Saddam Hussein Captured

[kwiz117]

I am not a conservative, and not a George Bush supporter. It just rubs me wrong to see an entire thread devoted to the ramblings of a bunch of dimwits who can't string a correct sentence together, can't spell -in fact, who can't even use spell-check, who don't have an original thought in their heads and who, apparently, couldn't make it through grade school, but somehow, have come to think, that they have deep insights into international politics. The world according to Dumb (the gentleman), Dumber (quiz117) and Dumbest (Butterfly)!

Today's style is ....small cars..small watches..mini skirts..small mobiles..small note pads...sometime soon a small Penis will be in style..and then you will be the MAN..

[Khun ?]

I wish I wouldn't of  wasted my time working and would of completed my Rhodes scholarship with a side trip to the ole Ivy. I guess for now I could concentrate on typing and thinking on the same sentence at the same time. Until then I will have to use my degree from Bombay university in pigeon english so please bare with us.

Sorry for taking the piss out of the subject..

New book out *** America the most hated still a nice place to export to or to fight your battles.

Khun thats the same thing you keep saying mate - "New book out *** America the most hated still a nice place to export to or to fight your battles."

No one asked for your help in this occasion -NO ONE!

At the end of the day we are allies, but I dont beleive Bush is good for your country and he has proved that - there is not many people on your side. I aplaud patriotism, but this guy is the worst marketing tool the USA has ever had - since day 1 he started picking fights with who ever opposed "freedom" - his freedom, his morals and his thoughts on how the world should be - ITS NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY THINK MATE, the world marches on without the Bush's of this world - his is doing what he says he is at war over - dictators.

P.S. The majority of the Yanks I know are great people, but this one is far from it!

Do you not think the U.S. does not want to get the H*** out of this place once and for all.

How many years do you think we should protect the rest of the worlds free trade

and natural resources. Everyone wanted Saddam and his million men to take a long vacation so the world could get on with becoming a better place. The British have kept a few hundred soldiers in the region along with the french and the U.S.

has kept 10's of thousands in the area at the tax payer expense. The stability of the region with Osama and

Saddam on the loose over here will never be ok. Do you think the same ones that have profited and done business with Saddam for years should go back to business as usual with multi billion $$$ deals while the U.S continues to spend billions each year trying to pacify ever radical and tyrant in the area that thinks because of it's religion and whatever else that can be twisted it should be the powers that the rest of the world must appease.

We can always get the U.N. for hire soliders that you have to provide everything for along with paying their troops wages to come and get nothing done but dig a deeper hole.

The job is well on it's way to being done once and for all. If Iraq and the countries

in the area do not take this opportunity to be a part of the rest of the world

then let them live in bloodshed for eternity. The excuse that a few million jews is the whole worlds problem to peace is as arse nine as it gets. There is many countries over here that live in peace with all no matter what religion as it should be. Everyone wants the best for these people and hopefully they get governments

that respect and represent its people and not twisted religous leaders that trample on peoples rights and preach hatered and bloodshed to anything different.

It is a terrible position for the U.S. to be in and hopefully once and for all we can all live in peace and dignity no matter what your believes may be, or you just so happen to of been born female. Let us all have a free world and our own believes that we choose and not someone else that is forced on us. Good Will to All regardless of your religion or gender.

[Khun ?]

Khun - <deleted> does "Sprechens sie duetch Herr Butterfly" mean?

Let's see - the word Herr is the only one spelled correctly, the 'sie' in a letter or address should be capitalised. Do you mean Dutch?

Just what are you insinuating khun khun?

Sprechen sie Deutsch im Deutschunterricht!

Is this ****** better

What it means is we saved severals arse before and now we can only do so if we

do it with the say so of those doing back door deals with hitler #2 (Saddam).

they sold out for a couple euro's right.

[Butterfly]

Khun - <deleted> does "Sprechens sie duetch Herr Butterfly" mean? 

Let's see - the word Herr is the only one spelled correctly, the 'sie' in a letter or address should be capitalised.  Do you mean Dutch?

Just what are you insinuating khun khun?

Sprechen sie Deutsch im Deutschunterricht!

Is this ****** better

What it means is we saved severals arse before and now we can only do so if we

do it with the say so of those doing back door deals with hitler #2 (Saddam).

they sold out for a couple euro's right.

Khun ? what nationality are you ? you barely speak English and I have a difficult time to "decode" what you are saying ? if you are living in the US, why is your English so broken ?

Also, it seems to me that you have been brainwashed by the US mass media. It's not really your fault, but just an indication of your brain power to analyze and apraise the whole situation.

If you believe not even 10% of what you are saying then you belong with the rest of the fools and deserve every bit of the situation in the US. You want a free world ? why don't you start by freeing your mind first ?

[Khun ?]

Yes I agree poor english. I hated school and went to work as soon as I could at age 14. Spell check is much to slow to take time along with the one finger typing.

I have the same thought that you all have, you have a narrow mind and do not consider

all that leads to the way things are now. From the 60's through to the end of 80's

was all about communist. Thank Bhuda we have moved beyond this for the most.

Hind sight is something that you do not have the priviledge of having when at times of sleeping with the devil before. It was the way of the time it had to be

for the big picture. It seems so easy if you can sit at home in the nice comfort of your house and security provided by the local society and make decisions from the info that is always subject to sensation inducing for sales ( half a picture).

I have been in foreign countries since the mid 70's involved in eaxctly what we are talking about. The U.S. does not have the same luxury as most ,of having only

it's own borders to protect. Have mistake been made yes but I also believe it

was the decision of the way it was at the time with the means availible to react to the situations that played in the mistakes. Such as Viet Nam who really knew then that

it was more than stopping the expansion of communism and should of we not honored our commitment to South Viet Nam's government as we had a hand full with Europe already. Anyways I believe Saddam had to go if we did not want to have to return in 2020. They now have a chance if they can get their religous

convictions put aside to govern themselves in peace with common goals.

Saddam and his henchmen took the fight and are now hiding amoungst children and normal citizens. They now do not have a future to kill anyone that disagrees with them. What type of country uses rape and torture as normal punishment. Saddams sons would have wives raped of people they did not like. Is this the people that need to be left behind to continue to run the country while guess who signed billions of $$$ in contracts with Saddam so he could continue to do such things. Well lets hope the U.N. with their new office in Cypress have a good old time helping us in Afgan and Iraq. I know a few 100 thousand troops that would like to be there for a few days.

[Membrane]

Do you not think the U.S. does not want to get the H*** out of this place once and for all.

How many years do you think we should protect the rest of the worlds free trade and natural resources. Everyone wanted Saddam and his million men to take a long vacation so the world could get on with becoming a better place. The British have kept a few hundred soldiers in the region along with the french and the U.S. has kept 10's of thousands in the area at the tax payer expense. The stability of the region with Osama and Saddam on the loose over here will never be ok. Do you think the same ones that have profited and done business with Saddam for years should go back to business as usual  with multi billion $$$ deals while the U.S continues to spend billions each year trying to pacify ever radical and tyrant in the area that thinks because of it's religion and whatever else that can be twisted it should be the powers that the rest of the world must appease.

We can always get the U.N. for hire soliders that you have to provide everything for along with paying their troops wages to come and get nothing done but dig a deeper hole. The job is well on it's way to being done once and for all. If Iraq and the countries in the area do not take this opportunity to be a part of the rest of the world then let them live in bloodshed for eternity. The excuse that a few million jews is the whole worlds problem to peace is as arse nine as it gets. There is many countries over here that live in peace with all no matter what religion as it should be. Everyone wants the best for these people and hopefully they get governments that respect and represent its people and not twisted religous leaders that trample on peoples rights and preach hatered and bloodshed to anything different. 

It is a terrible position for the U.S. to be in and hopefully once and for all we can all live in peace and dignity no matter what your believes may be, or you just so happen to of been born female. Let us all have a free world and our own believes that we choose and not someone else that is forced on us.  Good Will to All regardless of your religion or gender.

Yes! Completely agree.

I just got back from a month-long vacation in Thailand and while there, I bought a John Lennon "Imagine" t-shirt. (Everyone familiar with the words to that song? If not, see it here). The more I wore it, the more it reminded me of the lyrics to this great song and what it would really take in the real world to bring about world-wide peace.

So imagine if we could finally mature into a civilized world-wide community. A community that should have happened long before 2003. We've already got the scientific technology to do wonderful, fantastic things and we're almost on the verge of doing some truly remarkable things: curing disease, greatly extending life span, traveling to other planets. But we still don't have the "technology" to peacefully get along with our brothers and sisters who live on other continents.

We can't go on like this, with all the fighting and hating in the name of racism and religion and gods that don't even exist. We all need to wake up and come to the realization that we're all human--all the same--regardless of our skin color/religious beliefs/sex/etc is. It all doesn't matter. We're all interconnected, here on this planet, in so many ways: our ecologies, economies, religions to name but a few. Boundaries between countries are all man-made. We're all united whether we consciously realize it or not, we simply need to acknowledge that fact and start acting like it.

We need to wake up and stop the fighting, stop the name-calling, stop the hating and allow ourselves to simply live peacefully. If we don't, we're all headed for another major world war. When will we learn? We must work towards peace. But how do we do that?

It's easy to want peace. But here's the twist: unfortunately, due to human nature, peace does not simply occur. Because of human nature, there will always be someone who promotes racism, hatred, mistrust, greed and division. Peace, it seems, does not come without a price. Peace must be established and then fiercely protected. It cannot come about by just simply saying "we want peace" and by being pacifists, simply wishing for peace. If we were all pacifists and we all desperately wanted peace, then it would work--we would all have peace. But it seems there is always someone who simply refuses to cooperate with the rest of us, who wants to manipulate those basic human emotions to trigger discontent, disharmony and war.

Just like every country has a law enforcement agency, so the world needs someone or something to act as a deterrent. No, I'm not saying this "deterrent" must be the role of the United States. I am saying that that the world needs to unite and actively stop anyone who doesn't actively work towards a solution. If you don't have a plan for peace, then you must suffer the consequences. We must be wary of anyone or any group who simply hates. We must be wary of anyone or any group who actively promotes discord.

Unfortunately, it seems every time anyone comes to the table to promote peace in the middle east, some radical splinter terrorist group decides to derail the process by blowing themselves up, just to further the pain and anguish, ensuring that peace is not possible. All this accomplishes is it reduces everyone involved to a basic gut-level emotional level, generating continuous hatred and fear, instead of allowing a calm and rational response that results in a road map for peace that resolves the dispute.

So what do we do about it? How do we finally satisfy everyone involved and finally achieve peace on a world-wide, global scale? That's the big question. I'm not saying I have the final answer, but it sure seems like in order to achieve world-wide peace, we must 1) unite and act world-wide in order to get the job done and 2) just like our local law enforcement must occasionally use force to stop criminals, we must also use force to stop those criminals who try to destroy peace for the rest of us. But force must be used as a last resort, after all other discussions, summits, sanctions, etc., have been exhausted.

As regrettable as it is, I don't see any other way to achieve peace, other than to create some type of consequence for violence. I'm afraid that any other approach is wishful thinking. If there are no consequence for terrorist activity, then the terrorists win. If there is no one that stands up to them to stop them, then they will ride rough-shod over all of us.

[the gentleman]

Khun, I will agree to disagree mate, thats the best I can do for you.

We will not agree on this, but will on other posts - Have a good Christmas!

[Georgie-Porgie]

Get someone to read and explain this to you, Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest!

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Moment of Truth

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 18, 2003

STANBUL — Of all the fascinating reactions to Saddam Hussein's capture, the one that intrigues me most is the French decision to suddenly offer some debt forgiveness for Iraq. Why now? I believe it's an 11th-hour attempt by the French government to scramble onto the right side of history.

I believe the French president, Jacques Chirac, knows something in his heart: in the run-up to the Iraq war, George Bush and Tony Blair stretched the truth about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — but they were not alone. Mr. Chirac also stretched the truth about his willingness to join a U.N.-led coalition against Iraq if Saddam was given more time and still didn't comply with U.N. weapons inspections. I don't believe Mr. Chirac ever intended to go to war against Saddam, under any circumstances. So history will record that all three of these leaders were probably stretching the truth — but with one big difference: George Bush and Tony Blair were stretching the truth in order to risk their own political careers to get rid of a really terrible dictator. And Jacques Chirac was stretching the truth to advance his own political career by protecting a really terrible dictator.

Something tells me that the picture of Saddam looking like some crazed werewolf may have shocked even Mr. Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin: yes, boys, this is the creep you were protecting. History will also record that while the U.S. and Britain chose to be Saddam's prosecutors, France chose to be his defense lawyer. So, no, it doesn't surprise me that the French are now offering conscience money in the form of Iraqi debt relief. Something tells me Mssrs. Chirac and de Villepin were just assuming Iraq would end in failure, but with Saddam's capture they've decided they'd better put a few chips on success.

But we and the Iraqis are also going to have to step up more ourselves — otherwise the French could still have the last laugh. No question, the capture of Saddam merits celebration in and of itself, not only because this terrible man will be brought to justice, but also because it really does improve the chances for a decent outcome in Iraq. But while Saddam's removal is necessary for that decent outcome, it is not sufficient.

We have entered a moment of truth in Iraq. With Saddam now gone, there are no more excuses for the political drift there. We are now going to get the answer to the big question I had before the war: Is Iraq the way it is because Saddam was the way he was? Or was Saddam the way he was because Iraq is the way it is — ungovernable except by an iron fist?

We have to give Iraqis every chance to prove it is the first, not the second. For starters, I hope we don't hear any more chants from Iraqis of "Death to Saddam." He's now as good as dead. It's time for Iraqis to stop telling us whom they want to die. Now we have to hear how they want to live and whom they want to live with. The Godfather is dead. But what will be his legacy? Is there a good Iraqi national family that can and wants to live together, or will there just be more little godfathers competing with one another? From my own visits, I think the good family scenario for Iraq is very possible, if we can provide security — but only Iraqis can tell us for sure by how they behave.

The way to determine whether Iraqis are willing to form the good family is how they use and understand their newfound freedom. The reason Iraqi politics has not jelled up to now is not only because of Saddam's lingering shadow. It is because each of the major blocs — the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites — has been pushing maximalist demands for what it thinks is its rightful place in shaping and running a new Iraq. The Iraqi ship of state has broken up on these rocks many times before.

By risking their own political careers, George Bush and Tony Blair have, indeed, given Iraqis the gift of freedom. But it is not the freedom to simply shout about what they oppose. That is anarchy. Freedom is about limits, compromise and accepting responsibility. Freedom is the opportunity to assert your interests and the obligation to hear and compromise with the interests of others.

How well Iraqis absorb that kind of freedom will determine whether the capture of Saddam is the high point of this drama — and it's all downhill from here — or just a necessary first chapter in the most revolutionary democracy-building project ever undertaken in the Arab world.

Keep on braying mindless morons!

[the gentleman]

wow, fantastic, just brilliant, coo e cobber, .............................. AND?

Excessive quotation removed

/admin

Edited December 19, 2003 by george

[Butterfly]

Yes!  Completely agree. 

Blah Blah Blah

Love you all Bull Shit !!!

Blah Blah Blah

The World is great !!!

Blah Blah Blah

As regrettable as it is, I don't see any other way to achieve peace, other than to create some type of consequence for violence.  I'm afraid that any other approach is wishful thinking.  If there are no consequence for terrorist activity, then the terrorists win.  If there is no one that stands up to them to stop them, then they will ride rough-shod over all of us.

Translation:

War is Peace

Slavery is Freedom

Do you actually think that we are that stupid to believe any of the crap you wrote above ? are you living in Disneyland ?

[Georgie-Porgie]

Boys, please follow the instructions. Get someone to read and explain the article to you, before any of your exceptionally intelligent replies!

[Butterfly]

But I thought it was about WMD ? oh wait, I forgot the reasons to go to war are changing daily now.

Who is the US to remove Saddam ? shouldn't China remove President Bush because he is a threat to the world ? I vote yes to the latter if you think that the US had every right to remove Saddam.

[Khun ?]

Gentlemen

I wish you all a merry Cristmas also. This will hopefully be my last after 11 in the middle east.

I think one thing good will come out of all of this. Dictators no more will feel

safe to shun the worlds warnings (there is no hole far enough away and it is not a very good life if there is one). Saddams Rigme has left a half million supporters behind to terrorize for a bit longer but they will also have to respect

others without weapons soon.

Just reported that more citizens in Iraq are signing up to be police and protectors

of the common citizen... GOOD FOR THEM

One thing for sure this sure has taken the bang out of the buck ($$$) will I be able to afford a vacation.

[Membrane]

Blah Blah Blah

Love you all Bull Shit !!!

Blah Blah Blah

The World is great !!!

Blah Blah Blah

Butterfly, like I said:

We must be wary of anyone or any group who simply hates.

We must be wary of anyone or any group who actively promotes discord.

Butterfly, you consistently do both. You offer no solutions. You use no logic or reasoning. But that's fine--you're representing exactly the type of person who never thinks, is always the problem, never the solution.

You are so predictable; always trying to pull the argument down to your emotional and irrational level. Never any depth, never anything thought-provoking. Cartoon politics for the simple-minded.

Butterfly, you've sucked me in to arguments here in the past, but you're not going to do it again. You are a waste of all of our time here.

[kwiz117]

Boys, please follow the instructions. Get someone to read and explain the article to you, before any of your exceptionally intelligent replies!

Hi.. Small one..

At least try to think the big picture here.

This article you have taken is all about France. Why US so much upset over France is due to the simple fact of he led the opposition for the war and it affected US.

At the time US invaded Iraq, every one including the kids knew that Sadam is not going to hold on to a war after facing sanctions for decades with an Army like US.

Actually I see your Invasion as very unethical and you should be shamed of your selves to call this as a victory.

In good old days, if the Sword fallen from the enemy, the brave always give a second chance to humiliate the enemy and to make it a fair battle.

But look..You use your power..Put all sanctions. Then went to Attack..

This is like a Hand-fight enforced by one party over another after making his hand tight or cut half.

After that, when the fellow ran away and hide it in a dig, you guys are making a big story like the way you did when your Brave soldiers went and released Jesica Lynch.

Even Bush gave a speech after her Release. REMEMBER? Now are you telling the world to trust what your government say about all these comics when your government used your own non-combat citizen to gain public support for war?

IF YOUR BUSH IS BRAVE ENOUGH. GO AND ATTACK NORTH KOREA. No problems from France, Russia or Germany for that. Even China will support you. So tell you Bush to go and Push North Korea and see the results..

My small friend. Unless you use another WMD like you used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will not have a chance to fight with them. Your army and all of us will burn to ashes from real WMD and also that will be the end of this forum. Now that is where the real WMD is. That is where the real service to the world will come.

If you really wanted to attack Sadam and win, then you Bush should have attacked like his Father attacked before. He ran away..and even lost the election. Isn't it?

Then UN comprising of France put all sanctions over Iraq and tried to make Sadam tied down. Then your brave went and attacked him. It's like a comic to me.

Now read this part carefully or give it to your mother to read this for you.

Remember, your Article talk about France. It is not only France who opposed this war. Majority of the Security Council opposed it.

Otherwise your Bush would have passed the resolution. Isn't it?

Now why you talk about France. Even Mr. Kofi Anan issued a statement after the capture of Sadam commending it.

Now is the person who wrote above article think that whoever opposed to this war before and then commended the capture of Sadam after; have supported and protected Sadam before the war?

I mean, when you use the same logic, I get this meaning. Hope you can understand this.

Now is that mean, that the 90% of the countries in the world supported Sadam before you capture him?

Just withdraw your statement by your self now..

When read it constructively and think about it constructively, your article is strengthening the Global Support Sadam had over your own Government.

Hope you understood the real meaning of the article published above by you at least now.

By the way..Thanks for publishing it.. you have made our point more clear by doing that.

[the gentleman]

wow, fantastic, just brilliant, coo e cobber, .............................. AND?

Excessive quotation removed

/admin

can I come out my room now George

[Butterfly]

Blah Blah Blah

Love you all Bull Shit !!!

Blah Blah Blah

The World is great !!!

Blah Blah Blah

Butterfly, like I said:

We must be wary of anyone or any group who simply hates.

We must be wary of anyone or any group who actively promotes discord.

Butterfly, you consistently do both. You offer no solutions. You use no logic or reasoning. But that's fine--you're representing exactly the type of person who never thinks, is always the problem, never the solution.

You are so predictable; always trying to pull the argument down to your emotional and irrational level. Never any depth, never anything thought-provoking. Cartoon politics for the simple-minded.

Butterfly, you've sucked me in to arguments here in the past, but you're not going to do it again. You are a waste of all of our time here.

But we gave you already the solutions:

1. Get rid of Bush

2. Stop invading countries with false pretense

3. Kill yourself ?

then the world would be a better place

Which part you fail to understand ?

[Butterfly]

Butterfly, like I said:

We must be wary of anyone or any group who simply hates.

We must be wary of anyone or any group who actively promotes discord.

Ok, genius, tell me where is the love when your boys are bombing and killing innocent children ?

[Membrane]

Ok, genius, tell me where is the love when your boys are bombing and killing innocent children ?

Why is it you never complain about the real terrorists who strap on bombs and kill innocent Israeli women and children? Because they're "just Jews"? Why is it you never mention the REAL ATTROCITIES committed by your friends, the Muslim extremist terrorist groups? Are you, perhaps, a Muslim extremist terrorist? With your one-sided arguments (always against the west, no matter what), you sure sound like one!

And if you cared to investigate, you'd find out that the U.S. has gone to great lengths to AVOID striking civilians. It's a little hard though when you have sick pieces of shit like saddam, WHO USED HIS OWN INNOCENT PEOPLE as unwilling human shields around legitimate military targets!

Never forget: if the U.S. didn't care about civilian casualty, Iraq would be unrecognizable by now--it would be one big nuclear-melted parking lot.

[Butterfly]

Never forget: if the U.S. didn't care about civilian casualty, Iraq would be unrecognizable by now--it would be one big nuclear-melted parking lot.

Coming soon, coming soon !!!!

I am sure you will have another excuse then why it happened.

Hey read this to get a clue:

A new era of nuclear weapons

Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress

Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething.

"This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted."

Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...MNG5Q3GH941.DTL

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."—George W. Bush, Oct. 3, 2003

[Butterfly]

Don't let the facts blind you, Membrane

Another one for you if you dare to read until the end

they will sure love you at the end of this war.

War is Love

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/internat...&partner=GOOGLE

Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns

BU HISHMA, Iraq, Dec. 6 — As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.

The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.

So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.

In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.

"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."

The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.

"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."

The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.

The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out.

American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq.

Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there.

"Experience continues to teach us many lessons, and we continue to evaluate and address those lessons, embedding and incorporating them appropriately into our concepts, doctrine and training," Brig. Gen. Michael A. Vane wrote. "For example, we recently traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas." General Vane is deputy chief of staff for doctrine concepts and strategy, at the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.

American officers here say their new hard-nosed approach reflects a more realistic appreciation of the military and political realities faced by soldiers in the so-called Sunni triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad that is generating the most violence against the Americans.

Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

I guess Saddam and the US came to the same conclusion after all

[Butterfly]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8...ar+and+violence

"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.

And White is Black !!!!

It would be so funny if it was not so real and sad !!!

[Membrane]

HEY BUTTERFLY--Again, since YOU ALWAYS SIDE-STEP questions and just put up more slop:

Why is it you never complain about the real terrorists who strap on bombs and kill innocent Israeli women and children? Because they're "just Jews"? Why is it you never mention the REAL ATTROCITIES committed by your friends, the Muslim extremist terrorist groups?

[kwiz117]

Membrane,

1. These suicide bombing and terrorist training centers are very popular in Pakistan and they are doing them openly. US and all the world knows about it.

Before this, the same happened in Afghanistan and your twin towers paid the penalty of your own actions.

But sadly, Pakistan is a US ally and also its Military Dictator gave an opening speech during the last UN General Assembly. US gave them so much money after the Afghan war started and this resulted Pakistan becoming one of the most active stock exchanges in that region. So US is now making a start of another era and in the process of building another terrorist country with a military dictator exactly like the way you did with Sadam years ago.

2. Another Terrorist group who started these suicide bombing in my own country which is a banned organization in US, UK and many other western countries. Interestingly, your government Banned them after Sep 11 and anyway they have not done any terrorist activity thereafter. All terrorist activities they carried out at the time they were allowed to operate and collect funds freely in western countries.

But they had the privilege of flying to your countries and meeting the most senior government officials without any problems.

The latest was the LTTE leader having a discussion with the Secretory General of EU. Why your governments interested in sponsoring LTTE is simply to attack Buddhism in my own Country. Nothing else.

It's leader is the person responsible in assassinating 1 President, 1 Prime minister and thousands of civilians including foreigners in Colombo. Also he is the most wanted person in India for Assassinating the former Indian prime minister Rajov Gandhi.

3. Take Israel for an example. I am not trying to say the suicide bombings by Palestine extremist groups are right. But Israel do assassinate Palestine leaders labeling them as Terrorists. Don't you agree that an Assassin is a terrorist. What is your definition for an Assasin and a Terrorist?

4. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. Many Muslim terrorist organizations operate inside. They too are a very good ally of US.

When we look at all these examples and also all other unknown examples, I wonder whether West is sponsoring terrorist to spread the religion and/or to gain the control of natural resources of those countries.

If the western governments can stop these double standards and stick to your own backyard and your own business, the world will be a very safe place and also it will be the end of these terrorist groups.

You may classify this as Terrorism, or WMD like in North Korea, Iran.

But it's unfair for people in one side of the world to get killed and then get labeled as terrorists and for the west to be the good guys all the time.

It's simply not fair.

[kwiz117]

Membrane,

Now if Palestine extremist go and carry a suicide attack reacting to this statement, do you think it is justifiable or unjustifiable?

After that can Israel call Palestine Govt for not stopping extremist military groups carrying out attacks against innocent Israel people?

Yes or No..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House warns Sharon on peace plan

STEVEN R WEISMAN

The Bush administration, responding coolly to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's announcement of a possible ``disengagement plan'' in the West Bank, warned Israel on Thursday against taking steps that effectively abandoned the American-sponsored peace plan, which would establish a Palestinian state.

``We would oppose any unilateral steps that block the road toward negotiations under the road map that lead to the two-state vision,'' said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman.

A senior administration official involved in Middle East policy tried on Thursday night to emphasise that parts of Mr Sharon's speech were positive, especially his call for immediate steps to ease conditions of Palestinians living in the West Bank, and for the dismantling of ``unauthorised'' settlement outposts built in the last few years.

The official said that based on a reading of Mr Sharon's text and also on briefings given to US officials before the speech, it was clear that such actions by Israel were offered ``unconditionally'' _ that is, not dependent on the Palestinians acting first to crack down on Palestinian militant groups.

The administration official acknowledged that some of the steps promised by Mr Sharon had been promised before and not carried out. ``We expect far more rapid action after the emphatic remarks of the Israeli prime minister,'' he added.

Left unclear by Mr Sharon's speech, the administration official said, was how he planned to carry out his promises to limit the growth of existing settlements in the West Bank, but the official said it seemed clear that Israel was prepared to confine any increase in the population of settlers to the areas where settlements already exist, and not to expand their territory any further into neighbourhoods and areas regarded by the Palestinians as their land. But many details about what Mr Sharon intends remain to be worked out with Palestinian negotiators and representatives of the United States in coming days and weeks.

Behind the speech, some administration officials said, was actually a tacit agreement between Mr Sharon's aides _ particularly Dov Weisglass, his chief of staff _ and top aides to Mr Bush that the new Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, is proving to be a disappointment.

Like Israeli leaders, administration officials say privately they have been frustrated over the failure of Mr Qurei, who is also known as Abu Ala, to even be able to negotiate a cease-fire with the Palestinian groups as a possible prelude to their eventual disarmament.

The senior administration official said Thursday night, however, that Mr Sharon had made enough conciliatory gestures in his speech to warrant a renewed attempt to get Mr Qurei back to the negotiating table.

The Egyptian national security chief, Omar Suleiman, has been in Washington in the last week to brief administration officials on the progress of these faltering negotiations for a cease-fire by Palestinian militant groups, but with little progress to report, many officials say.

What concerned the administration, officials said, was Mr Sharon's stated intention to carry out the disengagement plan in a few months if the Palestinians failed to implement the steps called for in the peace plan. The primary step, Mr Sharon made it clear, was to shut down militant groups.

``We don't think it's best, at this point, to be discussing now what to do if progress is not made,'' Mr McClellan said at the White House. Other officials said they were concerned that talk of what must happen if there is a breakdown might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

According to Mr Sharon's speech, the disengagement plan would involve new ``security lines'' separating Israel from Palestinian-dominated territory in the West Bank and Gaza and a ``change in the deployment of settlements''.

Administration officials say they are concerned that such a plan could lead to a de facto Palestinian state in a shrunken form on perhaps 50% of the West Bank, with as much as 90% of the Palestinians living in the area squeezed into it.

Far-flung Jewish settlements in this area would, if this state were set up, presumably be dismantled or re-established in Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank.

This concern was only partly assuaged by Mr Sharon's declaration that whatever boundary lines were established for Palestinian areas under his disengagement plan would not be final, and could be changed once an accord was reached between Israel and the Palestinians.

The US senior administration official said that Mr Sharon understood the Bush administration's strongly held view that nothing Israel does now must make it look like it was ``trying to impose a final settlement'' on the Palestinians.

Mr Sharon said he would not specify how many settlements would be shut down and ``redeployed'' elsewhere, but a US administration official said that the numbers circulating between Jerusalem and Washington were from 17 to 22 of perhaps 100 settlements in the West Bank.

Some administration officials say they have heard that Yasser Arafat and Mr Qurei may be tempted to accept such a state, however shrunken it is from what they want, as a possibly valuable base from which to conduct future talks with Israel.

[ray23]

Hmm !!! I give up, I actually tired to review all these posts, couldn't do it.

Just simple thoughts:

Bush is not America, he just the guy at the top for the moment, he will be replaced adventually. To much emphasis is placed on one man in a country of millions. I remember years ago that Ronald Reagan was the most feared man in the world. Give me a break, heck they had to remind him to put his shows on in the morning.

Those of you who attack America in the name of Bush, perhaps have forgotten that many in America attack Bush and his activities. So don't lump me or my fellow countrymen in with him.

America was isolationist country until World War one, what happened then, we were critized because we didn't get involved, well now the country is invlolved, the world appears to be a hard audience to please.

People have killed each other in the name of religion, for thousands of years and I'm willing to bet that includes every nation in the world at one time or a another.

Oil, was the supposed reason for Pearl Harbor, yep it does come into play. So what is going to change it, nothing I would imagine. Oil is power everyone wants it.

It's Christmas the season time for peace on earth, I doubt that will ever happen it's not truly in human nature. Is that America's fault ? I'm amazed that anyone would give us that much credit, we are still a child in the history of the world, most of your countries have any many years of experience beyond our years of existence, name me a time of peace on Earth, during your countries histories.

So I will close with one thought, you want to beat up on George have a great day, but don't beat up on the average American he has just about as much control over the Presidents thought process as you do you own leaders. Have some compassion for the kids who have to carry out his policies. They didn't make the decision, but they are paying the prices.

[Georgie-Porgie]

Sorry, jiz117, but as usual, your logic escapes me. To be perfectly honest, it might be because your English skills are very, very limited. I mean, maybe you make perfect sense in Swahili, or whatever it is that you think in, but, believe me, in the English language, we get a general sense of your beliefs -America is bad. Terrorists are good -, but no real sense as to why.

Look at the next paragraph that you wrote for example, and I could choose from almost any sentence or paragraph that you write with the same indecipherable results:

"Take Israel for an example. I am not trying to say the suicide bombings by Palestine extremist groups are right. But Israel do assassinate Palestine leaders labeling them as Terrorists. Don't you agree that an Assassin is a terrorist. What is your definition for an Assasin and a Terrorist"?

Does that make any kind of a real point?

Yes, we know that you like the Palestinian terrorists, even though you pretend otherwise, and we know that you don't like Israel. Your type never does, but what you say doesn't really mean anything.

Are you trying to say that Israeli authorities are equally as bad as Palestinian terrorists who slaughter innocent women and children, because they try to prevent the terrorists from killing the innocents by getting rid of the terrorist leaders who plan and order the mayhem?

If, so, you need to learn how to say so.

What is happening now is that most people just skip your posts all together, or quickly skim them, and think, this guy doesn't make any sense, Why bother reading this drivel.

Why don't you just stick to writing posts like:

Me like Palestinian terrorists!

Israel no good!

Bush bad, bad man! Daddy no good too!

At least we will be able to make out what you are really going on about.

By the way, Membrane probably isn't answering your question because he doesn't have the sightest idea of what you are trying to ask!

[kwiz117]

Georgie-Porgie,

It's interesting to see how you have escaped from my questions without answering. You simply do not have any answer. Tell that streight.

I answered your question?

I did not say Palestine is good and Israel is Bad. To make you understand, let me ask the question again. What do you mean by the word Assassin and a Terrorist?

Will an Assassin falls into Terrorist category?

Also tell me simply after Sharon's yesterday speech, if a Palestine Terrorist go and suicide killing Innocent Israeli people, then who is really responsible for that attack. Sharon or the Suicide Bomber?

A person like you will not be able to understand the point of my question. Nothing more needed to prove it other than your above reply.

Are you telling me that my English is so bad that you can not understand what I have written? But interestingly you have read it and even quoted nicely one section.

I hate people like you who do not have any backbone and just running out like Sadam Hussain and hiding like Bin Laden and talking nonsense totally irrelevant to the point like Bush.

[Georgie-Porgie]

jiz117, I will put this in very simple English for you. No, I do not understand much of what you write, and neither does anyone else. You fill the pages with gibberish and attempts at logic that make sense to only you, but to no one else who reads them, and you try to validate your opinions with newspaper articles that seem to only vaguely correspond with the subject that you are trying to talk about. Of course it is hard to say if they do correspond, because no one really knows what you are talking about most of the time anyway, anything more than, "Bush bad. Saddam good!"

You claim that I "quote you nicely", but all I did was cut and paste what you had written. As far as understanding it, that took a lot of guess work and are you saying that my guess below is correct?:

"Are you trying to say that Israeli authorities are equally as bad as Palestinian terrorists who slaughter innocent women and children, because they try to prevent the terrorists from killing the innocents by getting rid of the terrorist leaders who plan and order the mayhem".

If so, I think that you need reading lessons, as well as writing lessons.

I know that you want to say, that I am just too stupid to understand what you write, but anyone that sees this knows that I am some-what literate in the English language, and you certainly are not.

Besides, I am not so stupid as to continually try to argue in a language that I am not very adept at.

To answer the question that I think that you are asking: When a Palestinian terrorist blows up innocent people, I think that whoever presses the button on the bomb, and whoever orders him to press the button on the bomb is responsible. Blaming it on anyone else is the most cowardly kind of rationalizing.

[HonoluluJimmy]

Well, seem that another sadistic ruler has jumped out of his skin at the sight of his good buddy

Saddam in the clink! Wow, good ole terroist boy MoMo of Libya has signed up for the atone my soul program.....

A few more pricks will see the light. Terror is not the answer and freedom loving people will not allow these cowardly thugs to ploy their low life <deleted> on this planet!

I would be nice if the Ruskies, Frenchies, and Krauts sent in their troups on this one, since they are now on board. About time those democratic societies hold up their part of the action

Sure will look forward to Ole' Mo Mo on the front of Time Mag.

Bless the willing!

Note to Ray-Bob...GW Bush is Americas CinC....Bless his sprit a courage.

Peace will come...

If you are in the giving spirt this will help http://www.heromiles.org/