American-led Peace Movements

[Georgie-Porgie]

How about a war to overthrow a mass-murderer and despot who was threatening the World's oil supply, America's interests and making the Middle-East much less stable than it would be if he were out of power? Is that too simple for you?

[Thaiquila]

A message to the world from an anti-Bush regime American:

France and Germany, PLEASE LIBERATE US FROM OUR DESPOTIC LEADER. You won't get a fight from me, and be sure to bring lots of the best wine that you keep for yourselves, and lots and lots of those yummy euros.

In the months to come, this PDF document, which has been the underpinning of the ideology of the Bush neoconservatives, will become widely known in the Bush/Dean presidential campaign:

http://www.raytal.com/gate.html

It is from the project for a new American century. Read it to understand the real reason the US is in Iraq.

And to Americans who think a request to be liberate is treasonous, well, what does that makes Iraqis who you claim made a similar request in their country?

[singa-traz]

How about a war to overthrow a mass-murderer and despot who was threatening the World's oil supply, America's interests and making the Middle-East much less stable than it would be if he were out of power? Is that too simple for you?

No country make war to overthrow mass-murderers and despots ... Rwanda 800,000 killed in a genocide ... NOBODY MOVED ... and it's not like nobody knew.

Threatening World's oil supply ? ... Europe and Russia were both expecting the end of the UN sanctions to be awarded oil contracts with Iraq ...

So what's left ... ?

The WMD to find maybe ... :D

[Khun ?]

In 95 when Saddam massed his troops we should of finished the job then instead of appeasing religious societies. At least I got several hundreds of hours of overtime in the event of his sword rattling. What about Saddams known bonus policy on suicide bombers of school busses, this all while under U.N sanctions.

His 12 years of sanctions were spent in rebuilt palaces and his million man tyrants

continued to live well and slaughter, rape and pillage as they pleased.

These are the same people that some tried to get sanctions lifted so they could make a few billion bucks. The present uprising of Al-Qaeda may not of happened

if we would of took a much stronger and wider aligned stance together. The weakend alliance excited Osama's cancerous crusaders to move in a more deliberate and directed manner without fear from many countries of the coalition.

Our weaknesses were exploited by our continued flim flam responses to Saddams

antics of the U.N. sanctions. The crumbling of the coalition and the general attitudes of most of the world putting it off as it is over there and a american problem now, we will go on with our economic problems as if nothing was wrong.

Leaders that chose to try to correct their economical problems for political reasons

and use any means to bring in monetary rewards to save their behinds played right into Osamas explotations of a bad situation. You are either with us or against us was well said. Live and learn.

[lamphun]

Khun ?

You I'm afraid must be American as you appear to think that Bin Laden and Saddam are somehow connected.

Bin Laden and his followers are products of the war against the Soviet Union played out in proxy in Afganistan. The US sponsored these characters, Hekmatyer, Bin Laden and many others to the tune of billions of dollars to recruit train, arm and fight against the Russians. By the time Russians went home these american sponsored fighters were scattered all over the world and were still organising. The results of this insane policy have come to haunt all of us.

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

[Membrane]

So what's left ... ? 

The WMD to find maybe ...  :D

We did find WMDs in Iraq...

It was hiding in a spider hole...

Saddam Hussein killed approximately 300,000 Iraqis! If that doesn't qualify for making HIM a "Weapon of Mass Destruction", I don't know what would!

[plachon]

Oh come on! You think of yourself as the big Anti-Bush "Intellectual", but even semi-educated Johnny Foreigner understands politics better than you do. I'm sure that they wouldn't be at all shocked that Mr. Bush took advantage of the voting system in the US in order to statistically improve his chances of winning, and are you saying you don't realize that Al Gore's people tried to do the same thing?

By the way, I only used "stole the election" as a figure of speech. George W. Bush had more electoral votes than Al Gore, that means that , according to our system, he won legitimately.

Personally, I don't support the electoral system, but, that is neither here nor there.

As for your old standby, the racist card, you are the kind of supposed "Intellectual" that has airports in America stupidly wasting time, money and resources searching large numbers of good middle-class citizens to see if they are terrorists, instead of concentrating on more likely suspects using racial profiling.

The kind of "Intellectual" that steps out into the real world, trips over his own feet and lands right on his face.

Have a nice day.

Sorry to disappoint you G-P, but I think of myself as nothing of the sort. I'm no "Intellectual", or would I be wasting my time on this thread arguing with you? However, I am against Bush as the illegitimate President of the USA and believe that he did not win the election as you state but lost it. Firstly, 234 million Americans did not vote for Bush (quite a sizable majority wouldn't you say?) and Gore received some 500,000 plus more votes than bush out of those that did vote (the minority). It was only thanks to Bush's Florida bro and daddy's buddies in the Supreme Court that managed to swing a coup d'etat to Bush Jr and as such, it would be accurate to say that the man "stole the election". So your figure of speech is remarkably accurate and it is rather disingenious to say "Gore would have done the same thing". The fact is, he didn't have any brothers in crucial states and less Democrat sympathiser's in the Supreme Court. So I'll say it again, what right does the US have to espouse democratic ideals to the rest of the world, when it's govt. has such little respect for them, nevermind human rights and justice (I'm thinking of Guantanammo Bay in particular).

[Thaiquila]

Here is a followup to my previous post about the evidence that Bush and his team planned to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jan10.html

Mark my words, the radical right wing ideology behind the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) is going to be a big issue in the 04 elections. Americans who don't want to look at the evidence that their country has been taken over by a gang of dangerous extremists are clearly in denial.

[Georgie-Porgie]

plachon, it's starting to be obvious why you don't consider yourself to be an intellectual. Three people have answered your question already, but I will supply a copy of one previous reply:

Plachon, Bush is the legitimate president. We are a republic, not a democracy. Don't understand, go buy a book.

[Georgie-Porgie]

Thaiquila, ever heard of a fellow named Benedict Arnold?

[Thaiquila]

It is a tactic of the American right wing to label people who oppose Bush to be traitors.

Funny, that they didn't consider themselves traitors when they dragged Clinton through the mud.

[Georgie-Porgie]

Sorry, but I am in no way right wing. I was a peace-nic during the Vietnam era. I voted for Clinton; Supported him when he was having legal problems, and still respect him. However, I just don't like traitors. A little personality quirk I guess.

[Khun ?]

Khun ?

You I'm afraid must be American as you appear to think that Bin Laden and Saddam are somehow connected.

Bin Laden and his followers are products of the war against the Soviet Union played out in proxy in Afganistan. The US sponsored these characters, Hekmatyer, Bin Laden and many others to the tune of billions of dollars to recruit train, arm and fight against the Russians. By the time Russians went home these american sponsored fighters were scattered all over the world and were still organising. The results of this insane policy have come to haunt all of us.

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

Lamphun

Yes I agree with this as the U.S. fight of the cold war which we are still paying for.

At the same time I can disagree that the U.S. supported the religious cult of Osama after he lost his fame after stopping soviet expansion and took up his quest as a ###### bent religious nut case he is today. Damned of you do or don't would be correct.

Europe was still in the rebuilding stages which cost the U.S. tax payers billions for decades. No country has given more for the freedom of others than the U.S.

For as much as the U.S has given to stop communism in Asia and Europe in past generations we deserve the coalition of the present situations. For leaders to

all of a sudden break the alliances and go for the political monetary save my arse

politically stance showen recently, is at the least treasonous of the past.

Since when does someones religious convictions (Osama) take presidence over

how others live. Osama is ###### bent on his religous crusade which is only a front for his ultra ego and need for power. He wants his little kingdom of servants (reminds me of hitler) while the rest of us want freedom of choice and life. The seperation of religion and government which is of the most basic freedoms of mankind is the biggest threat

to Osama and his cult. Saddam did support this crusade if only to thwart his own demise and he had the ability and funding to provide very dangerous weapons to Osama and his cult. You cannot seperate the two of them at this time, the two need each other to survive. They are both brutal and oppressive dictators.

The middle east has proven they can have their religious convictions and governments for all the people regardless of what religion. UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and others have proven so. As long as their is more than one religion there must be seperation of government and religion or there will never be peace.

Anyways we either stand united for world interest and peace or we take the present , for each their own. If the U.N. is only going to be used to advance some monetarily then it is time it was abolished. The U.N should not of been a political tool as it was recently used. It is worthless at present state.

[Jeepz]

Plachon

You may not be familiar with the Electoral College. It is a somewhat controversial aspect of the Presidential election system. It has been around for quite some time and if you are going to make claims about the legitimacy of the Bush administration that don't appear ludicrious, you should become aware of how we actually elect presidents in the USA.

See this link (requires pdf capability to view): US Electoral College History

Concerning the Saddam ~ Osama connection

While they are both Moslem, Saddam was in the style of a fascist dictator, with himself and his family as the state. Osama, if I understand what I've read about him, is more of a Islamic fundamentalist who wants to reform all of the Islamic world (and convert the rest of it). They don't appear to have much in common except perhaps a hatred of America at this point. I doubt that Saddam's rule of Iraq met with Osama's approval.

But there is that old saying, " The enemy of my enemy is my friend" or something along those lines. It is what made us (USA) strange bedfellows with Osama during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. And it could conceivably allow for some connection between Saddam and Osama, but I haven't seen that proved yet.

I am curious if the AQ is made up of both Sunni and Shia factions or if it is limited to one particular branch of the Islamic movement. Anyone have info on that?

Jeepz

[Thaiquila]

Sorry, but I am in no way right wing. I was a peace-nic during the Vietnam era. I voted for Clinton; Supported him when he was having legal problems, and still respect him. However, I just don't like traitors. A little personality quirk I guess.

I was only trying to illustrate an obvious point.

Iraqis who supported an invasion and overthrow of their government are technically traitors to Iraq. Iraqis who are fighting the American occupation are technically Iraqi freedom fighters.

Who is correct? The "traitors" or the "freedom fighters"? Well, that is another question.

[Membrane]

I was only trying to illustrate an obvious point.

Iraqis who supported an invasion and overthrow of their government are technically traitors to Iraq. Iraqis who are fighting the American occupation are technically Iraqi freedom fighters.

Who is correct? The "traitors" or the "freedom fighters"? Well, that is another question.

Sorry, I'm only trying to illustrate a point...

Nazis who supported an invasion and overthrow of their government are technically traitors to Germany. Nazis who are fighting the American occupation are technically German freedom fighters.

Who is correct? The "traitors" or the "freedom fighters"? Well, that is another question.

Uh.. well NO, not really. We got rid of a DICTATOR... one that killed some 300,000 Iraqis. Oh yeah--I forgot, using your mind-warping reasoning:

"oh I don't.. Is that bad, that he killed all those people? I don't know. I can't think straight and come to a decision because there are always two sides and it's so hard to come to a decision--plus killing is bad."

Hey--If you're Saddam or one of his followers, then the answer would be no, it's OK to kill 300,000 Iraqis who are your political opponents and those other people who are just "no good". But if you were one of those killed, or one of their family members, then the answer would probably be QUITE DIFFERENT!.

Sheesh! Some people...

[Thaiquila]

When in doubt, use a Hitler analogy. How predictable and how utterly irrelevant. You think you have scored a big point, when actually you have demonstrated what little ammunition your argument contains.

Why?

1. Saddam Hussein is not comparable to Hilter in the extent of his atrocities, and also in his lack of ambition to conquer the world. So unlike Hilter, Hussein was in no way an imminent danger to the world outside Iraq.

2. Bushs' justification for invading Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. The liberation rhetoric appeared after it become apparant that Iraq did not have WMDs and that it was going to be a big, long, expensive morass.

3. Where is it written that it is the United States role in the world to invade every country which has a bad leader? If you are American, are you willing to see your economy devastated by the continued massive budget deficits being caused by Bushs' big bully ways?

4. Not one of you Bush apologists has bothered to respond the evidence of the REAL reasons behind the Iraq invasion, as described in the PNAC documents.

You are blinded by false loyalty to your leader (Bush), but I won't compare you to the misguided German followers of Nazism, because that would be a cheap shot.

Some people indeed!

[Thaiquila]

Here is some more hard evidence that the war in Iraq was justified based on lies.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040111_1091.html

Not exagerrations. LIES.

This also is more evidence that Bush is following the agenda of PNAC.

This is already proving to be powerful fodder for those trying to unseat Bush, so maybe there is still hope to remove him.

[adjan jb]

If it's (suddenly) so important to remove mass-murderers and despots wherever they are, I would like to know what do the Bush' supporters think of Islam Karimov, the Uzbek leader.

The guy is probably worse than Saddam Hussein but nevertheless, Bush labelled him "a man of peace, dedicated to freedom and human rights".

Does it have anything to do with some pipe-line ? Or is it that Bush is unable to pinpoint Uzbekistan on a world map ?

Whatever the reasons are, this is an obvious case of a double-standard policy. And Karimov is not the only one...

On the other hand, why is Bush so eager to remove Hugo Chavez ? The man was democratically elected. Why are the U.S. fomenting troubles in his country ? Is it because Chavez is seriously thinking to price the country's oil in euros, not dollars ?

From my (european) point of view (which seems to be shared by 90% of the world), Bush is no white knight rushing to save the children and the widows. He is an armed rep for some greedy U.S. corporations.

[adjan jb]

Just a thought : why has dissent become so dangerous ?

[Georgie-Porgie]

Sorry Mr. Arnold, (Thaiquila), but as usual you are badly misinformed. You claim:

1. Saddam Hussein is not comparable to Hilter in the extent of his atrocities, and also in his lack of ambition to conquer the world. So unlike Hilter, Hussein was in no way an imminent danger to the world outside Iraq.

Tell all the Iraqis that Saddam brutally tortured and killed that he "was not comparable to Hitler in the extent of his atrocities". I bet that they disagree with you.

Tell Kuwait that "Hussein was in no way an imminent danger to the world outside Iraq". Tell Iran. Tell Israel.

As far as an ambition to rule the world goes, many people think that Kuwait was merely a first step towards ruling the MidEast , and the world's oil supply. Do you really think that he wanted to stop there?

You claim:

2. Bushs' justification for invading Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. The liberation rhetoric appeared after it become apparant that Iraq did not have WMDs and that it was going to be a big, long, expensive morass.

That is just asinine. The US government had been broadcasting their concern for the Iraqi people since the first Gulf War. Why would they abandon one more excellent reason to go into Iraq?

You say:

3. Where is it written that it is the United States role in the world to invade every country which has a bad leader? If you are American, are you willing to see your economy devastated by the continued massive budget deficits being caused by Bushs' big bully ways?

It isn't written anywhere, and no one has ever claimed that we have such a policy. Wake up from your dream world!

You say:

4. Not one of you Bush apologists has bothered to respond the evidence of the REAL reasons behind the Iraq invasion, as described in the PNAC documents.

The link that you provided, requires one to down-load software from that web-site, in order to see the documents. I am not going to down-load software from some wacky left-wing site into my computer. Tell me where to look at it without down-loading anything, and I will be glad to look at it, , but, I don't expect much!

[Thaiquila]

Reply.

1. Extent simply means extent. As in scope, numbers, impact, etc. It is ridiculous to compare the damage Hilter did to the world to Hussein.

2. There was a time when Hussein was stronger. But if the west had any "intelligence" they would have seen he had become a paper tiger.

3. The concern the US had for the Iraqi people took the form of years of economic sanctions, which have reportedly been responsible for the deaths of many thousand of Iraqis, many of them children. With concern like that, give me indifference.

4. I supplied a number of links (two were online newspaper articles, easily accessed). The one I supplied that does require a download is the entire PNAC document. It is in PDF format. The download is ADOBE ACROBAT READER. You need the reader (which is a free download) if you don't already have it installed to read any PDF file. PDF is the most popular online book format in the world. The website is related to KGO talk radio in San Francisco. KGO is the most popular AM radio station in the entire United States. Is that enough info for you?

Georgie Porg, you resort too much to personal attacks.

One more note: thanks to the European leaders and the majority of the European people who saw through Bushs' lies from the start.

[adjan jb]

Neo-con:

In french "con" means "moron".

So "neo-con" means "the new moron".

French is a beautiful language !!

[Membrane]

When in doubt, use a Hitler analogy. How predictable and how utterly irrelevant. You think you have scored a big point, when actually you have demonstrated what little ammunition your argument contains.

Why?

1. Saddam Hussein is not comparable to Hilter in the extent of his atrocities, and also in his lack of ambition to conquer the world. So unlike Hilter, Hussein was in no way an imminent danger to the world outside Iraq.

1) First of all, I was not comparing Hussein to Hitler. I was only using the Hitler example, because--I hope--we can all agree Hitler was a bad guy. It's an easy place to start. Sure, there are still some idiots out there in the world that even claim that NO Jews were killed in WWII, it's all a lie. But I think anybody with half a brain knows the truth. So I was simply starting there, to point out how ridiculous and incomplete your line of reasoning is (or lack of reason).

The point, in case you missed it Thaiquila, was that Hussein is basically a mass murderer. Like I said before, he WAS HIS OWN WMD. Anything or anybody that kills some 300,000 of his own people certainly qualifies for that, don't you agree?

2. Bushs' justification for invading Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. The liberation rhetoric appeared after it become apparant that Iraq did not have WMDs and that it was going to be a big, long, expensive morass.

2) Look, if I have to spell it out, I will. The reason the U.S. went into Iraq was to remove a tyrant from office who threatened the stability of the middle east and ulitimately other parts of the world as well. He would not cooperate with the inspectors when they tried to verify whether or not he had WMDs. Also, he was an arrogant major pain in the ass to the entire world, who misused his countries resources for his own greedy profit, building hundreds of palaces while his own people lived in poverty. And yes, those misused resources include the countries oil. Not that we are there FOR the oil, but when you add up all the above, it makes a pretty compelling case for intervention. Intervention on behalf of the interests of the U.S. and intervention on behalf of the Iraqis. Did GWB perhaps stress the "liberation" angle a little too much? Perhaps. Did the U.S. make a little too much out of the possibility of WMDs. Maybe--but then again, maybe not. Just because we haven't found any absolutely rock-solid proof they existed doesn't mean they weren't there. Come on--they could have been disassembled, exported out of the country, hidden in Syria, manufactured in dual-purposes facilities, etc.--all of which would have made it look very bad for the U.S.

But remember, Saddam himself disappeared after the U.S. invaded. For a while, we couldn't find him. Did that mean that he never existed? No. He was found, not in a high-tech underground bunker, but in a small cramped NO-tech spiderhole. So with that kind of cunning and stealth, don't you think they would take just as much cunning with hiding or disassembling the WMDs? ESPECIALLY if they could score another point for "their side" by making it look like they were innocent all along? They absolutely did have them, at least as of when they gassed the Kurds with mustard gas. And IF they truly did destroy them all, then why all the delays and refusals, when it came time for the inspectors to do their job? The only answer the Saddams' people have given, is that the inspectors wanted to go into private presidential palaces. That's total crap. For someone who willingly used his own innocent civilians as human shields around military targets, it was Saddam's DUTY, if he was innocent, to allow free and unrestricted access for the inspectors. For someone who willingly hid guns and ammunition in places of worship, it was Saddam's DUTY, if he was innocent, to allow free and unrestricted access for the inspectors.

3. Where is it written that it is the United States role in the world to invade every country which has a bad leader? If you are American, are you willing to see your economy devastated by the continued massive budget deficits being caused by Bushs' big bully ways?

3) You are right on this. It is NOT written that it is the United States role in the world to invade every country which has a bad leader. Whoever said it was? It was in our best interest to get rid of Saddam. It was also in the best of the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam. It was in the best interest of the middle east, to get rid of Saddam. Are there others? Sure. Are we going to have to do it alone? Probably. And yeah, you're right, it will be a huge drain on our economy. So why isn't anyone helping? Because you all know good ol' Uncle Sam will always break down and do it, because we're the only ones who has the principles, the money and the strength to do it.

4. Not one of you Bush apologists has bothered to respond the evidence of the REAL reasons behind the Iraq invasion, as described in the PNAC documents.

4) Are you for real? I downloaded the PDF file you mentioned earlier in this thread and it's a 90-page document? Do you actually expect me to wade through this and then try to guess what you object to--just because you can't make your case yourself? Get real man! Make your case yourself. I don't have time to play games with you. If there's something you want to say, say it. If there's something in some PDF file that you object to, specify what it is and I'll more than likely respond to you. But if you expect me to download a 90-page file and read the entire thing and critique it for you, think again!

Like I said... Sheesh--some people!

[Georgie-Porgie]

I started posting on this site because I was sick of seeing my country ripped to shreds every day by a bunch of politically-correct ninnies without an ounce of brains between them.

I "resort" to personal attacks because they do, and because I am pissed off with these posters for their ignorance, and because I want them to know how it feels to have one's country, or one's self belittled.

I purposely try to attack their countries and politicians (if I know where they are from), so that they know that, this type of attack is a two way street, and so that they get an idea of how American's feel.

By the way, I find it particularly sickening that a fellow American could join in and help these ignoramuses.

As far as your thank you to "all-knowing" Europeans; the ones that you are talking about: Some were in bed with Hussein (France, Germany), and many are simply anti-Semitic. They want the US to abandon Israel, and will do anything to undermine our attempt to stabilize the region. They are not heroes. Many are misinformed. Some are cowards. Some are racists.

[Thaiquila]

Quite simply, the main point I have been trying to make about PNAC is that there is evidence that the PNAC document I referred to is the basis of the IDEOLOGY of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Yes, it is a long document.

The document is also available as PDF direct from the New American Century website, which is not a left wing website, rather it is a neocon website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf

(You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read, of course).

Bush apologists: whether you like it or not, the truth about PNAC is coming out and it has already become a major talking point of the Democratic party opposition.

I agree it is a slog to analyze this document, so to make it easier, check this out for a start (not my work):

... the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing Washington think tank. Its chairman is Bruce Jackson, who is also one of the directors of PNAC. Jackson, a Reagan-era Pentagon official, left government to take a top post at the arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin. He was also a leading figure in the drafting of the Republican Party’s national security platform in the 2000 election.

The Iraq committee’s secretary is Gary Schmitt, a former Reagan White House intelligence advisor who holds the post of executive director of PNAC. CLI’s president is Randy Scheunemann, likewise a leading figure in PNAC, who previously worked as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s national security advisor and served last year as a consultant on Iraq to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Other prominent Republicans who played a role in founding PNAC in 1997 were Vice President Richard Cheney and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, together with Rumsfeld and four of his top aides, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and US Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle.

The PNAC group came to power along with the Bush White House, having developed over the course of a decade detailed plans for a US invasion of Iraq that had nothing to do with the rights of the Iraqi people and everything to do with consolidating US control over the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

In September 2000, PNAC drafted a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” Many of the conceptions advanced in this document were reproduced, in some cases nearly word for word, in the “National Security Strategy of the United States,” issued last September by the Bush administration.

Both documents assert the right of the US to attack any country it chooses and carry out “preemptive” strikes to prevent the emergence of rivals to its military, economic and political dominance worldwide or in any given region.

The PNAC document states in part: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

What is the substance of this “need”? The authors of the document—some of whom now direct the Pentagon and play influential roles within the Bush administration, while others masquerade as the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq”—declared that the conquest of Iraq was aimed at producing “a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity,” and “an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals.”

In short, the document advocates the use of US military superiority to seize by force whatever US corporations and banks desire, including Iraqi oil.

In one of the more chilling sections of the document, PNAC urges Washington to ignore the international ban on biological weapons and move ahead to develop “new methods of attack.” It looks forward to a new era in which “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

In other words, a scientifically perfected form of race war could become an instrument of imperialist conquest. Were such a weapon available today, it could presumably be used to “liberate” Iraq by murdering its entire Arab population while leaving US troops and the country’s oilfields unscathed.

PNAC’s offspring, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, performs a secondary function of backing one faction in the conflict within the Bush administration over the role to be played by the so-called Iraqi opposition. This fractious coalition of royalists, political opportunists, crooked businessmen and ex-military commanders hopes to reenter Baghdad in the wagon train of a US invasion.

[adjan jb]

Georgie,

People who disagree with you are "politically-correct ninnies without an ounce of brain", "ignorant", "ignoramuses" and so on...

Why does any disagreement with you always leads to insults ?

And by the way, why do you always deny the fact that your opponents could be as well informed as you ?

[Thaiquila]

By the way, I find it particularly sickening that a fellow American could join in and help these ignoramuses.

Georgie, the root of the massive increase in anti-Americanism in the world is because of Bushs blatantly arrogant and aggressive policies. I am one of the millions of Americans who is very mad that their country has been taken over by the radical right wing. The election of 2000 resembled more of a coup than a fair election, and yet the Bush administration has the gall to tell other countries how to have a democracy.

When I encounter anti-Americanism, I am also angered, angry at the radical right wing that now controls the US, that has angered the world.

You should be clear that a person can be passionately pro-American and anti-Bush at the same time.

[adjan jb]

SUPPORT THE AMERICAN TROUPS,

BRING THEM BACK HOME.

[adjan jb]

Oops. Sorry for the misspelling (troups).

SUPPORT THE AMERICANS TROOPS/TROUPES,

BRING THEM BACK HOME.

(which is better than Bush's "Bring them on", isn'it ?)