your mess. And keep your bombs to yourself, my uncle has relatives living there.

You can find similarities in anything. How diplomacy is played now isn't unimportant, it is extremely important. Iran will NOT be attack. As for asking to clean up your mess, we don't need anyone to clean up our mess. We do it ourselves.

If you're using the UN like with Iraq, that means the US will talk, but not listen. When the US has talks inside the UN, the end of the story is war and hostilities. Which isn't so strange considering most of its lifetime the USSR was in it and had a veto. And when I see corruption in the UN, I see member states elevating their agendas to a higher level.

US will talk and we will listen. No talk is going on at the UN right now but thanks to Iran being stubborn with the EU, the IAEA, and the US, there is talk of sanctions. Frankly I think they should hold off for abit. As for corruption, Oil for Food was a shame and it is leading to all kinds of trouble for Russia and France and Kofi's son.

I have no idea who this Rhode Scholar is, but I just know he can't be a Greek Rhodian.

He only teaches at a prestigous University in Jordan. Very nice fellow. I enjoyed what he said. I have notes on what he said if you would like them however, writing them out may not make sense because I short hand alot.

Saudi Arabia's reforms are nothing more than a carrot-on-a-stick that it holds out in front of its populous. If you want real reforms in the Muslim world, look at Morocco and to a lesser degree Turkey. I wouldn't trust the ruler of a country that cuts of hands for thievery with even a toy gun. It's pro-US, the feudal system allows for the sheiks themselves to be benevolent, it exports oil and leads organizations like OPEC. But otherwise, it's a conservative and authoritarian monarchy that got stuck in the 8th century.

That maybe of Saudi Arabia but it did piss off alot of people. I expect to see more from them later. As for Morroco and Turkey, yea! I like how they have things set up. Maybe they'll chance into the 21st century and abolish the monarchy.

That makes you sound like a neo conservative. And it is this neocon attitude from the US that makes people want to carry out attacks like 911. It also isolates America from its formar allies. One day, when nobody listens to the US anymore, you'll understand the importance of world opinion. This world belong to others as well.

Well I'm not a neo-con. And did you know that the 9/11 attacks violated the Qu'ran? It does. It isn't even cover under Jihad in which the extremists are using. As for former allies, we have our allies still so I still say the word allies minus the former. As for not listening to us. That would be a mistake actually. If no one listens to us and we are proven right... the consquences would be astronomical.

And still, we have yet to see if the Iraq government isn't like the Batista regime. The chances at democracy failing in Iraq are as big as succeeding.

Don't you mean Ba'athist? Your right about the chances but I have faith that it will succeed.

And what if they can't agree on anything? No matter how, they have very painful relationships. Integration seems unlikely. And how do we know they won't turn Iraq into a theocracy or something equally bad? The foundations of a civil war are in place for a long time already. Saddam's dissapearance could be a green light to start fighting. Maybe it already began, looking at the bombings on Sunnite targets and the Sunnite's stubborn dislike of the turn of events.

They will compromise! They'll have to compromise if they want to pass a constitution. As for integration, what type of integration are you talking about? As for a theocracy, the Kurds won't let them and I bet the Sunnis won't either. Your right, the ingredients are there but I don't think a Civil War will erupt. I think they do want this to succeed and will do all that they can to make sure it does succeed. I am praying for it.


Can I see proof of this shooting please since obviously it was not reported in the Washington Post. I would like to read the article please. Oh, wait. Isn't that the soldier that is being tried by a Military Court?

Often, the images are considered too shocking anyway to appear in the news. Often, they're conviniently fed to Jihad-recruits as evidence of the US's cruelty. Western media uses them in some documentaries, but censor the actual shooting of injured civilians/insurgents/whatever they are. My first choice would be to look at sites like rotten.com or baised sources like Islamic media. The only site I know has deleted it to make room for new material, it it wasn't in english anyway. Still, if you're actually interested in it I suppose they wouldn't as hard to find as those beheading movies by insurgents.

You didn't offer me proof. You dodged it. I want to see proof. Can you please provide it? If it is true, then the soldier would be punished. He or she probably has been already or is going to be soon.

I never said they didn't. And I like the way they're treated. But still, there's rome for improvement there. When Dutch soldiers as much as sleep on the job they're in trouble. When somebody dies near them for whatever reason, those soldiers are held responsible and could face a prison sentence. A whole lot of trouble over nothing. But when there are abuses in Guantanamo Bay, which gets even more attention, the US government refuses to do something. The notority of that prison camp is five times that of Aby Ghraib yet it hasn't been closed down yet. It seems there is a wide gap between European peacekeepers and governments and American ones. If you have any doubts of that, just look at Bosnia. Why are dutch soldiers held responsible for the failure at Srebrenica and can the US government get away with its 'Shock and Awe' terror in the Balkan? If they ask Wim Kok to resign or be held accountable, why does it take an affair out of marriage for a US president to be asked to resign?

There's always room for Improvement. As for sleeping on the job, your punished here in the states too. Its called neglegence. As for Gitmo, how do you know we're not making changes? How do any of us know we're not making changes. We don't announce each and every single rule change you know. Not while we're fighting a war. As for it being closed down, ITS A MILITARY BASE!!!! As for European Peacekeepers, I suggest you look into the atrocities your so called European Peacekeepers have been apart of. And you need to read your history, it wasn't Shock and Awe in the Balkans. It was an air campaign in the Balkans! Shock and Awe was used in Iraq and even then, we hit military and infrastructure targets. Who is Wim Kok?

Bush refuses to do anything about Guantanamo Bay. If there is someone who has the authority to at least try something then it's him. Rumsfeld did not order or commit any abuses in Aby Ghraib or Guantanamo, but his is still responsible. The same way Tony Blair and his ministers are responsible for the Queen, even though they cannot control her actions. Bush and his men have only reacted and stopped abuses when there was a legal reason to do it, not a moral one. Even if they announced the closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay today, they have been avoiding responsibility for way too long. The scary thing is, the longer we wait, we only get more and more evidence of abuse and torture, and it starts rising up towards the presidential level.

BS! Again, how do you know we haven't made changes. As stated before, we do not announce every change. But now I'm beating a dead horse. And again, how is Rumsfield responsible? How can the British PM and ministers be responsible for the Queen? The Queen can do whatever she wants for the most part. There is NO WRITTEN Constitution in Britain. She can do whatever she wants. As for stopping abuses for legal reasons, abusing prisoners violates the UCMJ as well as the Geneva Conventions so yea we stop it for legal reasons. Nice fallacy though.

I've seen Muslims see US soldiers enter Mosques on TV, and they where greatly disapointed and angry. It's the same thing if you shoot at an English colonial soldier from a church and he enters because he'll neither let you get away with it and neither respects your beliefs. Whether or not blowing up Mosques is legal, it's not making people happy. The Islam firstly doesn't look kindly on non-Muslims entering Mosques ignoring tradition and customs, and it forbids all kinds of voilence inside a Mosque. I can understand the soldiers would stoop down to the terrorists' level and enter the Mosque with weapons. What I cannot understand is that these soldiers execute an injured insurgent (?) on the spot. That voilates both the Islam AND Geneva. They won't even bother to drag the man outside before killing him, which would still leave them voilating Geneva. These soldiers have acted wrongfully by killing a defenseless enemy in presence of a dutch camera group no less. The stupidity of some people in simply aweful. Dishonorably discharged or not, this is why people hate the US. To them, these images mean that the US sends ignorant morons. No wonder Iraq is dangerous.

Again! I guess you odn't understand the Rules of War as well as I thought you did. It doesn't matter at that point what the population likes. If my soldiers are being shot at from a Church (I am a christian), Mosque, Temple, etc, I will do all in my power to protect my troops even if that means I have to attack it or bomb it. That is 100% legal under the Geneva Conventions. As for forbidding violence inside the Mosque what do you call shooting at soldiers from inside said mosque? As for executing insurgents, now we are at a fine line. If they surrender fine, we'll take them prisoner, if not, well...one more dead terrorist/insurgent. As for doing this infront of a dutch Camera group, can I see proof please? Because so far, you have provided NO PROOF on anything I have asked you for proof on. Alot of rhetoric but no proof.

If you excuse me, I'm not feeling to swift so I'm going back to bed.

EVERYONE Water Cove thought he had WMD.
ABSOLUTELY a 100% UNTRUE statement. Many countries were NOT convinced that there were WMD in Iraq, and thus were against any military action until the matter had been resolved. That is why UN inspectors were back in Iraq. To find the TRUTH.

Even Scott Ritter (former UNSCOM Chief Inspector) stated that there were no WMD in Iraq. And even though many would try to discredit him, he was 100% CORRECT.

That explains why they said they had convincing evidence. As for being inaccurate, yea the intel was inaccurate. I feel sorry for you that you don't believe it but that was the reason, FAULTY INTEL!
Yeah, go ahead and blame it on faulty intelligence. Blame the CIA. However, it was not the CIA dropping bombs on Baghdad. That is 100% Bush’s fault for kicking out the UN weapon inspectors.

I bet that if you search in Syria, you find them. Saddam ain't stupid. He had years in which to bury and to move his WMD stockpiles. Did he?
This part of your argument is purely speculative and unsupportable.

Don't know and to be honest, I don't care if he had them or not.
Most of your fellow citizens do care? Do you think that Bush would have been given a green light to invade Iraq if there was no probability of WMD? The simple answer is NO!!

As for the weapons inspectors receiving cooperation, that is 100% false.
Once again you are 100% WRONG. You are in complete denial. I have posted many times the simple FACT that the weapons inspectors were receiving excellent co-operation from Iraq:

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Why do you keep making stuff up? You continually try to sell YOUR version of the truth, yet it flies in the face of reality. Perhaps you believe that if you say it often enough, it will somehow magically be true?

Although the UN inspections taking place in Iraq was not perfect, they were moving forward and were productive, and certainly a lot more productive than the alternative, which was to bomb the crap out of the country, and her innocent citizens.
That's because he's the President of the USA! He doesn't have to listen to the World Opinion. He only has to listen to the US Public Opinion. Remember our Elections? That was sorta like a referendum on his presidency.
No, I guess he has proven that he doesn’t have to listen to World Opinion, or the opinion of half of his own citizens. BTW, your country elected him President of the USA, and not President of the world. Keep that in mind when seeking further assistance from traditional allies in the future.

Iraq was a huge mistake and Iran will be even bigger!!

That's because he's the President of the USA! He doesn't have to listen to the World Opinion. He only has to listen to the US Public Opinion. Remember our Elections? That was sorta like a referendum on his presidency.

Yeah...it was "sorta like" a referendum, all right...a rigged one. You haven't had a proper election since '96...which seems to suit half your people just fine. Perhaps your nation should allow elections observers from the international community (something currently not allowed in the US, but which supposedly happened in Iraq) to scrutinize your "sorta like a referenda"...

...but I forgot, Despotism? It couldn't happen 'here'...right? Everything is juuuuust hunky dory, yup.

Yeah...it was "sorta like" a referendum, all right...a rigged one. You haven't had a proper election since '96...which seems to suit half your people just fine. Perhaps your nation should allow elections observers from the international community (something currently not allowed in the US, but which supposedly happened in Iraq) to scrutinize your "sorta like a referenda"...

Ok Bob! Enough of your flaming please. I'm getting sick of it. We've had fair elections since our Founding. The election of 2000 AND 2004 have been fair. Just because GWB won and not your candidate doesn't negate that fact. If it's rigged, PROVIDE A SOURCE!

...but I forgot, Despotism? It couldn't happen 'here'...right? Everything is juuuuust hunky dory, yup.

The US is not a despotic nation. Iraq? Was a despotic Nation. Afghanistan? Was a despotic Nation.

This isn't flaming. You might not like my expressed opinions, but they're just that. Opinions. Not a flame.

You couldn't so much as light a cigarette off the heat from this purported 'flame'.

This isn't flaming. You might not like my expressed opinions, but they're just that. Opinions. Not a flame.

You couldn't so much as light a cigarette off the heat from this purported 'flame'.

*Yawns* Do you get off from insulting people?

*Yawns* Do you get off from insulting people?

I think the question you want to ask is, "Do you (I) get off on insulting people..."

...and I didn't think I was insulting you, by the way. How did you arrive at that rather egocentric conclusion?

I think the question you want to ask is, "Do you (I) get off on insulting people..."

...and I didn't think I was insulting you, by the way. How did you arrive at that rather egocentric conclusion?

By the way you post.

I apologize!