[PB2K]

Today, I saw president Jaques Mururoa Chiraq and Tony Bush Blair discussing the reasons for a war against Iraq.
Of course, Chiraq was awaiting diplomatic measures first before going to the last option : war.
Blair was stuttering a pre-emptive strike in this case was necessary, because you just can't expect honousty from Saddam.

Now Blair was also muttering something about the presentation that Colin Powell would have on wednesday. Powell was supposed to have a 1 1/2 hour long presentation showing proof of Iraqi illegal armaments.

Very interesting, this got me curious!! Could it be?? Was the Bush-gang really going to come up with FACTS and EVIDENCE? Photos, Video's, Documents, Confessions or whatever convincing to show proof that justifies an American occupation of Iraqi territory?

Can't wait till its tomorrow !!!!

[rampant]

doubt it, but we'll see.

[Hugi]

It's probably an adapted version of the brainwashing-video seen in A Clockwork Orange - already used on Tony Blair with good effect.

I hope Jackie boy isn't too much of a Beethoven fan

[Earth Mk. II]

I really hope the media asks why the administration has waited this long to make such proof public.

It seems to me that if it was sensitive 3 months ago, it'd still be sensitive now. Besides, it's a fair question to ask. I doubt the sincerity of Sadam, but I'm also skeptical of our own administration's honesty and willingness to be level with the public... regardless of who's in power.

[PB2K]

an update :

Colin Powell is not going to PROOF that Saddam has illegal weapons. He's going to do a one and a half hour long presentation about "it's likely" Saddam has illegal weaponry..

[Mac Zealot]

Even if he came up with smoking missles, etc, they'd say they need more proof.

Gimme a freaking break. I think they should blow up iraq :eg:

[PB2K]

Hello Maczealot : Iraq and Saddam Hussein are not the same thing. Saddam Hussein is the president of Iraq.

How did the USA survive the american hunt for the "white van sniper" if your policy to get one man is to blow up the whole country ?

[Mac Zealot]

lol I was joking

I'd be happy if they took saddam and all of his relatives and locked them all up in a room

[Leia's Right Bun]

Originally posted by PB2K:
Photos, Video's, Documents, Confessions or whatever convincing to show proof that justifies an American occupation of Iraqi territory?

Pfff, gimmie and hour with PhotoShop and iMovie and I can come up with the same "evidence".

[Leia's Right Bun]

double....

yoink!

[gadster]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Even if he came up with smoking missles, etc, they'd say they need more proof.

Gimme a freaking break. I think they should blow up iraq :eg:

You might want to read this first...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

[The Mick]

If we see any type of "smoking gun" or iron-clad proof, I'll be quite surprised. I think Powell is just spinning his wheels in the mud, hoping he can convince the others on the security council to vote to allow the US to launch a preemptive strike because of the political ramifications if we do otherwise. Good luck.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
I really hope the media asks why the administration has waited this long to make such proof public.

It seems to me that if it was sensitive 3 months ago, it'd still be sensitive now. Besides, it's a fair question to ask. I doubt the sincerity of Sadam, but I'm also skeptical of our own administration's honesty and willingness to be level with the public... regardless of who's in power.

Here's a very plausible reason why the information might not still be as sensitive.

Someone had to collect that information. Someone who would very likely be discovered, tortured, and killed if the information were to be released. Unless, of course, that person were to be taken out of Iraq, to a place where they would be safe. But even this would have to be done in such a way as not to compromise their identity, unless they wanted a Rushdie-esque fatwa on their heads. That would take time.

But we'll see. Perhaps this will convince France to stop ignoring the failed diplomacy of the last twelve years. That's what really gets me; all these people who talk about "waiting for diplomatic solutions" seem to have forgotten that for over a decade, such solutions have been tried and repeatedly failed. It's not as though everything else has not been tried. I don't want war more than anything else, but I think we may very well be down to the last-resort phase.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's what really gets me; all these people who talk about "waiting for diplomatic solutions" seem to have forgotten that for over a decade, such solutions have been tried and repeatedly failed. It's not as though everything else has not been tried.

EXACTLY

[NeoMac]

Originally posted by PB2K:
Saddam Hussein is the president of Iraq.

You mean, "Saddam H. is the DICTATOR of Iraq."

[cdrgonzo20]

The President of Pakistan is a dictator, I don't see us rushing to blow up Pakistan. 3/4's of the hijackers 9/11 were Saudi's, we're not dropping bombs on them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/op...b64a732a2513c0

That pretty much disposes the theory we should attack based on humanitarian reasons, which is a flawed argument to begin with since after those supposed attacks on the kurds we demonstrated a great deal of support for Iraq.

Diplomacy has failed? The '98 withdrawl of the inspectors from Iraq was a result of Iraq's discovery that a good number of the operatives were U.S. spies. Beyond that, it has been said on numerous occasions by former inspectors that Iraq simply does not posses these so called weapons of mass destruction. If they did, and the U.S. was really capable of proving it, would it not seem reasonable that at the very least inspectors would have been given ONE lead, one means of finding a "smoking gun".

What is a weapon of mass destruction? Anthrax, smallpox, chemical weapons for sure. How about Napalm, cruise missiles, and nukes? Napalm did a pretty fancy job of knocking out 4 million civilians in vietnam. If that's not mass destruction I would love a better definition. How about launching an attack in a civilian center that will cause massive casualties on both sides without any significant evidence of a viable threat?

How about the fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation, and the U.S. has never, for any reason attacked without provocation another nation. It is constantly said that war is unavoidable, that we must protect ourselves. From what? look at reports from the defense department last year on the expected results of a war in Iraq. If there is a war we can expect a significant increase in the occurances of terrorism. The president knows this, but that report recieved little to no attention.

Ask yourselves what could be done with $100 billion dollars? Imagine the leaps in technology we could make. Imagine the food we could provide to the needy. Imagine the infrastructure we could help developing countries build and sustain.

I'm sick of mincing words. Those who support a war on Iraq are either misinformed, ignorant, gullible, racist, nationalistic, elitist or greedy. All of these are behavioral traits that can easily be fixed. 1)don't rely on the mass media for information, look for independent publications on the internet and in print. 2)don't believe everything the President says. 3)realize how difficult it is to empathize with those of different colors, and try to sincerely understand the horrors of watching guided missiles falling all around you.

Picture yourself in New York or San Francisco, with bombs falling from the heavans and buildings crashing down. This is what you would see if you were in baghdad during a war with the U.S. The horrors of that image should frighten you from any thought of war. If it doesn't, you're a monster or you're kidding yourself, and you should read the previous paragraph.

If the situation in Iraq now is a result of failed diplomacy, than so be it. It's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

[rampant]

This whole proof businees is ridiculous, we are always going on about how we've found proof, but we are never SHOWN the "proof". This happened with Osama bin Laden, "oh we found proof" every damn day in the newspaper, and never telling us anything about the proof. We have nothing on Saddam, our pockets our empty.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Here's a very plausible reason why the information might not still be as sensitive.

Someone had to collect that information. Someone who would very likely be discovered, tortured, and killed if the information were to be released. Unless, of course, that person were to be taken out of Iraq, to a place where they would be safe. But even this would have to be done in such a way as not to compromise their identity, unless they wanted a Rushdie-esque fatwa on their heads. That would take time.

But we'll see. Perhaps this will convince France to stop ignoring the failed diplomacy of the last twelve years. That's what really gets me; all these people who talk about "waiting for diplomatic solutions" seem to have forgotten that for over a decade, such solutions have been tried and repeatedly failed. It's not as though everything else has not been tried. I don't want war more than anything else, but I think we may very well be down to the last-resort phase.

There may very well be a good cause of the delay of this presentation - though, I doubt that all of the information to be released would reveal the source of this information. Even if it's non-conclusive, it would at least have been something concrete that the administration could use as a type of collateral, if you will, to promise the public that more detailed info is on the way.

Still, I think that the media needs to do a better job of putting the administration through it's paces and not letting them get away with half-truths and rhetoric. The fact that a reasonable and plausible explanation exists should be no reason to ask easy questions.

Like i said before, I'm skeptical of any administration's ability to tell the truth, and in addition, i think that once american solders set foot in Iraq we will find any evidence we need - valid or not.

[Sarc]

there will be a war because bush wants a war ... that simple.
if there's no evidence, he will PhotoShop it, or whatever, but all he wants is to finish "daddy's" job.

[rampant]

Originally posted by Sarc:
there will be a war because bush wants a war ... that simple.
if there's no evidence, he will PhotoShop it, or whatever, but all he wants is to finish "daddy's" job.

[cdrgonzo20]

Dick + Bush = F??ked

[Sealobo]

Whatever it is... the oil has nothing to do with it~!

[korn]

The secret chemical weapon is called OIL and they have lots of it.

How could diplomacy have brought a solution when one side is standing against the wall with both arms up?
The Iraqi economy (and therefore education, medication etc) is completely blocked due to the embargo since the Gulf war.

Yes, Sadam did use the French Mirage planes to spread German poison gasses to kill thousands of kurds in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq war, with the greetings from the USA though.

Yes, Iraq has 14.000 nuclear (and biology) scientists, who were educated at US and European univerisities.

But do they have the weapons? No proof is available.

Strangely enough Pakistan has the bomb, and almost used it against India. Pakistan's role regarding Al Quada is not very clear either. It's role in the Taliban is very clear, Talibanism started in Pakistan... But then, Pakistan hasn't got the secret weapon: OIL!

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by cdrgonzo20:
The President of Pakistan is a dictator, I don't see us rushing to blow up Pakistan. 3/4's of the hijackers 9/11 were Saudi's, we're not dropping bombs on them. good stuff etc..

[Atef's corpse]

Saddam has chosen to defy the United Nations, forcing the international community into 12 years of impotence. You people preach about diplomacy, yet diplomacy has clearly failed. This recent confrontation is just the iceberg's tip of years of broken promises and lies.

The Iraqi economy (and therefore education, medication etc) is completely blocked due to the embargo since the Gulf war.

Saddam lives in huge palaces throughout the country, yet you blame others for the country's poverty. Blame Saddam, you propaganda tool. If he had complied with UN demands in the 1990s, sanctions could have been lifted. Furthermore, Iraq sells oil for food and medical supplies, as the UN allows it to do. But Saddam diverts the money, steals it to support his regime of brutality and death.

kill thousands of kurds in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq war, with the greetings from the USA though.

prove it. Link to a statement from the USA that supported gassing the Kurds. You won't find it. The United States has never supported chemical warfare, and it probably condemned their usage (if it was a known fact at the time).

Yes, Iraq has 14.000 nuclear (and biology) scientists, who were educated at US and European univerisities.

I have yet to see any proof of this. If it's like the rest of your statements, it's nothing but propaganda you've gleaned from some far corner of the 'net, as you wallowed with pleasure in your own pseudo-knowledge. Oink! oink!

Originally posted by korn:
How could diplomacy have brought a solution when one side is standing against the wall with both arms up?

You must be talking about the Iraqi family Saddam had shot last week. Right after his police raped the daughters in front of the parents. Then they were shot. Kneecaps first, then a 'merciful' shot through the head. They are the only ones standing agaisnt a wall with their hands up, crying for mercy when a brutal death is their only reply.

[Troll]

Pop quiz.

Which Middle-Eastern country:[list=1][*]has 100-200 nuclear weapons;[*]has a sophisticated nuclear weapons research and production facilities that are not under the scrutiny of the IAEA;[*]is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;[*]has an active chemical weapons program and has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention;[*]has an active biological weapons research program and is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention;[*]possesses ballistic missiles that can deliver a 1000kg payload 1500km away;[*]has an active ballistic missile program for delivering heavier payloads further afield;[*]has the biggest fleet of American built fighter jets outside the USA; [*]is lead by a man that the US State Department in October 1953 said should be brought to justice for the murder in a single night of 69 civilians (2 thirds of them women and children), who, in 1956, was responsible for the murder of 273 unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war, who was found guilty in 1983 by his own national courts of being responsible for the massacre of civilians and after refusing to resign was eventually relieved of his duties as Minister of Defense;[*]is the subject of 138 UN resolutions, the majority of which call on it to respect principles of international law embodied in the UN charter and has defied certain of those resolutions since 1967;[*]sold weapons to and assisted the apartheid government of South Africa in procuring and developing weapons, including nuclear weapons in contravention of UN sanctions;[*]has a GNP bigger than all of its neighbours put together;[*]has attacked and occupied each of its neighbours in contravention of UN and international law;[*]has received $134,791,507,200 in aid from the US government since 1949 which amounts to approximately $23,000 per capita in US assistance and receives approximately $15,000,000 a day in US aid;[*]is allied with a country that has 5,400 nuclear warheads loaded on intercontinental ballistic missiles at land and sea; an additional 1,750 nuclear bombs and cruise missiles ready to be launched from B-2 and B-52 bombers; a further 1,670 nuclear weapons classified as �tactical,� not to mention an additional 10,000 or so nuclear warheads held in bunkers around the United States as a �hedge� against future surprises" and that has sold arms including wmd's to Iraq? [/list=1]
Anyone want to suggest that we flatten Tel Aviv when we're finished with Baghdad?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Pop quiz.

Which Middle-Eastern country:

1. Is the only democracy in the region.

2. Has an independent judiciary.

4. Was founded by socialists.

4. Yet, is irrationally hated by the European left.

[MPC]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
1. Is the only democracy in the region.

2. Has an independent judiciary.

4. Was founded by socialists.

4. Yet, is irrationally hated by the European left.

Why is Isreal supported so much by America? I don't know. I am curious.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MPC:
Why is Isreal supported so much by America? I don't know. I am curious.

I think being a fellow liberal democracy has a lot to do with it. It is virtually impossible for an American not to feel sympathetic toward a country that is a democracy in a region were none of the others are democracies.

But the US hasn't always been Israel's main defender. In the 1950s and 60s, the Soviet Union, France, and Great Britain were closer. Germany has also always been very supportive of Israel and still is. In contrast, the US was quite suspicious of those Israelis with their socialist leanings from it's founding. That was especially the case when WASPs really ran US foreign policy. This began to change around the early 1970s both in terms of internal US attitudes towards Jewish Americans (and religious minorities in general), and in terms of strategic interests.

[MPC]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think being a fellow liberal democracy has a lot to do with it. It is virtually impossible for an American not to feel sympathetic toward a country that is a democracy in a region were none of the others are democracies.

But the US hasn't always been Israel's main defender. In the 1950s and 60s, the Soviet Union, France, and Great Britain were closer. Germany has also always been very supportive of Israel and still is. In contrast, the US was quite suspicious of those Israelis with their socialist leanings from it's founding. That was especially the case when WASPs really ran US foreign policy. This began to change around the early 1970s both in terms of internal US attitudes towards Jewish Americans (and religious minorities in general), and in terms of strategic interests.

Ahh. Thank you. I knew I asked the right guy. I think I need to read up on this more and form my own opinion. My history of the Middle East class never really touched on the conflict.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think being a fellow liberal democracy has a lot to do with it. It is virtually impossible for an American not to feel sympathetic toward a country that is a democracy in a region were none of the others are democracies.

This really made me laugh. Israel is a liberal democracy! I suppose apartheid South Africa was a liberal democracy too? Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians have no rights to self-determination, they are denied access to justice being entitled only to trials by military courts often without legal representation. Israeli laws which apply in certain cases to Palestine deprive Palestinians of land and water rights and Israel is right up there with Iran in terms of human rights track records.

You want a reason for US support of Israel? There is a massive zionist lobby in the US and the US has the biggest jewish population in the world. That combined with the fact that we all want jews to prosper in their own state is why the US gives so much money to Israel (more even that they spend on their own citizens). Problem is that the US doesn't care what the Israelis do with the money.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MPC:
Ahh. Thank you. I knew I asked the right guy. I think I need to read up on this more and form my own opinion. My history of the Middle East class never really touched on the conflict.

Have a quick look at Amnesty International's site and maybe have a look at some of the Palestinian views. I'd recommend reading up on Israeli land and water laws as well as the laws relating to the "right of return".

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
The United States has never supported chemical warfare, and it probably condemned their usage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec29.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
This really made me laugh. Israel is a liberal democracy! I suppose apartheid South Africa was a liberal democracy too? Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians have no rights to self-determination, they are denied access to justice being entitled only to trials by military courts often without legal representation. Israeli laws which apply in certain cases to Palestine deprive Palestinians of land and water rights and Israel is right up there with Iran in terms of human rights track records.

You want a reason for US support of Israel? There is a massive zionist lobby in the US and the US has the biggest jewish population in the world. That combined with the fact that we all want jews to prosper in their own state is why the US gives so much money to Israel (more even that they spend on their own citizens). Problem is that the US doesn't care what the Israelis do with the money.

Ah yes, it's all the zionist lobby.

Incidentally, do you have any clue what rights Palestinians have in Arab states? Does the phrase "Black September" mean anything to you?

[MPC]

Originally posted by Troll:
Have a quick look at Amnesty International's site and maybe have a look at some of the Palestinian views. I'd recommend reading up on Israeli land and water laws as well as the laws relating to the "right of return".

Actually my term project for the class I mentioned was on water in the Middle East. We had a lot of discussion on water. That still doesn't address my question of Americas backing of Isreal.

[MPC]

Originally posted by Troll:
Have a quick look at Amnesty International's site and maybe have a look at some of the Palestinian views. I'd recommend reading up on Israeli land and water laws as well as the laws relating to the "right of return".

I'm so sorry. I completetly misunderstood you. I just always assume I will be attacked here. You provided a link for me to learn from and I thank you. I'm just used to being called dumb and told to look on google. sorry.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by MPC:
That still doesn't address my question of Americas backing of Isreal.

Simey answered it. Affinity with the only democratic country in the region. Additionally, I think it has to do with Israel being the recipient of Arab war and terrorism since 1948.

When you DELIBERATELY blow up WOMEN and LITTLE BABIES, you don't win any friends.

[PB2K]

just to mention another weapon of mass-destruction to the americans :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Incidentally, do you have any clue what rights Palestinians have in Arab states?

You mean when Palestinians get a visa and go on holiday in Arab states? Or are you talking about Palestinian refugees living in other Arab states? Are you suggesting that the fact that some Arab states treat Palestinian refugees badly means Israel is entitled to treat Palestinians badly? Or are you suggesting that liberal democracies are entitled to deny basic human rights to the people they colonise? Perhaps you're forgetting how the Palestinian refugees got to the other Arab states? Perhaps you're suggesting that Palestinians should have a state in Syria?

Whatever you're getting at, the point is that there is another country in the Middle East that consistently flaunts UN resolutions, that consistently denies human rights to people it has charge over, that is run by a confirmed murderer, that sells weapons to despots and that has a far greater stockpile of weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:

When you DELIBERATELY blow up WOMEN and LITTLE BABIES, you don't win any friends.

Hear hear! Now you now why attacking Iraq is a bad idea.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Troll:
This really made me laugh. Israel is a liberal democracy! I suppose apartheid South Africa was a liberal democracy too? Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians have no rights to self-determination, they are denied access to justice being entitled only to trials by military courts often without legal representation. Israeli laws which apply in certain cases to Palestine deprive Palestinians of land and water rights and Israel is right up there with Iran in terms of human rights track records.

Are you talking about in Israel and the 'occupied' territories?

If Palestinians are treated poorly, it is their own fault. When your society is one that supports and cheers the deliberate murder of WOMEN and LITTLE BABIES, your society and its people are no better than animals. When you act like animals, you shouldn't be surprised when you're treated like one.

Truth is, the Palestinians could have had a state a long time ago, yet their own violence and gleeful support for terrorism has forced Israel to treat them as a cancer, like a plague in the neighbourhood that needs to be quarantined.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Hear hear! Now you now why attacking Iraq is a bad idea.

Through the filthy filter of your own ignorance and propaganda, you fail to understand 'deliberate'. The Great Satan does not deliberately target women and children. Neither does Israel.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad do it deliberately. That is the true, horrific, and bloody meaning of 'deliberate' that Palestinian terrorism brings to the world.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
Simey answered it. Affinity with the only democratic country in the region.

What about Qatar? Not a democracy? Egypt? What about Lebanon? Israel is not the only democratci country in the middle east!

If what you're saying about affinity is true, why doesn't the US give South Korea as much money as they give Israel? Sure this is about the affinity between one democratic country and another.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
Through the filthy filter of your own ignorance and propaganda, you fail to understand 'deliberate'. The Great Satan does not deliberately target women and children. Neither does Israel.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad do it deliberately. That is the true, horrific, and bloody meaning of 'deliberate' that Palestinian terrorism brings to the world.

When Israel fires missiles into a house in a residential area in the middle of the night, you think it's not deliberately targetting women and children? When it demolishes the houses of the family of "martyrs", you think it's not deliberately targetting women and children? Not even your government supports that view.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. He was involved in killing innocent women and children with bombs. You're in a minority of people that think for his actions black South African soceity is "no better than animals" and that for his actions black South Africans don't deserve basic human rights. Today's terrorists are very often tomorrow's freedom fighters. Frankly, if I was a Palestinian, after 50 years of this sh1t, I'd also be thinking of hitting back.

Besides, do you think the father of a dead Iraqi child cares whether you killed his daughter deliberatlely or not? You think the family of the Afghans that died in the red cross warehouse the US bombed twice by mistake care whether it was deliberate or not, or that the family of the people at that wedding party the US cruise missiles gate crashed care? I think they care about as much about the motivations of the US as the families of the people who died in the WTC care about Bin Laden's motivations.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You mean when Palestinians get a visa and go on holiday in Arab states? Or are you talking about Palestinian refugees living in other Arab states? Are you suggesting that the fact that some Arab states treat Palestinian refugees badly means Israel is entitled to treat Palestinians badly? Or are you suggesting that liberal democracies are entitled to deny basic human rights to the people they colonise? Perhaps you're forgetting how the Palestinian refugees got to the other Arab states? Perhaps you're suggesting that Palestinians should have a state in Syria?

Whatever you're getting at, the point is that there is another country in the Middle East that consistently flaunts UN resolutions, that consistently denies human rights to people it has charge over, that is run by a confirmed murderer, that sells weapons to despots and that has a far greater stockpile of weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.

Palestinians do a little more than get visas to go on vacation in Arab states (boy, do you have rose colored glasses!). A large number of Palestinians go to work in Arab states as servants. That is particularly the case in oil rich gulf states. There, they are treated like dirt. In case you are wondering, my source for this is my Jordanian former brother in law.

My reference to the way Arab states treat Palestinians is more to do with the way Arab states have treated the refugees from the 1948 war against Israel that Arab states begun. Under international human rights law, it is not permissible to maintain refugee camps for 50+ years. You are supposed to resettle the refugees after a period of time. Yet no Arab state has done this. Instead, they have used Palestinians as pawns and have generally treated them as dangerous liabilities to their own despotic regimes. There is some justification for this, however. The September 1970 massacre and expulsion of Palestinians from Jordan that I referred to was in response to a PLO effort to effectively depose the Jordanian government.

Like most Americans, I am also critical of Israel. I want Israel to give up its illegal settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The US has consistently called for this. I also support my governemnt's call for a democratic Palestinian state. The Palestinian people deserve and are entitled to a sovereign state as much as any other people.

On the other hand, Israel also deserves its sovereignty. I will not support any group whose aims are to destroy the state of Israel. That is the case whether it is by military means, as Arab states tried on three occasions, terrorism, or by demographic means. That means there can be no general "right to return" for generations born since 1948.

History is often messy. You make a fool of yourself if you paint one side as innocents, and the other side as completely evil. This whole mess could have been avoided if only the Arab states had have accepted the division of Palestine originally proposed by the United Nations. Instead, they created 50+ years of on-and-off killing and misery. Not least of which inflicted upon ordinary Palestinians.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
What about Qatar? Not a democracy? Egypt? What about Lebanon? Israel is not the only democratic country in the middle east!

None of those states are more than nominal democracies though Qatar is reforming slowly, and Lebanon is no longer killing itself. Lebanon is still pretty much a vassal of Syria, though.

Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. See www.freedomhouse.org for details.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Troll:
What about Qatar? Not a democracy? Egypt? What about Lebanon? Israel is not the only democratci country in the middle east!

If you really believe that (and aren't just spouting it to troll), then you are more misinformed than you first appeared.

Lebanon is the tool of Syria. There is no true democracy there. Egypt is no better, and never has been. Any country with the same president since 1981 (Mubarek) hardly qualifies as a democracy. And their 'democratic' bodies are no more democratic and transparent than Iraq's or those of the former Lesser Satan.

If what you're saying about affinity is true, why doesn't the US give South Korea as much money as they give Israel? Sure this is about the affinity between one democratic country and another.

South Korea was for many years undemocratic and higly corrupt. Only recently has it made lengthy strides. Additionally, as I stated, it has to do with the violence and war perpetrated against Israel. South Korea hasn't had war since the Korean War. Israel, meanwhile, has fought many wars, most of which are the result of Arab aggression, and has endured horrible terrorism against its citizens both at home and abroad (Munich and Entebe are just a couple examples).

[haunebu]

Americans don't want to go to war with Iraq. Most Americans couldn't care less. Afterall, we'll still have our ballgames to watch on TV, and a refrigerator full of goodies and beer to keep us distracted from what's going on elsewhere.

Only George Bush's regime wants to go to war, because interests that control it (Zionists as Iraq calls them, Israelis as we call them, whatever you want to call them) want them to go to war.

Do Israel's dirtywork, nuke every Arab country that can stand up and resist their dominance of the Middle East.

Pisses me off when GW Bush stands up there and tells us that Iraq poses a danger to America and her allies. It's a half-truth. Iraq poses a danger only to Israel, and a marginal one at that.

[PB2K]

This is INSANE !!!!!!!

Powell actually is telling the world Iraq should proof it has no illegal weapons !!! This is so freakin' upside-down logic.

The USA has no case !!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by PB2K:
This is INSANE !!!!!!!

Powell actually is telling the world Iraq should proof it has no illegal weapons

That is exactly what the Security Council voted for unanimously in Resolution 1441. Didn't you read it? It's also what Hans Blix said last week.