Saturday, September 17, 2005

H

Has gone and managed to get himself the flu .

so this site will not be updating for at least 24 hours

Get well soon!

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 18, 2005 2:33 am  

thanks phishy :-)

am a typical male ...

cut my arm off with a axe and i would sew it back on myself

give me a cold and i become "super wuss"

:-)

By Blogger _H_, at September 18, 2005 8:10 pm  

links to this post

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Sharon calls for compromise with Palestinians

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called for reconciliation and compromise with Palestinians to "end the bloody conflict".
In a speech at the UN in New York, Mr Sharon said the two sides must "embark on the path which leads to peace".
He said Israel proved its readiness for "painful concessions" by pulling its army out of the Gaza Strip on Monday.
A Palestinian official responded that the only solution was Israel's complete pullout from the occupied territories.
"The way to peace and stability is through an end to occupation," Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat was quoted as saying in Gaza by Reuters news agency

I suspect he is trying to pool some power and influence while he still can. I hear old Benny Nitinyahoo (no clue how to spell it) is challenging him for power of the Lakood (no idea on that spelling either) party.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 16, 2005 2:45 am  

yes he does have problems , but it is a comfort to keep hearing israeli politicans that are willing to keep talking about dialogue

i commend that

By Blogger _H_, at September 16, 2005 11:02 pm  

Something happened to this guy. Either he changed or is doing a really good job of hiding his true agenda. Israelis have always been racist against Arabs. I don't want to generalize but Avi, a friend of mine in Dallas, tells me Arabs are treated like Black people were treated in the pre 1950's. Separate but equal. Something like that anyways. People who are mixed are not really accepted by either community. We all know the history of Ariel Sharon. He seems to be under pressure to do this, or he has changed. Giving up settlements he had built is strange in my book. I like this new Ariel Sharon. So far he is doing some good things. The wall is a bad idea.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 19, 2005 4:38 pm  

your right something has changed , this is certainly not the Ariel we are all used too ,

But like you , I wont complain :-)

By Blogger _H_, at September 20, 2005 4:45 am  

Ariel Sharon is the same man. Not to say he *could not* have changed recently, after all... Saddam Hussein is now spends his time weighing the merits of Cheetos vs. Doritos.

"Every time we do something, you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

- Ariel Sharon

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/ariel_sharon

He is also quoted extensively on the sickening, racist Stormfront website. It's sad that it takes one racist to expose another; but a racist Sharon is. He has an agenda, and the means pale in comparison to the end. He may cry "peace, peace" but his war has already begun. I see no indication that he intends to stop it.

-Oroboros-
http://hellistruth.blogspot.com/

By Blogger Oroboros, at September 22, 2005 6:00 am  

Thats a very interesting quote

I suppose what I am trying to say is that I will (with reservations) put myself inline with any Israeli leader who is trying (genuinly) to move towards peace and equality for the palastinains , even if the motives may not be pure , if the result is a move forward then we have to support it ,

By Blogger _H_, at September 22, 2005 5:26 pm  

links to this post

Another day of bombs for Baghdad

Iraq's capital Baghdad has been hit by a series of blasts for a second day running, killing at least 29 people.
In the first attack, at least 16 police commandos were killed when their patrol was struck in southern Doura district.
Hours later, 10 more policemen died in the same area following two more bomb attacks and ensuing gun battles between police and insurgents.

In other incidents:
The bodies of at least six men shot dead are found by police in various parts of Baghdad
A Shia cleric is killed and three other people are wounded in a bomb attack near a mosque in the northern city of Mosul
A policeman is killed in an attack by unidentified gunmen in the town of Baquba, north of Baghdad
Three Shia pilgrims are killed in a drive-by shooting on their way to the holy city of Karbala
Two police officers are killed and two wounded in the northern city of Kirkuk
Three civilians are killed in an attack on a ministry of industry bus in east Baghdad

Abu Ghraib : The Man Beneath The Hood Speaks Out

09/14/05 "ICH" -- -- “They tortured me, they humiliated me, they have destroyed me inside. I want that what has happened to me never happens again, that everyone knows what those months in Abu Ghraib were like. This is my new life: to denounce that which is happening in the Iraqi prisons, to defend the rights of those who are inside of them”. Former prisoner number 151716 of the prison of shame speaks. The man who has been recognised in one of the photo-symbols of the violence of Abu Ghraib: the hooded prisoner, standing balanced on a cardboard box, his shoulders to the wall, with his arms opened and the fingers of his hands connected to electrical wires.

Ali Shalal el Kaissi, 42 years old, was arrested in October of 2003 in a car park near the mosque of El Amariyah and was imprisoned with the accusation of being part of the guerrilla movement. In the disgusting jargon of his torturers, he was “Clawman”, due to a noticeable burn mark on his hand.He was released January of 2004 and, several months later, founded together with another 12 persons, “The association of the victims of American occupation prisons".Invited to speak at the Conference on Iraq organised by the Anti-Imperialist Camp this October, Hajj Ali (“Hajj is a title that is given to those who have made the pilgrimage to Mecca) knows of the American pressures on the visas which have been denied to the other Iraqis.

He is still awaiting a response: “I don’t know if I will be allowed to attend,” he says. In these days he is in Amman, in Jordan, where he has frequented a formation course for humanitarian operators.

When did you see the photo of the hooded man for the first time and did you recognise yourself?

“The volunteers of an Iraqi association that deals with human rights showed me the photos taken at Abu Ghraib. It was a shock, a personal destruction. I suffered that which you see in the images: they covered my head, tortured me and made me undergo such strong pressure. They photographed me many times. But others established that that prisoner was me: human rights organisations and even journalistic investigations, one from the American broadcaster PBS, and another from a magazine, “Vanity Fair”.

When were those pictures taken?

”As soon as I arrived at Abu Ghraib, they took me to the building where the cells were. The second month of imprisonment was when the torturing began and in the same period they also started to take pictures. I wouldn’t know how to say with precision the day because I had lost all cognition of time”.

What was the hardest moment during your months of imprisonment?

“When they put me on a cardboard box, with electrical wires attached to my hands. And when they left me naked for fifteen days. And, in the background on a loudspeaker they made me hear a song in continuation, By the Rivers of Babylon (by Bony M. ed note). I thought I was losing my mind.”

What did they ask you during the interrogations?

“They wanted to know if I was fighting against the occupation. But also if I knew people in the area in which I lived: I had the impression that they were searching for someone who would become a collaborator, they wanted information. They wanted me to become “their eyes” in the region. But I didn’t know anything, and I did not respond to the questions. In that way, they began the torture. They always asked me the same things, they repeated them dozens of times, I think it was a strategy to make me talk. The interrogations were conducted by persons who said to have worked in Gaza and in the West Bank.”

After your release did you denounce that which had happened to you?

“They released me prior to the scandal of the photos, telling me that my arrest was a mistake. I denounced that which they did to me to the Iraqi authorities, but they sent me away accusing me of having invented it all.”

What effect does it have on you to be a symbol of the torture of Abu Ghraib?

“That photo itself for me is a torture, and I would prefer to be remembered for other things. But, I want that which has happened to me to never happen to anyone else. That is why I founded an association, that has nothing to do with political parties. I work to defend the rights of those in prison, to give former prisoners material and psychological help, to be a witness to that which is happening in Iraq.”

Do you believe that in the last year, after the violence of Abu Ghraib was exposed, the conditions of the prisoners has improved?

“No. I believe that when the telecameras enter into the prisons the situation seems better, but I am always receiving emails from family members of prisoners who denounce abuse and violence, and not only in the prisons run by the Americans. In the zone of Al Garma there are also women and children imprisoned, fifteen in all. The worst part of all of this is that in 99% of the cases the prisoners are innocent and they are then released. But in the meantime, in prison they have lost their dignity.”

Anybody who defends this torture or anything like it, digusts me.

Bush/Cheney/Republicans - You DISGUST me. You make me sick. I can't believe you are getting away with this.

One day these people will have faces.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 19, 2005 4:44 pm  

I am with you Hype .

and still not a senior military or or senior anybody found guilty !

By Blogger _H_, at September 20, 2005 4:47 am  

links to this post

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Zarqawi declares war on Shi'tes in Iraq


DUBAI (Reuters) - The leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Wednesday declared a war on Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq, according to an Internet audio tape.
"Al Qaeda Organization in Iraq ... has declared war against Shi'ites in all of Iraq," said the voice which could not be immediately verified but sounded like previous recordings attributed to Zarqawi.

Thank you Bush for creating a civil war in Iraq.

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:13 pm  

very true hype , and once the Shia starts getting attacked in LARGE numbers you watch this spread into Iran and their masive shia population

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 8:19 pm  

LOL, this is so much shit, and Hype, I know you are to dippy to see through it, but H, I have a post comming up here quick about the insurgents planning to incite a civil war by attacking Sunni and Shia.

Why is it the US's fault? These guys couldnt make Iraq hate Americans enough. They coudnt get the American public to turn against the war enough, so now they are going to try and make the Iraqis break out against eachother.

To still sit here and excuse their actions, while condemning ours it so absurd it's almost laughable.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 15, 2005 1:28 pm  

What reality does Gump live in? This is the last throes? Come on. They have been getting more organized since the day we said mission accomplished.

Get with the program. As soon as we leave, Iraq will be in a hot civil war or in a mild to hot civil war.

Right now, since we are there, I would call this a cold civil war. Everybody has made their agendas known. The fighting has been going on but now it is being upgraded to war.

Um, Saddam had the terrorists in his country contained. We opened pandoras box when we invaded Iraq and didn't do the job correctly to prevent this from happening. That would have been possible, but BushCo fucked that up too. It is not possible now. We are going to be occupiers or Iraq is going to be in civil war. Maybe both at the same time. It is starting to look that way.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 15, 2005 4:26 pm  

G , as Hype says , we opened the box

Iraq had many problems of course , but it did not have this !

the US government was advised by a number of intelligence agencies including mine that we should not allow the Shia to gain over all control of the country

they said , that this would lead to federalism and would play into the hands of the Iranians (who have gained greatly from all this)

Invading a country without international support is one thing , not having an effective plan to bring order to the country is another crime in itself

I was watching the syrian foreign minister on british TV last night , saying exactly what some of us have been saying

a border has two sides , it just looks ridiculus to be blaiming other countries or the insurgents or whatever when it was the US that took the country and it was the US that failed to secure the borders

as for hypes final comment , very true

we are going to be occupiers during a civil war here

the only hope i can see of stopping the slaughter that will follow is one i am sure will never happen

for the US and UK to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible and with the agreement of the Iraqi people , replace all US and UK assets with United nations peace keepers (muslims) and hope then to negotiate between the sunni and shia to prevent a blood bath

of course the US wont do this , as they have to many dollars invested and would not want to lose face

so civil war here we come

By Blogger _H_, at September 15, 2005 5:18 pm  

Why do some people cut off their nose to spite their face?

Here is a quote that works quite well:

"Most Americans understand that fighting terrorism with racism is repugnant to their values and won't work. And most people have enough sense not to cut off their nose to spite their face. But not everyone."

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 15, 2005 5:37 pm  

Get with the program [...] Saddam had the terrorists in his country contained. We opened pandoras box when we invaded Iraq

Two key points from Hype. First part is a common theme from Hype, "get with the program" I find with you means "read party talking points, then vomit them back out on any blog as if you actually could rub together two coherent thoughs and have an opinion.

Second part is to show the absurdity of your arguments. It wasnt two weeks ago you were telling me, and others on Dissent that Iraq was virtual Utopia before we showed up, there were no terrorists in Iraq before us, and we had no reason to go there. Now, low and behold, you say there were Terrorists before we were there?

Drink it up fool, H actually believes this stuff from an educated, experianced, and (to me, warped) perception of the world. You just eat it up because you dont know better. Sad really, but whatever.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 16, 2005 2:54 am  

H, the US government was advised by a number of intelligence agencies including mine that we should not allow the Shia to gain over all control of the country

What the hell? Ok, so we are supposed to let them rule themselves so as not to be conqorers, but then you say we should have played a direct hand in forming the demographics of their government.

But you know, as well as I do that no government we propped up with artificial majorities would ever be supported by anyone.

Right now, the ones getting headlines are the Jordanian Zarqawi, his militias of Syrian hooligans, and their Iranian funding. There are former Saddam Baathists that finally realized they were not going to be lynched in the streets, so they are carrying around posters of the guy and singing his praises.

The majority of the Sunni are being lied to by Al-Sader (another Jordanian isnt he?) to try and fuel civil unrest that has yet to take true fuition.

At some point H, even you will have acknowledge that all of the doom and gloom predictions have yet to come true. The only civil war possibility there is now is one that Zarqawi is trying to start by ACTING like he is from the Sunnis while attacks Shia. The real reason behind this is because the Shia have yet to react violently in return for the repeated attacks made on them under the guise of "Sunni nationalism".

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 16, 2005 3:03 am  

G

you said "What the hell? Ok, so we are supposed to let them rule themselves so as not to be conqorers, but then you say we should have played a direct hand in forming the demographics of their government."

the advice on how to set up the country was there , from the brits and the israeli's and many others , the way it is divided gives to much power to the shia , of course the shia are the largest numbers so in maths it makes sense , but it is this shia domination that is another of the many factors dragging the country to civil war

the sunni feel they are being punished for saddam and it is not there fault

wit Al-Sader your possibly getting confused (or i am ) he is a Shi'ite not a sunni , and he is mainly creating problems in the south with the other shi'ites , to the sunni he is irelevent , they would not listen to him

you said "At some point H, even you will have acknowledge that all of the doom and gloom predictions have yet to come true"

answer not yet G , from what i see Iraq (right now) is much worse then it was under saddam , of course many who suffered under saddam would say i was wrong , but the tens of thousands affected now would certainly agree

you said "The only civil war possibility there is now is one that Zarqawi is trying to start by ACTING like he is from the Sunnis while attacks Shia."

answer , hmmm i think the civil war will come full monty (erm in england that means to the max , not naked lol) if the constitition is rejected next month , and though i may change my mind , at the moment , i think it will fail

as for zarqawi i do agree . he is just stirring the pot as much as he can , but it is the constitution and its success or failure that will make or break the country and the signs are not good

By Blogger _H_, at September 16, 2005 11:12 pm  

Gump is an ass for making assumptions. What talking points? Gump's reaction is out of place and just plain wrong. Secondly, we did no such thing on Daily Dissent. We merely said this was bad from the beginning. We have no right to change other countries governments. Saddam is bad but so is everybody else. If your neighbor spanks his kids and you don't agree with that, do you go over his house and teach him a lesson? Do you take his kids away? Please refrain from dictating government and culture.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 19, 2005 4:50 pm  

links to this post

Chemical weapons used today by Al-Qaeda in Iraq

DUBAI (AFX) - An Al-Qaeda linked Sunni group in Iraq said it used chemical weapons to attack targets in Baghdad today, according to their statement released on an Islamist website. Jaish al-Taefa al-Mansura (Army of the Victorious Community) said its fighters fired shells filled with chemical agents at the interior ministry, foreign ministry, the 'green zone' and Baghdad's security academy. In Baghdad, the interior ministry said five rounds of mortar fire exploded, including two in the heavily fortified green zone which houses the Iraqi government as well as the US and British embassies. Two struck the heavily protected 'green zone' which is home to the government and to the US and British embassies, but it was not immediately known if there were casualties. Two hit a vacant lot near traffic department offices and one a street, causing no casualties. But the Jaish group, in the statement whose authenticity could not be confirmed, said ambulances were used to evacuate dead and wounded from the interior ministry. The same group warned Sunday that it would use chemical weapons against 'occupation' and Iraqi forces unless they halted their offensive against rebels in the northern town of Tal Afar.

...

Connected post Here

you'll know soon enough. If it is confirmed, you can bet the US media will play it up (terror factor is good here, so it will run), and US troops will be in their "NBC" gear soon

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 14, 2005 6:39 pm  

a few newspapers are picking up the story now ..


i am not so sure the US Media will play this up , it is a complicated situation , i am not so sure that Bush n co would want to play on this whilst the US people are arguing about being in Iraq

if true , the group are doing so in specific response to a specific US attack , the propaganda value for both sides is very difficult to assess

time will tell , but i am still unsure how the whitehouse would want to play this story (if it turns out to be confirmed)

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 7:54 pm  

Do you know what chemical weapon they supposedly used? Pepper spray perhaps?

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:14 pm  

I have no idea hype , thats the problem with the term "chemical weapon" it could be anything from Mace to mustard gas ..


I doubt it is anything major but with media supression as it is in Iraq , who knows

, a few sites are picking this up , but i am taking it as single sourced until one of the main news agencies pick it up (retuers/ap etc)

but it could be as simple as pepper spray yes LOL

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 8:18 pm  

this one never took off. Might have been just bragging by the group

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 16, 2005 3:04 am  

not so sure G , if it did happen it is very small scale , but i really dont think it is in the wests benefit to advertise this if true ,

time will tell yes , but i don't think now is the time we would be told ..

still as you say it may not have happened , and the only facts i can give you is that this information was reported on there web site and that the buildings they discuss were actually acttacked with rockets

it is only themselves (at this point) claiming that anything was inside the rockets

so i think it is unlikely but i am not yet ruling out the possibility of any truth in this ...

By Blogger _H_, at September 16, 2005 11:17 pm  

of course it is going to be exaggerated on both sides. i say the most likely scenario is they found 2 very old shells with chemicals that are so old they don't work very well, and then hit the parking lot and an empty building, and then claim massive casualties. (of which there were none)

for all the rhetoric being thrown around, the reality is, the problem is 'there' and not 'here'. since 9-11 there has not been a single casualty 'here'. if al-queda were a truly competent (and global) threat, why are thier attacks limited to regional small arms fire?

so they (unconfirmed) managed to get their hands on an obviously limited supply of chemicals. what are the results? negligable, nearly to the point of ignorable.

Bottom line, these guys can definitely pose a threat to unprotected civilian populations, but against any competent military, they are about as scary as a chihuahua is to a gorilla.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2005 7:49 pm  

thanks for your comments anonymous

my view is that al-qaeda was a threat when they were in the bases of afghanistan , that threat was removed

what we see now are copy cat groups that have no way of creating the damage that Osama amd co did ,

even zarqawi has spent more of his terrorist career apposed to al-qaeda then he has spent claiming he actually is al-qaeda

what we have , is people encouraged by the media to call all the bombs here and there "al-qaeda" and it makes them seem like this big world nasty threat

infact ,i do not think osama has been able to operate in any note worthy fashion for many years

what we in the west have done is give "al-qaeda" the best possible recruiting strategy by our clumsy efforts in the muslim world

where they were recruiting the odd extremists now the extreme muslims are flocking to them

to me its another example of a badly thought out response to the world today

By Blogger _H_, at September 18, 2005 8:07 pm  

I agree. If we would have ignored the terrorism, then the hot air would have been let out of their movement. Instead, we played right into their hands. I believe Osama is more of a threat to our ideals than our lives. The threat of Osama is showing us what our government is really capable of. Fear was the first success of the terrorists. The second came when our government started going to war with other countries who never attacked us. I believe Osama didn't have much of an operation back then and now there are so many clones.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 19, 2005 5:03 pm  

links to this post

150 Dead in day of carnage in Iraq

More than 150 people have been killed and hundreds injured in a series of bomb attacks and shootings across Iraq.
In the worst incident, at least 114 people were killed and 160 injured when a car bomb exploded in Baghdad's mainly Shia district of Kadhimiya.
During the night, gunmen killed 17 people in the nearby town of Taji after dragging them from their homes.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed it had begun a nationwide bombing campaign to avenge a recent major offensive on rebels.
In a statement on a website, the group said it acted after US and Iraqi forces attacked insurgents in the northern town of Talafar.

More details soon ..

This will end badly. At least that is my impression. Are we any safer?

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:15 pm  

well only if you spin the story and say the tens of thousands dead are now safer

what can happen to them now

, seriously , they can not even define what terrorism is at the united nations today ..


the definition as it stands is one the islamic extremists would be very happy with , for the bombs droping on Iraqi people can also be called terrorism

it says "by whoever , against who ever" etc etc .

bet mr bolton did not like that :-)

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 8:34 pm  

links to this post

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Militants put price on Iraqi PM

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group has offered up to $100,000 for killing the prime minister and top officials who launched an offensive on rebels in a northern town, according to an Internet statement posted on Monday.
The Islamic Army in Iraq, among several insurgent groups fighting U.S. troops and Iraqi forces, said Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and the defense and interior ministers should die for the fighting in Tal Afar.
"The leadership of the army has issued orders to all the mujahideen to intensify their attacks... to avenge the mass extermination occuring in Tal Afar," said the statement which was not dated but bore the group's logo.
The statement could not be immediately verified. It put a $100,000 price on Jaafari, $50,000 for Interior Minister Bayan Jabor and $30,000 for Defense Minister Saadoun Dulaimi.

I thought this was about the "cause" and getting us infedels out? How would money on the Iraqi help "true Muslims" fighting for their "freedom"?

But keep thinking WE are the bad guys here.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 14, 2005 1:41 pm  

hehehe , why is this different then the US pack of playing cards with rewards for people , some of which were nasty yes , but some of which were just guilty of being part of a government you were trying to overthrow

I am not defending them btw G , i am just looking at the princible

you offer rewards and so do they ..

they view the Iraqi government as illigal so they dont respect it

you viewed saddam as evil so you didnt respect him

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 5:16 pm  

_h_ is on target... what right do we have to tell them their government is evil... what rights do they have?

none.. we make our own rules, apply them at our discretion and screw over anybody possible to save our pasty asses..

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:18 pm  

spot on hype

and thankyou for visiting , pop through anytime ,your wisdom is always appreciated here

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 8:26 pm  

links to this post

Bush Takes Responsibility for Blunders (erm finally)

President Bush said Tuesday that "I take responsibility" for failures in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and said the disaster raised broader questions about the government's ability to respond to natural disasters as well as terror attacks.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at joint White House news conference with the president of Iraq.

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

The president was asked whether people should be worried about the government's ability to handle another terrorist attack given failures in responding to Katrina.

"Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack? That's a very important question and it's in the national interest that we find out what went on so we can better respond," Bush replied.
He said he wanted to know both what went wrong and what went right.
As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."

About time Mr Bush.....

full article Here

However, after he finishes investigating himself, he will find himself blameless.

By Blogger K. Ron Silkwood, at September 14, 2005 5:32 am  

H, I know you have some folks here that just love to bash this guys. But I've said on my own, and other blogs that I am glad to see this step. Reguardless of his motives (self preservation), it puts a different tone that our country's Presidency has been missing since Nixon: Self Accountability. Bush has set the precident that the President will, and must, take the final responsibility for any/all actions taken by the Federal govnt.

Think of this in comparison to Nixon and/or Clinton. Niether would admit anything (in fact they just lied about it), until they were about to go to jail. Then they wanted everyone to just forget about it because they "are human, and make mistakes".

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 14, 2005 1:32 pm  

I to am glad to see this statement , i am not pleased it took so long..

but history is the key here , once a leader starts saying he was wrong on any subject , it is the begining of the end

we are seing bush now in a position that he will not be able to recover from
.


K.Ron thankyou for your comment and for visiting my site , I agree

the accused becoming the judge and jury is a little absurd

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 5:19 pm  

"our country's Presidency has been missing since Nixon: Self Accountability"

Excuse me they didn't hold themselves accountable. They didn't think they had done anything wrong! It took an FBI agent, two reporters and a lot of pressure to get our government to even look at itself.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:29 pm  

links to this post

Diary of a British man on hunger strike in Guantanamo

More than 200 detainees are starving themselves to protest against conditions at the camp in Cuba where they are being held without trial. Here the Independent on Sunday publishes a shocking extract from the journal of Omar Deghayes, a British resident, who has been imprisoned there since September 2002.
Read the full article Here

snippet

Wednesday 20
1.43 pm. Atabi collapsed while he was walking with guards to the shower. 4.35 pm. I tidied my blanket and realised the dirt bad state it is in. Several months, if not a year, since I had a change. No facilities to wash it. Nor the sun - after the hunger strike I started to realise how bad the water smells and tastes. I am very thirsty all the time.

Thursday 28

About 4 am I received early morning food before dawn for fast. It was very good. They changed it. It may cost the same price as before. But was cooked for humans this time. Yesterday [****] came back from meeting his attorney. He said three bombs hit London city. I am thinking who will put such bombs in London in this time!! I do not see how such bombings in London can enhance any Islamic cause. Britain is the best country in the world in treating its Muslim minorities and provides refuge to many others. I am sure the majority of British public are against any war ... Because of this I would conclude no [true] Islamic group would want to bomb London.

If he has been imprisoned, how did they get some of his journal? And better yet, if Gitmo is so bad, why did he have the ability/time/materials to keep a journal?

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 14, 2005 1:33 pm  

I am thinking who will put such bombs in London in this time!! I do not see how such bombings in London can enhance any Islamic cause. Britain is the best country in the world in treating its Muslim minorities and provides refuge to many others. I am sure the majority of British public are against any war ... Because of this I would conclude no [true] Islamic group would want to bomb Lond

LOL, H, brother, what is the source of this stuff? I mean, a anti-war novelist couldnt have tried to write this better. This thing is trying to evoke symathy and compassion for a POW, who before he was arrested was training, in Afghanistan, to attack westerners (aka: infedels) to help complete Jihad. Now though he thinks that London is the best town, and no muslim would ever bomb it? Give me a break.

Again, if this guy's in prison, how'd they get some of his "personal" journal? And if Gitmo is that bad, how has he been afforded the opportunity to even write this thing?

Is this some more "creative" journalism?

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 14, 2005 1:39 pm  

G , i do love the way you just jump from conclusion to conclusion

some facts

the diary was sent in the form of a letter to his sister in England the letter was carried by hand by a representive of Human rights watch , his sister took the letter to the press

the "Pencil" and very small amount of paper are allowed under international law , the US refused to supply such things , but HRW and the red cross went on full attack to push for this legal right

as per usual G , you do not EVER question your government on the claimed guilt of these people

of course "some" people in gitmo are guilty yes ... but the law of the world and the US should be "innocent until PROVEN guilty"

you just take it as read that the white house says 'they are ALL evil'

how do you know that THIS GUY is guilty of anything at all ?

you dont ,

you are FAR too trusting of your leaders my friend , that is not healthy

the diary is real , the words are real and considering that this british citizen has been kept now for years without trial or justice because many americans like yourself do not PUSH your government to supply any evidence of his guilt , he will remain locked up in cuba

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 5:34 pm  

What a disgrace... If there is was only more we could do...

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:32 pm  

ok H. And so was Bill Burkett, well, until someone looked a little closer.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 15, 2005 11:27 pm  

well if you look closer and can proove any of these cases then of course i would be happy to adjust my view

andy evidence of guilt you have G

go on buddy , point me to a single court case ?

LOL

By Blogger _H_, at September 18, 2005 7:57 pm  

links to this post

Monday, September 12, 2005

UN to investigate UK, and American CIA

The Guardian is reporting Here

The United Nations is investigating the CIA's use of British airports when abducting terrorism suspects and flying them to prisons around the world where they are alleged to have been tortured.

The United Nations is investigating the CIA's use of British airports when abducting terrorism suspects and flying them to prisons around the world where they are alleged to have been tortured.The inquiry, led by Martin Scheinin, a special rapporteur from the UN Commission on Human Rights, comes as an investigation by the Guardian reveals the full extent of the British logistical support. Aircraft used in the secret operations have flown into the UK at least 210 times since the September 11 terror attacks.

Foreign Office officials have denied all knowledge of the secret flights, telling MPs on the foreign affairs select committee that the ministry has "not granted any permissions for the use of UK territory or air space", and suggesting to the Guardian that it was "just a conspiracy theory".
Privately, Ministry of Defence officials admit that they are aware of the flights, and that they have decided to turn a blind eye. "It is not a matter for the MoD," said one. "The aircraft use our airfields. We don't ask any questions. They just happen to be behind the wire."

EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!!!! Those poor radical Muslims were denied armed escort (with govnt attorney) to a proper police station of a sympathetic nation (also known as safe haven). The UK and the US should have sanctions imposed on them, and then put Blair and Bush in jail...

Oh wait, if we put sanctions on them, they just wont trade with anyone, then the world economy colapses. And how exactly would we arrest Blair or Bush? Not sure the local law enforcement is going to let in some Pakistani "peace keepers" roll in with handcuffs.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 13, 2005 4:43 pm  

LOL again G , international law is what it is , it is LAW

if you don't want to apply yourselves to it then remove yourself from the human rights and geneva convention laws you agreed to apply

a country is deemed as being unwell if it does not sign upto the international laws , america wants to be seen as healthy so it signs up to the rules , but it also wants to be able to break them when it sees fit .

as my mother often said "you can not have your cake and eat it"

you are trying to for example push Iran on its duty under international law , why the fuck will they listen if you yourself dont apply it

lead by example G , american is leading by example , and thats one reason that we are all a lot less safe then before !

what ammuses me most with your thoughts on these subjects G , is how you ALWAYS assume these people are guilty , purely because your government tells you they are !!!

you don't know that they are guilty of anything at all , your just repeating parrot style the line your government takes

if they are guilty , then why deny that judicial process ?

why can you say that you have a right to torture people for this reason or that , and without even noticing the hypocracy condemm people like saddam as evil as he erm (cough) tortured people !

is it beacause he did not torture people in the way you guys would ?

is it because your american your reasons for torture are cool and ok , but being iraq of course saddams torture was evil !

come on G , your waving the double standard stick again

By Blogger _H_, at September 13, 2005 5:13 pm  

That is so true... Judge not, less thee be judged..

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:36 pm  

links to this post

Al-Qaida 'offshoot' group will use 'chemical and unconventional weapons' in Iraq

A group claiming to be an offshoot of al-Qaida said it would retaliate against the government and security forces in the capital

"The Taifa al-Mansoura Army has decided to ... strike at strategic and other targets of importance for the occupation and the infidels in Baghdad by using chemical and unconventional weapons developed by the mujahedeen, unless the military operations in Tal Afar stop within 24 hours,"

It was not immediately possible to determine the authenticity of the statement, which was posted on a Web site known for its militant contents

I can not verify the accuracy of this claim, only that this statement has appeared on a islamic web site that has in the past been taken seriously by intelligence agencies .

where on earth would they ever get chemical and other "unconventional" weapons capabilities and supplies?

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 12, 2005 3:54 pm  

pakistan maybe ? or eygypt . or even saudi arabia , who knows


to be fair i think it is rhetoric too , but it is possible

By Blogger _H_, at September 12, 2005 4:28 pm  

my question is ladden with some ammount of sarcasim. I think that in that region, some "unconventional" weapons are readily available to anyone looking for them.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 13, 2005 4:40 pm  

ah , i see you were implying that they may have found saddams weapons , LOL i see

now wouldnt that be sweet ,

not going to happen G , they dont exist

By Blogger _H_, at September 13, 2005 5:04 pm  

pepper spray, mustard gas and plenty of other things... common practice these days..

i wonder if i cleaned my kitchen and threw the dirty rag on someone if i could be accused of using WMD.

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:38 pm  

well that depends on whether you have any military bases hype :-)

if you can help out mr bush in any way then of course they are not WMD ..

but if you turn your back on bushy boy then guess what

your harbouring cleaning products of mass destruction

what you have , depends on who you are

you dont like mr bush (the first test in anyones sanity, you pass) so therefore

sorry buddy , CPMD is what you have !

By Blogger _H_, at September 14, 2005 8:44 pm  

links to this post

Insurgents escape using Viet-Kong style tunnels

TAL AFAR, Iraq (AP) -- Fighting eased Sunday, the second day of a U.S. and Iraqi sweep through the militant stronghold of Tal Afar near the Syrian border, as insurgents melted into the countryside, many escaping through a tunnel network dug under an ancient northern city.

"The terrorists had seen it coming (and prepared) tunnel complexes to be used as escape routes," Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said in Baghdad.

Lynch said operations in Tal Afar were part of a much larger, nationwide plan to destroy insurgent and al-Qaida bases, which included ongoing operations in Mosul, Qaim and the western town of Rutba.

The 8,500-strong Iraqi-U.S. force continued house-to-house searches, and military leaders said the assault would push all along the Syrian frontier and in the Euphrates River valley.
Cities and towns along the fabled river are bastions of the insurgency, a collection of foreign fighters and disaffected Sunni Muslims, many of them Saddam Hussein loyalists

who coined the "Viet-Kong style" phrase H?

Is that some spin I smell?

;p

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 12, 2005 3:53 pm  

LMAO , erm (cough) I "coined it"

no press agency has yet used that phrase

so the spin you smell could well be mine G ,

it just brought back memories from history and my mind made the join


hehehehe

By Blogger _H_, at September 12, 2005 4:34 pm  

tunnels aren't anything new.... digging in has been around for thousands of years... what is so funny is how stupid today's people are... they built a tunnel, imagine that....

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:40 pm  

links to this post

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Iran warns World over possible UN sanctions

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran warned Sunday there will be "certain consequences" if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear activities.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also said at a news conference that Iran plans to seek bids for building two more nuclear power plants in the Islamic republic. Russia now is finishing a plant in Bushehr that Iran expects to begin producing electricity early next year.
Mottaki reiterated Iran's position that it will not stop uranium reprocessing, rejecting a U.S.-backed European threat that Tehran has about a week to freeze the activities or face referral to the Security Council for possible sanctions.

"There is no legal or legitimate reason, given Iran's transparent activities and its open cooperation with the IAEA ... that Iran be referred to the U.N. Security Council," Mottaki told reporters.

"If a political decision is made to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, it will be entering a lose-lose game. It will have its own certain consequences and will affect Iran's decisions. We prefer that such a game is not played."

He did not specify what those consequences would be, but Iran is a major oil exporter.

haha. H, how much you wanna bet they already have a nuke?

They are getting pretty bold for a nation without them.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 12, 2005 3:52 pm  

they have something MUCH more powerfull then a nuke G , they have OIL , they can restict the flow and cripple the worlds economy including yours

the IAEA states clearly that Iran is MANY years away from a bomb

the threat (to me ) is economic not militaristc

By Blogger _H_, at September 12, 2005 4:38 pm  

_h_ is right again... the shear threat of violence raises prices and increases the money flow into their pockets.. since our government lines their pockets with some of this money, they play the same game..

-Hype

By Blogger Hype, at September 14, 2005 8:42 pm  

Appease Appease Appease. Worked with Hitler.

By Blogger NYCTexan, at September 17, 2005 12:30 am  

Hehehe Nyctexan , whats to appease , Iran is still within the realms of what is allowed under the NPT , so what exactly are we appeasing ?

there is very little chance of the euro 3 and the US getting any support from the security council on this one

how could they , Israel , pakistan and india have all got the bomb through the back door , we did nothing to stop them

so why the double standards ?

By Blogger _H_, at September 18, 2005 7:55 pm  

links to this post

US 'approved' oil smuggling

The largest oil consignment smuggled out of Iraq took place with US approval just weeks before the April 2003 invasion, according to a United Nations report.

The Independent Inquiry Committee has spent the past year examining the now defunct UN oil-for-food program. The report blamed UN officials and the Security Council but it also faulted the United States and other Security Council members for ignoring violations of UN sanctions.

While US Navy ships were patrolling the Gulf in February 2003, making a show of boarding and searching leaky dhows and small ships, they turned a blind eye to tankers carrying $54 million of Iraqi oil under the scheme on Jordan's behalf, the report said.

A total of 7.7 million barrels of oil was smuggled through the Khor al-Amaya oil terminal in at least seven shipments in February and March 2003, it said.

The sales were arranged by a businessman in Jordan named "Mr Shaheen" who told an Iraqi official he had "the Pentagon in one pocket and the CIA in the other." The oil was bought at a heavily discounted price of around $7 a barrel, the report said. If it had been sold at fair market value within the oil-for-food program, it could have earned $200 million to buy humanitarian goods. "

The illegal sales of oil from Khor al-Amaya came at a staggering cost to the program in terms of potential revenue foregone," the report said.

The 1,000-page report showed shipping records from a tanker included instructions for the ship's captain saying the US Navy was "already aware about your passage and itinerary."
The investigation said the smuggling in early 2003 was "the single largest episode of oil smuggling" under the oil-for-food program and occurred with the approval of the United States government."

"The governments of Jordan and the United States have declined the Committee's requests for interviews and information concerning the smuggling of oil from Khor al-Amaya," the report said.

Earlier this year the chief of staff for the US mission to the United Nations admitted Iraqi oil sales with Turkey and Jordan at the time violated UN sanctions.

Yet more examples of US double standards , they make huge waves at the UN staff who 'abused' the oil for food program , when it is themselves that have commited the greatest crime

so the question I have is this .

Which of the following is most likely to hapen now

(a) The US government will accept that (as they say about the UN) they themselves are urgently in need of reform or risk becoming irrelevant to the world today

(b) The US government will stop applying double standards incase their own people realise the judgement stick they apply on the UN should be applied to themselves as well .

(c) The US government will carry on as if this report does not even mention the crimes of the US and continue to place all blame on the UN itself .They will decide not to mention any of this in any press briefings and in turn the US media will fail to inform the American people of any US crime .

The US people will then hear about this again in about one months time when they again will be told about the awfull criminal activity of the United nations and if anyone points out the discrepancy then they will question the independent report that they supported fully up to this point.

My money is on (c)

C is the winner

By Blogger pansyjoan, at September 11, 2005 8:00 pm  

My money is there are some very (now or soon to be) regretful senior officials in Washington that will very quietly "resign" and/or "retire."

I will bet that there are several washington 'crats sitting right now about to piss themselves, hoping that a couple of folks just go quietly, and dont drop a list of names off. I will bet this includes some senior military leadership too.

But as far as an official response, naw, you wont get it. They will handel it internally, and people will pay, especially for the bad face they put on the country.

About the same as will happen at the UN. No one of note will be charged, but some heads will roll.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 12, 2005 5:38 pm  

i agree G , I have no problem with the US and UN judging its standards by the same rules

it is only when it is double standards that i scream foul

I had just heard so much "oil for food" stuff of late , that people did not notice that the same rules were being broken at a national level as well as an international one

but if heads roll all the way round , i am happy with that

By Blogger _H_, at September 12, 2005 10:42 pm  

If this report had included accounts of the US allowing illegal oil shipments a year or more before the invasion then I would agree that the US had acted improperly. Because this happened "just weeks before the invasion" I don’t think anybody can really blame the US.

There are so many factors that must be considered as to why the US would have done this. First and foremost, the oil for food program was about to be rendered irrelevant with the invasion and subsequent regime change. The US obviously knew this. Secondly, I don’t know all the details (I am pretty sure you don’t either), but not pissing off another Arab county (especially a country that borders Iraq) just before invading seems like a commonsense move. Finally, I can just see the world response now had the US seized the oil shipment. Everybody would be screaming that the US had stolen the oil.

These are just a few of the endless reasons why the US might have let the oil shipments pass.

In regards to the "which of the following will most likely happen now" section of the article, my responses are as follow:

a) As long as the US does not let itself become like Europe economically or politically, the US will never be irrelevant to the world (in our lifetimes). The UN on the other hand is a completely irrelevant body and its actions continue to keep it irrelevant.

b) The US will continue to apply double standards no matter what other nations think. Every nation is hypocritical and does what is in their best interest.

c) The US will carry on and continue to operate as usual. The American media is very hostile toward the Bush administration. Had the media sensed that this story had even the slightest bit of truth or merit they would have blown it out of proportion and shoved it down our throats.

In regards to all the postings blaming the US for everything that ever goes wrong and for screwing up the middle east my response is as follows. It is clear from history that Europe's strategy of appeasement is far superior to anything the US has to offer. Look at the great progress that has been made in Iran. It is comforting to know that Iran's striking capability will at least initially be limited to those European countries that did nothing to stop it. At that point the Europeans will once again have to look down their noses to the US to clean up their mess.

By Blogger NYCTexan, at September 16, 2005 7:20 pm  

Nyctexan,

Thanks for popping by

you said " but not pissing off another Arab county (especially a country that borders Iraq) just before invading seems like a commonsense move."

well that didnt seem to apply for
example to syria who provided the US with considerable intelligence data after sept 11th ,

the basic point you seem to imply here is that it is ok to break international law aslong as you have a (national) moral ground to do so ...

Sorry i can't agree with that , especially as the US puts itself at the front in regard to tackling international law breakers then its own conduct needs to be pure , it is not ..

you said "The UN on the other hand is a completely irrelevant body and its actions continue to keep it irrelevant"

well and truly highlighting a difference of opinion there ..

to me and millions like me the UN has gained more credibilty by standing upto the US , the longest standing ovation yesterday was for a speach that was rightly critical of american foreign policy , the UN did not endorse the invastion of iraq and world leaders said how it would be a huge error , it seems the UN was right and America was wrong

they should have listened to Hans Blix but they didnt , and the US now has its worst world reputation that has happened in my life time (i am not young)

so i would say the opposite , i would say that the UN is now more accurate then ever , and the US are trying to claw back international support after a foolish action

I agree the US will continue to apply double standards , and i agree that the rest of the world in the main is no better

the view on the american media is one we differ on too , i think that the first signs of a true media in the US of late has come about due to Katrina , but political groups like fox news will soon redress that balance

I do respect your view NYC but i feel you have an over inflated view of your own countries importance , this is fine of course , it is patriotic , but trust me . america needs the world much more then the world needs america

I just pray for my many friends your side of the pond that america will soon return to the center of politics

then the world can start to repair the damage that the far right wing leadership has brought to us all

trust me , though it may seem crazy or mad or stupid or whatever else you may think , the world is more concerned about the actions of the american government then they are from the muslim extremists ...

you may justify that anyway you want , but at some point leaders are going to have to sit down and work this shit out

and if america continues to dictate but refuses at the same time to listen , then i fear for what problems we all have to come

By Blogger _H_, at September 16, 2005 9:30 pm  

In reply to your international law argument and also in regard to your comment on the US not having the backing of the international community (the UN), there are several factors at play that you and the rest of the world seem to be overlooking.

I will admit that the idea of the world having a forum where all countries can come together to work out problems, solve hunger, find the cure for aids...ect is a great idea. No one would be against this. Back in reality though, we must contend with each and every county doing what is in their best interest. This fact and this fact alone is the reason why at this point there is no "international law."

From your response, I can tell that you are an intelligent and reasonable individual (I am not trying to make myself sound smart by saying this). That stated, I want you to tell me that the countries that were against the Iraq invasion were against the invasion because of international law or because it was morally wrong and not because they had oil, arms, or other contracts that they stood to lose once Sadam was removed from power.

Many people like to refer to the Iraq war as illegal. I seem to recall a treaty signed on behalf of Sadam (Iraq) at the end of the first war agreeing to many terms which were repeatedly broken throughout the 90s and early 00s. It seems to me that voluntarily breaking the treaty is grounds for a legal invasion. I will admit that I don’t know all the terms and stipulations of the signed treaty. I assume that there was some sort of clause stating that if Sadam broke the treaty the UN would have a say in whether or not action would be taken against him. I also recall the US going back to the UN repeatedly seeking "permission" to take action. No matter what Sadam did, the UN would not have acted.

The US tried to play nice and let the international community feel special, but why would the US expect anything to change overtime. The US has seen the UN fail to take action time after time. I guess this more credible UN backed by its "morals and principles" does not have a law to protect those killed in the genocide taking place in the Sudan. Can you explain why nothing was done to prevent the genocide in the Sudan. Might it have something to do with different countries interests in the oil in Sudan. If the UN wont take action in a case like the Sudan then when will it take action.

The UN has become nothing more than an conglomeration of countries that act to hedge the US's power at every turn. The UN is more concerned about the US putting women's panties on the heads of its detainees than with those dying in the Sudan, those gassed by Sadam, ect.

I will admit that America has done terrible things in the past. I am truly ashamed to be an American when I think that we are actually responsible for having created the UN.

Law is not whatever self interest says it is at any given time.

By Blogger NYCTexan, at September 16, 2005 11:01 pm  

Nyctexan

Thankyou for your reply ,

I have come down with a virus , so i will not be able to give you a full reply today

I will come back to the post and reply to you with a day (or so) as soon as i feel a little better

By Blogger _H_, at September 17, 2005 6:28 pm  

Nyctexan

you said "....fact alone is the reason why at this point there is no "international law."

well international law is something that has done us all rather well , a good example would be the first gulf war , Kuiwat was freed by the will of international law , the removal of the Taliban was done through the rules of international law and the US makes most of its political voice on the world stage expecting countries like Iran to stick to it's agreements on international law

from my perspective , the US has always achived success when it has led from the front with the worlds backing , and like Iraq and vietnam , it has always seemed to struggle when it works agaisnt the flow of international support

you said "I want you to tell me that the countries that were against the Iraq invasion were against the invasion because of international law or because it was morally wrong and not because they had oil, arms, or other contracts that they stood to lose once Sadam was removed from power."


of course every country has motives , nobody debates that , the US had motives to attack iraq and it had nothing to do with WMD or terrorism or human rights , but when there is a genuine world crisis , such as the invasion of kuiwat or sept 11th , the world can see the bigger picture and acts as one voice . the fact that countries such as Russia , france , germany , china etc did not support you , when on other occasions they have , highlights the claimed error of such an action

the UN resolutions agaisnt Iraq were designed in a rather clever way by the british and the US governments after the first gulf war , they put a clause into the agrement that stated "that if any member of the security council thinks that iraq is still in material breach then the sanctions stay in place" (paraphrased)

on no less then eleven occasions the world tried to get the sanctions lifted , and on eleven occasions the US and UK stonewalled the world and kept the sanctions in place

the estimate is that upto 1 million Iraqi's died due to the sanctions that it seems (with hindsite) to have been a mistake , for Iraq appears not to have had any WMD . so mu view is the world was right to call us on it eleven times , and we were wrong

you said "The US has seen the UN fail to take action time after time." the reason for this is the US expects the world to follow its rules , but not the other way round , take israel for example , there are over 60 resolutions that critise israel , the US has voted agaisnt each and every one

It is the US that is the worst offender of any country when it comes to stopping world law , and should be ashamed of itself when it appears to vote out 4 times more world laws then countries like china

when the US says the UN needs reform , they mean "the UN should follow our lead"

even this week it is the US that refuses to enlarge the security council
the US that ha stopped the reform of the NPT treaty
the US that blocked the accepted definition of terrorism

john bolton had over 70 ammendments he wanted for the UN and it is to the worlds credit that he achieved none of them

Of course when you talk of countries like Sudan , more work needs to be done , but remember , it was kofi annan who said the invasion of iraq was illigel and nobody stoped that either

you mention the gassing of the kurds by saddam , that is a dangerous area , it was an American dual use factory built as dual use by a company called betchel with US government permision that made the gas that killed the kurds

of course Iraq was you friend then so the US government did not seem to have much of a problem with it at the time , infact not long after they sent mr rumsfield to baghdad to offer yet more support

the simple fact of the matter is that resolution 1441 did not give the US authority to invade Iraq , the UN is very specific when it says it accepts the need for a war , it did not , the US broke an international agreement (the geneva convention) that it agreed to abide by , and it expects the world to abide by , it did not , and as tony blair and george bush say "the rules of the game have changed" yes they have , but sadly not in a way that will ever make us any safer

sorry it took so long for your reply , and thanks again for your thoughts

By Blogger _H_, at September 18, 2005 7:41 pm  

links to this post