Saddams Sons Possibly Killed 7/22/03

Post-9/11 Era Forum

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3135099

British Intelligence is reporting that Saddam's sons are dead.

It's pending DNA verification, remember they had doubles.

Major General Sanchez said that Uday and Qusay are confirmed dead. Both died in a gun battle in Mosull.

now what do you anti-war/skeptist think now two dead one to go. Hang them in the town square like they meaning saddam and his sons used to do to all of the innocent people they tortured,or killed. Like i said in past they would be caught as well as saddam and osama. You do crimes and i mean hideous crimes like they did to there people should be treated the same. An eye for a eye.Just a thankyou will do. God bless america and her soldiers. And remember just a thankyou will do.............yae two dead two to go. Just a thankyou will do to our soldiers and vets.

Lively party in hell, I'm sure, for these two!

glad those evil c***s are dead and gone but can you catch the other two? and if the US soldiers had stoped and got to know the people in the towns and cities (like I have said numerous times they should) they migt have had these two in custody weeks ago.
You killed the monkey but the organ grinder is still playing.

So a bit of evil has been wiped off the face of this earth. There are thousands, if not millions, of people that are more than ready to take their place.

I just wish that we could find Saddam, and even Osama. There's a couple of sick, perverted creeps.

Yeah well lots of luck with Bin Laden someof the best soldiers in the world cant find him he has probably had plastc surgery and stuff remember he had as many friends a enemies he blend in and dissappear

We'll get em both in due time.

they also will be caught in time remember patience is a virtue just a thankyou will do

This was a successful reduction in the gene pool of murderous human beings.

Well you've had two years to get Bin Laden how long do you want?

Bin Laden has a lot more supporters than Saddam. Many more sympathizers and people who want to protect him. It is a bigger playing field with more places to hide.

We may never catch up with Bin Laden but it doesn't mean that we are going to quit looking.

N ow your contradicting yourself you said earlier that you would get em both now your saying you may never get bin laden.
It would appear that the trail has gone cold you have got all those firlsd deatinees in Guantanamo youve been interrogating them but you got nothing Bin Ladern could be anywhere now he could lokk totally diffrent.

We will capture or kill OBL. That is a fact. When? Sooner or later. There is no giving up and his days are numbered.
Too bad you guys want to see the U.S. fail. Your support for OBL is disgusting as a means to hope for U.S. failure. Too bad, you're on the wrong side.
Who knows, maybe he or his followers will show up in your neighborhood soon.
Good luck trying to reason with them, you ignorant pacifists!

they will get saddam and they WILL get ben laden he may have more supporters but with millions on his head and all that is looking for the both of them, it is just a matter of time. Remember patience is a virtue and as in ww1 and ww11 and so on and on they all get it in the end......i hate to dissapoint all of you anti-american pukes but your boys numbers are limited. God Bless America And for What She Stands For. And remember just a thankyou will do.

Yeah and I will win the lottery.
The worlds best havent found him after two years of looking

Bottom line......they found these two. And they'll find more.

No bottom line is two years and you still cant find bin laden and you have now also sent a very dangerous man underground

I am very skeptical of the deaths of the Saddam Brothers

Let me illustrate

First, Is it just me? or do these dead bodies even resemble the brothers

Second, all the experts said that the Brothers would split up, and it was very unlikely they would be together

Third, they took $800million in cash when they left. You really think they would still be in Iraq by now...knowing that we were knocking on their front door

4th, The governmen stated that they were killed by rocketfire.....by there dead mugshots it doesn't seem like this happened at all

NOW THIS IS THE MAIN REASON WHY I DON'T BELIEVE THIS **** FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

The US couldn't of planned a better day to kill Saddams Son

The day of the release of the 9/11 report exposing Bush

A time when his presidental ratings were starting to dip

A time when the media was finnally starting to expose the presidents lies

Coming from an administration that has a chronic lying disorder........this looks suspicous

VERY SUSPICOUS TO SAY THE LEAST!

I honestly hope there dead

but the thing is I CAN TRUST THIS CURRENT GOVERNMENT

ALL THEY DO IS LIE, LIE & LIE!

Purported Saddam Tape Vows Revenge for Sons' Deaths
Tue July 29, 2003 03:19 PM ET




By Alastair Macdonald
TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - An audio tape purportedly from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein broadcast on Tuesday vowed to defeat the United States to avenge the deaths of his two sons by U.S. forces.

"I mourn to you the deaths of Uday and Qusay and those who struggled with them... America will be defeated," said the voice on the tape, aired by Dubai-based al Arabiya television.

"They...died martyrs in the name of jihad (holy war)," the voice said.

The speech was rambling, breaking off in mid-sentence on occasions, but a Reuters correspondent familiar with Saddam's voice said it sounded like the deposed dictator. The CIA said it was trying to determine whether the tape was genuine.

If a new president is elected in 2004 and we still haven't found the two...will the new guys still be obligated to catch them, even though they did not start this war???? Or will they just let it go.

RE. Kosovo/Iraq/Jesus/Globalisation

Ahoy to Charles and Invar,

oh dear, that Invar, what a cheeky pepper pot of chimerical dimensions he is. How dare he laughishly close the case on Kosovo/Iraq in our beautiful faces? Let me re-open it and shine a beacon of wisdom over the contents that Mr. Invar failed to illuminate. Here is my colourful and hologramatical discovery.

To the unenlightened, the essential difference between the unauthorised UN attack on Kosovo and the unauthorised UN invasion of Iraq is thus, in my splendid opinion.

The US-led attack on Kosovo was not part of a long-term strategy by the Democrats to re-organise the world, unlike the American-led invasion of Iraq, which was, and still is, undeniably, a component in the stratagem that Bush described as “the American century”, with regards to how he and his deluded cohorts want this century to unfold. That listless prune who goes by the name of Wolfovitz has also talked/prattled on about ‘“re-ordering the world” so to maintain America’s future safety”. Yes, the invasion of Iraq was part of some paranoid new domino theory presently being applied to the Middle East, with a long term view to knock out all so-called ‘terrorist’ states in order for the US and it’s major ally in that region, the beloved Israelis, to monopolise the strategic areas of economic interest. This foreign policy approach will, inevitably, manufacture political dark clouds for the US, merely because you cannot bomb countries into believing in Western -styled democracy (the US style of ultra capitalism is so convincing to non ultra-capitalist states that the US is forced bomb such states into submission. This is true US democracy in motion).

The attack on Kosovo was also an isolated incident to destabilise the Milosevic government in order for the peoples of the Balkans to overthrow the aforesaid maniac’s government, which they did. The attack on Kosovo was not an invasion, or a plan to take direct control of that region, unlike what is occurring in Iraq, where the US and the British are viewed as occupying invaders by the vast majority of Middle Eastern peoples

The attack on Milosevic was not instigated on the basis of a catalogue of infantile lies and propaganda, as was the case with Iraq - something about weapons of mass destruction was the propagandist mantra. The UN was wrong not to back the overthrowing of Milosevic, but not wrong to hold back on the issue of invading Iraq, for most of us now know, Iraq was just one more third-world country that has been attacked by successive US governments through direct military involvement or through proxy invasions - Cuba, Guatemala, Vietnam, Panama etc in order to experiment with their military technology, which successive US governments have been obsessed with, like infants with new toys crying aloud to their friends: “have you seen what I’ve got!” (Of course experimenting with new military hardware is not the only reason why the US has made such invidious transgressions against weak nations, economics, as most of you know, is the true sponsor of nearly, if not all, wars. An economic model based on self interest).

Another very important difference between the Nato-led attack on Kosovo and the US-lead invasion of Iraq, is rather quite elementary, namely, that the US had a less sinister president than the one who is the current White House incumbent, the one who is called Bush and who is, by and large, untrusted by just about every open-minded person on planet earthshire. The Bush character, who emits a horrible cacophony of biblical-styled rants, which simply exposes him as a simpleton who is predisposed to perceive the world in woefully simplistic opposites such as good and the evil (as if anything is that base). The language Bush and his deluded retinue adopts pertains to an age of righteousness, where he views America as having some sort of divine blessing from God to go ahead and shuffle the pack, placing the US on top of the pile as Kings dictating to the “jokers” beneath it. And haven’t we heard this same tired echo of righteousness many times before in the dirty valley of history from the likes of Hitler, Bin Laden, Thatcher, Reagan, Catherine the Great, Stalin, Batista, Agrippina and all the other misguided historical figures who were hoodwinked by their own megalomania, the belief that they were right and others were wrong. Yes, that’s right, we see Bush mistaking righteousness with megalomania, the free market with commercial colonialism, invasion with imperialism. It’s all been done before Georgie porgie, by innumerable empires that preceded your country by hundreds of years. It’s the ordinary behaviour of imperialists, or, in the USA’s case, the new conquistadors.

It can be said that both the UN and the US have both behaved inconsistently over the course of the last fifty-five years or so. I mean, the US has been terribly choosy over who is supports and who it attacks. Why attack Milosevic when it ignored Batista in Cuba, who was installed by the CIA and who was equally cutthroat as Milosevic. Why did the US attack Gadaffi when it ignored Somoza in Guatemala? Why did the US attack Hussein when it ignored Pinochet in Chile, who was levered into power by the CIA? Pinochet just one of the countless blood-thirsty right-wing psychopaths who have been supported by successive US governments. So go ahead, criticise the UN (which does require harsh criticism, and which needs to be seriously modernised as a geopolitical forum), however, while you are savaging the UN, turn on your master, the US with its butchery and inconsistency.

Keeping with the invasion of Iraq, and for all those who still think it was the right thing to do, I thought I’d include this very relevant quote.

“Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Herman Goering

The likes of INVAR, who has exposed himself to be a raving fundamentalist Christian with all his papal pontificating and references to the Scriptures, let me say this. That the true irony is to be found on your extremist doorstep, for you evangelical Christians, in my experience, are some of the most ungodly, unforgiving, greedy, and self-centred people I have ever encountered, and it is this little ironical morsel that makes me gutter splutter, the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which you evangelical Calvinists invest your life with, was nothing other than a socialist. Yes a socialist. Oh you Christian right-wing extremists and Comrades, you kneel at the foot of a Socialist, for isn’t the Bible underpinned with messages by Jesus espousing the redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the greedy, (has the US become one enormous Jewish-type tax collector who Christ was so enraged by in the Scripture?). I’m sure the fundamentalist Christians out there will re-interpret the Bible how they choose. How hilarious, though, that the INVAR’s of this world should attempt to denigrate Socialism when the captain of his team was one Himself. More American -minded hypocrisy.

And how can the likes of INVAR quote, verbatim, the Scriptures ( the so-called Good Book) when it has had to cattle through so many pastures of incarnation. Firstly, how can we rely on anything that is printed in the Scriptures when it has passed through a thousand printers’ hands, a thousand different interpreters (the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Latin, Latin to German, and from German to English)? It is a process of Chinese whispers, where one misinterpreted word changes a sentence, and one sentence affects a whole passage and a whole passage the connotation behind the philosophy. Not to mention the organic mistakes that happen when printers print new editions of the Bible. The least you can say is, when referring to the Scriptures is, “according to the Scriptures”, implying that what was originally said in the Bible could now possibly be a mere pale reflection of what might have been originally said by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and other contemporaries of Jesus Christ. And, of course, the Scriptures are based upon supposition - oh yes, that word “according” raises its ambiguous head in view of how numerous parables were told by St. Paul.

The trouble with such fundamentalist Christians such as INVAR, is that he hasn’t understood the notion that fundamentalist Muslims feel exactly the same way about their god as he does his, and the two can stand in the playground of life yelling the odds at each other forever, and they’ll never convince each other whose god is the best god. Yes, it’s regressing back into infancy, but then all emotional-based matters belong to the nursery of the mind, where children hurl sand in each other’s faces when they cannot get their own way.

And what can we say about Americans lecturing the peoples of this world when corporate corruption has turned the USA’s reputation into a block of swiss cheese. Yes, according to Greg Palast, in his book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” and Naomi Klein’s work “No Logo”, the likes of Bechtel, Enron, Anderson’s Consultants, Worldcom, ExxonMobil, Citibank, Walmart etc represent just the tip of the ice berg in terms of corporate corruption, embezzlement and use of slave labour. Not to mention the US interest in the IMF and World Bank, which have proved themselves to be nothing more than loan sharks. Walmart, of course, hasn’t been indited for underhand dealings, however, such a bloated pig of an organisation symbolise the totalitarian-like nature of many up-and-coming giants of transnational businesses that are beginning to emerge (not just in the US either).

Walmart, which asks its share holders to sing “God Bless America” at its general meetings, whilst the company’s mega profits comes from utilising slave labour (sweat shops - or, to give them their proper name, “exporting producing zones”) in countries as far afield as Guatemala, Bangladesh and China, where many workers are expected to toil for up to 84 hours a week, seven days a week for 18 cents an hour. Yes, Walmart may hang US flags from its shops’ ceilings, however, only 17% of its goods on sale are made in the US. One again, the likes of Walmart remind us that slavery is vogue once again. The British made its wealth on the back of slave Labour (the sugar plantations in the West Indies were one of the most profitable industries in the world at the time of the British Empire, where, on average, one slave died per every two tonnes of sugar produced. And, as with the British, at that juncture in its empire expansion, Walmart and the other countless Corporate “giants” do not allow unionisation or protection of workers’ rights, which means wages can be kept at a premium in order to inflate ridiculously sized profits). Just for the record the cities of Bristol and Liverpool were built with the profits from the sugar industry.

Yes, the US government can preach democracy to foreign states to its heart’s desire, however, as with any extreme capitalist system, democracy dies, because it becomes replaced by near-totalitarian transnational corporations who finish up in the position of paying the piper, the piper being, in the world of the USA, the US government.

Preston the great

PS. It is worth reading “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” just for the explanation for the collapse of the Argentinian economy, which was linked with the World Bank and the IMF in relation to the so-called free market approach to doing business. Also, learn who Chile was used by the American government in the early 1970s as a guinea pig for Milton Friedman’s great experiment called “the free market”, a philosophy which he gave birth at the Chicago school of economics in the 1960s. Read how the experiment in Chile almost bankrupted the country, yet Reagan and Freidman considered the experiment a success, and began to apply it to US economics, replacing Keynesian economics. Very interesting.

“What bothers me is not that the USA has become the new Jeckyll and Hyde of world politics, but the fact that we cannot determine when it is being Jeckyll and when it is being Hyde” Preston Likely

PPS I want to finish this missive on a positive note and that is, we must remind the non-Americans on this site that the USA, over the course of its short history, has contributed greatly to the world. However, we do not want to witness the US overshadow all of its positive contributions by the behaviour of certain reckless imbeciles such as those who belonged to the Nixon, and Reagan administrations, and, presently, those witless wonders who make up the Bush government (I could have named other ruthless Republican circuses that have occupied the throne at the White House in the 20th century, but I don’t want to turn this picture of American history into one of Rothko’s less pleasing monochromatic paintings).

Much better Preston!

when do you guys breathe?

Ahoy Charles,

through popular demand I have made a brief return to the forum and shall tackle a thread that you and the great Preston were dealing with.

There are many reasons why the US/British invaded Iraq, and it takes wilful stupidity in order to believe that Hussein’s third-world country was a threat to America and its so-called allies. It was an economic war, just as 99.9% of all wars are. The simple fact that Hussein was no longer compliant with Washington's was one of the primary reasons why his country was attacked by US and British forces. And because he was no longer compliant meant that he was no longer useful to the US as a rogue operator like he was in the 1980s when the US aided, armed and fully supported his regime, and, let’s not forget that the US government casually turned a blind eye when it learned that Hussein’s army was gassing Kurds in 1988.

Another reason why the US attacked Iraq was because the Israeli government, which is the USA’s prostitute, wanted rid of Hussein, because Iraq was considered by Israel to be the number one enemy in the region.

A third reason is because Hussein’s government was going to stop supplying oil to America in a response to the USA’s constant support for Israel, which breaks UN and Geneva convention regulations daily.

A fourth reason why the US invaded Iraq, was because India and China were moving into that region in terms of interest in Iraq’s oil reserves, and, as you may know, China and India have been earmarked by the US government as the next to potential superpowers. So, control over India and China’s oil sources would allow the US government to control and monitor both countries’ destinies in terms of emerging as potential superpowers.

If there is any country in the world which is a threat to the US then it is North Korea, with its million-strong professional army. Now, seeing how the US only seems to attack week third world countries, I doubt it is going to tell the North Koreans what to do. But that is another issue.

Try telling two hundred and fifty thousand dead East Timorians about your view on the US invasion of Iraq, and they would come back and endlessly haunt you, for those East Timorians, who only wanted independence from Indonesia, were brutally murdered by Suharto’s military, which was armed by the USA. Try telling your story to the victims of Pinochet’s government, which was responsible for torturing and killing 3000 of its own civilians in Chile. Pinochet, who was levered into power by the CIA and the Nixon government. Try telling your story to the 250,000 dead Guatemalan’s who died in a civil war in the 1950s when the CIA helped to overthrow the legally elected Armas just because he wanted to nationalise land belonging to the brother of Dulles, the then head of the CIA (the company was the American Fruit Company). Was it such a crime to nationalise land in order to make money to enable you to enrich your own country? The American government thought so. The American government also thought it was wrong for Mossedeq in 1953 to nationalise foreign oil-drilling companies in Iran in order to enrich his own people, hence the reason why Mossedeq was overthrown with the help of more CIA meddling, and thus replaced by the Shah, whose human rights’ record is rocky at best. Try telling your story to the people of Cuba, who, under the rule of Batista, a cut throat pro American (brought to power by the US government) suffered immensely, while the riches went to mafia-styled US business, which monopolised the Island (US parasitical economic behaviour). Castro reversed this picture when he rightly overthrew the dictator, Batista (and Castro has been demonised ever since just because he acted in his own country’s interest and not in the Americans). Try telling your story to the people of Panama, who, under yet another dictator, Noriega, supported by the US, suffered too. There’s also Pastrana in Colombia and Somoza in Nicaragua, not to forget the Turkish Kurds who were killed in 1993 by the Turkish government, which was supplied weapons by the Clinton administration. Please look up some of the names mentioned because you will discover that they were all dictators; all of whom behaved barbarically towards their own fellow countrymen. But so long as they remained pro-American their detrimental actions could be overlooked by Washington. So, the only mistake Hussein made was to have the audacity to his back on Washington.

It’s the moralising and pontificating from US politicians and many of its citizens that really irritates the hell out of so many outsiders, and it is laughable really considering the absolute disgusting way in which successive US governments have overlooked the behaviour of the innumerable dictatorships it has backed. The US has to learn to be consistent before lecturing the rest of the world on how to behave in a decent democratic way.

So, by all means, let America continually act in its own self interest, outside the realms of the geopolitical forum (UN), but remember, if that's how you want the US to play it, every other country will take it upon itself to do likewise (and Darwin advised us to work together in order to best guarantee that the human species stands a better chance of surviving. The UN was and still is the best chance we have of creating a purposeful geopolitical forum, once it has learned to get tougher with the maniacs who occupy this world, George Bush included.

Mr. Cargo

Good points charles but you said that Sadamm didnt play by the UN rules but if you think about nrither did the UK,US, Spain or Australia they went to the un didnt get a vote ignored a veto system (that the ukand us have used and supported when it suited them) and went to war against the wishes of the council.
yes its a good thing that Sadamm has gone but the mnajor questions have to be where did he go and what of the wmds that story semms to have dried up despite those people who are pro war believing they would be the first thing we found
As far as Israel goes surely you can see that the US has played favourites with Sharon time and time again even though in my mind they appear to have started the whole thing, anyone remeber the concept of an israel state and a palestine country?
Intresting theory I read at univertsy once is that due to the large numbers of jews in the US most us presidents have to be seen to support the jewish state or lose important votes dont know if its true but thats one theroy that gets thrown around

Ahoy Charles,

Having monocled Charles' last post, I can say, in my brilliant opinion, that he has shown that he is the most open-minded North American currently operating on the site, merely because he acknowledged that there were material gains involved in the US/British invasion of Iraq ie. Oil. He also showed signs of recognising that Bush was illegally elected (I suggest that you read Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", which dedicates a whole chapter on how the Bush family usurped power through means of "scrubbing" thousands of so-called black felons from the electoral register. Palast, who is an American investigative journalist, probes this issue with utmost detail and countless sources to support his material. Do not judge what I say here, read his account for yourself. And whether you believe what Greg Palast has to say about the last US presidential election, it leaves the reader asking serious questions as to the legitimacy and process of the last US presidential election).

In accordance with international rules, because the last US presidential election plummeted to the level of Shakespearean farce, a re-vote should have been engineered under the piercing eye of international monitors, in the same manner that occurred in Haiti when the US government forced its government to re-stage its elections again under international supervision. But the US, invariably, hates to use rules that it foists upon other nations it considers non democratic.

Forever looking for symmetry

Preston Likely

"And all that "evil", "threat", "terrorism", "humanitarianism", "liberation" guff, it's just the same old tired excuses for invasion that you've been using for decades (and yet many people still buy it ).

And remember, Rumsfield, Wolfovich, Cheyne and chums were always going to overthrow Saddam. That was well know and planned way before they even got into power and well before 9/11."

I absolutely agree with the above.

Preston Likely was wrong to view Charles as one of the most sceptical Americans on the site: in fact, he's one of the most gifted ignoramuses on this platform, and one of the most unsceptical (with regards to his own maniacal government).

Yes, Charles belongs to that country called the USA, which, in my opinion, is the most indoctrinated nation on earth, where its people fear criticising the government in case they are seen as being anti-patriotic, or whatever the witless expression is.

The likes of the spineless Charles will not read the such writers as Greg Palast (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) for fear of learning something discriminatory about his beloved government, for Charles is just another one of those automata/Americans who sidle around their country with their fingers in their ears, happy to drive around in their petrol-guzzling vehicles, adding to the depletion of the ozone layer (a country comprising 4% of the world's population yet the chief contributor of greenhouse gasses - 30% in total, and the most reluctant to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty); happy to believe that the invasion of Iraq owes its reasons to US morality and not for material gains (oh let's all laugh in unison at this sleeping beauty); happy to believe that Bush was elected legally following the most controversial and unresolved US election in American history. Who am I to destroy his illusions? Perhaps we'll leave that to all those Al Quaea "terrorists" who were trained in the mountains of Aghanistan by the CIA, who regarded them as freedom fighters in their war against Russia in the 1980s. Yes, the USA is a definition schizophrenic, and its people undefinable. As one great writer once said, "why didn't Columbus keep his mouth shut when he discovered the Americas?"

Shame there aren't more Americans like Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky, who dare to question their government's motives in terms of foreign policy strategies.

In your next issue, Charles, give clear examples of aspects of your governments foreign policies that you distrust. Reassure the rest of us on this site that there are Americans out there who are not merely scrambled eggs in that frying pan you call patriotism, emitting the same insipid sizzling sound you called righteousness.

May the tomato sauce of my opinions add a little spice to your rather one-sided flavour.

Mr. Cargo.

Charles,
Saddam didn't become the bad guy when he gassed thousands of Kurds to death. He became the bad guy when he went into Kuwait. It's not about dead bodies, just oil.

If it was about killing people America would not have supported the Turks killing thousands of Kurds in the 90s (them Kurds do get a bad rap).

Control of the oil allows America to remain top dog (and Britain poodle number one!). It's how we do business.

What amazes me about this lack of skeptisism is that a majority of America soldiers are from poorer backgrounds. Exactly the kind of people that this action is going to do nothing for.

On a final note: how about this for a statistic - 1 in 4 homeless people living on the streets of Britain are ex armed forces. Governments coundn't care less.

There was no vote.

France said that they would veto, others hinted they would once they had France to hide behind.

There was no pint in bringing it to a vote because the outcome was already clear.

Ok I'm mistaken but itstill boils down to the same thing, Charles said that Sadamm didnt play by UN rules well when the coalition walked away from the vote that was meant to happen but didnt then they did the same thing

Ahoy Charlie,

How many more times do I have to say it? America recoups its investment (invasion) in Iraq through means of controlling India's and China's interest in the enormous Iraq oil reserves, thus preserving the USA's position as top dog in terms of sitting on the throne of superpowerdom.

Stop playing the silly American, and take note of Davedom's assessment of the USA's interpretation of who and what Saddam Hussein really is (he's a freedom fighter when he cooperates with Washington and a terrorist when he doesn't).

Mr Cargo.

Must go to bed.

MR Cargo
China is going to be the next big superpower in fact anaylists believe it may well be the worlds number one superpower, this is going to happen either with or without oil from Iraq, there are other oil sources in the world not just Iraq e.g. Saudi Arabia, Jordan or even Scotland if you waqnt to go further afield.

Correction, I didn't really mean that OPEC is a monopoly - it is an oligopoly.

Hello you blokes,

Yes, Lodgebo was somewhat perspigacious when he picked up on a point by Prince Charles, who moaned about Saddam not complying to UN regulations. Well, we only have to look at America's record in terms abusing UN authority and mandates. Just as an simple example, in terms of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the US, in its history, has vetoed more than 50 times when proposals have been forwarded by the UN council in order to resolve Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And why has the US irrefutably vetoed so many times on such matters of utter importance? Because the proposals for peace didn't suit the US.

The plain truth is, the USA has used this doctrine for many years now - "it's either our way or no way", and this is ONE of the reasons why the Israel/Palestine conflct as continued to haemorrhage for so many years now.

Imagine playing Monopoly with a group of players, where one of the players suddenly accumilates a vast amount of money and then decides, in order to protect his stash of money, not only to ignore the rules of the game, but to add his own rules. This is how the US has behaved towards the UN. This is how the US has behaved in terms of playing the game of life, forever playing by its own rules in order to protect its vast economic interests, whilst ignoring the rules of others (of course, the US is not alone in playing the double-standards' game: it has borrowed many of its rule breaking from successive British governments, who were extremely good Monopoly players themselves during the British Empire).

Prestonshire.

Ahoy Ickle,

There is not one country in the world that is one hundred percent pure in terms of its business dealings, however, other countries do not go about their way on the world's political platform, as the US does, forever ranting on about being morally right, and just (how naive can you be to believe that the invasion of Iraq was fought on the basis of morality. This is the opinion of the perishable fool. 99.9% of all wars are fought on the basis of controlling areas of economic interest. Please stop ranting and raving about morality and righteousness, it gives the impression that you're a screaming evangelical minister of the deluded).

"Saddam Hussein being the lesser of two evils." Drop the "evil" tag. We're dealing in materialist aspects here, not superstition. Saddam was not evil to America, he was a vehicle for gaining an economic foothold in the Middle East. Just another figure that successive US administrations have ridden piggyback upon in order to expand their wealth.

Saddam was a threat to America, eh? I think the only threat to America is the Americans with their gross paranoia.

I wonder what the US would think if the rest of the world asked UN weapons' inspectors to trawl through its secrets stashes of weapons of mass destruction. I think they'd unearth weapons of diabolical dimensions that are not only a threat to the world in general but to the solar system (just joking with the solar system). We wouldn't sleep at night for fear of what we'd discover in the seedy vaults of the good ol' self righteous USA if the UN did go into America with its spy glasses.

If Saddam Hussein wanted to build heavy weapons that's because he probably wanted to protect his country from the maniacal psychopaths in the White House. And just who on earth are the US to pontificate who and who should not have WMD, when the US, since WW2 has deposited more WMD on foreign nations than any other country on earth? We only have to look at the 3000 tonnes of Agent Orange dumped on the Vietnamese, not only vandalising precious rain forests, but leaving traces of Dioxin (one of the world's most poisonous made-made chemicals) in the soil, which has subsequently caused thousands of new-born infants to carry the most awful deformities. What about the Depleted Uranium projectiles used in Gulf War One in the Basra region of Iraq, inspiring up to 5000 children every years to be born with more hideous deformities? So, Yanky doodle, Joe, don't go moralising to the rest of the world who should and should not have WMD when history has clearly illustrated to the rest of the world that the US is the country least to be trusted with such horror-show weapons.

Preston

PS if you want to read about Saddam Hussein's relationship with America read "Pirates and Emperors Old and New" by Noam Chomsky. This book tells you all about who is a freedom fighter and who is not and how the two definitions are interchangable according to the CIA.

Well said Preston,

I think Winston Churchil summed up best how the elites of this world really view people like the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Indonesians, the East Timories, the South Americans etc etc etc etc

"The rich and powerful have every right to demand that they be left in peace to enjoy what they have gained, often by violence and terror; the rest can be ignored as long as they suffer in silence, but if they interfere with the lives of those who rule the world by right, the 'terrors of the earth' will be visited upon them with righteous wrath, unless power is constrained from within."

Oh and another quote, well worth reapeating, summing up pretty much what's going on and why Arabs don't trust the Americans:

"The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region."

So five years from now is it going to be Saddam II? Cause lets face it by then Iraq will be a distant memory and no one will really care who's in power.

Short on time, so I'll hit the high points:

"maniacal psychopaths in the White House" - that one is just plain funny (unless you're referring to Hilary)

Our sole purpose is to gain an economic foot hold in the Middle East? Where do you come up with this crap? Did we somehow force Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1990 so that we could get an economic foothold in the ME too?

I would say that our paranoia is well-justified after 9/11.

At the time the US was using Agent Orange in Nam, it wasn't known as anything but a defoliant. You're grasping at straws here.

There isn't any tangible scientific evidence or studies about DU. But radiation is a good word to use to scare people. Let's ban x-rays at the hospital, I could develop a very good case of people who'd been x-rayed at the hospital who have given birth to deformed babies - tens of thousands, in fact. Note that this does not, however, prove causation.

There is no need to have weapons inspectors in the US. Not until we take over Canada and blatantly state our desire to take over North America and enforce our rule by randomly torturing and executing dissidents. (like you)

Your defence of Saddam as some victim who was just protecting his country is a lark. You can't really believe this??? You just put that in there to get a rise out of people, didn't you? Or did you miss that whole Gulf War and gassing the Kurds thing?

Chomsky: Now there's an objective source!

You must be one of the following:

a) Very young and naive.

b) Not quite with it in the sanity department.

c) A member of the Baath party.

Ahoy Ickle,

You said, unquestionably naively:

"At the time the US was using Agent Orange in Nam, it wasn't known as anything but a defoliant. You're grasping at straws here."

I'm sorry, buster, that just doesn't wash. Dioxin, which is a component in the sickening nature of Agent Orange, was not a contemporary man-made chemical at the juncture in time, but renowned to be one of the most deadliest man-made chemicals on the face of the earth (I know the US military is naive, but not that naive). Perhaps you wouldn't be so forgiving if the Vietnamese had dropped Agent Orange on your precious people, engendering countless cases of deformed babies, only for the Vietnamese to turn around and apologise because "we only thought it was a defoliant".
If you were intending to make me splutter and chortle in euphoric spasms, you succeeded, chum

You also said:

"There isn't any tangible scientific evidence or studies about DU. But radiation is a good word to use to scare people".

Once again you're ostriching your head in the sands of ignorance. If you can't be bothered to go into a library and research Depleted Uranium, look the term up on the Internet, and read about its long-term effects when used in warfare, with particular relation to the area known as Basra in Iraq, where I have not only read about the innumerable deformed new-born babies in Basra, but have seen an independently sponsored British documentary about the subject of DU and its invidious effects when utilised in well-peopled war zones.

You again:

"There is no need to have weapons inspectors in the US. Not until we take over Canada and blatantly state our desire to take over North America and enforce our rule by randomly torturing and executing dissidents."

Let me enlighten you, country boy, America, through use of CIA meddling, has tortured and executed, not only so-called dissidents but also non-dissidents, through proxy methods: the CIA levered Pinochet into power in Chile - a mass torturer, Suharto of Indonesia, supported and armed by the US (Saddam Hussein is Cindarella compared to this bloke), Batista of Cuba, who was brought to power through means of the then US government, using the CIA as its main tool for political manipulation, and, if you know anything about Batista, you'll acknowledge that one of his favourite past times was torturing people he considered in opposition to his pro-American regime (The Cubans, to this day, have preserved Batista's torture chambers as museum pieces). Do we have to mention Noriega in Panama, a US ally, Somoza in Nicaragua, Armas in Nicaragua, all of whom were dictators, and all of whom used methods of torture, which were overlooked by their cohorts, the beautiful CIA. So don't start selectively moralising about Saddam Hussein's torture antics. As far as I'm concerned
Hussein, Suharto, Batista, Pinochet, Noriega, Somoza, Armas and all the other indelible fools who have been used by the US to further its own economic foot hold on foreign soils merely serves to illustrate that the US has, over the course of many years now, practised that notorious art called, dare I say it? - hypocrisy. It is your birthright. Oh, course, nearly every other country does likewise, but not all other countries bore the rest of the world to tears with moralising lectures and mantras of democracy and all the other meaningless double-sided rants that US politicians and many of its citizens seem to espouse on a daily basis.

It's not that the rest of the world is anti-American, as you insular types appear to think, it's just that we're anti-double standards and hypocrisy. And we're anti your countrymen's lack of scepticism towards your own government.

Mr. Cargo

PS If you'd read Davedom's previous post, you would have learned a lot about your country's Jeckyll and Hyde approach to foreign policy making.

I thought this forum was named “Iraq”? Someone should change the name of this forum to, "America the Evil" or Brits attack America”. Then you all can ***** until your heart's content.
There sure seems to be a lot of hatred coming out of the UK and how very hypocritical of you.
All this negativity and no solutions from any of you. What a waist of time to read your crap.

They're just pissed because they failed at becoming a superpower themselves and had to give back India, Africa, Hong Kong, etc, etc, etc... oh yeah, AND they lost America to boot.

A fine lot to be lecturing others on imperialism.

By the way, how about them Dutch? Actually ponying up to help build Iraq's future instead of *****ing and moaning. Three cheers for the Dutch for actually caring about the citizens of Iraq more than validating their own petty little political stance.

I have never heard so much bulls**t in my life. Look USA1 and ickle nobody blames you for being ignorant but you twea are abusing the privilige wit this one.
you know USA1 dont readbut dont just show up and give me your crap dont you remember that we are in this with you and ask any uk person on this thread and they will tell that the problems in Iraq are as much your fault as ours.
And ickle lokk to the present little boy instead of the past why not compare look at the US economy f**ked and unemployment high chances of improvement low. Now look at the UK economy strong and one of the strongest in the world stronger than the Euro or Dollar , unemployment under 1 million future bright,so we lost our colonies but are financially strong so we dont really need them.
furthermore why are you all getting upset whats been written is true, if the truth hurts then I cant help you with that.

Hey, that gives me an idea for a new forum proposal.

America
The Beautiful - Everything that is good about America.
The Evil - Everything that is bad about America.


I will propose these forums to the Administrator.

Thanks for the IDEA!

You are a friggin' moron.

Ever heard of a business cycle? Pick up an economics book. So, when the dollar is strong again and the Euro is weak, than that will automatically mean that the US is better or something - what the f*** is your point? And you have the nerve to call me ignorant.

Your implication that the US is in some sort of unstoppable downward spiral is crap. Or at least you'd better hope it is because you know what will happen to your economy if the US economy does collapse, or maybe you don't.

My point was that bringing up everything ther US has done for the last 100 years is totally irrelevant - just as Britain's past is irrelevant to what's going on now. Get it?

I honestly don't think that Brits harbor any ill-will against the US because the colonies broke away. Puuuuullllllleeeeeaaazzzzeee!

Maybe you still do though because I seem to have touched a nerve to have evoked such a tyrade from you. As we say in the States, "take a chill pill."

Thank very much, we're doing just fine over here and you're watching too much of the Communist News Network if you think the US is in such dire straights.

Yeah I know what a business cycle is and I haev read economics books in my life. But the point is all these anaylists are saying that right now it doesnt show any sign ofrecovery hell it can take 10 years + to get out of a recession and stabalise again ( that will be in all those econoics books you read) and the cost of a war doesnt help.
Yeah see we can still buy and sell with other countries not just the US, but since you are an expert why don you enlighten me further.

Hi you brought up the past not me

No we dont harbour any ill will in fact if you look we still have good relations with former colonies and at times have supported the smaller ones financially or otherwise even if it meant us getting in trouble i.e. the banana wars.

You never touched a nerve but your having a go at britain and well you know the saying about people in glass houses.

Nah I was watching blommberg. Apparantly you wiped out communism single handed

And Ron you been drinking or something cos that Idea sucks big time but if you did may I suggest using other countries as well cos we all have done great things we are proud of things we are ashamed of not just the US

This is all off topic from Saddams sons killed. They are now dead, buried and acknowledged dead by Saddam. So I think this thread is on the chopping block to be closed. Having said that I have this to say about what you are talking about.

Actually, today on one of the fox channels an analyst said that we are in a rebound/recovery. It's all in who you listen to. A democrate will say "No we are still in resession" while a Republican will say "We are in recovery".

Jobless claims have dropped.
Stock market is going up.
Housing market is going up.