Political Discussion

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceCold:

Remember that when the Leauge of Nations failed there was a World War. You need to have faith in global orgnizations for when nations begin to act on their own they light the fuse on a powderkeg the civilized world rests upon.

---

A little history refresher to anyone who does not remember:

"The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War. The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers."

Conflicts during the 19th century:

1. Anglo-Boer War

2. Anglo-Zulu War

3. Aroostook War

4. Austro-Prussian War (1866)

5. Boxer Rebellion

6. Crimean War (1853-1856)

7. Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)

8. Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)

9. Opium Wars

10. Revolutions of 1848

11. Spanish American War

12. Tripolitan War

13. U.S. - Mexican War (1846-1848)

14. U.S. Civil War (1861-1865)

15. War of 1812

16. War of Greek Independence

Conflicts during the 20th century:

1. 1956 Hungarian Uprising

2. Arab-Israeli Wars

3. Bangladesh Liberation War

4. Bosnian Conflict

5. Chilean Coup

6. Chinese Revolution

7. Cuban Revolution

8. Falkland Islands War

9. India-Pakistan War (1971)

10. Iran-Iraq War

11. Iranian Revolution

12. Italo-Ethiopian War

13. Kargil

14. Korean War

15. Persian Gulf War

16. Romanian Revolution (1989)

17. Somalian Civil War

18. Soviet-Afghan War

19. Sudanese Civil War

20. Suez War of 1956

21. Vietnam War

22. Constant conflict in Africa.

I dunno there's not much of a difference between the comparisons. In fact, I do see a big increase in conflicts since the League and the creation of the U.N. The only reason there has not been another all out global conflict is not because the U.N. is there but because everyone knows that'll be it the end of everything.

[Steve Schacher]

Yet another perspective on the wars pre- and post-League/UN:

World War 1 was caused by the dying throes of the Hapsburg Empire, which ran from Austria eastward. Back then, Europe was a bunch of powerful monarchies, with the English Crown, the French Monarchy (then Napolean and his eastward march into Hapsburg territory), and the Russian Empire to the northeast of the Hapsburgs. The was that conflicts were resolved back then was to marry between monarchies. That all fell apart with World War 1.

The other conflicts, such as the Boer War and the Boxer Rebellion, were the result of British and French colonialism in Africa and Asia. Even America's War of 1812 was a result of American involvement in a British-French conflict.

What makes today's conflict different is that the United States is not the product of a monarchy, nor is it interested in colonial expansion (although some may debate this). It does have an interest in seeing dictatorships replaced with people-led republics, but those republics do not have to become American puppet nations, although I'm sure America wouldn't mind the open markets that result.

[Steve Schacher]

See this post from February on my earlier take on the major wars since the founding of the Republic.

[Sauronthedeceiver]

I think you guys are straying a little from the original topic. With all due respect, citing previous wars and conflicts and making vague connections to this modern conflict may make you sound smart, but the simple issue is whether or not the US could justify the war in Iraq. For fear of being inflammatory (which I know I will be anyway), I'll keep it short but I feel that I should throw my two cents in here.

As an American (don't be fooled I'm only studying in Canada), I would like to see an end to terrorism, despotism, and the like, but I can't in good conscience support this war. Why? Because NOBODY ELSE SUPPORTED IT. The last thing the world needs is the US waging whatever wars it feels like without the support of the international community. I'm not saying that that is what happened, but this is certainly a step in that direction. Sure, there were plently of "supporters" (i.e.: small countries that are easy to push around or owe the US a huge favor (i.e.: England...sorry chaps)), but the 'western' side of the conflict was just the US. I wouldn't even care so much if the United States' foreign policy was just to say "y'know what? We don't like you or your country so we're going to invade you and destabilize the infrastructure of your society and then take all the yummy yummy oil." At least that would be an HONEST foreign policy.

I agree that Saddam Hussein was an awful dictator who wasn't worthy of the respect and reverence of the people of Iraq, but that's not our business, that's their business. The US supporting a revolution is one thing (which I can't say I support either), But the US FIGHTING a revolution for the people of Iraq is totally unacceptable. I don't want my country's soldiers (who could be my brothers and best friends or even myself), fighting and dying in a war that doesn't even remotely affect me (and don't even THINK about telling me that Saddam Hussein was going to use WMD's on us, no one is that stupid). The rest of the world realized this. Leave Saddam Hussein to his own devices. He'll get what he has coming (feel free to take that quote out of context and rebut it). It's obvious now that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Perhaps there were , but it doesn't matter anyway. The US LOOKS LIKE a bunch of power-hungry idiots ( )(sorry I don't actually think the US is a bunch of power-hungry idiots I got a little carried away). The UN is a wonderful institution founded with all the best intentions in mind. Through it we can solve any problems that arise in the world DIPLOMATICALLY. The US feels that the UN can not provide solutions that are in the best interests of America (yummy oil), so they jump the gun and attack, throwing together a 'posse' of supportive nations.

I was hoping to get into media bias and some of the crack-brained accusations that are flying around, but I told you I'd keep it short and already this post is too long. In conclusion, There will never be peace as long as the United States acts purely out of its own interests. We need to consider the people we share this world with, and develop a mutual respect for one another. Some other countries have adopted this foreign policy, but we think only in terms of what is good for the US. And we police the world with little regard for everyone else's interests. I love America as much as anyone, but it really shames me to see her in this state. This is NOT what the founding fathers intended for our nation. Not even a little bit. It was an unjustified war to everyone except the US.

[Guest]

quote:

---

This is NOT what the founding fathers intended for our nation. Not even a little bit. It was an unjustified war to everyone except the US.

---

Actually it is EXACTLY what the founding fathers had in mind.

America's interests first and foremost.

It was in our interest to get rid of Saddam Housien, the UN passed resolution after resolution, but did NOTHING.

The US finally had to go in and do it, so that the UN wouldn't look totally useless to the citizens of this country, and every other tinpot dictator in the world.

The UN passed a resolution against me, ho hum.

The US did what was in our best interest and the UN's best interest.

Passing resolution after resolution doesn't solve a thing if you don't enforce those resolutions.

We finally decided to enforce them.

This war was completely justified, note the UN resolutions and you will figure that out.

Without WMD's it was still justified.

The UN is a joke, the US had to go in and enforce it's resolutions before every little tinpot figured it out.

And the Euroweinies? Don't even get me started on those pacifist, socialist goofballs. I could give a flying leap what those bozo's think.

We have either had to defeat them, or defend them, they would NOT exist as countries if it weren't for us. They can just sit down and shut up.

America's interests first, ALWAYS!!!

[Guest $iLk]

What about those pirates back in the 1700's that everyone was afraid of... then we sent the marines over there and cleaned them out. It's not like they ever would have attacked our mainland... it's not like they could have ever conquered us.

It's just that they needed a good ass-kicking to remind them not to screw with us.

Just like the Middle East.

It's 1:00am for me... too early to be P.C. methinks...

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

With all due respect, citing previous wars and conflicts and making vague connections to this modern conflict may make you sound smart...

---

He thinks we sound smart...

[Sauronthedeceiver]

quote:

---

America's interests first, ALWAYS!!!

---

::sigh:: I really hope you were kidding.

Look, I'm not be qualified to decide whether or not war was justified. None of us are. We just don't have all the information. All we have right now are mainly opinions and biased media-driven information. There are a million things that we don't know about this conflict. Maybe one of them was a very well-justified reason for going to war, but for whatever reason, we haven't been given all the information. And no one can tell me that this isn't true because honestly we DON'T KNOW. However, I can't prove that it is true either. It all boils down to what we believe. What we choose to believe, what we have come to believe, whatever. Some believe that it was America's duty to put a stop to the injustices that were apparent in Iraq; and that by upholding justice for the common citizens of Iraq and the safety of the American people, we are setting a good example to the rest of the world (Europe) and they are all wussy crybabies. My beliefs in this matter is that there is no way to justify this war, either for our own protection or for the good of the Iraqi people, because we all know the real reason is OIL!!....(or is it?) we may never know......(STOP MEDIA BIAS!!! READ ADBUSTERS!!! KEEP AN OPEN MIND!!!)

[Guest]

quote:

---

::sigh:: I really hope you were kidding.

---

Kidding? not one little bit.

Americas interests come first, PERIOD.

America's interests should ALWAYS come first.

I took an oath to the constitution, not the UN charter. America ALWAYS comes first.

If we have an interest in getting rid of someone, then if it is in our interest, we should do so, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

If it weren't for us, most of the world would be speaking German and Japanese, if it weren't for us, the Soviet Union would still exist.

Our interests happen to coincide with others interests, but if they don't, too bad.

America's interests should ALWAYS come first, that is what the Federal Government is for, to protect OUR interests as a country.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

because we all know the real reason is OIL!!....(or is it?)

---

Being a an American studying in Canada, what do you think about this oil connection between France and Canada, documented in an earlier post of mine?

It's cool to say that America went to war for oil for Bush's buddies and Cheney's Halliburton, but American government contracts don't work that way. But look at France and Canada's familial ties to Iraqi oil and maybe you might reconsider that statement.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

quote:

---

because we all know the real reason is OIL!!....(or is it?)

---

Being a an American studying in Canada, what do you think about this oil connection between France and Canada, documented in an earlier post of mine?

It's cool to say that America went to war for oil for Bush's buddies and Cheney's Halliburton, but American government contracts don't work that way. But look at France and Canada's familial ties to Iraqi oil and maybe you might reconsider that statement.

---

Got that EXACTLY right, France, Germany, and Canada, and of course Russia, ALL had oil contracts with Iraq, and each of them were against the war.

It did not matter to them that Saddam murdered his own people, they had big oil contracts, and they were just doing their best to undermine the UN so that Sanctions would be lifted and they could get their oil.

They are angry, because the people that they had those contracts with are now gone and out of power, which mean that those contracts are worth about as much as the paper they are written on.

They now have to start over with a new Iraqi government, and get those contracts to be as lucrative as they were before, which they will not be, because the Iraqi's are going to be out for themselves, and thier own interests, instead of Saddam being out for his.

Gotta love that, WE are in it for the oil? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, why do you think the Dem's are freaking out about Anwar, and the Gulf of mexico, the coast of Florida and the the coast of California. It's all about OIL, but it is in OUR best interest to pump our OWN oil, we have plenty to last us for the next century, it is just a matter of getting payed off Democrats out of office so that we can get some America first people to vote for drilling in our own country. This is what Bush has been fighting for, we could care less about Iraqi oil, except of course to bust up OPEC, which of course is also in our own best interest.

People always enjoy blaiming America first, when the fingers ought to be pointing at themselves.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

quote:

---

With all due respect, citing previous wars and conflicts and making vague connections to this modern conflict may make you sound smart...

---

He thinks we sound smart...

---

LOL, I missed that one.

Sound smart? Hmm, sounds like he's been in Canada too long.

Sorry, had to get my Canada bashing in while I could. LOL Always have to bash Canada when given the opportunity, and that looked like a good opportunity.

Now I just have to wait for a good France opportunity....

Just call me an Equal Opportunity Basher....

[Guest $iLk]

Despite what you may have been taught in public schools everyone... Nationalism is not a dirty word.

I believe in sovereign nations looking out for themselves... if we have common interests, then we can work together. If we don't see eye to eye on a situation... we should do whatever we want anyway - within reason.

We can't just say...

USA: "Great Britain... would you miss France?"

GB: "Why do you ask?"

USA: "Because they are always being whiney... we think we'll blow them off from the rest of Europe"

GB: "But then we'd miss the nude beaches... *thinks of hairy pits* on second thought..."

But with Iraq for instance... it was definitely within our best interests to see a stable Iraq in the region. Take Iran next and we can combine along with Afghanistan a really big supercountry.

Then we could write USA #2 on the maps.

Nothing says America loves you than a few thousand pound bombs on some Islamic extremists...

- Hey Jag you ought to read Savage Nation by Michael Savage. It's a good read and cuts through the P.C. of everything in the "War on Terror"

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Yet another perspective on the wars pre- and post-League/UN:

World War 1 was caused by the dying throes of the Hapsburg Empire, which ran from Austria eastward. Back then, Europe was a bunch of powerful monarchies, with the English Crown, the French Monarchy (then Napolean and his eastward march into Hapsburg territory), and the Russian Empire to the northeast of the Hapsburgs. The was that conflicts were resolved back then was to marry between monarchies. That all fell apart with World War 1.

The other conflicts, such as the Boer War and the Boxer Rebellion, were the result of British and French colonialism in Africa and Asia. Even America's War of 1812 was a result of American involvement in a British-French conflict.

What makes today's conflict different is that the United States is not the product of a monarchy, nor is it interested in colonial expansion (although some may debate this). It does have an interest in seeing dictatorships replaced with people-led republics, but those republics do not have to become American puppet nations, although I'm sure America wouldn't mind the open markets that result.

---

And why not, comparisons are good for a proper perceptive of events. I never really looked into that before about the pre/post-league/UN global political environment and I was just curious. So I did searches to see what I would come up with. Basically, what I'm seeing in the results is that the U.N. has been ineffective in curtailing aggression and that the U.N. is only as effective as the cooperation it gets from the different countries. Also, The way I'm seeing it is that the U.N. is nothing more than the middle man for alliances and treaties which countries did anyway before the formation of the U.N. It was Alliances and treaties that was the main cause of the first World War WWI and U.S. entry into WW1. So much for staying Isolated from wars and this applies to WWII. Now that the U.S. wants to stand on it's own two feet and Right a big Wrong that has been done to the "people" of Iraq these same countries that we saved their a$$es on many occasions and spent millions or billions to rebuild their post war a$$es are now giving the U.S. the snub and stand on their high horses. All I can say to them in the immortal words of Duke Nukem "bunch of scum sucking, bottom feeding, algae eaters".

I never hear the nay sayers talk about Kuwait in this issue. Boy are they rich and happy both politically and religiously. And that's the thing we want to bring to Iraq. How can this be wrong?

So it was brought about possibly by a couple of lies. Any of you that has not lied as a means to and end I'll be more than happy to give you the first stone to throw.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sauronthedeceiver:

I agree that Saddam Hussein was an awful dictator who wasn't worthy of the respect and reverence of the people of Iraq, but that's not our business, that's their business.

---

How can you say that when the people you are referring to were oppressed and couldn't say a damn thing and if they did that person and the entire family would be brutalized. So tell me how could they ask for help? I have family members serving over in Iraq and you know what the everyday Iraqi Joe say's to them not "what are you doing here" but "what the hell took you so long". Of course I can't speak for the Saddam loyalist you can imagine what they are thinking and saying. It is the average Iraqi that the sacrifice of our brave men and women make it a just cause. And don't be fooled by the negative news reporting you get from the liberal media they are painting a completely different picture than I hear coming out of Iraq from my sources. And you know what I have to say to the liberal news media in the immortal words of Duke Nukem again "bunch of scum sucking, bottom feeding, algae eaters".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sauronthedeceiver:

The US LOOKS LIKE a bunch of power-hungry idiots

---

Hey now it's good to have a VICE!! Besides I don't know a country that isn't or wouldn't if they got half a chance. The U.S. is not unique in that respect. Or look at it this way perhaps the problem isn't the governments that are at fault but the power hungry colonialistic, imperialistic and monarchistic global companies that we are all surfs too that are the real problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sauronthedeceiver:

The UN is a wonderful institution founded with all the best intentions in mind. Through it we can solve any problems that arise in the world DIPLOMATICALLY. The US feels that the UN can not provide solutions that are in the best interests of America (yummy oil), so they jump the gun and attack, throwing together a 'posse' of supportive nations.

---

Are you sure about this. I think it is time to look again at world events. Look at Africa, Isreal and palestine and more. In my view the U.N. is just full of castrated ineffective thinkers without the conviction to back up anything they come up with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

America's interests first and foremost.

---

Spot on Jaguar. I dare and defy anyone from any other country that says theirs is not. And it's not just countries either but individuals. How many of you here are intersted in making tons of cash and buying your fancy cars, Tv's, computers, houses, eating out at expensive restaurants, lied on a resume to get a job even if that meant the person who was honest on his/her didn't get the job but you did because of your lie or climb the company ladder even if it means stepping on and/or backstabbing your co-workers etc... All while you do that a good portions of your fellow citizens have nothing, jobless and go hungry. So don't tell us about self-interest. I'm talking globally here not just the U.S..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

He thinks we sound smart...

---

Well we'll have to see what smart thinks about that!! Sorry SC I couldn't resist that little pun.

[Marvin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

How many of you here are intersted in making tons of cash and buying your fancy cars, Tv's, computers, houses, eating out at expensive restaurants, lied on a resume to get a job even if that meant the person who was honest on his/her didn't get the job but you did because of your lie or climb the company ladder even if it means stepping on and/or backstabbing your co-workers etc....

---

Not very many. I hope.

[Sauronthedeceiver]

quote:

---

Being a an American studying in Canada, what do you think about this oil connection between France and Canada, documented in an earlier post of mine?

---

Well Steve, this is a perfect example of what I said before...We don't have all the information! I honestly didn't know about the Franco-Iraqi connection. Of course, the conservative Canadian media kept it under wraps pretty well, so it never reached my ears. However, this poses another interesting dilemma...I never said that just because the US war on Iraq was unjustified, it shouldn't have happened! All those other countries (France, Germany, and yes, even Canada) had selfish reasons for keeping out of the war, but you have to admit that there was a certain degree of selfishness in the actions of the Bush administration as well.

Millions of people from all those European countries were opposed to the war. Do you think they gave a crap about oil? As I said before, the GOVERNMENTS had selfish reasons for staying out of the war, but the people of those countries had every reason to protest as citizens with real concerns about the state of the world. I have not met one Canadian who SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein's regime. They all hate him, and want him gone just like everyone else in the world. But the United States is convinced that war is the only option (although they claim it was a last resort).

Where did YOU get that information? I'm sure you read it in one of those mainstream media sources (please correct me if I'm wrong) that is owned by AOL/Time Warner or Ted Turner or one of those conservative media giants. This is what we call BIASED INFORMATION.

P.S. I was in a rush when I wrote this so it probably doesn't hold together very well. I will write again later in the meantime, feel free to bash this post.

P.P.S. SOMEONE PLEASE BACK ME UP HERE!!!!!! Am I the only one who sees through the evil republican propaganda? (Just a little fuel for the fire.

[Sauronthedeceiver]

I just realized I made an incredibly hippocrytical post. I apologize.

quote:

---

They all hate him, and want him gone just like everyone else in the world. But the United States is convinced that war is the only option (although they claim it was a last resort).

---

The people of these countries are subject to the same media bias we are....And I had just come down off a tirade about how the average person isn't well enough informed. The people of other countries aren't any better informed than we are. I would like to expand more upon this, but once again I am out of time.

You people need to understand that you REALLY aren't qualified to decide whether war was justified or not. NEITHER AM I. This is all because of an ineffective means of recieving information. I know it's fun to pick on the only guy against the war (SOMEONE PLEASE BACK ME UP!!!) OK I'll post again later.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sauronthedeceiver:

You people need to understand that you REALLY aren't qualified to decide whether war was justified or not. NEITHER AM I.

---

A lot of us are ex-military, me being one... and our contacts don't just die when we we leave, or hopefully most of us have not lost our contacts in that fine organization. I for one have not, and I for one understand a lot more then you think I do. And I believe that I probably speak for many others here as well.

The Lamestream media are not to be trusted in any way shape or form, and if that is the only source of your information, you do not have near the information necassary to make an informed opinion.

So, the second part is spot on, the first part is most definitely questionable for a lot of us.

We are also probably a LOT older then you, and have a lot more experience filtering out the BS.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Where did YOU get that information? I'm sure you read it in one of those mainstream media sources (please correct me if I'm wrong)

---

I will get to the substance of your last post later, but for now let me address this one point, since media bias seems to be a pet peeve of yours (as it is mine, too).

I am an avid news junkie. I read most everything on the internet, since all world news outlets are linked there. I never watch mainstream broadcast TV news (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS). I will admit to watching FNC, but I essentially get my news from the internet in all its forms.

If you expand the display range on the General Discussion forum here, you will notice political debates from many sides (going back to 1998) with a very varied set of news articles linked. You're new to this site, so let me tell you that the people who post here are not brainwashed by the spoonfed news by Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw.

[almostpilot]

Just for fun !!!

Use the GOOGLE search and type "miserable failure" and see the results !!!!!

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

However, this poses another interesting dilemma...I never said that just because the US war on Iraq was unjustified, it shouldn't have happened!

---

I don't understand. If it wasn't justified, it shouldn't have happened. If it was justified, then it was justified. How CAN you endorse an unjustified war?

quote:

---

All those other countries (France, Germany, and yes, even Canada) had selfish reasons for keeping out of the war, but you have to admit that there was a certain degree of selfishness in the actions of the Bush administration as well.

---

If you mean that Bush went to war because of personal reasons, such as retaliation for Iraqi attempts to assassinate his father, then we can debate whether that was a coincidental benefit or a major impetus.

Otherwise, I don't see the selfishness of it. France, Germany, and Russia had lucrative contracts with Iraq that they stood to lose if Hussein went down. They also held large notes of Iraqi debt, whose repayment they stood to lose as well. So what if liberating millions of people, stopping the rape chambers and torture chambers gets in the way of a few billion in cash flow?

For the USA, it wasn't about getting Iraqi oil. It was about stopping a destabilizing force in the region. It was about shutting off the cash spigot to other terrorist entities. It's the classic domino principle: take out Iraq and soon the other terrorist organs will atrophy.

If there is a selfishness to it, it is to keep the fighting over there instead of over here.

quote:

---

Millions of people from all those European countries were opposed to the war. Do you think they gave a crap about oil? As I said before, the GOVERNMENTS had selfish reasons for staying out of the war, but the people of those countries had every reason to protest as citizens with real concerns about the state of the world.

---

Well, that's what the Europeans do, the appease and protest military action. Do you remember during the 1980s when Reagan wanted to deploy the Pershing missiles thoughout Europe to deter the Soviet Union? Do you remember all the photos of people dressed as zombies and skeletons as if they were survivors of a nuclear holocaust? It's what they do.

quote:

---

I have not met one Canadian who SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein's regime. They all hate him, and want him gone just like everyone else in the world. But the United States is convinced that war is the only option (although they claim it was a last resort).

---

It's not just the United States. Don't you remember the 17 or so UN resolutions that Hussein ignored? Do you remember resolution 1441 that declared the final ultimatum and the authorization of force?

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Where did YOU get that information? I'm sure you read it in one of those mainstream media sources (please correct me if I'm wrong) that is owned by AOL/Time Warner or Ted Turner or one of those conservative media giants. This is what we call BIASED INFORMATION.

---

This one is from the London Telegraph.

Does this link Saddam to 9/11?

quote:

---

document discovered by Iraq's interim government details a meeting between the man behind the September 11 attacks and Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, at his Baghdad training camp. Con Coughlin reports.

For anyone attempting to find evidence to justify the war in Iraq, the discovery of a document that directly links Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, appears almost too good to be true.

...

Written in the neat, precise hand of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and one of the few named in the US government's pack of cards of most-wanted Iraqis not to have been apprehended, the personal memo to Saddam is signed by Habbush in distinctive green ink.

Headed simply "Intelligence Items", and dated July 1, 2001, it is addressed: "To the President of the Ba'ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you."

The first paragraph states that "Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer (an Arabic nom-de-guerre - his real identity is unknown) and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision.

"We arranged a work programme for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him . . . He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

...

The second item contains a report of how Iraqi intelligence, helped by "a small team from the al-Qaeda organisation", arranged for an (unspecified) shipment from Niger to reach Baghdad by way of Libya and Syria.

Iraqi officials believe this is a reference to the controversial shipments of uranium ore Iraq acquired from Niger to aid Saddam in his efforts to develop an atom bomb, although there is no explicit reference in the document to this.

---

That last bit is, I believe, a reference to the yellowcake "scandal" that the Democrats tried to smear Bush with. Do you remember the bit from Robert Novak about "outing" a CIA agent because they were mad at her husband reporting no Iraq-Niger connection with uranium sales?

Keep watching. As the 2004 election draws closer and the Democrats, in their desperation, make wilder and wilder accusations, the White House and Downey Street will be releasing (leaking?) more and more tidbits like this to make the opposition look more and more shrill and incompetent to lead the country.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Keep watching. As the 2004 election draws closer and the Democrats, in their desperation, make wilder and wilder accusations, the White House and Downey Street will be releasing (leaking?) more and more tidbits like this to make the opposition look more and more shrill and incompetent to lead the country.

---

And they'll be right!!!

[Guest BaBaBooey]

I voted for Bush, I still am registered Republican but to hell if I'm going to vote for this guy again.

Now that you know where I stand here is why. This administration REFUSES to release the intelligence briefings the president received prior to the attacks. Why? National Security? BS.

Why are we holding all kinds of people at Guantanamo, ignoring due process when one of the first flights allowed to leave the country after 9/11 was one carrying the Bin Ladens that lived in the US the hell out of here for their safety. Did you all know that the Bush family and the Bin Laden's have been in many business endeavors together? WHY WEREN'T THEY AT LEAST DETAINED AND THEN QUESTIONED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE HELL THEY KNEW WHEN? I don't buy this BS about them not knowing anything. Family gossip gets around from one family member to another.

We've done a great job of taking over two countries with absolutely NO PLAN FOR HOLDING THEM. Afghanistan is a JOKE, I think we can claim to control a 6 block area. Iraq is a nightmare, we have no control over the situation there.

What happened to the Department of Defense's posting on their website requesting volunteers to staff draft boards? It just disappeared but it was there and you can read it here . If we get four more years of this guy we'll NEVER know what the hell happened on 9/11, we'll lose more credibility in the world and some of you will likely find your butts in a lottery as we decide that this military is too small and we have too many targets to annihilate. Paranoid?

Ask more questions than this press does. Our press is a joke now and that's sad. But hey if you want to own many stations in one market and control the media you have to play ball with George's FCC. God help us, I am a proud American but this isn't America. I was always talking about how we should kick some ass in the world but doing it against unarmed countries (we could have assassinated Hussein) and then throwing up executive orders that say "Iraq is for American companies only" and then to add insult we make it so that those companies answer to NOBODY for safety or fair practices. It's sick but worse it's unamerican.

BaBa

[Steve Schacher]

The Bin Ladens, as far as I recall, were a respected family in Saudi Arabia in the construction business. Osama was a rich kid who drifted without direction until he went radical after the USA built bases in Saudi Arabia due to the Gulf War.

The family was flown out of the USA at the personal request of Saudi King Fahd. "His majesty said it's not fair for those innocent people to be subjected to any harm," Saudi Prince Bandar said, appearing on CNN's Larry King Live programme.