The United States of America has gone mad

Canaboid

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...-543296,00.html



quote:

---

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I’m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that “somebody” was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr’s cry: “That man tried to kill my Daddy.” But it’s still not personal, this war. It’s still necessary. It’s still God’s work. It’s still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the truth about why we’re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, if he’s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes’ notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America’s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us — to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair’s part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can’t. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can’t get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain’s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that’s Britain’s tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair’s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world’s greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant’s head to wave at the boys?

Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it’s a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

“But will we win, Daddy?”

“Of course, child. It will all be over while you’re still in bed.”

“Why?”

“Because otherwise Mr Bush’s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him.”

“But will people be killed, Daddy?”

“Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.”

“Can I watch it on television?”

“Only if Mr Bush says you can.”

“And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?”

“Hush child, and go to sleep.”

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also Patriotic”. It was gone by the time he’d finished shopping.

---

This article, for me, sums up perfectly the malaise which has beset the U.S. How easily the American public are (mis)led and the lengths Tony will go to keep onside.

JohnK

I fully agree with that article. Bush is totally out of control.
btw: the link is actually http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html

edit: Weird. It'll work if you click on it but not if you copy and paste

Cabaal

Agreed, I used to have abit of respect for the US but when Bush got into poor madness insued.

I said to myself just before the elections that Bush would start a war and he tried his best with China, but that was no good.

Well he got his war and if it continues it'll be against the rest of the world, because the rest of the world will want nothing to do with the US.

Its policys are madness and it keeps constantly trying to impose its laws on other countrys, ESPECIALLY with regards to internet related issue such as copyright, privacy and security.

The can't police the internet and they can't police the world!

Mr E

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

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

- Dave.

Canaboid

Yeah, TMB, that figure struck me as being a bit unbeliveable.

Cabaal

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

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

- Dave.

That amazes me considering Bin Laden see's Sadam as a infadel and doesn't really like Iraq according to what I've read.

I'd imagine there just random numbers there picking out of a hat, 8 out of 10 people know that

dahamsta

I wonder if the author is the John le Carré...

Anyway, sorry to wander off topic, but this bit made me laugh:

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain’s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that’s Britain’s tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way.

Sound familiar? Try replacing "Blair" with "Ahern" and "Britain" with "Ireland".

adam

Typedef

The article makes some valid points, most of which I agree with, but, the thing is, it doesn't matter how loud and appauled non-American national (x) is about the State of the US or the US' administration, it only matters what the US' citizens think.

Fortunately for the Bush administration the lexicon of wars and 'terrorist' attacks have distracted people away from the unilateralist, aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration under a wave of nationalism. This distraction has also managed to give Americans something else to focus on while the American economy is in the throws of stagnation, a stagnation precipitated by the accession of the Bush Administration.

I don't really see how the US has 'gone' mad. Clearly around about the time the USA started building thousands of Nuclear warheads, the entire notion that the country or the USSR* for that matter were sane entities went right out the window.

In many ways it is the fault of the rest of the world, to allow such a powerful force to come into being without any counterbalance to it. I don't think the EU is sufficiently organised, intent or ultimately capable to be any sort of real competition to the US, but I think in global hegemony terms, the Chinese have to be the obvious choice.

Yet another not particularly sane nation, what with the thousands of ICBMs tipped with Nuclear warheads the Chinese posess and the occupation, annexation and colonisation of Tibet that China has 'almost' finished.

This is me, not caring a damn about nations and shifting economic competitive blocks and only caring about myself.

"You can't eat a flag" -- John Hume's father.

*Note : after having 20 million people killed by the Nazis, Russia had defined itself as having "won" the war, perhaps the insanity caluse of my argument can stretch a little further into the past.

Cork

I think that Saddam is evil.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil

I think that anybody who uses chemical weapons on his own people needs to be brought to justice.

The UN has become a talking shop.
What have they done regarding North Korea?

Would people prefer to live under Saddam or Blair/Bush?

I think it it is easy for us to criticise bush - in some countrys you'd be shot for voicing critisim.

Shinji

I think that anybody who uses chemical weapons on his own people needs to be brought to justice.

Oh, absolutely. Now, question; should the people who provided him with the chemical weapons in the first place also be held responsible? Indeed, should the people who aided in his installation as dictator in the first place be held responsible?

Oops, bit of a problem there....

What have they done regarding North Korea?

What should they do, exactly?

(It's fairly obvious that the only reason North Korea is rushing forward its nuclear program now is because it SEES what is happening with Iraq; the USA preparing for an invasion regardless of international opinion and regardless of whether there are and WMDs there or not. If there's actually a chance of some dirty nuclear stuff happening, the reasoning goes, maybe they'll be less gung-ho when they finish licking the blood off their hands after Iraq and start looking for the next target on their "axis of evil"...)

I think it it is easy for us to criticise bush - in some countrys you'd be shot for voicing critisim.

I think the problem is that the USA is going further and further down that very road.

Cork

The US were attacked in 9/11.

the people who provided him with the chemical weapons in the first place also be held responsible? Indeed, should the people who aided in his installation as dictator in the first place be held responsible?

OK, but Saddam is a grown man - he is no longer a 3 year old.

He is responsible for his own actions. He seems unable to take personal responsibility.

His people are living in fear. Their lot needs improvement.

Hobart

I think that Saddam is evil.

OK maybe he is. But do you also think that Bush is the epitimy of goodness?? Lest we forget Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Checynia, Colombia, Panama, Cuba etc...... (I could go on and on and on). I am not blaming Bush for these. I am blaming the US.

I think that anybody who uses chemical weapons on his own people needs to be brought to justice.

I think that anybody who uses any chemical substance on any member of any population needs to be brought to justice. Bush and Blair have been hammering away at what Saddam did to the Kurds for so long now that it's impact has diminshed.

Don't get me wrong here, what Saddam did was absolutely abhorrent, but who gave him the f**k**g technology and expertise in the first place eh? The US of F**king A. That's who. And Why? Because they did not like what was happening in Iran and decided to arm Saddam to the gills, without any moral objections.

The US were attacked in 9/11.

Yes they where? Again who attacked them? Was it Afghanistan? NO. Was it IRAN? NO! From waht I can remember all of the hijackers, bar one, were from Saudi Arabia. I think the other guy was from The Ivory Coast, or something like that.

"AHH!", I here you say, "but was'nt Osamma Bin Laden being sheltered by Taliaban in Afghanistan" Yes he was, is the answer. "And were'nt the Taliban very very bold boys". Yes they were is also the answer. But. Wait! Who the F**K armed, financed, supported and legitimised the Taliban. The (I know you can guess this) US of F**KIN A.

BTW pints on me when the USA invade Saudi, in retaliation for 9/11. and Same again when they nuke Isreal for thier constant flaunting of UN resolutions.

THE END.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobart
Lest we forget Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Checynia, Colombia, Panama, Cuba etc...... (I could go on and on and on). I am not blaming Bush for these. I am blaming the US.

How are the situations in Chechnya, Cuba and Korea the US's fault? If it wasn't for the US, all of Korea would be a starving dictatorship, not just the northern half of it. And it was the Russians who backed the dictator Castro and killed Chechen civilians, not the Americans.

I'm not saying that the US is always in the right -- they've done some pretty bad things over the years in those other countries you mention. But to suggest that the US is morally equivalent to Saddam's Iraq is just plain ridiculous.

what Saddam did was absolutely abhorrent, but who gave him the f**k**g technology and expertise in the first place eh? The US of F**king A. That's who. And Why? Because they did not like what was happening in Iran and decided to arm Saddam to the gills, without any moral objections.

<devil's advocate> So now the US has seen the error of its ways and is trying to fix the mistakes that it made 20 years ago. What's the problem with that?

growler

i understand the blair argument that if you don't remove WMD from those that are daft enough to use them then they will come back to haunt you in the future , which is probably fair enough , however the ones most likely to use a nuke in the middle east would appear to be Israel. The ones next most likely to use a nuke are the USA.

The agrument about WMD in Iraq is spurious when the advocates of war are nuclear superpowers, it has to be the ultimate arrogance to be prepared to kill innocents to err prevent the killing of innocents somewhere else based on the assumption that bush is right / good / god and saddam isn't.

and I wholeheartedly agree that Saddam needs to be held accountable for his actions in international law , particulalry for his war on the kurds .. but turkey is lining up it's military in northern iraq for an invasion of the kurdish "homelands" with full nato / usa support regardless of the likely mini-war this will spark off.
It's no woder most people give up trying to understand the reasoning behind all this.

Hobart

How are the situations in Chechnya, Cuba and Korea the US's fault?

It is not the situations I blame on the US.

It is the support of the on-going situation in Chechnya with which I take issue. Chechyna, is a defunct and destroyed land. There seems to be literaly no infrastructure left in the country. It seems bankrupt. And yet they can continue a war with one of the biggest Armies in the world? I just wonder where there are getting the funding/arms from? And yes I realise that the so-called legitimate government of Chechnya is muslim, but, they ain't muslim or russian guns/tanks they are using.

Cuba? What do you mean about the situation in Cuba? I blame the USA for constanly trying , and failing, to kill Castro. Who asked them? Not me. So the Presidents of the USA do not liked commumists on thier doorsteps. Big deal! Live with it.

Korea? Yep not a very nice place. Constant import/export embargoes enforced on this misserable place by the USA. No one else. Why? Because they are communists.
It's the hypocrisy of the USA I have a problem with.

But to suggest that the US is morally equivalent to Saddam's Iraq is just plain ridiculous.

Put down your Guardian newspaper and open your eyes. Don't Believe the Hype!!

So now the US has seen the error of its ways and is trying to fix the mistakes that it made 20 years ago. What's the problem with that?

Apply that analagy elsewhere and see how you get on.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobart
It is the support of the on-going situation in Chechnya with which I take issue. Chechyna, is a defunct and destroyed land. There seems to be literaly no infrastructure left in the country. It seems bankrupt. And yet they can continue a war with one of the biggest Armies in the world? I just wonder where there are getting the funding/arms from? And yes I realise that the so-called legitimate government of Chechnya is muslim, but, they ain't muslim or russian guns/tanks they are using.

So, despite having no evidence whatsoever to support this, you're accusing the USA of actively funding the Muslim fundamentalists in Chechnya ("support of the on-going situation")? Why on earth would the US government give money and guns to Islamic terrorists? Have you been asleep since September 10th 2001?

Cuba? What do you mean about the situation in Cuba? I blame the USA for constanly trying , and failing, to kill Castro.

So the situation in Cuba, including the failing economy and the Castro regime's human rights abuses are all a direct result of the US attempts to assasinate Castro 40 years ago. Uh huh. Yeah.

Korea? Yep not a very nice place. Constant import/export embargoes enforced on this misserable place by the USA. No one else. Why? Because they are communists.

And if the USA didn't have sanctions on North Korea, you'd be accusing the US of hypocrisy and complaining that they were doing nothing about Kim Jong-Il's WMDs.

Hobart

AFAIK The war in Checnya started in '95.

In relation to Cuba. You are missing the point alltogether. It's as simple as this.

The USA can accuse others af all sorts. They procrastinate about Saddam being a bullly to his neighbours, using chemical weapons on his own people and having WMD, despite what the UN weapons inspectors are currently reporting.

However, on a daily basis they are involved in undermining the Governments of other countries just because they don't like thier politics. Supporting the likes of Kuwait with it's long list of Human rights abuses and turning a blind eye to daily slaughter in the likes of Algeria and The Congo.

And they have guys like you bleating on about how moral they are and sure " We made a mistake 20 years ago" so sorry, but, were going in.

Well go ahead US of A. But not in my name.

Riddle me this from my previous post

! From what I can remember all of the hijackers, bar one, were from Saudi Arabia. I think the other guy was from The Ivory Coast, or something like that.

Why are they not attacking Saudi?????

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Because all the Al'Quaeda military infrastructure was in Afghanistan.

I hope you're not stating facts in the Politics forum Dave. People might start looking for evidence.

adam

Hobart

Because all the Al'Quaeda military infrastructure was in Afghanistan. All the Saudis who were involved would have been to training camps there.

Maybe you should look here daveirl:$1,000,000 Reward You seem to be better informed then the FBI and US Gov!

Ste.phen

Originally posted by Hobart
Maybe you should look here daveirl:$1,000,000 Reward You seem to be better informed then the FBI and US Gov!

"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

1 million? I see 27. Or were you referring to someone else?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobart

Al'Queda Cells It is well documented that the Al'Queda cells stretch from Middle and North Europe down across Asia, into South America and even into North America.

It has been also well documented where the funding for these groups come from. Primarily Saudi Arabia (I believe that OBL inherited a fortune from a Saudi Building Firm), Pakistan and The Yemen.

At the time of the 9/11 attacks OBL was known to be resident in Afghanistan and protected by the (American Backed) Taeliban. It was also believed that there were Al'Queda training camps in Lebenon and in the so-called occupied area's of Palestine
(Who will forget the pictures of cheering Palestinians from outside Yasser Arafats' headquarters in Ramallah when the planes hit the twin towers.)

Now call me naive, but, to think that all of the infracture of Al'Queda was located in a country, namely Afghanistan, which was being closely monitored by both Russia and the US is a tad unbelievable. Maybe I am wrong. But TBH I don't know. I doubt it.

Jesus talk about letting anti-americanism blind you.

I am not anti-american. I am pro peace. I do not side with Al'Queda or for that matter any terrorist org.

But tell me this daveirl. What threat does Iraq pose to the USA or GB?

Cork

The United States of America has gone mad

I think it is Ireland that has gpne mad.

A few years ago - Groups within the midwest were out on the streets opposing the abolishion of the Shannon Stop Over. It was necessary for the regional development of the mid-west.

We as a nation were built on remittances from the US and the UK.

Our countrys economy is dependant on US foreign direct investment.

Yet Irish Liberals are bemoan the fact that US military personnel are using Shannon airport.

What solution have these very same people on the over crowding of Dublin Airport?

Are we to stop usisg our airports for US planes altogher?
I surpose - if they are tourists carrying dollers or CEOs wishing to invest in our country - they are welcome.

But - If their job is in the US military they are not.

Whio appointed these protesters as moral gaurdians of our state?
Are these people genuinely concerned or anti american or pinko lefties?

I don't know - But if we are to monitor flights coming into Shannon. Lets monitor other airports and ferries.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Are these people genuinely concerned or anti american or pinko lefties?

The few I know fall into the "genuinely concerned" category.

Hobart

We as a nation were built on remittances from the US and the UK.

How do you justify that statement? Yes there has been huge investment in infrastructure over the last 10 years, particularly from US multinational companies, but any HR man worth his salt will tell you that those companies, who by and large have been very successful, have reaped the benifits of haveing an educated, english speaking workforce on tap in this country. I don't believe the likes of HP and Intel et-al have come to Ireland out of the goodness of their hearts. What do you mean by remittances???

Yet Irish Liberals are bemoan the fact that US military personnel are using Shannon airport

But do you ask yourself the question why? Is it because that on a daily basis they are being told that this is a neutral country and that the landing of US "commercial" planes carrying Armed US troops into a war in Iraq somehow invalidates our neutrality?
I have no views either way on our neutrality.
But FFS tell me the truth. Are we or are we not Neutral?

If the likes of Cowen and Ahern insist on the line that we are still neutral well then would they be willing to allow Iraqi soldiers re-fuel or rest in Shannon on their way over to bomb the USA, or, on their way over to land in Havanna?

What solution have these very same people on the over crowding of Dublin Airport?

What has that got to do with anything. Ring Aer Rianta and complain.

I don't know - But if we are to monitor flights coming into Shannon. Lets monitor other airports and ferries

Ever heard of Immigration? Customs?
Shannon is handy in 3 ways.
1) It's on the West Coast of Ireland and so it's the clossest Irish Airport to the US.

2) It's not as busy as Dublin/Cork, and so landing times are more flexible.

3) It's not the capital City of Ireland and would not come under the same scrutiny had they used Dublin.

But you are completely missing the point here. It's not about who or when or even what Airport. It's about the pathetic attempts by TD's to pull the wool over the eyes of the same educated people I mentioned earlier in this post.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Hobart
How do you justify that statement? Yes there has been huge investment in infrastructure over the last 10 years, particularly from US multinational companies, but any HR man worth his salt will tell you that those companies, who by and large have been very successful, have reaped the benifits of haveing an educated, english speaking workforce on tap in this country. I don't believe the likes of HP and Intel et-al have come to Ireland out of the goodness of their hearts. What do you mean by remittances???

I've seen multiple posters bring up the point that the US companies didn't invest in Ireland out of the goodness of their hearts. Frankly, I don't see how this matters. The relation ship is symbiotic, mutually beneficial. This is the fundamental way a capitalist economic system works. Would it matter if US companies were losing money by choosing to invest in Ireland? Would it then be acceptable to point out the benefits of US investment in Ireland?

What should matter is the end result, which is that US investment has undoubtedly improved Ireland's economic situation a great deal. If the perceived intentions do not affect the outcome, what place have they in the debate?

Cork

I think that the treatment Saddam and his sad reign of power by Irish media is pretty awful.

What long are the people of Iraq surposed to wait before they will get leadership change?

I think that the US are absolutely right in trying to rid Iraq of this man.

What should matter is the end result, which is that US investment has undoubtedly improved Ireland's economic situation a great deal. If the perceived intentions do not affect the outcome, what place have they in the debate?

Yet - Some Irish bemoan US soldiers using Shannon?

Are these people any way concerned about the lack of flights out of Shannon to Dublin?

Are these people any way concerned about the lack of flights out of Shannon to many UK destinations?

I admit some have genuine motives, some are probably pinko liberals snd some are anti american.

But - I think, if a country in close proximity to Iraq - did not allow it bases to be used for military purposes - We would say that the country was supporting Saddam in a defacto type of way.

Yet the people who advocate that shannon should not be used for US military personnel do not comprehend the contribution America has made to us.

America has made a massive contribution to our peace process.

America has given many Irish jobs both in the US & Ireland.

Many cities in the US are made up by many Irish.

Yet we are to refuse the use of our airports?

Because they are soldiers?
Because they are Americans?
or because they are Anti Saddam?

Look, Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. They are living in fear of him while he is living in the lap of luxery.

It is time that Saddam left the stage. Iraqis deserve better.

gandalf

Cork what is happening in Shannon is the US are ignoring Irish laws. It is illegal to transport weapons or munitions of war on a commercial airliner without exemptions from the Government. The US has asked for an exemption on 1 plane so far this year. Yet they are sending in plane after plane with 300-400 troops on each one. It is common military operating procedure to have the troops personal weapons on the same plane, yet they are not going about the standard legal requirements in getting exemptions for the planes. They are ignoring our sovereign laws, just like they follow certain UN resolutions if its in their interest and ignore others. (those details on the US troop transports were on Prime Time RTE1 on Tuesday night I think, link to video segments from that show below.)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0114/primetime.html

Getting on to the "we owe the US for investing in Ireland" arguement. That is complete and utter poppycock, any US company that set up here did so because we offered them a competitive advantage with lower corporate rates of Tax, a educated cheap (up until the last year and a half anyway) workforce and grant aid from our government. They have got just as much out of the arrangement as the Irish people have. To say that this should be the reason that we facilitate this miltary misadventure in the middle east is just misguided and wrong.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf
Cork what is happening in Shannon is the US are ignoring Irish laws. It is illegal to transport weapons or munitions of war on a commercial airliner without exemptions from the Government.

I have yet to see any evidence apart from speculation that there are weapons on those planes. And since it is impossible for me to prove a negative, the burden of proof falls upon you.

There is no reason why the US would not change their "standard military procedure" procedure when passing through a friendly country whose laws prohibit it. After all, it's unlikely that the troops are going to come under attack from Saddam in Shannon...

gandalf

Originally posted by Cork
I think that the treatment Saddam and his sad reign of power by Irish media is pretty awful.

What exactly do you mean by this and please back it up with references Cork!

What long are the people of Iraq surposed to wait before they will get leadership change?

I think that the US are absolutely right in trying to rid Iraq of this man.

There are many differing views on this some feel that the sanctions have actually prolonged his reign in Iraq instead of shortening it. The US had the opportunity in the last Gulf War to finish the job, they got the Iraqi opposition to rise up with the impression that they would help and they (the US adminsitration of George Bush Snr) left them to die.

Until the UN inspectors come up with proof that the Iraqis have WMD then no action can occur. (& 11 empty rockets are not proof of WMD Cork before you say it)

Yet - Some Irish bemoan US soldiers using Shannon?

And rightly so they are violating Irish Law. Cork you strike me as a law abiding person do you intentionally violate other countries law when you visit them. The US are doing that here in Shannon.

Are these people any way concerned about the lack of flights out of Shannon to Dublin?

Are these people any way concerned about the lack of flights out of Shannon to many UK destinations?

Stop changing the topic please, we all know about your problems with Aer Rianta (heres a hint start another thread about them but leave it out of here!)

I admit some have genuine motives, some are probably pinko liberals snd some are anti american.

Please provide proof of these comments Cork, I am getting fed up with your empty soundbites!

But - I think, if a country in close proximity to Iraq - did not allow it bases to be used for military purposes - We would say that the country was supporting Saddam in a defacto type of way.

Rubbish Cork. If we feel that before you ramp up military activity you explore all the diplomatic avenues you then do take that type of stance. What does that equate to in plain language. If military action is mandated by the UN in a new resolution after Iraqi has been shown with absolute proof to have violated the WMD clause then yes we should allow our Airports to be used as we are a active member of the UN.

This has not happened yet and we should not be allowing the buildup of a force that could be used unilaterally.

Yet the people who advocate that shannon should not be used for US military personnel do not comprehend the contribution America has made to us.

America has made a massive contribution to our peace process.

America has given many Irish jobs both in the US & Ireland.

Many cities in the US are made up by many Irish.

Yet we are to refuse the use of our airports?

Because they are soldiers?
Because they are Americans?
or because they are Anti Saddam?

Basically I see it as this. Yes the US is a friend to Ireland but a true friend is one that can say the difficult things as well as support them when they need it. We need to tell the US that they are making a serious mistake that could cost the world dear if they carry on the path they are going now.

Look, Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. They are living in fear of him while he is living in the lap of luxery.

We all know that but who gave him the capacity to produce these weapons, the USA & Europe. Who provided him with further aid after he deployed the weapons the US. Double standards Cork, Double Standards.

It is time that Saddam left the stage. Iraqis deserve better.

Alot of people agree with you here but not by killing even more innocents Cork.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Originally posted by Meh
I have yet to see any evidence apart from speculation that there are weapons on those planes. And since it is impossible for me to prove a negative, the burden of proof falls upon you.

There is no reason why the US would not change their "standard military procedure" procedure when passing through a friendly country whose laws prohibit it. After all, it's unlikely that the troops are going to come under attack from Saddam in Shannon...

Meh I would love to be able to search those planes unfortunately I don't have that authorisation.

However I disagree with you I do not believe the US would change their standard (and standard military operating procedure) in transporting the weapons for Ireland, it would be a logistical nightmare (from a practical point of view).

It is up to the Government to carry out inspections on our behalf to make sure our laws are adhered to. Unfortunately as usual the "FF/PD 51st state alliance" are failing us with this regard as well.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf:
And rightly so they are violating Irish Law. Cork you strike me as a law abiding person do you intentionally violate other countries law when you visit them. The US are doing that here in Shannon.

For someone who demands proof of everything Cork says, you're awfully fond of making unsubstantiated allegations yourself. If you're going to pass off speculation as fact, may I suggest trying here instead?

it would be a logistical nightmare (from a practical point of view).

So the US military can ship entire armies consisting of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, thousands of tanks, artillery and aircraft all the way across the world, but it's beyond their capabilities to transport a few thousand rifles separately from their owners?

gandalf

Originally posted by Meh
For someone who demands proof of everything Cork says, you're awfully fond of making unsubstantiated allegations yourself. If you're going to pass off speculation as fact, may I suggest trying here instead?

No if you read carefully you will see in one of my previous posts a link to video clips from RTE. Here a former British Army Officer now the head of Janes Defense Weekly and a serving US Officer both state that it is standard military operating procedure to ship personal weapons with troops on civilian carriers and it would be their belief that those weapons are on the planes going through Shannon. I am taking on board there authoritive views in forming my opinion. Not concrete proof but stronger than the soundbites that Cork keeps firing out. (Do you have a problem with this ?)

So the US military can ship entire armies consisting of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, thousands of tanks, artillery and aircraft all the way across the world, but it's beyond their capabilities to transport a few thousand rifles separately from their owners?

I am saying that it would be impractical for them to do it and it makes sense that they do ship them with their troops.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf
I am saying that it would be impractical for them to do it and it makes sense that they do ship them with their troops.

Then why don't they simply ask the Minister for a permit? I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem issuing it, given the government's positive attitude towards the US military. Why would they break Irish law and risk being denied the use of Shannon when they could do things legally just by getting a permit? It just doesn't make sense...

Originally posted by gandalf

We all know that but who gave him the capacity to produce these weapons, the USA & Europe. Who provided him with further aid after he deployed the weapons the US. Double standards

just in relation to the U.S and Rumsfeld and all the support the U.S gave Iraq and Sadam.
I'm tending towards a different view on that.
If we step back in time, to when the Shah was overthrown, and Ayatolah Kameni took over Iran,the U.S must have freaked!
This was a hugely anti American regime, who happened to be propegating, fundamentalist anti american, anti Western policy, right in the heart of the Worlds biggest oil producing area.
Russia had huge oil reserves of course, but was in the throws of being the U.S.S.R and also anti U.S at the time.

The Iranian regime had one enemy who was fighting with it like mad, at the time, and that was Iraq and Sadam Hussein.
It would seem to me perfectly natural, that the U.S would want to aid an enemy of Iran at the time and deal with the consequences later.
Their fundamentalism at the time was fueling huge unrest in the Lebanon on Israels doorstep and what if it spread to Saudi?
The west was at risk of being at the mercy of fundamentalists for a large proportion of it's oil supply.

Of course with hindsight,the consequences of that period are bearing their bad fruit now and ironically, it's Sadam, that the U.S are worried about, and the instability, the technology they gave him initially, might breed in the region, in his despotic hands.

The U.S are reaping what they sowed really, it's such a pity, that the whole mess will probably cost a lot of innocent lives to put right.
But then, it needn't if Sadam complies with all U.N resolutions fully and hands over every weapon he is hiding ( and he did have a lot of time to hide stuff, t'would take years to find whats hidden...he hardly had it destroyed as a gesture of good will to himself...he's no fool )
and of course, if he resigned and called, an open free election in the morning, with observers to see it's free and fair.
The U.S couldn't attack then... and the only cost to pay, would not be innocent lives but actually , the huge cost to the U.S tax payer for the Gulf holiday that their troops have just been on:p

But wait...thats something we might expect to happen, in the West, not Iraq...yet it would be so much easier and up to Sadam and his ilk really to do it.
mm

Hobart

BattleBoar TBH I was more interested in the use of the quote

'built on remittances from the US and the UK'

than I was in justification for investment in Ireland. As Far As I Am Concerened nobody does nothing 4 nothing. That mayB cynical but it's normally correct.

You also say that the relationship is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. So What? We Gain. They Gain. This is not a thread on economics. And then the Gem!! and I QUOTE

What should matter is the end result, which is that US investment has undoubtedly improved Ireland's economic situation a great deal. If the perceived intentions do not affect the outcome, what place have they in the debate?

Yes US investment has improved the Irish economy. So what? Irish workers have helped profits of US companies! It's hardly a scoop.

Cork I will refer to my previous reply which you have obviously yet to read.


Gandalf. Bang ON. You hit the nail on the head.

MEH.

I have yet to see any evidence apart from speculation that there are weapons on those planes

I see where you are coming from but there has been F**k all done by the Irish Gov. to ensure that this is not the case. I heard on the radio yesterday that it was against US army regs. for a marine to travel without his side-arm. There is an Irish law that prohibits any individual from landing on Irish soil dressed in a uniform of a foreign nation without prior permission from the Irl. Gov. It also goes on to say that nobody should be allowed to land in this country with Arms (and I mean rifles, guns etc..) without prior permission from the Irl. Gov. But there are NO inspections carried out on the US troop planes that land in Shannon. WHY? 'Because we have received an assurance from the US Gov.' (This was a Quote from a Dept. of Def. Minister on the Right Hook show on NewsTalk106 On Thurs.) D'Yah know what! I don't believe them. I would be astounded if we were not been taken for 'Thick Paddys' and that arms we been beared by US soldiers because 'They don't check you at Shannon' and US military orders state that US marines must always carry sidearms when on foreign duty.

Back to one of my original questions. What threat does Iraq pose to the US and UK?

halkar

Saddam is evil and US is just has evil as Saddam and maybe more!! Saddam had and have and used chemical weapons against his people and we all know where they got the technology from bla bla bla!! The question is, this was over a decade ago and why are they trying to use it as an excuse to overthrow Saddam? Why haven't they done this when Saddam was using the chemical weapons against Kurds? They were already in the region and they could have taken Saddam out and avoid all this mess now :rolleyes: So they left him there and after over a decade using it has an excuse to attack Iraq?? And all those sanctions against Iraq probably killed more people there then the people killed by chemical weapons and Saddam. Who is responsible? As Hobart says "US of F**KIN A."

I don't know why all this wheel turned around and came back to Saddam after the 9/11 ? Who supports Al'Queda is questionable but it could as well be Kaddafi too as he is probably one of the biggest US haters and is known of supporting terrorist acts against US in the past. He is no Saint either so why not him but Saddam? Ok, Saddam has to be punished but I believe that should be done under UN control instead of USA's bully tactics which will probably backfire on them in the near future after creating more enemies for themselves in the region!!

I think all this Saddam issue to be left to UN to deal with and US just pack their bags and leave the region and worry about their own problems within their borders instead of creating stupid reasons to play their war games.:rolleyes:

My 2 cents open to bashing!!

Well,Halkar, your school of thought is popular in some quarters these days.

The U.S.A has made many mistakes,when furthering it's interests on the international stage, as much as it has done the right thing.

What exactly was the reason,for instance at the end of the last Gulf war for the U.S and it's allies not marching on Bagdad then and deposing Sadam?? Was it a slavish adherence to U.N resolutions?? A give in to world opinion, perhaps that, kicking them out of Kuwait was enough?

Because if it was, then the U.N must share responsibility, for Sadams actions also, after all it wasn't encouraging it's most pro active members ie the U.S and the U.K to act or finish the job.
mm

halkar

Originally posted by Man
.......
The U.S.A has made many mistakes,when furthering it's interests ....

Yep furthering IT'S interests, not Iraqis is it?

What exactly was the reason,for instance at the end of the last Gulf war for the U.S and it's allies not marching on Bagdad then and deposing Sadam?? Was it a slavish adherence to U.N resolutions?? A give in to world opinion, perhaps that, kicking them out of Kuwait was enough?

Because if it was, then the U.N must share responsibility, for Sadams actions also, after all it wasn't encouraging it's most pro active members ie the U.S and the U.K to act or finish the job.
mm

What exactly was the reason for US and the UK not to pressure UN for another attack on Iraq after Saddam using the chemical weapons on people after the Gulf war? After giving Kurds some hopes in the region for their support in Gulf War only to turn their backs and leave them with Saddam. They obviously knew what was coming at the time. As it was in Afghanistan when they supported the regime against Russia and when the war over they turned their backs.
Do you think they care about human lives there? And now they are screaming for war against Saddam with the cost of thousands of civilian lives. Reason, Saddam has chemical weapons and threat to US :rolleyes: So who is next? North Korea? Because they have nuclear weapons and they are a threat too?? If US thinks they have a right to develop nuclear weapons or any weapons for their defence why shouldn't other countries do so too?

Originally posted by halkar
and leave them with Saddam. They obviously knew what was coming at the time. As it was in Afghanistan when they supported the regime against Russia and when the war over they turned their backs.

And leave them with Sadam!
Yes, thats the telling part of what you said, because it was Sadam who used those weapons against his citizens not the U.S.A
Something tells me, that there would be uproar, in the same quarters, if , the U.S and the U.K moved into Iraq after the Gulf war, because that invasion would also, have cost human lives.

So we are back to the damned if they do and damned if they don't again.

Yep furthering IT'S interests, not Iraqis is it?

Well,if the ordinary Iraqui's keep away from where , in the event of war, the U.S/UK or whoever are likely to be bombing, then when it's all over and Sadam is gone, they might have a better life there assuming a western style democracy is set up.
But something tells me Sadam will ensure that as many of his citizens(and westerners) are used as human shields again:rolleyes: and those will be his evil actions not the U.S.A
Of course the simple clever peacefull way out of this is for Sadam to come clean, deliver up, what weapons he has, and declare, free , fair and observed elections.
but then , his egotistical despotism and that of his followers, would prefer the armageddon approach, seemingly.
mm

halkar

Originally posted by Man
And leave them with Sadam!
Yes, thats the telling part of what you said, because it was Sadam who used those weapons against his citizens not the U.S.A
.....

And it was USA and other western countries that gave the technology for these weapons to Iraq while they were in war with Iran. Also American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States' president had himself called.

Well,if the ordinary Iraqui's keep away from where , in the event of war, the U.S/UK or whoever are likely to be bombing, then when it's all over and Sadam is gone, they might have a better life there assuming a western style democracy is set up.
But something tells me Sadam will ensure that as many of his citizens(and westerners) are used as human shields again:rolleyes: and those will be his evil actions not the U.S.A
Of course the simple clever peacefull way out of this is for Sadam to come clean, deliver up, what weapons he has, and declare, free , fair and observed elections.
but then , his egotistical despotism and that of his followers, would prefer the armageddon approach, seemingly.
mm
[/B]

Are you for real? This will not be like bombing or attacking defensless Taliban regime :rolleyes: This is about declaring a war to a nation that has army power, maybe not for winning but to use it by all means. And what makes you to think they want a western style democracy? Who has that in Middle East? Here are few reasons why war against Saddam is not a good idea.

And it was USA and other western countries that gave the technology for these weapons to Iraq while they were in war with Iran.

Quite frankly, thats old news, it was sadam, who did the dirty with the weapons, not the U.S

There are plenty of countries, being supplied weapons from various sources and they do not do what Sadam does with them.

You say the U.S stood idly by...Well, in point of fact, either, they went in after the weapons were used against the Kurds ( which would have been too late to save them) or they could have went onto Bagdad itself when you say they should have, at the time of the Gulf War, without a UN mandate and face a barrage of critisism like they are now.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

How exactly have the U.N saved the Kurds from Sadam, tell me??
Their weapons inspectors were turfed out! allowing a few good years for the Sadamites to hide their chemicals in what is a huge land mass.
It took the threats of unilateral action by the U.S in the first place, to give the U.N the kick up in the backside it needed to , send the inspectors back , but this time with some teeth, ie non compliance meaning a multi national force would head for Bagdad.

I am for real, and If they do not want a western style democracy in Iraq, fair enough, but that should be the peoples choice there, a choice they are not allowed to have at the moment.

I suggested that as , if they did have a fair system in place, they could sell their oil, on the open market and develop western style living standards in their country, without comprimising Islam.

Now those decisions could be taken in the morning, to comply fully with Un demands, and avoid war but the Sadamites are too selfish-they do not care.
And as regards the Iraqi Army...well again it's the sadamites decisions that will bring them to war,surely despite it's possible terrible consequences for them, they do not think they can win ,so the best options are for the sadamites to comply really, the onus is on them.
mm

mm

Cork

American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States' president had himself called.

So- is it not about time the US acted to rid Iraq of Saddam.

he used chemical weapons on his own people. Are the Iraqis to wait until he steps down. Will this be in twenty years?

And what makes you to think they want a western style democracy?

Well - the one thing they don't want is to live in fear.

It is so easy for those who are anti-war to peach aganist the US. We live in a Western society with freedom. We don't live under a dictator who has used weapons on his countrymen.

halkar

Man, first click on the links and do some reading Saddams chemical attack was few years before the Gulf war. The incident of 1991 was the uprising of Kurdish which supposed to be backed by US for their support in Gulf war. Result: Thousands died and many hundreds of thousands have been fled to Iran and Turkey.

US itself refused the on-site inspection of it's own biological weapons capabilities in Biological Weapons Convention (you can google that yourself) so it is fine for them to develop and and sell as they please but if someone else does it it becomes threat to US and they think that can give them a reason to attack them? Even if the UN inspectors finds the chemical weapons US still have no right to attack Iraq.

There are no Western style democracies in the region so how will Iraq be any different? And who knows if the next leader for Iraq be any better than Saddam? All the ethnic groups in Iraq does not want US to enter Iraq, they can take Saddam out themselves with US backing but of course US doesn't want that. If US troops enters Iraq with their allies it will be an invasion and it will be people's war not Saddam's. You are rightfully protecting your country against an attacking force, whatever their reason is. And I strongly believe people there would rather be under Saddam's rule then US rule and support for Saddam is much higher now than it was in Gulf War.

As for people choices. What choices they have ? There is hated Saddam on my right and much more hated Bush with uncertain future on my left. Now you make your choice. And don't forget many of these people over there are not educated to your standards to know what democracy means either. They never had it never lived it so your democracy offering to them means nothing as far as they concern you are going there to invade their land kill their families (as a consequences of war) and drink their oil so as you said they do not think they can win but they will not make it easy for US to win either even after US succeeds to bring Saddam down.

Originally posted by Cork
....
Well - the one thing they don't want is to live in fear.

It is so easy for those who are anti-war to peach against the US. We live in a Western society with freedom. We don't live under a dictator who has used weapons on his countrymen.

They are different society then your average Jo is in your so called Western freedom and they have been living like that for many years. You have to respect their living and government style after all if Saddam is dictator then every other leader in the region is dictator as most of them are monarch and goes from father to son. And don't forget as a result of this we can have more terrorist attacks against your Western freedom and then you will be the one living in fear :rolleyes:

****************************************************
One day, they will make cars running on your ESB bill . That day all our big bully boys leave the middle east and everyone will live happily ever after

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Hobart
BattleBoar TBH I was more interested in the use of the quote than I was in justification for investment in Ireland. As Far As I Am Concerened nobody does nothing 4 nothing. That mayB cynical but it's normally correct.

You also say that the relationship is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. So What? We Gain. They Gain. This is not a thread on economics. And then the Gem!! and I QUOTE Yes US investment has improved the Irish economy. So what? Irish workers have helped profits of US companies! It's hardly a scoop.

Umm...that's my whole point. If both parties benefit from this then why do you appear resentful? Perhaps I am mistaken in the interpretation...

Originally posted by halkar
Man, first click on the links and do some reading

how do you know whether I read your links or not? Chemical attacks on the Kurds is old news as I said and that was all I said on the matter apart from, The U.S are damned, by the same people,then as they are now regardless of whether they go in or not.
I said:

You say the U.S stood idly by...Well, in point of fact, either, they went in after the weapons were used against the Kurds ( which would have been too late to save them) or they could have went onto Bagdad itself when you say they should have, at the time of the Gulf War, without a UN mandate and face a barrage of critisism like they are now.

Theres no statement there regarding the timing of attacks on the Kurds.
just, a simple statement, implying that those who are against the U.S involvement here, would be anyway.

My point, regarding western style democracies, is simple also,did you read it at all, it's a valid enough point I think:D

If the Sadamites, complied fully, with UN resolutions, and gave their people democracy,then there would be no war.
It's a simple step...but then Sadam is a despot who uses Chemical weapons.

The U.S may have them as well as a nuclear arsenal but they aren't using them, they are safely stored away.
Clearly the U.N are more worried about Sadams chemicals than those held by the U.S

Whats wrong with Democracy anyway, and why shouldn't we peacefully promote it as a form of governance...It's a tad better than, terrorists and despots, violently promoting fundamentalist ideoligies.

mm

halkar

Originally posted by Man
.....
Whats wrong with Democracy anyway, and why shouldn't we peacefully promote it as a form of governance...It's a tad better than, terrorists and despots, violently promoting fundamentalist ideoligies.

mm

Yep, that is exactly what US wants to do, peacefully promote democracy. And while doing this, it is creating more haters in the region and fundamentalists. Most Muslims in the region hate US over their backing of Israel and this will just give them another reason to hate and attack on US. Do you really think US cares if they have democracy or not in IRAQ? :rolleyes:

As for US nuclear and chemical capabilities, I think they are just as dangerous in their hands as they are in other countries. If US thinks it is right to produce them for their defence, other countries in the world and Saddam can just say the same thing and use US and Israel as a threat. Because just has US doesn't trust them, they don't trust US either. As for UN, their future will be questionable as if they break their own rules and attack Saddam even if they find chemical weapons in Iraq as this is not a reason for attacking a nation.

I want Saddam gone just as much as anyone do but I don't believe the war is the answer to this.

Originally posted by halkar
Yep, that is exactly what US wants to do, peacefully promote democracy.

And, the sadamites, Al'Quaeda, hizbolla, and their ilk want to peacefully promote it also....
I don't want a war there either, the only groupings wanting war in the middle east are the sadamites by their intransigence.

As for US nuclear and chemical capabilities, I think they are just as dangerous in their hands as they are in other countries. If US thinks it is right to produce them for their defence, other countries in the world and Saddam can just say the same thing and use US and Israel as a threat. Because just has US doesn't trust them, they don't trust US either.

You are very naive if you think nuclear weapons are more dangerous, in U.S hands than in the hands of the Sadamites:rolleyes:
They are a deterent in the hands of the U.S - pure and simple.
But if the sadamites get them , prepare yourself for the bunker, bring loads of fresh water, close the doors and bring lots of Joe Jacob's tablets:D
mm

Cork

I really think much sentiment seems to to very anti american. Saddam is a brutal dictator. Yet - while we enjoy freedom - we expect others to live under this dictator.

halkar

Yep Saddam is brutal but there are many brutal leaders in the world and Africa is full of them. I think all publicity for US to go for war to overthrow Saddam has just damaged their reputation for them. Unlike the operations in Afghanistan which was backed by many nations not many nations wants US to attack Saddam. Unless Saddam attacks one of their neighbours or threaten them UN and US has no reason to attack there even if they prove that they have chemical and nuclear weapons and Bush in all people knows that more than you and I do and if it is all for democracy and freedom then lets attack Israel too. As far as I am concerned they are breaking more UN regulations and human rights then Saddam in front of the world's eyes.

Me goes and start making list for my bunker
1-Guinness
2-Guinness
3-Guinness
4-peanuts
....
....