...regarding Iraqi weapons.

hans Blix has officially stated he cannot find any weapons or "smoking guns" as he puts it (?).
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=238851&lang=e&dir=news

quote:

---

Not yet posted, but it will be...:
"That's a totally biased Islamic news network, why should we believe you"

---

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=53655

quote:

---

Not yet posted, but it will be...:
"But that's by a raghead"

---

yes I suppose it is... wait a second

ah here it is
ITV - http://www.itv.com/news/Front1528085.html

Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/01/09/rtr842294.html

CBC! - http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/09/blix_030108

Finally, some evidence.
AHA - the "stupid kid" gets proved right.



[This message has been edited by ChuckStone (edited 01-09-2003).]

OF course they haven't found a "smoking gun." If Iraq were to allow them to see anything they want at any time, without handlers, or allow them to interview any scientist they want, outside of Iraq (where their government can't supervise their answers)...if either of these two things were to happen, the "smoking gun" might just be found.

Iraq will never let this happen because they know it will mean instant condemnation and inevitable invasion.

Use your head, Chuck. Why haven't the inspectors found absolute, complete proof? Because they aren't looking in the right places (thanks to Iraqi minders). Not because the weapons aren't there.

Do you think Saddam is continuing the charade of holy defender of Islam on public television, warning the US not to invade the brave, invincible country of Iraq, because he knows he has no weapons?

You like the word sycophant. Well, Iraqi officials are all sycophants. They mold their intelligence and military analyses to his picture of things (hardly a realistic one), out of fear---since he has a history of placing blame the bearer of bad news.

Oh yeah, I forgot, those reports are all fabricated or from people who don't like Saddam and Great Uncle Saddam is really the benevolent, 100% legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iraq.

Let us not forget Saddam had 4 years to destroy everything, hide it in other countries like Syria or Yemen, or wait until nighttime, then bury them like 30 meters underground in sealed containers. BAM. Maybe only Saddam and his top generals know where they are. Everyone that buried them could be dead. Obviously he had bio and chem bombs into at least 1998 because he would then have no reason to block their access. Thats 4 fucking years for his boys to destroy all equipment, scrub everything with bleach and ethyl alcohol (i think thats the stuff that can kill almost any germ, i might be wrong) wash everything down with water to eliminate radiation, remove anything that could still have residue on it and burn it etc...Lets be honest Saddam could have realistically destroyed everything 2 months before the inspectors came, and when they leave, submit their report, say they found nothing, saddam can restart his program because he knows they arent coming back for at least a month

basically heres what happened

America says HEY SADDAM WE WANT TO HAVE INSPECTORS IN YOUR COUNTRY AND SEARCH EVERYTHING

UN says hey SADDAM WE ARE GOING TO DEBATE FOR A MONTH AND GIVE YOU TIME TO STALL AND DESTROY EVERYTHING

France, Russia, China and England say OK WERE GOING TO DEBATE

2 more weeks pass...

OK THE ISSUES COMING TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL, hope you hid everything

OK WE PASSEd THE RESOLUTION WERE COMING IN 2 weeks

OK NOW WERE HERE, lets wait 2 more weeks for all the inspectors to come

Obviously saddam would have to be a complete dumbass to get caught with his pants down given that much advance warning

lets not forget he is in material breach of the resolution anyway, he left tons of shit out purposely, we could have invaded then with justification, but we didnt, even blix said that

we are just waiting for the inspectors to leave

Its official...

I really feel sorry for Hans Blix.

He has a job to do, which is go to a hostile country, search for weapons that don't exist - for a country that won't believe them when they reveal the truth.

You'll notice he does agree that there are "holes" in the dossier. Holes where there are no WMDs. And that's the nearest you have to proof that they exist.

The Loch Ness Monster exists - it exists but it keeps hiding and there is no way we can prove it exists, but it does.

In fact there is more proof of the existence of the said Monster than there is for Iraq owning WMDs.

Tony Blair and George W Bush claim they know there are WMDs, so fuck it they MUST know where they are - and they claim to know that too, but they refuse to share this frankly vital information with Hans Blix. Why? Exactly how can it harm intelligence to share this information with Hans Blix? Even if the Iraqis did intercept the information THEY ALREADY KNOW!!! And who else cares?

And if they are hiding these weapons - then Hans Blix has had TWO WEEKS to find them. FUCKING TWO WEEKS. If he's destroyed them - job done, that's what GWB claims he wants from him anyway. And why would he restart a program which takes years to complete, and 2 months to decommission, if he knows that the weapons inspectors will return in a month? Why would Syria or Yemen let him hise their weapons there? And don't you think they'd notice if he did it without their permission?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
...since [Saddam Hussein]has a history of placing blame the bearer of bad news.

---

And exactly how much do you know about him? You know nothing! You know nothing about Iraq, it's people, or it's government - and there is no way you could know that he has a "history" of much really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
lets not forget he is in material breach of the resolution anyway, he left tons of shit out purposely

---

What did he leave out? The bits he has persistently maintained didn't exist - ie the bits where there are WMDs. Of course he left them out. THEY DON'T EXIST!

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:we could have invaded then with justification, but we didnt, even blix said that

---

Given the situation (ie the one whereby there are no holes) then no - you don't have a justification. And Hans Blix should be worldly aware enough to know that.

Now people of Erica - Vox, and LebaneseFighter especially, answer me this... why are you trying so hard (and quite pathetically in my opinion) to cling on to the last shread of hope that your country is fighing a just cause - when all fingers point to this just being an example of Erica being a bully towards weaker nations. People are going to die for his farcicle war (if it is going to happen, apprently it is not inevitable says Jack Straw every Monday morning - it's his only job - it's 60-40 against now). Americans, Britons, Australians, Canadians, Iraqis and probably not Saddam Hussein (the only one we "have a quarrel with"). So lets be a lttle critical - this is not religion, you don't have to have blind faith with a wealth of evidence against it. This is a simple case of right and wrong - Loony George and his sidekick Tony Bleart are wrong, deliberatley wrong, in other words lying. In fact I think they are just holding fire until the time is right to attack, which is soon. Is it a coincedence that both our respective armies are manuevering troops into the area ready for invasion despite their single criteria of invasion being currently incomplete. Is it a coincedence that they are maneuveriong them in early January, the ideal time to attack being possibly late January to Febuary (Iraq is cold at this time of year, like Britain and much of the USA is on average, but extremely cold by an Iraqi point of view. It's also after Christmas when morale is at an all time high for our men. Plus it is often nighttime in Winter, and night attacks always favour the attacker. Especially one with such luxuries as NV equipment). They don't give a shit about any WMDs. After the UN inspectors leave with nothing, they will find another tenuous grasp at an invasion criteria and act on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:

AHA - the "stupid kid" gets proved right.

---

Sorry kid, not yet. We told you in the beginning that the existence of WMD was irrelevant. It's business. And inspections are called for under the terms of the surrender.

You even said it yourself: "They don't give a shit about any WMDs."

Charles,

Loch Ness monster...you have no concept of international relations, so I'll give you the short lesson.

Deny this, if you can (you can't, so don't try): Iraq has possessed within the last twenty years chemical and biological weapons, and for the last five years, has been practically free from inspection to develop them and other weapons.

Perhaps Nessie never reared her ugly head to spit brackish water onto tourists. But Saddam FUCKING ABSOLUTELY DID spew chemical weapons onto all manner of defenseless civilians. Nessie = fake. Saddam's chems = true beyond a reasonable doubt. Asshole.

Iraq has every reason to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Don't deny this; look at North Korea and the benefits its gained from getting nuclear weapons: money, food, more fissionable material. To say that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program is absurd and stupid. OF COURSE THEY HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM BECAUSE EVERY MILITARY POWER IN THE WORLD HAS ONE, and even some non-military powers. Nukes give you a pile of chips to play with at the high stakes table, and nobody ignores your demands. Saddam likes to gamble (Iran, Kuwait), but he's so misinformed and so megalomaniacal that he consistently overestimates his chances of winning. He's doing the same here.

Fact: military buildup in the region has two effects. First, it shows Saddam exactly how serious we are about keeping his lying, psychotic ass in check. Buildup and B1's at your border will make you take someone a little more seriously. Second, in case of necessary action, we are ready to put the ragtags to shame.

Try and contradict this: the US is not out to protect human rights, Iraqi citizens, or freedom. Yes, it's true, PR and foreign policy are two separate things. Domestic support for a war requires the motivation born of the moral high road. News, speeches, press conferences; all are meant for one thing only: the camera of history.

I will never deny that the US government works to protect the interests of Americans. Of fucking course it does. And this shouldn't be news to anyone, since whatever country you come from, your government is EXACTLY the same (unless it's coopted by the US government).

The US and the British cannot share intelligence directly with Blix and the UN without being accused of collusion or espionage (I say fuck it: they're being accused anyway). In addition, though you conveniently ignore it, inspection teams are DENIED ACCESS TO SENSITIVE SITES. And if you think two weeks is enough to canvass an entire country (even without Iraqis shepherding you about), you are even more
obtuse than has been suggested.

I know much about Iraq, it's people, and its history. Far more than you do, I'll reckon, considering your miseducation is often betrayed by your babbling. Of course the Iraqis you hear will say they despise the US; they were sorely pounded by American troops and embarassed despite their valiant leader's claims of invincibility and "mother of all battles" nonsense. And if you ask a Shiite or a Kurd (which you probably never have done), you will get a remarkably different response than from a Sunni.

Charles, let me respond to your disjointed questions.

quote:

---

why are you trying so hard (and quite pathetically in my opinion) to cling on to the last shread of hope that your country is fighing a just cause - when all fingers point to this just being an example of Erica being a bully towards weaker nations.

---

Again, let me say this: WE ARE NOT TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE WAR IS "JUST." Black, white...your mind is too simple for international politics. We don't operate under this assumption in real life. In real life, Americans are as smart, dedicated, and brave as anyone else. We live in an elitist society, and the elite are intelligent and devoted to protecting the United States. And they couldn't care less about a "just war." We aren't fighting to liberate Iraq, and we never claimed that was our main goal. We want to kill Saddam, or short of that, destroy the threat his government poses to the US.

When the invasion comes, and the records of WMD programs are discovered, you will still deny reality. I know you Charles. You're a reality denier. You pretend you're smart, pretend you hate your government, pretend you're something special and a defender of justice. In ten years, you'll remember our exchanges and think to yourself how arrogant you were. That's fine: only the heartless aren't on the left of the spectrum in their youth.

And only the brainless don't move to the right as they get older.

"Erica" huh? I hope "Gland" is treating you okay, pussy.

Existence is relevant. It is relevant because George W Bush has said expressely on numerous occaisons that he will invade if they exist. And he has also said, we will invade unless you destroy your WMDs. So the existence of these WMDs means the difference between a popular war and an unpopular war. It also signifies the difference between Iraq posing a threat and Iraq NOT posing a threat. And if Iraq poses no threat then why do you need to attack? How does the elimination of a non-threat help?

If the war is due to the elite wanting the oil (which I think most people with an IQ in double figures now suspect). Then they should just step out and say so. The thing that really pisses me off is the fact that my friends will die to fight your war - which is based on an endless string of lies. People are following this facade because they are good people, but ignorant people - and that is nobody's fault but the elite's, for keeping them in the dark. People are following this facade because the Bush admin says it is to destroy the WMDs (which don't exist)or to rid Iraq of a terrible tyrant (who has existed for over 30 years) - or because they want democracy in the Middle East (yet they contradict themselves by arming the Burmese and Saudi Arabian dictators) - one by one Bush's lies are knocked down and are instantly replaced by another, backed by a hastily constructed "proof dossier". And WORSE... Tony Blair follows it like a stupid fucking poodle without even stopping to question Bush's motives (or lack of reasonable motives).

Now this is bad enough, but you Vox are supporting this war despite the knowledge of the truth? You are supporting what you have explained to be an act of tyrrany? You are not a good, ignorant person. You are a well-informed bad person. And if I ever see you post anything claiming America to be the upholder of freedom that most of the good, ignorant people of AMerica claims it is - remember this. Remember how you have turned your back on freedom knowing it was behind you dying.

I just can't take it. Please excuse me while I vomit.

Charles,

I hope you realize how dumb you sound when you make the claim that the US is not out to protect democracy and freedom in other countries. At first, it probably is hard to reconcile the fact that the US is protecting Americans while at the same time encouraging democracy and freedom abroad. Here's how it works:

The US wants stability in the world. This means no war, no threat of war, no genocide, no criminals building nuclear weapons, and no masses of uneducated, unemployed, undernourished hatemongering people who look for a reason for their suffering and are showed the United States.

Do you want stability in the world? I hope so. The fact is that historically, democratic regimes do not attack other democratic regimes (and rarely attack other regimes unless provoked).

Your history is so limited and skewed, any claim you make is immediately unfounded. I've seen you claim that America started every war it has fought in other than WWII (though you sometimes claim the US was itching to get involved in that one to). FALSE. Here are the "wars," declared or undeclared, the US has fought in since 1900:

WW1: I hope I don't need to explain how this was not an American war until 1917, fully three years into it.

WW2: We agree the US was not the aggressor here, and the turning point in the war was the US entry into the war (which made Germany's losses in Russia so much more costly).

Korea: Here's a quick (ha!) history lesson. Contrary to your opinion, Korea, originally one country, was divided at the end of WWII when Russian troops entered the North in August and September 1945---Moscow barely getting into the war against Japan in order to gain territory and influence before Tokyo surrendered---and met American troops. Between 1910 and that year, all of Korea had come under Japanese occupation and colonization, the result of the Japanese success in attacking Russia in 1904 and winning fairly swiftly over that country in the Russo-Japanese war.

By 1950, a Communist regime had emerged in the North, typically Stalinist, with Russia its patron. In the South, under US sponsorship, a military dictatorship initiated a bold series of economic and social reforms that would lead, by the 1980s, to the emergence of a rich industrial country. These reforms included extensive land-reform, trade union recognition, new educational and health services, and ultimately to a rapidly institutionalizing
democracy. That democratizing regime survived intact the 1997 Asian financial crisis, while the so-called "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia (including Japan) floundered and flailed (Japan is still not entirely recovered). South Korea now has 49 million prosperous people, with a per capita income of about $18,000 in purchasing power terms---this puts it on the level of roughly Spain, and ahead of Portugal and Greece. The North has 24 million people, with a per capita income about 1/18 of that---millions of whom are undernourished or starving.

In June 1950, the Communist regime attacked the South. Taken by surprise, South Korean and US forces rapidly retreated down the
peninsula to a small area along the southeastern coast where, finally,
the attacking North Koreans were halted. Then, in late summer, Macarthur's sea-borne counter-invasion of the North took place---
taking the North Korean forces, trapped to the south, by equal surprise. UN forces (ROK and US mostly) pushed quickly north oward the Chinese border, at which point a million man Chinese army poured across the border and forced US army and marine units into a bloody, snow-blasted retreat a couple of hundred miles over the mountains back across the 38th Parallel, where the war fell into a two year stalemate.

Meanwhile, soon after the war's start, the UN had condemned the North Korean invasion, and several countries sent military aid (by far the bulk of these UN forces were South Koreans and Americans). Eventually, in 1953, an armistice was signed---not a peace treaty. Since then, the US has maintained large forces on the ground, roughly two army divisions (37,000), along with air bases to the south; the main aim of these forces is to serve as a trip-wire deterrent to dissuade North Korea's totalitarian, markedly militarist regime, from attacking the South again in the mistaken belief that the US wouldn't be engaged militarily from the start.

So you see, US forces in Korea were not aggressors (and we find another example of the long-term social and economic benefit of US occupation and military government---the kind we'll use in Iraq after toppling Saddam).

Vietnam: I will make no excuses. A terrible decision made half-heartedly and obviously very unpopular with Americans, to this day. We know this was not a just war, and we do everything we can to avoid wars like it. I don't know what else you can ask for.

I don't think anyone wants to have complex analyses of Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Libya, and the countless other uses of force by the US...at least not in this post. I'll save them for later. But the point I want to to understand is this:

US interests and freedom, democracy, and capitalism in foreign countries are one and the same. Democracies have checks on their leadership that prevent irrational, unthought-out military action. There are free presses that offer citizens alternatives to current government. There are motivators for leaders to follow the direction of public opinion, lest they not be reelected in the future. There are commonalities between liberal democracies that allow them to cooperate and share information, which if you knew anything about political theory you'd know promotes transparency, which in turn prevents overestimation of aggression and a security dilemma (in other words: an arms race). These are all unfamiliar concepts for you I think...but I'll explain them if you can't figure them out.

So, the US, selfishly acting in its own benefit, does so by pushing for democracy, freedom, liberty, and all the other things you said I rejected. They just aren't the core goal---they're the means by which we achieve it.

Sorry about the long winded response, but I can't really argue without ample evidence and plenty of keystrokes.

Vox Populi

quote:

---

on numerous occaisons that he will invade if they exist. And he has also said, we will invade unless you destroy your WMDs.

---

Under the surrender terms of the Gulf War, Iraq had to destroy their WMD and PROVE that they did this. Saddam has done neither and the proof of this is in our knowledge of what we know he has/had. In the recent weapons report, Saddam failed to account for what we knew he had and by failed to account I mean either a location or a proof of destruction. When the documents are criticized as incomplete, this is what they are reffering to.

quote:

---

It also signifies the difference between Iraq posing a threat and Iraq NOT posing a threat.

---

Wrong. Iraq has not proven that they have not destroyed their old arsenals or have not been developing new ones.

quote:

---

And if Iraq poses no threat then why do you need to attack? How does the elimination of a non-threat help?

---

We need to attack because Iraq is in flagrant violation of the peace treaty. They have not destroyed their weapons or accounted for their location. By breach of the peace treaty, they forfeit the peace. That is obvious. Saddam is a threat even without WMD as he is a sponser of international terrorism.

quote:

---

If the war is due to the elite wanting the oil (which I think most people with an IQ in double figures now suspect).

---

In reality, an action usually has more than one result/effect. In the process of ousting Saddam, America will help to ensure its security, liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrannical despot, and open the Iraqi market. Oil is merely a part of the whole and to claim it as the only reason is to ignore the other effects of ousting Saddam.

quote:

---

People are following this facade because they are good people, but ignorant people - and that is nobody's fault but the elite's, for keeping them in the dark.

---

Pray tell, how did you manage to escape from this Shroud of Darkness and become enlightened? Is it something in the water that allows a hightened level of consciousness, or is England a promise land devoid of its own elite?

quote:

---

without even stopping to question Bush's motives (or lack of reasonable motives).

---

Have you ever stopped to consider what Blair's motives are and how they might coincide with Bush's?

quote:

---

Now this is bad enough, but you Vox are supporting this war despite the knowledge of the truth?

---

I thought you maintained a monopoly on enlightenment.

quote:

---

You are supporting what you have explained to be an act of tyrrany?

---

I would love to see the quote of this.

quote:

---

And if I ever see you post anything claiming America to be the upholder of freedom that most of the good, ignorant people of AMerica claims it is - remember this. Remember how you have turned your back on freedom knowing it was behind you dying.

---

What is this rambling bullshit? You just said that ignorant americans think that America is free, but by nature of being ignorant, they are wrong. Therefore Vox didn't turn his back on the dying, he turned his back on the dead. Despite this definition of terms, I fail to understand how freedom is harmed by disposing of a despot or advanced by allowing Saddam to have free reign over his country. It is ludicrous to hear you lament about fallen freedom and then support the regime of a murderous tyrant.

Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. Al Qaeda's Islamic ideology runs contradictory to the Ba'athist secular line, but Saddam Hussein has willingly and knowlingly harbored and sheltered terrorists that killed many Americans and Westerners. In the US state departments list for state sponsors of terrorism, unchanged since 1993, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba have continued to be on that list for their support of terrorism, knowlingly harboring them, providing money, logistics, and other support.

"What type of terrorist groups does Iraq support?

Primarily groups who can hurt Saddam�s regional foes. Saddam has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers� Party (PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose any peace agreement with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported other Palestinian groups, including the Islamist Hamas movement, and reportedly channels money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam is a secular dictator, so his regime tends to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. "

"Does Iraq sponsor terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein�s dictatorship has provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam also commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. The State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq�s link to terrorism has become more urgent with Saddam�s determination to develop weapons of mass destruction, which Bush administration officials fear he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States. "

Let us not forget that he violated the surrender terms of the 1991 Gulf War, and has never revealed all the details of his biological, chemical, and nuclear programs in a fully verifiable manner. His 12,000 page dossier which he handed in to inspectors was simply a rehash of old material, and the data contradicts things said in the past, and is full of holes and purposeful ommisions that he had revealed before.

Examples Saddam says we produced B amount of Antrhax, then 6 months later its D amount, the 2 years its X amount, etc.. Then in the declaration leaves it completely absent.

America can not, and will not, take over Iraq's oil fields. France and Russia have significant interests there and also own most of the oil fields, and have contracts there. To think the evil imperialist forces of America are going to kill Saddam, rape all the women, then pump all of the oil out of the country, then leave is absolutely ridiculous. They said that in 1991, and it never happened. And never will. Doing so would cause a sort of Middle Eastern guerilla war against Americans stealing all the oil from the country, similiar to what happened when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, causing hundreds of thousands of fanatics to converge on the Superpower and destroy it. France and Russia have vested interests in Iraq, and are members of the security council, and only agreed to the new, tough resolutions on very specific conditions on America.

Most of the peaceniks and pacifists have old, rehashed, and fundamentally flawed arguments that were used in 1991.

Such as:

There will be house to house fighting in Baghdad.

Never happened, they said that in Afghanistan, never happened. To have house to house fighting, his army needs to be there. We can stop them well in advance and would not be foolish enough to let his Republican Guard and Special Republican guard have a remake of Stalingrad.

There will be Gulf War syndrome.

No one is certain what caused Gulf War syndrome, but what is certain is that almost all of the exact same symptoms of Gulf War syndrome are present in animals that were exposed to extremely small amounts of Nerve gas. This leads to speculation that when we were bombing his chemical factories and germ depots, some small amounts may have leaked out. The world will see when we have our showdown with Saddam. Then again, peaceniks could claim Saddam decided to make chemical bombs to use against us only after we attacked etc...

America wants to steal all the oil.

False. Read above.

It will lead to a wide, Middle Eastern war.

Also nonsense. They said that in 1991, it never happened. Who would protect Saddam? The rest of the middle east hates him and his bullshit.

Some legitimate arguments:

Our chemical suits are defective.

True! Hundreds of thousands chemical/biological/ combat suits were found to have defects, and were recalled after being sold, all but 250,000 have been replaced, and those remaining will be sent back extremely soon.

Desert War=Bad

True! It will give them a superior advantage, and our equipment could overheat.

House to hous fighting=Bad

Must be avoided by crushing all of Saddams most loyal forces first. A rough breakdown of the Iraqi Armed forces are like this

The Army: Poorly trained, fed, equiped conscripts. Not loyal to Saddam very much.
The Popular Army A little better, somewhat loyal to Saddam and paid better.
The Republican Guard Loyal to Saddam some of the best payed and equiped.
The Special Republican Guard Fanatically loyal to Saddam. His best payed, trained, and equiped. They get numerous perks, special favors, etc
The Special Security Organization His secret police force..a few hundred guys hand picked by Saddam are the ones you see hovering around him in all black in Army uniforms. Very loyal, get bonuses like Mercedes big houses, etc
The Palace Guard Very loyal to Saddam, they protect his personal property.

Basically, like in the 1st Gulf War, the Army, Popular Army, Navy, and Airforce will fall almost instantly. Last war they were plagued by desertions, surrenders, and low low morale. The armed forces are even worse off than they were in 1991, where they were touted at the worlds 4th largest army.

The republican guard fought a little, but were defeated quickly.

The special republican guard didnt exist at that time.

The SSO I'm not sure of, but they are also the guys that tortured Kuwaitis when they invaded with acid baths, power drills, meathooks, grills, cigarettes, knives, etc

Palace guard..not sure of

What we are lookjing at is a total beatdown

Our only fears are if he lashes at israel, causing them to nuke him, and therefore destroying our occupation plans and causing more terrorist attacks, or if he sprays us with germs and gas, and house to house fighting.

Solution: Hit him fast, hit him hard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism.

---

So are we possibly (loyalists in Northern Island).
[url] http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/EUR450262000?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CUK
[/url]

You going to support Ireland coming and kicking our butts?

And a fair bit of money from private citizens of the US has gone to the IRA. Never saw the Americans clamp down on that. They might have done but I never saw it. Anybody know? And lets not mention South America eh?

State sponsored terrorism isn't limited to the countries our leaders tell us.

America is not a state sponsor of terrorism.

Although some AMERICANS are. The US government did not give the IRA guns, bombs, ammo et cetera, although Americans sympathizers did.

I dont understand...why can't the Brits let go of Northern Ireland? I may be thinking in simplistic terms but what is there interest of keeping it? Why not let it go?

Did the american government abet there citizens in sponsoring terrorism, by not making it illegal? Anybody know?

There is a majority of people in Northern Ireland (for the moment) that want to stay part of britain.

They have been there a while, and while strictly speaking invaders (as are all americans to Native Americans), feel that it is there home. Heck we invaded half the globe.

I would much prefer Northern Ireland to be a separate state so that when the majority of Northern Irish want to join Ireland they can. Which is the way things are going.

Also you say america is not a sponsor terrorism. How long in the past does this statement hold true? I will have to check over the history of Americas involvment in South America (contras?) and with the Mujahadin and see what I can find. History ain't my strong point.

[This message has been edited by whazat (edited 01-10-2003).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
hans Blix has officially stated he cannot find any weapons or "smoking guns" as he puts it (?).

---

Yes. This is the same Hans Blix that gave the North Korean nuclear program a clean bill of health.

Boy is this guy the epitome of objectivity.

Chucky, your 'heros' leave much to be desired.

Nox

Mujaheedin were not terrorists at first. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which led most analyists to believe that they would push for domination of the Middle East and Oil Supplies. Not suprisingly, the oil dictators and monarchs didn't like this idea. Neither did America. So we turned a rag tag group of "holy warriors" set up religious school et cetera and other governments like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen "encouraged" tens, possiby hundreds of thousands of people, supplied with Saudi and Pakistani light weapons, Pakistani and American training, and US supplied Stinger missiles, led to a crushing defeat of the soviets who couldnt adapt to their enemies hit and run tactics, combined with their own low morale and growing discontent with the communist system. At that time the so-called holy warriors returned to their homes and led normal lives, some stayed in afghanistan, others formed small armies and had warlords etc some became angry at america (thanks to our assistance in religious indoctrination for justification of helping the afghans in their 'holy war') people like bin laden were funded by us at the time. he founded alqaeda after us funding stopped.

Suprisingly sounds a lot like Vietnam (super power, out of the goodness of his heart, decides to help poor, starving third word country) to fight off expansionist communists, backed by other countries (cough russia and china) and is eventually driven out after 10 years

quote:

---

Desert War=Bad

True! It will give them a superior advantage, and our equipment could overheat.

---

Not necessarily. In the first Gulf War, our equipment had no problems and thanks to GPS and other technologies, we were able to go into deep parts of the desert where even the Iraqis were not able to go. I find it hard to believe that the army and its equipment is not built to fight in all conditions. It makes no sense not to take desert fighting into the equation and while it would complicate the war, by no means should it be considered a death blow to the entire operation.

I agree. I fail to see how we would be at a disadvantage militarily to the Iraqis simply because of the desert. As if our aircraft, soldiers, armor and situational awareness advantages were somehow less adapted to the desert than combat ineffective conscripts and thirty-year-old Soviet tanks.

Lebanese fighter, what about Israel. I know some Arabs that would think that Israeli troops are state sponsored terrorists. And America helps and arms Israel..... Whats your view?

Did the Mujahadeen ever kill innocent civilian Russians? If so you get into the Freedom Fighter/terrorist argument. I'll have to check up on the contras.

Northern Ireland in a nutshell...

Everybody's heard of the IRA, because they are the most advanced terrorist organisation in the world. But they are only one of dozens of terrorist organisations active in Northern Ireland. Some of these organisations are in fact Loyalists (want NI to stay British). For example, Jonny Adair, teh infamous paramilitary leader of a Loyalist answer to PIRA.

In fact the majority of Northern Ireland's citizens are loyalist supporters (but only a small majority, many people are neutral). So if we give NI back to Ireland, or make it a seperatre state, then the problem will not go away... we will simply be passing the problem onto a different government.

There is another reason why we can't give it back, and it is that to do so would appear to be rewarding the people who murder men women and children - and may even encourage other people (like the BNP) to use violence to achieve ends.

Al Qaeda were not terrorists until 2001. Until then all targets were legitimate military targets. But they were still called terrorists.

When Blix gave the North Korean nuclear program a clean bill of health, there was no nuclear program to speak of. And ther still isn't - otherwise there would be no need to worry about them restarting it.

And the idea that the army are not loyal to Saddam is ludicrous - they are very loyal.

What terrorists have Cuba and Iran supported?

"I fail to see how we would be at a disadvantage militarily to the Iraqis simply because of the desert."

True, all aspects of our military are about 8349290394932 greateer than Iraq's, but fighting in the desert must be hard phycologically. Its extremely hot, maybe not for our equipment, but for our troops. I remember the media sensation and how they claimed all the Apache's would crash etc which never happened, but should be at least considered.

"Lebanese fighter, what about Israel. I know some Arabs that would think that Israeli troops are state sponsored terrorists. And America helps and arms Israel..... Whats your view?"

My view is that the butchers of Zionist Occupation Army are indeed terrorists. The massacares of Deir Yassin is just 1 of many examples. Lets not forget the Zionist kidnappings of political dissident, the attempted assasinaion of Yassir Arafat (11 times), Operation Suzannah,

Terrorism is:

It is premeditated�planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
It is political�not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
Everyone is the enemy

That sums up Israel, the worlds Welfare queen. Israel should not get a penny of our money. Every year they shake us down for 15 billion in cash, while the super rich Jews prefer to milk America than their own piggybanks. The Zionists use the holocaust as a shield so they can advance their political agendas, and deflect all criticism of Israel as anti semitism. We have let a small minority control and manipulate the majority.

2 billion Christians
1 billion Muslims
13 million Jews.

Which 2 religions, which comprise half of the worlds people, should be in charge?


Jews do control America... Examples

Jews in the Bush Administration

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense


Richard Perle - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.


Ari Fleischer - White House Press Secretary


Josh Bolten - Deputy Chief of Staff


Ken Melman - White House Political Director


Jay Lefkowitz - Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council


David Frum - Speechwriter


Brad Blakeman - White House Director of Scheduling


Dov Zakheim - Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)


I. Lewis Libby - Chief of Staff to the Vice President


Adam Goldman - White House Liaison to the Jewish Community


Chris Gersten - Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS


Elliott Abrams - Director of the National Security Council's Office for Democracy, Human Rights ( !!! ) and International Operations


Mark D. Weinberg - Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs


Douglas Feith - Under Secretary of Defense for Policy


Michael Chertoff - Head of the Justice Department's criminal division


Daniel Kurtzer - Ambassador to Israel ( !!! )


Cliff Sobel - Ambassador to the Netherlands


Stuart Bernstein - Ambassador to Denmark


Nancy Brinker - Ambassador to Hungary


Frank Lavin - Ambassador to Singapore


Ron Weiser - Ambassador to Slovakia


Mel Sembler - Ambassador to Italy


Martin Silverstein - Ambassador to Uruguay

Jews in the Clinton Administration

Madeleine Albright
Secretary of State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rubin
Secretary of Treasury
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Cohen
Secretary of Defense
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Glickman
Secretary of Agriculture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Tenet
CIA Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Berger
Head National Security Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Lieberman
Deputy Chief of Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Eizenstat
Under Secretary of State

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Barshefsky
U.S. Trade Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Thomases
Aide to First Lady
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Klein
Assistant Attorney General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Sperling
National Economic Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Magaziner
National Health Care
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Tarnoff
Deputy Secretary of State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Rivlin
Ecomomic Advisory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Yellen
Chairwoman, National Economic Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rahm Emanuel
Policy Advisor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Sosnik
Counsel to President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Steinberg
Deputy to National Security Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Footlik
Special Liason to the Jewish Community
(no other group has a special liason)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nash
Personal Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Sherburne
President's Lawyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Penn
Asia Expert to NEC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Kristoff
Health Care Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boorstin
Communications Aide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Boykin
Communications Aide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eller
Special Assistant to Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Epstein
Health Care Adviser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Feder
National Security Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Feinberg
Assistant Secretary Veterans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hershel Gober
Food and Drug Administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kessler
White House Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Klein
Assistant Secretary Education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Kunin
Communications Aide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kusnet
Dept. AIDS Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Hamburg
Dir. Press Conferences
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Grunwald
Liason to Jewish Leaders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Adler
Dir. State Dept. Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Lewis
National Security Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Ross
National Security Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Schifter
Director Peace Corps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Segal
Deputy Chief of Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Greenspan
Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Weiner
Drug Policy Coordinator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Lew
Deputy Director Management and Budget

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Rubin
Under Secretary of State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lipton
Under Secretary of The Treasury
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanny P. Breuer
Special Counsel to The President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Holbrooke
Special Representative to NATO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Apfel
Chief of Social Security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Klein
Deputy Whlte Honse Counsel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Blumenthal
Speclal Advisor to Pirst Lady
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kessler
Chief of Food & Drug Adininistration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Waxman
Acting Solicitor General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Penn
Presidential Pollster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Ross
Special Middle East Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Shapiro
- General Counsel for the FBI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanny Davis
White House Special Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Katzen
Secretary of Management and Budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Koch
Heads FBI Equal Opportunity Office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Podesta
Deputy Chief of Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Blinder
Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Yellen
Heads Council of Economlc Advisors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Klain
Chief of Staff for Al Gore

do jews control the media?

RICHARD BERNSTEIN jew Western Publishing. childrens books


STUART BLOOMBERG jew ABC Head of Entertainment Division.


PETER CHERNIN jew 20th Century Fox. dec. 1992 new CEO


MARTIN S. DAVIS jew Paramount Comm. CEO


BARRY DILLER jew 20th Century Fox. CEO


MICHAEL D. EISNER jew WALT DISNEY Co.


STEVEN FRIEDMAN jew NBC Executive Producer Nightly News. Hired may 1990 under G.E. (gentile) owned NBC.


LEONARD HARRY GOLDENSON jew ABC (Capital Cities ABC TV) (upto 1985. Thomas Murphy now CEO but with same Jewish management)


KATHERINE MEYER GRAHAM jew Newsweek, Washington Post. Daughter of Eugene Meyer.


PETER GUBER jew Columbia Pictures. 1989. Bought by SONY, Guber replaced Kaufman as CEO.


PETER KALIKOW jew New York Post. Real estate devloper.


PETER R. KANN jew Dow Jones, Wall St Journal, Barrons


VICTOR A. KAUFMAN jew Columbia Pictures. CEO


CHARLES KOPPELMAN jew EMI Records CEO


GARY HERSH jew Capitol Records CEO


GERALD LEVIN jew TIME/WARNER Comm. CO-CEO
.

ROBERT MAXWELL aka Ludvik Hoch jew. Daily News.


RONNESSEN jew MBS. Mutual Broadcasting SYS.


SAMUEL NEWHOUSE russian jew Random House, Advanced Publications, Newhouse Broadcasting, (CTV), New Yorker Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentleman's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden. Newspapers & mags.


MICHAEL OVITZ jew Media magnate.


WILLIAM S. PALEY russian jew CBS CEO & founder of CBS. 1927. 1983 Partially retired.


SUMNER M. REDSTONE jew Viacom MTV Nickelodeon QVC. CEO.


STEVEN J. ROSS jew TIME/WARNER Comm. CEO.


JEFF SAGANSKY russian jew CBS Head Entertainment Division.


DAVID SARNOFF russian jew RCA NBC head entertainment div.


ROBERT SARNOFF russian jew RCA NBC CEO (son of D. Sarnoff). RCA and NBC were bought by G.E. in 1986 but Jewish management still exists.


MICHAEL P. SCHULHOF jew SONY. Vice chairman.


RICHARD SNYDER jew Simon & Schuster.


LEONARD STERN jew VILLAGE VOICE. HARTZ pets supply.


ROBERT STRAUSS jew Large investor, President Bush's Moscow ambassador.


ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER jew New York Times, family circle. McCall's, M. Frankel, J. Lelyveld, J. Rosenthal - all Jews.


BRANDON TARTIKOFF russian jew Paramount pictures. Chairman.


LAWRENCE A. TISCH russian jew CBS CEO TV, theaters, hotels, insurance. (Before him was 1928 William S. Paley son of russian jews. Retired 1983.)


LEW WASSERMAN jew MCA Inc. CEO. 1991. Bought by SONY. but Wasserman still is CEO.


MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN jew US News and World Report, DAILY NEWS. New ceo.

you tell me.

http://www.abbc.com/cartoons/usa-jews.jpg

Quotes to dwell on:

"The Palestinians would be crushed like grasshoppers... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
Yitzhak Shamir, 1988

I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians [Rafah, 1956]. I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."
Ariel Sharon, 1956


"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."
Ariel Sharon, 1998


"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
Ariel Sharon, 2001

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
Golda Meir, 1969

"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."
Golda Meir, 1969

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of our territories."
Benjamin Netanyahu, 1989

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379: Zionism is Racism
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
And I quote
"RECALLING its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

RECALLING ALSO that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1953, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism,

TAKING NOTE of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the Intenrational Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",

TAKING NOTE ALSO of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a comon imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

TAKING NOTE ALSO of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology,

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. "

Let us not forget Israel wasa cozy with South Africa during apartheid, and took a few hints how to opress the native population. They both made nuclear bombs together....

Also take note that before the most recent uprisingly against jewish colonialism, settlement building, and opression, Israel never withdrew to their pre-1967 boarders, instead deciding to keep them, build more settlements. they believe in democracy, but only for israelis. palestinians to them are worthless. they still continue to illegaly build settlements. illegeal jewish settlemetns are rarely dismantled, if they are, unarmed police come to remove them. palestinians towns are destroyed with apaches, bulldozers, tanks, bayonets, and f-16s its self defense when israel kills, but terrorism when palestinians shoot members of the zionist occupation army

the zionist entity has been an expansionist state since its creation, reflected by their policy of instant citizenship to any jew that wants to squat some land

lets also not forget that the UN has no right or power to partition or divide nations, especially for a special interest group


ADL spying on Arab-American groups http://www.abbc.com/adl/washreport1.htm

Sigh

And no, the mujaheedin never killed russian civilians, since the only russians in afghanistan were soldiers (theres not much immigration"

"Al Qaeda were not terrorists until 2001. Until then all targets were legitimate military targets. But they were still called terrorists.

When Blix gave the North Korean nuclear program a clean bill of health, there was no nuclear program to speak of. And ther still isn't - otherwise there would be no need to worry about them restarting it.

And the idea that the army are not loyal to Saddam is ludicrous - they are very loyal.

What terrorists have Cuba and Iran supported?"

Chucky I almost did not respond to this statement, which is so stupid it almost didn't require an answer.


Before September 11, had al-Qaeda attacked U.S. interests?

U.S. Embassy, Nairobi, Kenya, Aug. 7, 1998.
(AP Photo/Sayyid Azim)
Yes, repeatedly. In 1995, a car bomb outside the Saudi National Guard building in Riyadh killed seven people, five of them Americans. In 1998, simultaneous bombings at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. In Yemen in 2000, a small boat laden with explosives hit the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors. Other al-Qaeda plots�such as 1995 plans to simultaneously blow up a dozen American airliners over the Pacific and to reportedly crash a plane into CIA headquarters�were uncovered before they could be executed.


Does Iran sponsor terrorism?

Yes. The State Department calls the Islamic Republic of Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. But reformist elements in the Iranian leadership and an increasingly discontented public are questioning the country's hard-line policies, rigid fundamentalism, and anti-Western bent.

What sort of government rules Iran?

Since a 1979 revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini toppled the American-backed regime of the Shah, the country has been governed by Shiite Muslim clerics committed to a stern interpretation of Islamic law. Iran today has two main leaders: Muhammad Khatami is the popularly elected president, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader. Khatami is reform-minded, but anti-American, anti-Western hard-liners like Khamenei still dominate the Iranian military and intelligence services.

Which terrorist groups does Iran support?
Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the Palestinian Authority. Iran has given support to the Kurdistan Workers� Party, a Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey, and to other militant groups in the Persian Gulf region, Africa, and Central Asia.

What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?
The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:

In November 1979, Iranian student revolutionaries widely thought to be linked to the Khomeini government occupied the American Embassy in Tehran. Iran held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a U.N. observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.
Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.
U.S. officials say Iran supported and inspired the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
Does Iran have weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. According to the CIA, Iran possesses chemicals that can induce bleeding, blistering, and choking, as well as the bombs and artillery shells to deliver these agents. Iran also has an active biological weapons program, driven in part by its acquisition of "dual-use" technologies�supplies and machinery that can be put to either harmless or deadly uses. Finally, with help from Russia, Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy.

Does Iran have missiles that can deliver weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. Iran has hundreds of Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles. It has also manufactured and flight-tested the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,300 kilometers�enough to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iran is developing missiles with even greater range, including one that it says will be used to launch satellites but that experts say could also be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Which countries have supplied Iran with missile technology?
Russia, China, and North Korea.


Does Cuba support terrorism?

The State Department placed Cuba on its list of states that sponsor terrorism in 1982, citing Fidel Castro's training and arming of communist rebels in Africa and Latin America.

Why does the United States list Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism?

U.S. government sources offer three reasons:

Cuba is providing safe haven to eight Americans who face criminal charges in the United States. The United States and Cuba have let their pre-1959 extradition treaty lapse, and recent U.S. ideas about updating the treaty have been scuttled by pressure from anti-Castro Cuban-American members of Congress.
Since the late 1980s, Cuba has given sanctuary to up to 20 members of the Basque terrorist group ETA under an arrangement between former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez and Cuban President Fidel Castro. The current Spanish government has not asked to have them extradited.
The State Department says that Colombia's two leftist rebel groups�the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), both of which regularly carry out acts of terrorism�maintain a �permanent presence� in Cuba. But experts agree that the Castro government ceased arming or training the former group in 1991 and never gave military support to the latter.

" Blix gave the North Korean nuclear program a clean bill of health, there was no nuclear program to speak of. And ther still isn't - otherwise there would be no need to worry about them restarting it."

OK chucky...first they publicly admitted it and they get almost all their electrcitiy from china, which gives it to them for free in addition they already ahve 1 nuclear bomb, and are building more thanks to restarting the reactor, kicking out inspectors, breaking seals, and disabling cameras
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/taechon-imagery.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/yongbyon-imagery.htm

HMMM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/index.html

HMMMM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

HMMM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/myohyang-imagery.htm

HMMMM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/yongbyon-imagery.htm

HMMMM

Why only restart reactors capable of spitting out nuclear bomb grade plutonium

ba ba bump

It's official.......... CHuck Stone is full of shit

After reading all sorts of idiotic and uninformed remarks from a few different people (for instance "CHUCKSTONE"). I just wanted to let my opinion be known.

First, the reputation of America has been derived by the international media, including our own. The US, being the free country that it is gives people the oppurtunity to say whatever they want, without the fear of being jailed or having your testicles shocked, unlike in Iraq. With that in mind, and knowing that there is really NO single American race, because America is a combination of all races and religions. So, with that said: America, with citizins from every country, DO in a small way represent the voice for the intire world.

One of the things that pisses me off the most is when countries that have our support, international aide, and soldiers for their protection, start to bitch and moan for more. Or like in S. Korea. Two girls got ran over by US soldiers, and the soldiers were aquited. 100's of thousands of s. koreans are protesting for the 37,000 US soldiers to leave the DMZ. The girls got ran over because of the way their parents raised them(not teaching them to walk in the road in between two hummers without looking both ways.) How does S. Korea feel about the thousands (not two) but thousands of US soldiers that died and had nothing to do with Korea but came in to fight for them and their people without complaints. Also, citizins of Kuwait, Afganistan, and Pakistan all have some anti-US protests. With all these protests, it just makes me think why in the HELL are we still staying in these places and giving money and food to these places. Well, ask yourself where S. Korea would be right now if the US never went there. They would all be dead thats where. The same goes for the people in Kuwait.

People from other countries, like the idiot we all know by CHUCKSTONE, say that America sticks it's nose in other countries business and we shouldn't. Well here is what I say to you CHUCKY and all you other lowlife inconsiderate pricks that say we are the world police. We are the world police, not because we feel powerful or superior, it's simply because people in The "LAND OF THE FREE" care about other people no matter what their beliefs are. And if you wanna know the truth about it, we make things our business, especially when we see the innocent dying because their leader (the one supposed to protect them) gases them all to death and steals their food out of their babies mouth so the innocent can die and the ones willing to fight(their military) can eat.

This goes for every single country in the world. With lots of the worlds oil supply coming from the middle east, how the hell are we supposed to just let someone like Hussain continue to guard the oil that most countries use. Come on people, we are talking about oil, of course we ARE in it for the oil, we have to be. Whos gonna stop Sudamm from continuing to burn millions of barrells of oil a year. To a lot of countries, oil is a part of our everyday life. So we can't just sit around and wait for Sudamm to burn it all up when we can get him out and let Iraq have a decent human being for a president, a president that would save and preserve the oil not waste and burn it, causeing long term numbers of death well over the millions.

The truth is, without America a lot of counties wouldn't even exist anymore. Sure we have done things that have killed many people, but we did those things in order to save many more. We are the country thats main focus in war is the saving of innocent lives. Our war stradegies our plans that focus on minimum casualties, but yet dumb ass people again keep talking shit. The fact is, America, at some point in history has helped almost every single country in some way or other.

So, thats the question for all you dumb idiots like all you anti-us protesters and the retard known as CHUCKSTONE.
here it is, are you ready?

Where would you, or your country be if it wasn't for America and it's people?