this is....

fucking disgusting

(its about bush... not some mutilated body)

Quote:

as spoken by the dork in office:
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship
between Iraq and al-Qaida {...}

This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were
orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida {...}

He (Saddam) was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the
United States of America, just like al-Qaida," Bush said.

"He was a threat because he had terrorist connections ?
not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations...



Quote:

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

POP QUIZ --

so tell me... why in the fuck did we invade
iraq? remember, WMDs were bogus and were
only declared AFTER the reason we invaded
iraq.

how many of you/us are going to freely admit
we killed off our nations blood because of
some fucking vendetta-ridden moron in office?

shall i bump up the 9/11 thread in which
i stated that this fucking wanker needed to
be stopped?

THANK FUCKING GOD there is a 9/11 committee
at least bringing this shit to the surface.

but the question is.... how many more will
die for this fucking morons ideologies??

who stands with him???

**steps up to the plate** I ain't scared! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If killin' a few hundred or more people with a chemical bomb isn't WMD... What would you call it?

I know it's not goin' good over there but there's and end to it as with all wars. We aren't technically "at war", but the French, Germany, or Russians weren't gonna do it and we all know why - they were supplying some of the weapons and money was involved as well.

At least the Butcher of Baghdad/Kuwait/Iran/the world isn't in power to inflict his tyranny throughout the whole world. Need I say more?

Maybe I shouldn't have asked that question LOL! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

By Tastingood (obviously)

November 30, 1998

U.S. Gov't Has Trigger Cocked To Bomb Iraq

BY MAURICE WILLIAMS
The U.S. government has the trigger cocked to launch a bombing assault on the Iraqi people despite the 11th-hour agreement by Baghdad to allow United Nations "weapons inspectors" access to its territory. "Allies see bombing of Iraq as inevitable," blared the front-page headline of the November 17 New York Times, three days after Washington called off an imminent onslaught.

The Iraqi government had announced October 31 that it would end all cooperation with UN inspectors until economic sanctions are lifted. U.S. defense secretary William Cohen declared Baghdad would face massive bombing raids if it did not reverse its decision.

As Washington geared up for the first stage of its military assault, the Iraqi government sent a letter November 14 to UN secretary-general Kofi Annan stating, "Iraq decided to resume working with the [UN] Special Commission ... to allow them to perform their normal duties.... We affirm that the people of Iraq would not relinquish their legitimate right in having the iniquitous embargo lifted and to live normally like other nations of the world."

The White House initially said the Iraqi offer was unacceptable. But the next day, after a number of Washington's imperialist allies who had indicated they would go along with the planned military strikes argued for accepting the Iraqi letter, U.S. president William Clinton stated: "Iraq has backed down, but that is not enough. Now Iraq must live up to its obligations."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Henry Shelton asserted that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "saw how fast our response came. The next time it could come quicker."

"This time there was really only two weeks between the 30th of October and the decision to use force," British prime minister Anthony Blair chimed in. London was the only other imperialist power with forces ready to join Washington in the bombings. "Next time there won't be any negotiation at all - there will be just action," Blair said. If Baghdad does not go along with the demands of the UN inspectors one more time there would be "no warnings, no wrangling, no negotiations, no last-minute letters.... The next withdrawal of cooperation and he will be hit."

Blair said British bombers were ready to launch immediate raids without warning on Iraq. London has 12 Tornado ground attack aircraft in Kuwait, which would carry out 20 percent of the U.S.-planned bombing missions against Iraq.

According to U.S. officials, the first stage of the imperialist onslaught was called off November 14 at 8:45 a.m., just 15 minutes before Washington's war machine prepared to rain 300 cruise missiles on Iraq. The missile assault would be followed by bombing raids. Seven B-52s each loaded with 20 cruise missiles, four B-1 bombers, and dozens of F-14 and F-18 fighter jets would be used. The first wave of the assault would last several days. The Pentagon estimated that up to 10,000 people could be killed in Iraq.

After Baghdad's offer to allow the return of UN inspectors, the Pentagon said November 15 that it would suspend deployment of additional forces to the region. But the 23,000 U.S. soldiers, nearly 200 aircraft, and 23 Navy ships already in the Arab-Persian Gulf would remain. A second aircraft carrier, the Enterprise, that is sailing toward the Gulf will get there before the end of November.

What led up to November 14
Until November 14, there had been no vocal opposition from many of the regimes in the Arab countries to the U.S. plans for military strikes. The government of Egypt, for example, had opposed military action but had been urging Baghdad to make concessions rather than actively seeking to end the crisis. But after the Iraqi letter accepting UN inspectors, the Saudi Arabian government announced November 15 that it would not allow strikes against Iraq to be launched from bases on its territory. Washington currently has 6,000 U.S. military personnel and 120 warplanes stationed in Saudi Arabia.

Washington provoked the latest crisis, as previous ones, by trying to squash any steps toward easing the draconian embargo on Iraq. On August 5 the Iraqi government prohibited the UN Special Commission agents from conducting surprise "inspections," after it became clear that these spying operations would continue indefinitely. Three months later, on October 31, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein announced his government would prohibit any UN inspections or monitoring, after Washington excluded mentioning Paragraph 22 of UN resolution 687 in the UN Security Council's draft of its review of Baghdad's compliance with the UN "inspection" program. That section explicitly states that once Iraq is declared free of "weapons of mass destruction" the oil embargo will be lifted.

"We saw that the U.S. is not going to let the UN ease sanctions, regardless of what we do," said Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's ambassador to United Nations.

Washington then prepared rapidly for a massive military assault. It also tried to stop attempts by UN secretary general Kofi Annan to broker a deal to forestall military action. According to the November 23 issue of Time magazine, Clinton and U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright were on the phone all week leading up to November 14 trying to stop Annan from making a visit to Baghdad or sending an appeal to the Iraqi regime to back down. "We did a remarkable job isolating Saddam and the secretary-general undermined that," said an unnamed U.S. government official, according to Time.

Earlier this year, Annan brokered a deal that while averting a U.S. military strike, legitimized the use of military might and put Washington on a hair trigger for another possible assault. Backed by a massive U.S. armada in the Arab-Persian Gulf, Annan wrested an accord from the Iraqi government February 23 that allowed the UN inspectors to have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" throughout the country. Baghdad received nothing in return except a vague acknowledgment that "lifting of sanctions is obviously of paramount importance to the people and government of Iraq."

Interimperialist conflict
Washington's latest confrontation in the Middle East highlights once again the ongoing rivalry between the U.S. rulers and their hangers-on in Britain on one hand and other imperialist allies - particularly Paris. French foreign minister Hubert V?drine reacted indignantly to remarks by U.S. Senator John McCain, who apparently accused Paris of tipping off Baghdad that U.S. war planes were heading toward an imminent military strike. "I find that this is a shameful and completely idiotic accusation," V?drine said on French radio November 16.

Paris has opposed military action against Iraq, in the hopes that once sanctions are lifted, French oil companies can regain prominent trade positions in the region.

The governments of Russia and China have also opposed military action against Iraq and were among the members of the UN security council that pushed for accepting the deal with Baghdad on November 14.

"They are arguing to take yes for an answer, and we're saying it's a fraudulent yes," an unnamed Clinton administration official was quoted in the November 23 Time saying. "We'll be prepared to act alone if we have to."

Calls to overthrow Saddam Hussein
After putting on hold the plan for bombing raids, both Clinton and Blair spoke overtly about stepping up efforts to overthrow the Iraqi regime. The U.S. rulers are divided, however, on what course of action will help achieve their aim of establishing a U.S. protectorate in Iraq. "Weary of endless confrontations with Iraq, President Clinton, Congress, and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain are now rallying around the idea of overthrowing Saddam Hussein," said the lead editorial in the November 19 New York Times. "The thought is certainly alluring.... Unfortunately, the only sure way to reach that goal is for American troops to invade Iraq and capture Baghdad, a risky prospect few Americans would support."

The Central Intelligence Agency has failed with at least six plans to topple the Iraqi president.

Washington's previous attempt to foment opposition inside Iraq ended in a fiasco, when its puppet group, the so-called Iraqi National Accord, was broken up by Iraqi intelligence in June 1996. Two months later Iraqi military forces rolled into northern Iraq and destroyed camps controlled by the CIA-backed Iraqi National Congress and the Popular Union of Kurdistan.

On October 31 Clinton signed into law the misnamed Iraqi Liberation Act that provides $97 million to such opposition groups fostered by the CIA. Two weeks later, at a November 16 press conference, Clinton vowed to implement a Congressional plan for arming Iraqi groups as a way toward removing Hussein from power. "Over the past year we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq, reconciling the two largest opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a Radio Free Iraq throughout the country," Clinton stated. "We will intensify that effort, working with Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act."

Other government officials have not been too enthusiastic about this step. "I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," said Gen. Anthony Zinni, the U.S. commander in the Gulf, who opposed the new law. "I don't think these things have been thought out."

Meanwhile, more than 80 UN snoops have returned to Baghdad for what will inevitably develop into another round of provocations. Most Iraqi citizens "perceive the UN weapons inspectors as sophisticated spies who use the most advanced technology to track" Baghdad's military facilities, reported the November 16 London's Financial Times.

"It has been eight years and the inspectors have been everywhere, even in our homes. Their airplanes can even uncover what is hidden underground," said Salim Ibrahim, who operates a tea stall in Baghdad. "Where are we hiding the weapons, between the earth and the sky?"

You know..(kinda off topic here)...the guy that was killed today..Paul Johnson..its horrifying really to see the images..to read the descriptions..while i feel horrible for his family..i still have to question..WHY did he not go..when told these things could happen..WHY are any americans staying in countries that they arent wanted..unless your military and have no choice..get your ass home i say..im sorry this happened to this man..im sorry for Nick Berg..im sorry for Danial Perl...and countless others..but when the goverment says leave..do it..im almost certain they have a damn good reason for saying it..wouldnt you agree?..its a senseless killing..he played into their hands..gave them the chance to take someone who was nothing more than a normal joe..and make a huge statement to the US...but what did it truly accomplish..nothing..a man is dead..well..if he had left when he was told..he would still be alive and the terrorists would have had to use other means to get their fuckin jollies.. [img]mad.gif[/img] *end rant*..i had to get that off my chest... [img]redface.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by TastinGood:
By Tastingood (obviously)

November 30, 1998

U.S. Gov't Has Trigger Cocked To Bomb Iraq

BY MAURICE WILLIAMS

I'd like your opinions-thoughts-writings not someone elses.. That's old news..

Blaze.. Your right on!

I think men like the adventure of it blaze.From what Ive heard he was quite assimilated to the culture and werll liked by his Saudi buddies.

Short story.

I met a guy a decade ago at college that had spent time in Saudi Arabia working on large farms.He said the government owned all the land and when it was time for the foreign farmers to negotiate a new farming lease,the government would arrest a few foreign farm workers on bogus charges to help the negotiating process along.

My friend spent time in jail whilst his employer was in meetings with the Saudis,The first time it scared the shit out of him,then the next time he said it was old hat.

True story.This was during the eighties.