So which country is next.

[R K Singh]

I think now "no" country(let us say Lebanon,Syria, N Korea etc ) will be attacked in the name of "War on Terror".
Because they dont have anything to offer :-|
and second they dont listen UN.
[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Thomas Paul]

I don't think we will invade N. Korea because of the effect that would have on S. Korea. I think Syria is more likely then Lebanon because Syria runs Lebanon anyway. I don't think anything will happen though until the situation in Iraq is cleared up.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm... lets see.. now who has the most oil?

[HS Thomas]

North Korea *HAS* WMDs - the nuclear bomb - in an efort to get aid from it's neighbours and America.
If the economy is squeezed hard enough, any country with a population between 20 to 25 million will have experts who will be able to develop a bomb.
regards

[Frank Silbermann]

I think many Americans are angry at the broken promises about the Iraq war. We were constantly told that Bush wanted to invade to steal their oil and give it to his friends in the oil industry. Those of us with stock in those countries in our 401Ks are still waiting for the payoff, and those of us who drive are still waiting for free oil to work its way to the gas pump. Instead, Bush want to tax _us_ to benefit _Iraqis_.
I'm never going to rely on the promises of Leftists again.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I think many Americans are angry at the broken promises about the Iraq war. We were constantly told that Bush wanted to invade to steal their oil and give it to his friends in the oil industry. Those of us with stock in those countries in our 401Ks are still waiting for the payoff, and those of us who drive are still waiting for free oil to work its way to the gas pump. Instead, Bush want to tax _us_ to benefit _Iraqis_.
I'm never going to rely on the promises of Leftists again.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by <Ash Mehta>:
Hmmm... lets see.. now who has the most oil?
After the ME? Russia's next, then America will invade itself

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I think many Americans are angry at the broken promises about the Iraq war. We were constantly told that Bush wanted to invade to steal their oil and give it to his friends in the oil industry. Those of us with stock in those countries in our 401Ks are still waiting for the payoff, and those of us who drive are still waiting for free oil to work its way to the gas pump. Instead, Bush want to tax _us_ to benefit _Iraqis_.
I'm never going to rely on the promises of Leftists again.

The message gave me a chuckle. Gas was $2 per gallon in chicago yesterday -- a bit higher than before the war.... All in all, I spent ~$30 ouch..(bad habbit of waiting until the e light comes on.) I am also anxiously waiting for the free iraqi oil.... If he doesn't deliver, I'm not going to vote for him. As a greedy American imperialist supporting the current administration whose only sole purpose is to subjugate other nations, there is only one question I would like to be answers: where is my portion of the promised booty???
-Eleison

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:
. . .where is my portion of the promised booty???
Patience my young greedy American imperialist

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by <Ash Mehta>:
[qb]Hmmm... lets see.. now who has the most oil?
After the ME? Russia's next, then America will invade itself [/QB]

Venezuela will end up on the list as well.

[Al Newman]

Don't forget Brunei, which has the biggest payoff for the least effort....

[Gustavo Torreti]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Venezuela will end up on the list as well.

Venezuela is a good choice if no one says otherwise.
It's got TONS of oil, a very disturbed ruler on a very disturbed government. And Bush can always say that he's got a report that says drug dealers are closely related to some Terrorist in ME.
The only problem is that walking in there is certain trouble. Guerilla tactics hurt more than human-bombs.

And, to tell you the truth, I just hope americans realize the kind of trouble they are getting into before the trouble starts. Too many (american) people had died by the hand of US tyrany in the name of freedom.
I wouldn't like to see that. Again. And again, and again...

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Gustavo Torreti:

And, to tell you the truth, I just hope americans realize the kind of trouble they are getting into before the trouble starts. Too many (american) people had died by the hand of US tyrany in the name of freedom.

Venezuela has something resembling a democratic system. The problem is a conflict between Chavez and a large portion of the middle class.
This will work out in one of two ways. Either Chavez will be voted out or go at the end of his term, and the problem will be solved. Or he turns into something like Fidel Castro/Ferdinand Marcos. El Presidente for Life.
If the latter happens the solution will have to be violent, though not necessarily involving the US......

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Gustavo Torreti:
And, to tell you the truth, I just hope americans realize the kind of trouble they are getting into before the trouble starts. Too many (american) people had died by the hand of US tyrany in the name of freedom.

US tyranny? You might want to take a very close look at the history in your part of the world first to get an idea of what tyranny really is.
But since you made the ridiculous statement to begin with, I'd like to see you back it up. Who exactly are we tyrants over? Certainly not Iraq. If we would act tyrannical there we wouldn't have any problems. Is it possible you are confused as to what the definitions of a tyrant and tyranny actually are?

[Donald R. Cossitt]

US tyranny? You might want to take a very close look at the history in your part of the world first to get an idea of what tyranny really is.
But since you made the ridiculous statement to begin with, I'd like to see you back it up. Who exactly are we tyrants over? Certainly not Iraq. If we would act tyrannical there we wouldn't have any problems. Is it possible you are confused as to what the definitions of a tyrant and tyranny actually are?

And don't forget the rediculous statement about "Imperialism". If we were the map of the US would cover the entire world!

[Gustavo Torreti]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Either Chavez will be voted out or go at the end of his term, and the problem will be solved. Or he turns into something like Fidel Castro/Ferdinand Marcos. El Presidente for Life.
If the latter happens the solution will have to be violent, though not necessarily involving the US......

I dont think the latter is a possibility, unless he gets military support within Venezuela... nor I think US will actually drop into this situation. No use on the long run for anyone. I'll stay with the idea that his ruling will end politically enough.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Gustavo Torreti:

I dont think the latter is a possibility, unless he gets military support within Venezuela... nor I think US will actually drop into this situation. No use on the long run for anyone. I'll stay with the idea that his ruling will end politically enough.

I don't agree. I think Chavez is showing every sign of wishing to be another Fidel Castro. His problem is that (unlike Castro) he cannot simply shoot or jail all of his opponents.
The US won't get into it in any physical way....

[Tony Collins]

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:

And don't forget the rediculous statement about "Imperialism". If we were the map of the US would cover the entire world!

Who needs coloured maps when then you have big 'M's, Starbucks and various other symbols of a bland culture covering the world.
Tony

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:

Who needs coloured maps when then you have big 'M's, Starbucks and various other symbols of a bland culture covering the world.
Tony

Are you arguing that Starbucks is a world hegenomy? A tool of the Bush administration utterly set on controlling world drinking habits and driving the pub estate chains out of business? On behalf of Halliburton or Enron? The Ashcroftization of Jollie Olde Britain?.....
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Who needs coloured maps when then you have big 'M's, Starbucks and various other symbols of a bland culture covering the world.

The really amusing thing is that you and the rest of the world just can't get enough of our "bland" culture.

[Paul Stevens]

Or recognize sarcasm.

[Al Newman]

Bland - And incredibly dangerous and frightening. It's an interesting combination.
Consider: Nobody ever called Napoleon boring. Especially when he was invading their country.....

[HS Thomas]

We have become Homo Aestheticus, responding to our environment through the senses.
Function is not enough but cultural notions of what gives pleasure ; and this doesn't necesarily have to be in good taste or art.
As Ford was to mass production, MacDonalds is to convenience and Starbucks is now to style. You can find Starbucks in nooks in bookshops too. Anyone expecting to buy a book without coffee or coffee without a book (it used to be newspapers) is living on a lower plane of existence.
So by inference ,any country that does not have Starbucks gets targeted.

regards

[Al Newman]

Well, not Somalia HS. Bad karma there....

[HS Thomas]

OoH! I wasn't expecting that after my attempt at humour.
Somalia is a bad case. And they didn't have oil , WMDs or Starbucks. Lots of coffee beans in Ethiopia and I imagine coffee bars. I'm not sure what the starvation situation is.
regards
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[HS Thomas]

In addition to this : UN says Somalia training ground for Al'Qaeda A Startbucks invasion in order ?
regards

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

Are you arguing that Starbucks is a world hegenomy? A tool of the Bush administration utterly set on controlling world drinking habits and driving the pub estate chains out of business?.... ... ....
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

Reminds me of a scene with Dr. Evil and his henchmens... :-)
One Billliionn Dollars!!! pinky to lip

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If we would act tyrannical there we wouldn't have any problems.
You almost sound disappointed! Do you think would be the case? I would think a shift in that direction would open a whole new can of worms.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[qb]If we would act tyrannical there we wouldn't have any problems.
You almost sound disappointed! Do you think would be the case? I would think a shift in that direction would open a whole new can of worms.[/QB]

Hmm... I'm not sure how I sound disappointed. I don't think I've stated anything in any of my past posts that indicate I would support a tyranny. Quite the opposite actually. But as for my statement, yes, I believe an iron-fisted approach would in the short term present less problems, as that is more or less what they were used to pre-liberation. I do not however believe that is the course we should take nor would I advocate such a direction. There would also be no historical precedent for us to act in such a manner.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Hmm... I'm not sure how I sound disappointed. I don't think I've stated anything in any of my past posts that indicate I would support a tyranny. Quite the opposite actually. But as for my statement, yes, I believe an iron-fisted approach would in the short term present less problems, as that is more or less what they were used to pre-liberation. I do not however believe that is the course we should take nor would I advocate such a direction.
Well, I assumed you meant short-term. But an interesting proposition, to get tougher. Thing is the innocents would bear the brunt and world opinion (I know, you don't care ) would plummet even further. Don't know if that would stimulate or hinder chances for more international co-operation.

[Gustavo Torreti]

Quite unfortunate I couldn't reply to that sooner.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
US tyranny? You might want to take a very close look at the history in your part of the world first to get an idea of what tyranny really is.

I don't actually believe you know where I write from, but pointing out my country inner mistakes doesn't make what I once called US tiranny any lighter. Perhaps after living and studying some history, the tyranic pattern could be easily seen (I'll go back to that later).
What would you call a tiranic behaviour, J?

Who exactly are we tyrants over? Certainly not Iraq.

Certainly not?
Let's check history again...
US stated that Iraq had chemical weapons. It didin't.
US asked for UN approval to attack. UN said 'NO'. US said 'what the hell, I'll attack anyway'. And so they did (and guess what? No chemical weapons)

I could list Bush's mistake untill some other of his family goes to the whitehouse. But I won't take your time on that (as much as I'll do that later). We were talking about Tyranic acts.

I don't question US objectives on attackin Iraq. Not now. It was stated as a "pre-defensive attack" (can't remember the right words). Basically, it was said that US decided that they would attack Iraq 'cause Iraq might become a threat later in time.
That might not sound tyranic enough (you may think as a quite reasonable thinking perhaps), so we shall move on.

During his last Speech, Bush had said that he was committed to taking democratic freedom to all the other countries of the world. Although nice at a first glance, this proof of stupidity shows not only a tyranic behaviour (as he/US decided what was good or bad for the rest of the world), but also his lack of perception about balance no macro and micro enviroments.
I considered that move tyranic (only this one, so we can use an example) because
1. US is trying to impose its will over other countries, and it's not necessarily what those countries want.
2. US follows that path based on a theat of violence/war. You do as I say or I'll tell your country's got some terrorists in there and we'll bomb you all.

That also looks like the old despots (oh, man, vocabulary problems here). Those rulers that do nasty things on the name of the country, freedom and world peace. Napoleon and Hitler included among those guys (they were loved in their countries, weren't they?), though I was thinking about the XVII century to be more specific in time.

If we would act tyrannical there we wouldn't have any problems.

That is one of Bush's greatest mistakes. The part of the macro balance I had said earlier.
Two situations should to be seen before you force some sort of major change within a society.
First of all, you gotta check the shoes you are wearing. Yes, quite absurd at first, but shall we understand this concept a little bit: By wearing one's shoes I mean putting yourself in the same situation as the person you're looking at. You gotta look at the situation just as the one you're trying to help - if you really want to help. More than the same situation, you must also consider the same cultural and religious concepts that are important to their society. McDonald's decision on using sheep (goat?) meat instead of the normal one in India is a good example of good perception. Eating a snake or a dog can be repulsive in your culture, but it ain't in China (as far as I know). And they say it taste good!

I heard Bush's desire to impose democratic freedom from his own lips. If that is a forced decision, would that be truly free? Perhaps a little bit tyranic? I'd like to see his journey begin in UK, then China, for a start

The second situation that should be a concern is planning peace.
That has nothing to do with tyranny directly, but more about balance. Saddam had his twisted balance in Iraq, then the US came.
A few weeks later, the power had been taken from him, and there were no one ready to take his place. Quite the contrary, the unbalanced situation called all the others who once opposed the ruler together, and now they fight each other and whoever on their way. 100 days after the war was considered over, more and more americans are killed, also being called responsible for the bad situation the population is now.
If half (just HALF) of the money spent during the first day of attack could buy enough food for most of them in there. But that's even another story.
I hope Iraq people get a condition - and get it on their own. I truly believe they'll be... some day. The wrong path doesn't look good even if you have a good goal. And that's all as I can spare on balance for now.

Is it possible you are confused as to what the definitions of a tyrant and tyranny actually are?

Perhaps I am, and that's also a good reason to be here. This way I can hear you all.
Regards,
Gustavo
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Gustavo Torreti ]
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Gustavo Torreti ]
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Gustavo Torreti ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Gustavo Torreti:
Quite unfortunate I couldn't reply to that sooner.
First of all, you gotta check the shoes you are wearing. Yes, quite absurd at first, but shall we understand this concept a little bit: By wearing one's shoes I mean putting yourself in the same situation as the person you're looking at. You gotta look at the situation just as the one you're trying to help - if you really want to help. More than the same situation, you must also consider the same cultural e religious concepts that are important to their society.

agree 100% with this paragraph.
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[HS Thomas]

I know this wasn't what was meant , but....

Warring George Bush and Saddam Hussein have cobbled together one thing to agree on � they both wear the same hand-made Italian shoes.
Bush � hoping to give the Iraqi tyrant a good kicking in the next few weeks � was the first to start buying �600-a-time Vito Artioli footwear.
Now deadly enemy Saddam has become the President�s sole mate ... and ordered 15 pairs of the shoes, too.
And incredibly, three of the designs are EXACTLY the same as the US President�s.
Bush, who wears a size 10, and the Iraqi leader � a 9� � have both bought a plain leather shoe, a brogue and a crocodile, all in black.

True according to the Sun.
Not only should they be wearing the same shoes, but be facing the same direction
regards

[Jason Menard]

I don't actually believe you know where I write from
Sure I do. You forget we moderators are all-seeing omnipotent beings.
What would you call a tiranic behaviour
Some definitions for tyranny:
- A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
- Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly.
- Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
We do not exercise absolute control over Iraq, never mind unjustly or cruelly. We removed one the worst tyrants in history. While many in the world would have rather seen him remain in power (these same people wh owould have left Hitler alone as long as he didn't bother them), we didn't go this route. But I digress... We removed the dictator and are now helping in the formation of a new Iraqi government, in the same fashion as we did after WW2.
Even now, where we are administering the country, we have not vested ourselves with absolute power as much of the day to day tasks are already being handled by Iraqis themselves. Once we get them on their feet, as we did in Germany and Japan, we will leave.
However you have yet to point to anything in particular the US has done as being indicative of a tyranny. I suspect you just see it as self-evident, but I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more explicit for those of us who are less-enlightened.
US stated that Iraq had chemical weapons. It didin't.
Really? It is a fact that they did have chemical weapons. They've used them against Iran and their own population, so the fact of Iraq's chemical weapons possession is indisputable. Further, the UN weapons inpsectors had verified the existance of Iraqi WMDs as late as 1998. Those weapons were found to have mysteriously disappeared with no explanation upon re-inspection at a later date. There was no intelligence service of any major nation on the planet who had any doubts as to whether or not Iraq possessed WMDs prior to our military action. The latest UN weapons inspectors even determined that the Hussein regime was deceiving them about their WMD programs.
Nobody is in any position to claim that the Iraqis do not have chemical weapons. At best all they can claim is that in a state the size of California we have been unable to find any as of yet. Where could they be? It's also well known that the Iraqis bury things they don't want to get caught with or don't want to lose, as evidenced by them burying an entire squadron of French-made Mirage fighters for example (which we didn't find for some time even though they were right under our noses), so they could literally be anywhere. Anybody who is willing to make the bold claim that these things do not exist can only be doing so out of wishful thinking.
US asked for UN approval to attack. UN said 'NO'.
The US never asked for UN approval, and therefore the UN never had the opportunity to say anything one way or the other. We let it be known that we would try to get the UN to go along with what we were going to do anyway, but France let it be known that they would protect Hussein at all costs and would veto any resolutions seeking to hold him accountable for the UN resolutions he was in violation of. There is a common misconception amongst many countries in the world that we were seeking "permission" for anything. We do not need UN "permission" to carry out national policy. The UN is not a leash the US willingly wears and as of late seems to only exist for countries with little real power or influence to try to direct US policies. That said, because the falsely idealistic populations of some of our friends country's feel the need to lick the UN's boot, we have shown a willingness to use the UN process when it has not gone against our interests.
I could list Bush's mistake untill some other of his family goes to the whitehouse.
I always find it amusing when people outside point to the fact that two Bushes have presided over the Whitehouse, as if it's some kind of conspiracy or something. That may be true in other countries, but not here. Bush is there because he was constitutionally elected by the citizens of the United States. He is there to represent our interests. He is not there to make people in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America happy by supporting their interests over ours.
It was stated as a "pre-defensive attack"
pre-emptive
I considered that move tyranic (only this one, so we can use an example) because
1. US is trying to impose its will over other countries, and it's not necessarily what those countries want.
2. US follows that path based on a theat of violence/war. You do as I say or I'll tell your country's got some terrorists in there and we'll bomb you all.
Who are we trying to impose our will over? Aside from Afghanistan and Iraq? They got themselves into their situations. And yes, if a country is a threat to us because of their support of terrorism, then they should be dealt with one way or the other: politically if possible, through violence if need be.
We deposed one of the most abhorrent regimes on the planet when they harbored those who perpetrated an unprovoked blatant act of war against us. We also deposed the regime of one of history's most murderous dictators for a host of reasons, including violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire (see UN resolutions), possession of WMD programs when he has shown the willingness to use such weapons against his enemies, and supporting terrorism among other reason.
And the problem with this is what? That the murderous regimes aren't still around? Or that we possess the will and the means to undertake these actions where most other countries on the planet lack both the will and the means. Most of you all are just sheep waiting for the slaughter, blissfully ignoring any threat to your own way of life until it comes crashing down on you in your back yard. As long as they feel they're not directly affected, the rest of the world can play their morallistic games, living in their fantasy lands of blind idealism, living off their rampant anti-Americanism, without actually having to take a stand and do anything meaningful. As always, we'll do most of the heavy lifting.
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

First of all, you gotta check the shoes you are wearing. Yes, quite absurd at first, but shall we understand this concept a little bit: By wearing one's shoes I mean putting yourself in the same situation as the person you're looking at. You gotta look at the situation just as the one you're trying to help - if you really want to help. More than the same situation, you must also consider the same cultural e religious concepts that are important to their society.

Platitudes and idealism are nice and all, but sometimes they just don't mesh well with how life is in the real world. Hussein, Bin Laden, and their supporters don't particularly care whether or not we can empathize with their point of view.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Platitudes and idealism are nice and all, but sometimes they just don't mesh well with how life is in the real world. Hussein, Bin Laden, and their supporters don't particularly care whether orenot we can empathize with their point of view.

100% disagree with this paragraph.
Jason,
does the result of the victory against the brutal dictator (we agree on that one) have so far fullfilled your expectations?
Is it idealism and plattitudes to ask about why so much dead bodies on both sides?
Is it plain (anti-)american evil, or is it in part because the american government have put their soldiers in kind of an uncontrolable situation.
If your government wants to win a war for the minds and the hearts of the Iraquis, my question is: have they analized those minds and hearts enough before that war (like Eisenhower quote: plans are useless, but planing is indispensable). Or do they see them as little children open for indoctrination (bad) or political education (good).
Here is historical anecdote of mutual mis-understanding of 2 groups from the "history of the part of the world, so instructive to get an idea what tyranny really is" (as you might say):
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/spanish/os_sertoes/rebellion.html
Don't claim that Iraq/Canudos is the same story (Saddam was a cynic, brutal opressor, Conselheiro a crazy leader of desperate people).f
But it has something in common: American don't understand Iraqies.
And if I were an american GI over there, I wouldn't think much about Iraqies either, I would count the days until comming back home. But you know better.
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

JM: Platitudes and idealism are nice and all, but sometimes they just don't mesh well with how life is in the real world. Hussein, Bin Laden, and their supporters don't particularly care whether orenot we can empathize with their point of view.
I agree with Axel's disagreement with this paragraph For me, there was a lot of idealism in the whole "Iraqi freedom" operation (if to assume its proponents really believed it was about freedom for Iraqis).
This is quite funny, atually:

Our foreign policy debate right now pits radicals against conservatives. Republicans are the radicals. Democrats are the conservatives.
Countering the radical GOP
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, November 11, 2003

I need to go now, just a few quick quotes:

More than half of Baghdad's residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll.
With the Bush administration holding consultations on the future of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, recent analyses of the poll data, which were gathered three months ago, highlight the roots within that city's populace of many of the concerns the U.S.-led coalition now faces there.
Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.
Skepticism About U.S. Deep, Iraq Poll Shows
Motive for Invasion Is Focus of Doubts
Walter Pincus, November 12, 2003;

Personal agendas, ethnic rivalries and differences over visions for a new Iraq are responsible for American dissatisfaction with Washington's own creation -- the Iraqi Governing Council.
Frustration over the U.S.-appointed council has emerged at a time of escalating attacks by Iraqi insurgents, most recently a mortar barrage late Tuesday against the coalition headquarters compound.
In response to the growing insurgency, the U.S. military has adopted a new tactic of answering guerrilla attacks with massive firepower -- which risks civilian casualties and alienating Iraqis.
Heavy-handed moves against the 25-seat Governing Council also could be seen by the already distrustful Iraqi public as a sign that the Americans aren't serious about granting Iraqis a meaningful role in their own affairs.
Personal agendas, conflicting interests raise friction between U.S., Iraqi Governing Council
By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press, November 12, 2003

[Joe Pluta]

He does not believe that the misgivings shown by recent polls in the United States exist. As for the Iraqis, his experience while travelling round the country is that "there is enormous gratitude for what we have done".
Polls show Iraqis overwhelmingly support the coalition. But they still fear Saddam's Baathist loyalists, who threaten and murder those who cooperate with the coalition.
A common saying is, "Allah is in his heaven, and George W. Bush is there beside him."
Women Who Know of Saddam�s Brutality Say This War Is Just
I want to thank America for not only freeing my family, but 24 million Iraqis who were taken hostage by this regime.
Joe

[Anonymous]

Quote:
"So which country is next?"
Well... if you put it that way, could it be England?
So Im Scottish, but thats circumstancial.

[HS Thomas]

English/ Scots at home and a Brit abroad.
"Perhaps they have decided that we are justified in reminding them about the second world war at every conceivable opportunity and actually enjoy watching our red-raw, beer-bloated yobbos assault the local babes with somewhat abrupt proposals of immediate, utilitarian romance. Or maybe they now agree that it was right to bomb the hell out of Baghdad. Or that the British empire was actually a rather enlightened institution, all things considered. These things used to make us very unpopular indeed, on the continent. But not now."
regards
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]