Solution: Conquer the Iraqi and Saudi oil fields and quickly pacify Europe and Japan by selling them oil cheaper and more reliably than they were getting from OPEC.

What makes the artificial colonialism-based Saudi borders sacred? Time to re-divvy up Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan, et al. for the good of the world.

I think a better question might be. Do these people live in reality? (twilight zone theme music)

Guess what? Our government is so concerned with the fact that nobody likes us, that they are "probing" the problem via a "Why they hate us Conference"..

Who better to hold this conference than...

The State Department:

[Link: channels.netscape.com...]

All I can say is that unless Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson and Bernard Lewis are amongst the invited scholars, this will be a complete waiste of time.

Do these people really want to live in a world where maniacal dictators like Saddam have nuclear weapons?

Sadly, yes they do.

Basically, anything to stick it to America, such is the depth of their contempt for us (not to mention other contributing factors, such as greed and naivete); that these people (and their descendents) will probably come to regret it if they succeed in deterring America (and that their Iraqi [and other Middle-Eastern] ideological counterparts have fared poorly [to put it mildly]) is of no concern to them.

Of course ithis is an oversimplification, but this explains much already.

"It has never been shown in history...that anybody removed from the outside and another person put in instead has made for the stability of the region," he (some Arab) told the BBC.

The Turks (Ottomans) ruled over the Arabs for almost 500 years, selecting whoever they desired as ruler, removing whoever they pleased. They kept the peace pretty well.

"What makes us so gullible as to think we know what is better for the Iraqi people than the Iraqi people themselves?"

Is he trying to convince us that Saddam's 99.99% yea-vote turnout is the true will of the Iraqi people?

The simple explanation for the disconnect is that no one has slammed planeloads of civilians into European buildings (yet). Be honest now -- how many of you would have found the case for attacking Iraq as compelling on 9/10? I'll admit I would have been much more ambivalent about it then.

It doesn't really matter whether there's no direct link between 9/11 and Iraq. What happened on 9/11 made us more finely attuned to the possibilities of terrorism from any source. Experience: there is no substitute...

Lord, but these people are boring.

There are actual questions that need addressing - such as the costs of going ahead versus the cost of doing nothing. There might be something there to debate (though, personally, I think the cost of doing nothing would be the catastrophic, and irretrivable loss of American civilization). Since these people haven't had an original thought in their lives, all they can manage to do is sqwalk like the parrots they are.

The fact that they've been proven wrong time and time again doesn't seem to penetrate their bot-brains. They are in desparate need of a software upgrade.

Um.. guys... why should anyone care if the Arab street is inflamed? They can knash thier teeth and tear out thier hair all they wan't. But unless they want some of what we sent the Taliban, what else are they going to do?

Go ahead, get inflamed. Inflamed, infected, and oozing with pus. What are the Saudi's going to do, cut thier budget by not selling us oil?

Who's responsible for this remarkable bit of democratic sloganeering?

"Whether Saddam Hussein remains or is removed from power is up to the Iraqi people"

If you guessed "Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal" then you win the prize.

The minister has shocked those in his country who are more comfortable with their own style of democracy (tyrannical monarchy).

As of yet, no election date has been established, but I'll keep you posted.

I generally hate to be this blunt, but it will take a million dead Jews in Tel Aviv before most of the world decides that it is time to deal with Saddam and others of his ilk. Even then, the left will still look past the dead and say we shouldn't act.

During a discussion that I listened to on the radio over this issue, a caller said that America's history of being reactive in entering warfare should continue to be our guide.

So, according to them, we should just wait for the bomb to explode. Then act. Then take the blame.

I do think that when Saddam gets the bomb, that he will use it on Israel, not the U.S.

Hey! Some of us here in Europe are with you. We're just not part of the governing elite or the media. And we hope we won't be rounded up and imprisoned for thoughtcrime anytime soon. But you never know ;-)

It matters not what the world thinks, because the King of America has returned!

[Link: www.theonion.com...]

Long live the king!

First, Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan: "We believe dialogue is the correct way to solve any problem." Yeah, except when it came to Iran, the Kurds and Kuwait.

Second, notice how all the things we've tried that have failed, over and over -- sanctions, inspections, dialogue with those only interested in stringing us along -- are reheated and served to us again and again as 'reasonable' and 'prudent?'

Third, called on to toss Sadam out of Kuwait but not out of Baghdad (our own fault), we've gotten nothing but grief ever since for enforcing the UN's sanctions (you know, all those dead babies, etc.). Now we're told to go back to the UN. Why would we want to remain chained to that whipping post?

Cate,

There have been mini-9/11's in Europe. Near Marseille, an Arab man was found dead in Islamic Jihad-esque garb after he blew up an ammonia factory. It was labelled an accident, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. Also, nobody really died, by some chance of fate.

And then, I've read that there were some small groups of Arabs in London who were planning on boarding planes on 9/11 but their airspace was shut down during their planned take-off. This is hearsay, so it might not be true.

I saw today that along with the Saudis, the Qataris, where we are building that big air base, are saying “no way” as well.

Well, if Qatar, Bahrain, and Turkey (as the article says) are all saying no, me-thinks we got problems. Plus, they are all re-inforcing each other.

I wonder about latent isolationism on the part of the American people. The fact is, we have an empire, and we are not an imperial people. If “the whole world really does turn against us” we might deliver unto the world two of the most frightening words they could possibly hear. (and no, there is no letter ‘F’ in them ;-)

The two terrible, frightening words are…. “you’re right”. As in, we can’t act unilaterally, which means, we can’t act at all, soooooo…… your problem. If we have to defend ourselves by missile defense and cutting immigration by 80%, so be it. Change our lifestyle to get OFF the goddamn heroin of oil, we’ll have to figure that one out by hook or by crook. Might not be easy, but we'll do it.

Meanwhile, go to it UN and ICC. Knock yourselves out. You wanna fight the Israelis over the West Bank? Good luck. They’ve got nukes, they’ll use ‘em in whatever direction they deem necessary. Gentiles tried a holocaust once, I’m guessing the Israelis still remember it and will act accordingly. End starvation, but REFUSE any GM food, and give Mugabe a pass? Go go go. Don’t let us stop you. That should be a neat trick.

Now Saddam and Kim Jong Il have nukes? Well, WE will just have to defend OURSELVES as best as necessary, and be prepared to hit back huge and hard. That means the bad guys will likely look for softer targets…. like, for instance…. most of the rest of the world? All of a sudden, YOU guys have a lot of weapons to buy. Beter crack open the piggy bank. We’ll sell ‘em, cash up front though. By the way, that’s great progress you’ve made for peace in the world, but hey, watta we know?

Yeah, it’s petulant as hell, and I hate it, but the bottom line is, if you do not allow us to solve this problem, then it’s gonna be your problem more than ours in the end. Good Luck.

And we do forgive. But we will not forget.

Ariel: I wrote about the story of Arab terror cells planning to board planes in London on 9/11 back in June. The story comes from Rohan Gunaratna, the author of Inside Al Qaeda, and the link to the story at CBS News is still good.

We are forgetting about the one ally of the US who can be counted on, who has plenty of air bases and happens to be in the region. Perhaps it is time to consider the seemingly radical alternative of cooperating with Israel and launching an attack from there.

A X,

You might also mention that the best threat we could possibly make to the Saudis is as follows:

You won't let us use our military bases. Therefore, our military bases are of no use. Therefore, we will leave Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the Al-Saud clan will be slaughtered by Saddam. Saddam might continue with Qatar, etc, or he might not bother.

This scenario does have some advantages as well. Saddam can slaughter the Islamists - he has no real fondness for them. Then, using his aggression as the causus belli we can claim Araby and begin to civilize it, as we have successfully done in Germany and Japan.

Do these people live in reality?

Of course they live in reality. They're motivated by enlightened self-interest, the same as most people. What are the odds that, if Iraq becomes nuclear-capable, France will take a hit? Basically zero. Ditto for Germany, Japan, China, etc. They stand to gain nothing from the removal of Hussein from power. We are the ones who will benefit from his removal, because we're a potential nuclear target. So is Israel (which, no surprise, backs us).

Now, a war in Iraq will, in the short term, raise gas prices and have world-wide negative economic effects. Most countries will be hurt by this. So asking Europe to back us in an invasion of Iraq is asking them to accept negative consequences in exchange for no personal benefits. Why would they go for that?

Do these people really want to live in a world where maniacal dictators like Saddam have nuclear weapons?

No, they just don't want anyone to do anything about it.

The Arab nations really are worried. They're afraid the US will do something dangerous like we did with Germany and Japan, leaving them with a free, prosperous neighbor. They know that would mean the end of their petty kingdoms.

The Europeans are afraid we'll find out just how much they've been selling Iraq during the embargo. I'm sure lots of "contributions" have been made to Euro politicians to make sure they oppose Saddam's end.

Charles,

Sorry - knew I had seen it somewhere, couldn't remember where, so I assumed it must have been a rumor.

Yes they do because they want to see all Americans, all Christians, all Jews, basically all decent people murdered. That's how sick liberals are.

Has there ever been a comprehensive list of traitors? I would be willing to work on it.

But seriously,

How can any responsible European leader afford to discount or deny the consequences of Iraq possessing nuclear weapons?

The answer is quite simple - These leaders grew up sheltered within a cocoon of safety provided by the U.S.A. The foreign policy tactic of mutual assured destruction with the Soviet Union protected the childhood years of these leaders. To them, containment works!

Those persons who insist on containment are the same whose parents offered appeasement or were appeased. To them World War II did'nt happen as we know it, instead their conscious has been washed clean of any guilt of remembrance. We remember.

These leaders, and their citizens, see foreign dangers as "something to manage", certainly not to confront. This engenders a sense of comfort, however false.

This guiding principle of "false comforts" and "wilful blindness" may have worked in the past, but no longer. This policy which placed stability over morality substantially suceeded in compromising both.

It had been the policy of the U.S. and its cold war allies to placate and/or construct "arab allies". This was done, not because we preferred tyrannical monarchies, but as a buffer to the extension of communism.

The unintended consequence of our collective actions is a society that breeds anti-western ideals and does not than confront it's true problems. The citizens of Iraq, et. al. are perfectly capable of self rule, but they have grown up in an incubator of hate, and will require time and patience.

America has decided to remedy its past wrongs by liberating those afflicted by its practices. Will the European leaders stand with the United States or will they continue a policy which has proven to be morally wrong?

We'll know soon enough.

CYA

Maarten Schenk,

I understand. Take comfort-for you are historically in the same boat as one of the greatest leaders of all time was in about 60 some odd years ago.

Look up what was said about Churchill when he was warning people about Hitler. They said he was a drunk, a warmonger, an imperialist, a racist and much worse.

Sound familar?

Bush speaks to the UN on 9/11+1. He should just say, if you don't want us in Iraq, we'll get out...of everywhere, NATO first. Bring the boys home!

Dan #19

You're probably right. The Europeans don't face an immediate threat from an Iraqi bomb. But they are not safel. Its beginning to dawn on a few of them that another kind of bomb, a time bomb, has been planted inside their borders: arab immigrants, who have no interest in assimilating into European society, who indeed are overtly hostile to it, as has been documented on this blog and elsewhere. We know how to pre-empt Saddam's bombs from falling on the US or Isreal, but Europe has yet to confront how to defuse its arab population bomb before it's too late. Tick. Tick.

Well, the people of Iran like us, that's something I suppose. Especially if they hand over OBL's head on a pike as a gesture of friendship, since he's been spotted there.

Heard a poll yesterday that reported 60% of the people in England were in favor of a war to remove S.Hussein.

While Dan (#19) is right about self-interest motivation -- basically, follow the money -- we're also told Europe and Japan get more of their oil from the ME than we do, the reason the first Gulf War was such a hit. So it would seem that bringing Iraq's oil back onto the market and ridding the ME of a regime that could hold the West's economies hostage would be beneficial.

But frankly, Europe has no choice but to fear ME destabilization, since it lacks the power to directly influence events there (it certainly can't contemplate what the US seems prepared to do) and must cope with potential internal destablization as well.

Back to Dan's point, the list of those with a vested interest (read: self-interest) in maintaining the status quo in the ME is not just confined to Western media elites and European politicians. It also includes Western oil and defense companies (let's see Brent Scowcroft's client list), European and Russian companies doing business with Iraq, ME autocrats who don't mind keeping Iraqi oil off the market and don't mind having someone in the neighborhood capable of thumbing his nose at US power, as long as he doesn't get too far out of line . . .

I am not the smartest and I make a lot of mistakes in my work and in my life in general, but one thing I don't do is make the same mistake twice.

How can the world be so stupid as to repeat themselves throughout history.

Have we forgotten history.

When a man attempting to develop nuclear weapons says he wants to kill you, believe him!

[Link: bearstrong.net...]

Our own little mini-bin, Mullah Krekar, was interviewed on Norwegian TV today, from his Sharia stronghold in Kurdish Iraq. I'm not sure if the following is meant as a compliment, but it is certainly not taken as one:

I had heard that Norway was the butterfly of Europe, that they were a peaceful nation. After I came to Norway on 30.11.1991 and had lived there for a while, I could confirm this.
Krekars grasp of historical parallells is uncanny. On the war on terrorism:

This is a crusaders war, declared by George Bush, just like his forefather Richard. When Richard occupied the city of Akkad afters its siege, he negotiated with Salahadin Alayobi for an exchange of war prisoners. Richard said that you must give us the cross of Salabot, the 1700 prisoners and so and so amount of gold and silver, then we'll return your prisoners. Salahadin Alayobi had to gather a force, and brought all they required. He said, you must first -- [oh, never mind. Summary: Betrayal, then massacre. King Richard was a very bad man. So is Bush. Coincidence? Doubtful.]

.....
And this is the point where I sat up, blinked, and got ever so slightly pissed off:

The Norwegian society is a civilized society, a polite society, far away from war and conflict. I do not want it to take part in the American war, so they don't have to suffer for it later. ..

Have we forgotten history.

"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". Friedrich Hegel

Ben Noah (#3) mentioned the new State Department initiative "probing" the problem of anti-Americanism.

What does this new "Un-American Activities Committee" have in common with McCarthy's one in the early days of the Cold War?

Well, it has in common that the "un-American activities" in question were, and are, real in both cases. Were, and are, dangerous. Were and are condoned by the great majority of intellectuals.

A frightening difference between the two is that the earlier one sought to conteract the activities it was investigating, whereas the present one seeks to accommodate them.

Another similarity, though, is that both of them are symptoms of an underlying lack of self-confidence, or doubt, that American values truly are better.

James #32, you haven't seen anything yet. A decade or two from now the Europeans will be blasting the USA for interfering in their civil war back in 1941.

Damn Americans are always meddling, we delayed European intergration for half a century probably because we wanted an oil pipeline through Bavaria or something.

Re: #1 - let's get the oil and then sell it to Europe and Japan more expensively than they get it now! Why should they continue to benefit from our largesse?

Re: #35. Of course, we always have that option. Europe reminds me of GB Shaw's conversation:

Some years ago, George Bernard Shaw and a middle-aged London socialite engaged in one of the most famous encounters in the battle of the sexes. Shaw asked the woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She responded with an enthusiastic "yes!" Then Shaw playfully lowered the offer to one pound and sixpence. "Certainly not!" the woman huffed, "what do you think I am?" Shaw smiled and said, "We've already established that . . . now we're haggling about the price."

Is it possible for the entire world suffers from MAD COW disease?

ANSWER: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the US doesn't take action *now* there will be an *unfathomable* price to pay in the near future. One that will make 9/11 seem like a traffic accident.

Let's not get side tracked by Euro-dementia.

9/11 was very real. 9/11 was a sampling of what the US faces from a variety of muslim Allah-bots.

I wouldn't be surprised if some terrorist organization is planning their own nasty 9/11 celebration with another attack of some sort. They've had an entire year to coordinate and no one of substance has been arrested. They've got the balls, we know that now. No brains, but lots of cohones!

Taking out Saddam is a no-brainer. The longer we wait the more cruel will be his capabilities. It would also act as a deterent to lesser ghastly entities. Then again...Allah-bots will be Allah-bots.

I've been saying for months Bush will try to find an "out". I hope he (and many of you) proves me wrong. I really do.

man I hate typos...should have read

Is it possible the entire world suffers from MAD COW disease?

I'm no military expert so forgive my foolish question, but aren't 4-5 aircraft carriers enough to form a beachhead on Iraq territory? US Army doesn't really need Turkey's, Qatar's or Saudia Arabia's cooperation or does it?

On Iran's friendship;
Apparently Saudi Arabia's threat of 'destabilization in the middle east' (I don't know why anyone would want the corrupt and despotic governments to fall before democracy and the rule of law...) in the case of an American attack on Iraq that Iran decided to repeat this warning...about attacks against itself....[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Meanwhile Maureen Dowd is ready to attack...Saudi Arabia...
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

If the U.S. WERE to use Israeli airbases, they would have their forces securely in friendly territory, and I'm sure that any security threats posed by the Hizbollah in Lebanon, or Militants in the W Bank and Gaza would HAPPILY be taken care of by Israeli forces, with the U.S.'s full support, of course. Also, because of the close ties between Israel and Turkey, Turkey would have to change it's tone or face isolation, since it both supports Israel and the enemy of Israel's bestest-buddy. Another benefit of placing US forces in Israel: Large seaports with minimal threat of say a suicide attack against our ships....

I would love to see Arafat's reaction to an announcement that Israel would host US invasion forces...It's not a good sign when the forces holding back your superior enemy are suddenly dependant upon your superior enemy's power over your lands.....

On the Palestinian's current intentions, I found this today in the NY times:
"Israeli tanks moved up the seashore early Wednesday, firing machine guns and cannons at floating tubes carrying a suspected weapons shipment as helicopters hovered overhead. One container blew up when it was hit by army fire, the military said."

also in the article, a view of the peaceful children of Israel, who, according to the Palestinian News Syndicate, need to have their rights protected by having no photos of them bearing arms( though arms apparently aren't necessary for violence):
"Dozens of Palestinian children and teenagers threw stones, plastic chairs and garbage at two Israeli tanks patrolling Jenin on Wednesday.

The children climbed atop one of the tanks and started throwing some equipment on the ground, witness said. One of the children was slightly injured when he fell off the tank, which fired its heavy machine gun, the witnesses said."

Poor darlings! they fell off of the big bad tank while peacefully protesting the patrols!!!
And to think that the AP would put out this propoganda, which damages the Poor Palestinians'(tm) credability!!!

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

-Ratz

So, they're all against us? None of them- not even Britain- will go in there with us to help get the job done? Every single Arab and European government is dead set against our removing Saddam from power?

I'm really curious to see how everything shakes out after we're done doing the job all by ourselves and we don't owe any favors to anyone.

If you believe DEBKAfile, the U.S. is already preparing bases in southern Israel.

#15 Andrew X;
#19
I think Andrew is onto something. It sounds like a childish tantrum, pick up our ball and go home, but international relations often find their true analogue in childish petulance. This is because they deal with childish, stupid and inflexibly clumsy entities; human mobs; rather than with rational individuals.

We Americans are a simple folk, just ask any European. We only want our inferior beer and our mcfatties and our gauche SUVs. We don't even understand how comparing our President to Richard the Lion Hearted makes him guilty of the same atrocities or allows positive conclusions about the present situation. We don't like being hated by our betters. I say we stop this intervention and bullying now, before the grownups (just ask them) really get mad at us.

When we do, though, we should go all the way, make them all happy. Close down everything that Euro-leftists find objectionable, beginning with NATO. No more Korea, or Japan, or ANZUS either, for these too are targets of righteous (just ask them) protestors. Closer to home, the enlightened government of Canada does not regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. Many Canadians do not want to participate in "our" wars. Should not NORAD, which could involve them automatically, be closed down as well? The air threat from the enlightened Eastern Hemisphere is minimal at best and Canada could not be defended without involving them in yet another of "our" wars. After all, bombing is evil (just ask the Euros) and only the US and its evil ally, Israel, ever do it.

"(how long before the Q word is heard again?)"

Not very. Check out the new piece by STRATFOR, "Situation Deteriorating Rapidly in Afghanistan."

Here's how it begins:

"The Taliban and al Qaeda reportedly are regrouping in preparation for a major escalation of fighting in Afghanistan. Moreover, STRATFOR has received intelligence that resistance to U.S. forces in Afghanistan has spread well beyond these groups, threatening a steep increase in fighting over the coming months."

[Link: www.stratfor.com...]

Maarten Schenk: Always nice to hear from an anti-idiotarian European (I know you're out there , but we can't always hear you on this side of the Atlantic because the Chris Pattens and Mary Robinsons drown out your voices).

I found Cheney's speech very heartening - it took the edge off my anger at Bandar's visit to Crawford. That's the damnest thing about this administration - just when I'm ready to throw up my hands in disgust and curse the day I voted for Bush, they come through in a big way. All of this diplomatic slip-sliding around is confusing me - and may be confusing Sadaam as well, which is probably exactly what it is intended to do.

Yes, I think Sadaam would nuke Israel before he'd nuke the U.S. But it's not going to get to that point.

Oh, and regarding the use of the "Q" word: I think that even if Iraq were to fall and Sadaam were to be strung up in a town square ala Mussolini 24 hours after the bombs started dropping, we'd still hear about "quagmires." I don't think that baby boomer journalists will ever stop seeing the world through their Vietnam-era glasses. And I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Left to ever admit they've been wrong about anything.

Eventually we'll be hearing about "quagmires in spirit" whereby any engagements is a quagmire by definition.

In the midst of reasoned (for the most part) comments, Stephen Kite's stupid post appears. Looks like someone always has to piss in the punch bowl.

Face it, some people will always blame "liberals" for everything. How silly and sad.

Mr. Kite, please play elsewhere and leave this area for the grownups.

Bravo to Cyrus (#17) for saying what everyone else in public life has been afraid to even suggest --that Israel should help us defeat Iraq.

The anti-Semitic propaganda of the Arab fascists and Euro-cowards have effectively removed Israel from the allied military equation, increasing the risk to our military and the overall success of the campaign.

We should all be publicly demanding that the best possible ally for defeating Iraq be included in any military activity against Iraq.

The latest product of Iran, the most devout of Islamic states: Chastity Houses....where the 300,000 prostitutes of Tehran (pop. 12 million) [2.5% of the population] can safely and healthily procure, ummm, human necessities....
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

'One of the few religious leaders to speak out in favor of "chastity houses" is Ayatollah Muhammad Moussavi Bojnourdi.

"I would not have supported chastity houses had it not been for the urgency of the situation in our society," he was quoted as saying in the newspaper Etemad. "If we want to be realistic and clear the city of such women, we must use the path that Islam offers us."'

of course, this is a matter dealt with in the Koran:
"In fact, the notion of such places is borrowed from the practice of temporary marriage, or sigheh, which is permitted in the Shiite branch of Islam, which predominates in Iran. Such marriages, which can last for a few minutes or 99 years, are especially recommended for widows who need financial support.

The practice allows a couple to marry for an agreed-on period of time by reciting a verse from the Koran. The oral contract does not need to be registered, and the verse can be read by anyone. Women normally receive money for entering the contract.

Temporary marriage has been publicly approved since early 1990's by Iranian officials, particularly Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was president then, as a way to channel young people's sexual urges under the strict sexual segregation of the Islamic republic."

Maybe we have all misjudged Islam, I mean, how could we hate a religion that approves of 'temporary marriages' that allow guilt-free (an legal)prostitution? Oh yeah, they're also evil....

In the fight against AIDS:
" The newspaper Entekhab recently reported that two sisters, ages 16 and 17, had infected 1,100 people with H.I.V."
busy, busy bees.......
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
And now from ArabNews;
The following article has NOTHING to do with the attempts to promote the delicious, Islamic-pure Zamzam cola, I repeat there is NO connection..... [Link: www.arabnews.com...]

A new term for terrorist operators: "volunteers"
[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

More evil Israeli manipulation:
[Link: www.arabnews.com...]
"The pro-Israeli ads will be watched with interest, especially as just four months ago, Saudi Arabia launched a similar campaign also aimed at improving their image in the United States following the shock citizens in both countries felt when it was learned that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis.

"The People of Saudi Arabia: Allies Against Terrorism" — was a $10 million TV campaign that used quotes from President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to drive home the Saudis’ message — but it feel flat on its face when cable channels refused to air the pair of 30-second commercials.

A&E, AMC, Bravo, History Channel, Lifetime, USA Network and the Weather Channel all turned down the spots, and as much as $400,000 in revenue for each network.

None of the stations said they doubted the aesthetics of the messages. One ‘major’ network consulted with its legal department before turning the spots down as "not appropriate." Another network said its "standards" forbade the ads, and a third said the ads sparked a "raging debate" in-house but were turned down anyway.

"Bets are on whether any network will say that its ‘standards’ will forbid airing the pro-Israeli ads," one Mideast analyst told Arab News."
------------------------------------
INSIDE THE CURFEWS:
Looks to me like they're working...
[Link: www.arabnews.com...]
Note: the author gives his Email address...
--------------------------------------
NEW HISTORY OF ISRAEL:
[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

"It is now widely argued, however, that the "Arab Army" the Jews were heroically defeating in fact constituted only about 20,000 men, the vast majority of Arab soldiers having been kept at home in fear of domestic instability. The stronger side predictably won, and in terms of historic battles the Jews’ initial was no big deal."

NEWSFLASH: Israelis provoke terrorist attacks, 'it's their own fault':"Then as now, no Israeli, it would appear, is ever capable of provoking a "terrorist" act, let alone engaging in one."

I never realized that ALL of the Oxford University Press could be taken over by 'evil zionist' influence, for shame! To publish Israeli propoganda.... many of you would probably yell at me for taking up space on this post with a thorough Fisking of the article,so I'll leave it to any of you that have the time and webspace.

-Ratz

Darn! BigBad beat me to the punch. All I can add is, after taking the oil fields, raise the price to the EU and Japan MUCH higher. 200 dollars sounds about right.

A gallon.

Let's not be so fast to dump our buddies down under, that's Aussie-land, not New Stinkland.
OK, Simian?

I just thought of a new approach to deterring war in the Middle East. Attention EU shoppers! We have decided to do things your way! If it goes poorly, and Israel gets hit with WMD, Sharon will nuke major population centers in Europe. Maybe Iraq too. So, if Saddam is a nice and reasonable buthcering war-monkey, you guys can sleep well.

Pleasant dreams...

...from Grimm Reaper

Oh, lord help me, I might as well be the one to post this, since Charles was no doubt referring to it in the subject header anyway...

"Political Science" - by Randy Newman

---

No one likes us, I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try.
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one, and see what happens.

We give them money - but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us - so let's suprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Asia's crowded and Europe's too cold
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us.

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All-American amusement park there
They got surfin' too.

"Boom!" goes London, and "boom!" Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono, babe
There'll be Italian shoes for me.

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

---

Now THAT is petulance.

The euro-weenies have to be against us(except the brits). If their pitiful militaries were to get involved they'd be shown to be the disgrace that they are. Who needs a bunch of snotty spoiled kids? Any way it works out,we'll do all the fighting and spend all the money. They will all be on our side after its over(as if I care). Europe is nothing more than a tourist attraction at this point. As groundskeeper Willie would say,"blouse wearin' poodle walkers"

Quag...

...mire

I see it's time to unearth a Golden Oldie from waaaay back last November. Here's Michael Kelly!

(Courtesy of the Zionist Media.)

"Good evening, and welcome to 'All Is Lost', the nightly public affairs program produced by National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp..."

The only problem with Iraq is its religion. If it was Orthodox Christian country it would be no problem neither for Turkey nor Germany, flirting and appeasing moslems for over ninety years. Sorry the September 11 did not take place in Berlin.

"Let's not be so fast to dump our buddies down under, that's Aussie-land, not New Stinkland.
OK, Simian?"

Abandon the Kiwis to what? The imperialist empire of Western Samoa?

If you continue to support Australia against the major threat in our vicinity (Indonesia) you are implicitly protecting them too anyway...

I still don't understand why we need to build a case against Iraq, or why it is an issue.

We ended the Gulf War on the condition that biological/nuclear weapons would cease being produced.

If weapons inspectors are not allowed to search every inch of Iraq at any time, then we have a green light to pave over a few of Sadam's palaces in search of weapons.

The Gulf War never ended.

This whole debate has just highlighted this administrations complete lack of public relations savvy.

Sadam is telling the region that an attack by the USA is a first step to taking over the Arab world, and our administration is trying to make up a compelling mandate for an invasion.

IMHO, I don't think a wholesale invasion is neccessary. Strengthen the Kurds in the North, and help the Southeast build some autonomy [by force], and then sit on a few of the larger oil fields outside of the major cities.

Saddam would fall in a few months.

Simon Conspiracy, #43,
Actually, the only people in Canada who don't support the USA and Israel, and who don't consider Hamas an organization of terrorists are (unfortunately) the political party presently in power here.

But don't worry - there's an election coming up shortly, and they haven't got a chance of winning it.

It's times like these that I go back to basics, and ask myself how my personal idol would deal with these problems. I look down at the little woven cloth band around my wrist and ask myself the question:
WWDCD?
What Would Don Corleone Do? (expecting someone else, weren't you?)
He's sitting down at his desk in front of you, Luca Brazzi like a walking death threat just behind him, and- on the eve of his daughter's wedding- you pour your problems into his avuncular ear...
What I hear him saying about Saddam Hussein is: "This man is not a man of respect; you cannot trust him to keep his word. Do not try. If you do, it makes you look like a fool and costs you respect in the eyes of men. Treat him as he deserves: like a mad dog."
Yassir Arafat: "This is a man who tells children to blow themselves up for his war, which is an infamita. Is this the man you want known as your ally and friend?"
The Arab Street: "They hate you, and this is allowable. The problem is that they do not fear you, because you have not been acting as a man who deserves respect; one who takes care of his friends and makes his enemies fear. Make them believe you are a man of respect."
Finally, Europe: "What is there to these people, what can they do or mean to you, that you WANT them as your friends?"

WWDCD, folks. Words from the wise.

I look down at the little woven cloth band around my wrist and ask myself the question:
WWDCD?

I just ask myself: WWCD?

"What Would Cthulhu Do?"

"He'd devour their souls, lay waste to all their works, and leave any descendants suffering nightmares for thousands of generations. Then he'd go off to a South Pacific island and sleep for a while."

All we are saying.........

Is let's bomb Iraq!

All together now.

All we are saying.........

Is let's bomb Iraq!

One more time...

All we are saying.........

Is let's bomb Iraq!

Everybody's talking bout Saddamism, Muslism, Suicide Bombism, and Saudiism...

All we are saying.........

Is let's bomb Iraq!

The problem: credibility. On the day of the murderous attacks on America, last September, the US President said: "Do not question American resolve?" That is the same guy who is now begging other countries to support his unworkable Mideast policies. If someone paid him to act as irresolute as possible, then he has earned every cent.

Any party who is thinking of joining GW's Bush league coalition would have to assume that the US executive would be sandbagged by a Saudi veto. Who on earth would want to be party to an inevitable fiasco?

Bossman,

Thank you for that one.
I'll add it to my play list, and never hear that song quite the same again.

When the world is against us, we're doing something right. It's when they agree I worry.

Do these people want to live in a world where maniacal dictators like Saddam have nuclear weapons ?

Depends on who "these people" are. If you mean ordinary Europeans, my informed guess is "no way". But if you mean the enlightened elites that inhabit the EUnik la-la-land, "yes, definitily". These illuminated geniuses believe they can talk Saddam out of any action against themselves. Talk and bribe that is, if necessary with cannisters of Zyklon B to do something about those evil pigs and monkeys in Palestine.

But if the lad has nuclear weapons, he will be invulnerable to American actions. He will bring balance to the world, he will take away the terrible injustice the Arab world suffers from at the hands of the evil American corporations and their jewish masters. And the leftist obsession with all kinds of perceived injustices is on display in Johannesburg these days. It's a full-time job for most of them.

In short, Saddam will do all things to the Americans and the Jews these leftist idiots and former Stalinist fellow travellers secretly long for but are too chicken to do themselves. And that's worth a little effort to help him acquire nuclear capability.

This was a dark day.

Charles' observation that America might respond to this hideous turn of events with two even more hideous words, "you're right," just depressed the shit out of me all day long.

But I watched a film tonight that raised my spirits. It's not a film about an American, but, ultimately, it's a film about Western Civilization.

It is: "Shackleton," the amazing true story of the English adventurer's survival in Antarctica, how he saved himself, AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF HIS CREW, through the worst that nature could conceivably present. (starring kenneth branagh, for my money, the best actor going.)

After a day like today, with the whole rest of the 'world' seemingly taking sides against us, it really stuck home. Is this, the spirit of Shackleton, an endangered species? Is this, this same curiosity and courage and spirit that brought us electicity and a trip to the moon and plentiful food and the Hubble space telescope, what they are actuaully taking sides AGAINST?

It is a movie that embodies the best of Western civilization, and almost, therefore, BY DEFINITION, the best of mankind. It shows our indomitable spirit, our burning need to understand, to explore, to risk our lives to discover what's over the next horizon. To endure. And to conquer.

Evil words now.

There was an interesting link yesterday about Jews and Nobel prizes, but consider an even larger picture for a moment: consider Western Civilization and the sheer number of Western men, like Shackleton, that have bequeathed to us a culture infinitely, and indisputably, superior to the do-nothing culture that is Islam/ME....

You can name hundreds, thousands, of men like Shackleton who had a dramatic effect on their fellow man. Now name fourteen Muslims. And no, enriching a shopgirl by spending a couple hundred grand on Hermes scarves doens't count as "contributing" to mankind's advance.

...Especially when you didn't innovate the technology that required the oil that you 'own' nor innovated the technology to retrieve it, nor pay for it to be retrieved for that matter. All they did, was have grandfathers who pitched their bedouin tents on land that had oil a mile or so beneath it. Therefore, they deserve riches. Ick. Okay. Sorry for the tangent.

Anyway, our children (and the teachers who teach our children) need to understand that some cultures ARE SUPERIOR to other cultures. Yes, 'superior' has become a bad word, it has become a word like 'n*****,' prejudicial by its own existence. But unlike that ugly word, 'superior' should not be swept into the dustbin of politically incorrect vocabulary.

A culture that can peacefully coexist with other cultures, that constantly seeks to improve the lives of its people, even at it own peril, is SUPERIOR to one that doesn't or can't. Period.

What's the use of even having the word 'superior' in the language if that weren't the case? Why would the word even exist if everything is equal and relative and nothing is 'superior'? Why would the word even exist?

Children need to be taught that.

A culture that values altruism and bravery and courage and empathy and curiousity and knowledge, is SUPERIOR to one that doesn't.

Children need to be taught that.

Rent "Shackleton." Show your kids the stuff that made this culture, this now mocked and despised Western culture, superior to the rough, brutish, and short savagery it fought so hard to not be.

I wish I could say that watching it will make you feel better. It just made me wistful for a world now past, when the word 'superior' wasn't a 'bad' word.

Ugh.

Whereas Europeans were sort of partners to the US during the Cold War, nowadays, after the real fighting is done, their role is to supply four-wheel-drives and sacks of grain. They perform these menial tasks with more or less zeal, but so much mopping-up action can lead to loss of self-esteem over time, no doubt.

So give them a break. They don't hate you, they're just tired of cleaning up all by themselves after an airborne raiding-party. To wit, here's a nice quote by a senior British civil servant in a Tom Stoppard play:

"The Americans say what they mean, and there is a vivid muscularity about the way they say it...They are always the first to put their hands in their pockets. They press you to visit them in their own home the moment they meet you and are irrepressibly good-humoured, ambitious and brimming with self-confidence in any company. Apart from that I've got nothing against them.

T.H.

I, for one, don't want to live in a world where Saddam Hussein possesses nuclear weapons.

But aren't there other means to achieve that? Aren't weapons inspections enough? Why is the former head of UNSCOM against this war? Presumably he knows better than most what the current state of Saddam's weaponry is...

If this is about WMD then why has the USA said that it will go full steam ahead with an invasion regardless because "inspections have never been the issue for us".

As far as I'm concerned that's the ONLY issue. I certainly wouldn't support a war if it can't be demonstrated that Saddam is a non-containable threat to the West.

Sure, it would be nice to be 100% sure that he will never threaten Israel or Europe or America.

But if 100% guarantees of non-threatening behaviour are what is demanded from countries before their leaders are allowed to remain in power then aren't there about 50 countries we could justify invading based on that argument?

Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Algeria, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Burma, Columbia... we could start a war with any of them using that argument. I think a little more is required before war is declared.

As for invading to bring Western-stlye democracy, women's rights etc to the Middle East, I say screw 'em! It's not like they'll be grateful for it. The idea of the benevolent invader conquering to spread a superior culture and world-view was tried and failed in colonial Africa.

The Africans just ended up hating us and in retrospect it's easy to make it look like that declared motive was just a front for self-interest (which it probably was).

I say it's time we shit-canned the idea of benevolent conquest permanently. Let them stew in their own filth and when they feel like joining us in the 21st century they can culturally advance under their own steam.

If there is no clear threat Iraq is not an issue.

The House un-American Activities Comittee were a bunch of swine.

There is nothing un-American about un-Americanism. The best way to defeat it is to bring it out in the open and deal with it. The heavy hand of government just drives this activity underground. We do not want to deny them their voice. It only strengthens them and weakens us. The question then becomes what is so good about their arguments that only silencing them can defeat them.

LGF is a better defender of America than 1,000 HUACs.

TH,

Gotta say I agree with you. The question I would like to ask is: How did we get in this situation where the Europeans can only provide four-wheel drives and sacks of grain?

I think there's far less to all this than meets the eye. Quite simply put, there is nothing to gain, politically, from supporting the U.S.'s plans right now. If the U.S. does, in fact, invade, rhetoric can be turned on a dime, and we may suddenly find ourselves wholeheartedly supported by everyone from Belgium to Bahrain, who are shocked, shocked! to discover that there were massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq after all.

By contrast, if the U.S. resolve should melt away, no other country would want to be left holding the bag of having supported an invasion of Iraq that didn't happen: not the Arabs who would suddenly be facing a hostile Iraq alone, and not the Euroids, Russians, or Japanese, whose business interests in the region would be threatened. Iraq tends to be less forgiving than the U.S. of such things.

So everyone takes the easy way out, screaming that an invasion would by yet more American cowboy unilateralism -- essentially, simply covering their butts. As a nice bonus, it makes these so-called leaders feel good about themselves, since they can be seen "standing up to" the U.S. (As though the U.S. has a history of rounding up foreign leaders who criticize it, and putting them into dungeons.) I wouldn't take any of it at face value.

I think what the US should do is release a report to everyone (US and non-US citizens) that details each country, how much foreign aid money we give to them, then places some quotes from that countries political leaders regarding our war on terrorism or their opinions about us going into Iraq. For example:

Turkey $4 Billion - "We have used every opportunity to tell our friends in the U.S. administration we are opposed to military action against Iraq"

Germany $4 Billion - "The monopoly on the decision and action in this question lies with the United Nations"

India $14 Billion - "There is a consistency in our policy [against a war in Iraq], and it is not going to change in the next few days or weeks"

Egypt $2 Billion - US should think about the "consequences before and after" any attack which "would lead to the deaths of many innocent people"

Really - the US should compile a list of how much foreign aid we give in the form of grants, and then circulate that list. Frankly, I don't buy into this altruism crap anymore ... you don't want to help us defend ourselves, fine, time to pull the plug ...

W.

Dan writes in #19:

Of course they live in reality. They're motivated by enlightened self-interest, the same as most people. What are the odds that, if Iraq becomes nuclear-capable, France will take a hit? Basically zero. Ditto for Germany, Japan, China, etc. They stand to gain nothing from the removal of Hussein from power. We are the ones who will benefit from his removal, because we're a potential nuclear target. So is Israel (which, no surprise, backs us).

I'm afraid I completely disagree with this, as does Charles Krauthammer. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is likely to be a target of Iraqi nukes on the day after he develops them. Whatever Saddam is, he doesn't seem to be insane, and using nukes on either of these nations is guaranteed to turn Iraq into a sheet of radioactive glass. Saddam is not an idiot; he isn't pursuing personal revenge against us for banging up his hardware in the Gulf War; he's got bigger fish to fry. He simply has goals in conflict with our interests, and he wants us neutralized so he can pursue them.

Any nukes Iraq develops are likely to be used as a deterrent against U.S. containment. (And it'll work: the American public is not going to risk the destruction of a city to keep Saddam in check. At least, not until it's too late.) Once this is done, he is free to conventionally expand through much of Arabia and bring his neighbors to their knees. Certainly the Arabian peninsula wouldn't be a problem -- without U.S. backing, no one else there stands a chance against the Iraqi military, even absent a nuclear threat. Combined with a conquest of the Caspian region, including Iran (which would require a nuclear threat), that would give Saddam control of nearly all of the world's oil supply, not to mention enormous amounts of land and resources, at which point he is free to build his own empire. Interestingly enough, Israel has less to fear in that stage than most of the region. (They may even benefit as Saddam's empire wipes out the Islamists that threaten him once and for all.) Their problem will be isolation and denial of resources and leverage after Saddam's plans bear fruit.

As for Europe and the rest -- a nuclear Iraq is a clear and present danger to them. Economically, having one entity controlling virtually your entire energy supply is, um, not a good thing. Politically, having an Arab version of the Soviet Union is going to shift the balance of power even further away from them. And militarily, they are but a hop, skip, and jump from Arabia. I certainly doubt that France or England would be willing to use their nukes to defend (say) Turkey or Greece or Bulgaria. A nuclear-armed, oil-rich empire Saddam seeks to create would have Europe as its bitch. Maybe Saddam and his successors will have no interest in conquering Europe and grabbing its vast wealth -- but surely even the most dimwitted Eurocrat wouldn't want to bet their way of life on that?

Ah yes, but you aren't defending us at all - this isn't about Europe or the rest of the world. If (as a country) you were that altruistic then Bush would be in South Africa. This is about 9/11 and nothing else.

Perhaps we should launch a lawsuit against you for bank rolling the IRA for the last 60 years - oh but that isn't terrorism is it? It's just patriotism.

IMHO the best thing GWB could do would be to address congress and ask for a declaration of war against all terrrorist countries BEGINNING with iran. by doing so it would be the greatest military misdirection since WWII, it would be more acceptable esp since the iranian terror connection is much more obvious, it would be an easier tactic since the mullahs are hanging on by their rotten teeth and once iran falls any move against iraq would be that much easier due to having boxed iraq in -plus knocking out iran would cause panic in syria and the PA (which is a major bonus). iran shd be our first target

#73

I don't remember the American government bankrolling the IRA. I do believe, however, that the euros have no problem funding the palestinians and their death cult. They also have no problem doing business with Iraq and Iran and everybody else America hates.

The make-up of America is primarily British (English/Welsh) and German descendants, not Irish. I could care less about N. Ireland, as could the majority of Americans. Our feds would have Waco'd their butts. Why couldn't yours do the same?

Ariel,

How did we get in this situation where the Europeans can only provide four-wheel drives and sacks of grain?

Here's a quote from a recent article by Nicholas Fraser in Harper's: "Le Divorce":

"Europeans are war-averse, inclined to respond to violence with non-violence".

and specifically on Israel:

"The fighting in Palestine, in which American-equipped Israeli forces frequently destroy the buildings of the Palestinian Authority erected by the E.U., leaves Europeans with no ready response. They cannot (and here the bloodstained European past is important) heap exclusive blame on the Israelis. It is easier to cast Palestinians, sentimentally, in the familiar role of victims.
Wanting an end to the fighting, however, Europeans are obliged to petition Americans to act on their behalf, which is of course what America will not do. The idea of a Stars and Stripes-style democracy for Palestine, created amid rubble at the behest of Ariel Sharon and George Bush, appears wholly ridiculous in Europe. But once again, the Europeans are brushed aside."

Again, Europeans don't hate the Americans. It's like in the old and tried clichée: The rich uncle from abroad now prefers to visit his young chicks on the other side of town, while the old and wrinkled family-members clearly come second. They can live with it, but once in a while they will tell the uncle to cut back on his macho-stance, because he gets older too.

T.H. - in need of a Botox-shot

Kate writes:

Ah yes, but you aren't defending us at all - this isn't about Europe or the rest of the world. If (as a country) you were that altruistic then Bush would be in South Africa.

Who said anything about altruistic? The U.S. has its own interests to protect. A nuclear-armed empire headquartered in Baghdad would certainly be a threat to the U.S. The point is that it's also a threat to Europe -- even sooner than to the U.S.

And South Africa? Give me a break. There's no altruism there at all -- just self-importance and self-gratification, masquerading as "concern." Here's some flour and salt for your red herring.

Perhaps we should launch a lawsuit against you for bank rolling the IRA for the last 60 years - oh but that isn't terrorism is it? It's just patriotism.

Yes, of course, American patriots lie awake nights trying to figure out ways of booting the British out of Belfast.

And let's get something straight: American tax dollars have never, not ever, funded the IRA. The worst you can say is that the American government looked the other way while private groups in the U.S. raised funds for them. This is shameful, to be sure, but we certainly don't need to be lectured about it by countries who have directly sponsored outfits like the PLO with their tax dollars.

Oh, and by the way, have some more salt.

TH,

Yes, but the American (and British) pacification of Europe is what led them to being war averse.

It is easier to cast Palestinians, sentimentally, in the familiar role of victims.

Yes, but this is factually incorrect. There are twenty-how-many Arab countries? They have invaded Israel as a group how many times? Who started the stupidfada?

The idea of a Stars and Stripes-style democracy for Palestine, created amid rubble at the behest of Ariel Sharon and George Bush, appears wholly ridiculous in Europe. But once again, the Europeans are brushed aside."

Good to see that the Europeans are so idealistic. Especially given Japan and Germany's long history of pre-WWII democratic institutions, it seems that the Europeans are being quite a-historical.

I know that this is kind of unfair as I am attacking your source, but I can't help correct some factual inaccuracies.

I was reading some more of James Lilek (he's now on my daily reading list) and came upon his Olive Garden screed ([Link: lileks.com...]

I love his quote regarding this Iraq thing: (emphasis mine)

"Here’s the deal: we don’t need your support. But understand that if Iraqis had flown planes into Big Ben, we’d take out Saddam, because we understand that an attack on you is an attack on us. The West is not defined by Belgian edicts on acceptable levels of tomato sauce viscosity. The West is a set of ideas that need defending. Forgive us our passable wines; forgive our standardized veal. Forgive us our simple-mindedness, for we - from Alabama on outward to outer, distant Alabama and beyond - have a gut feeling that “quarrels” usually boil down to two sides. Forgive us for believing that fascism's side ought to lose.

And if we seem arrogant when it comes to beating fascism, forgive us once more, for we have something you don’t.

Practice. "

ouch

W.

E. Nough #72,

I don't know if you're right. I have the feeling that the US would stand up to some nuclear blackmail. If we don't stand up to nuclear blackmail now, the demands will only get worse. The last thing we want to do is be in a situation were we're paying people not to nuke us.

Besides that, we might try to call Saddam's bluff. OK, you have nukes, we could say, g'head try and take Arabia. Then, when he does, we attack. And we inform him - BTW, if so much as a radioactive particle comes in our direction, Iraq will be a sheet of radioactive glass.

He's not an idiot - and assured destruction has a way of changing people's minds.

Some of us are definitly with you!

Sure, the so-called elite among us has always felt some kind of totalitarian obligation (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Arafat etc.). But if you live an ordinary street-level life you know exactly what this is all about: a conflict between two imcompatible systems!

Don't forget the increasing islamistic presence in nearly every larger european city!

I have the feeling that the US would stand up to some nuclear blackmail.

Only the right president would. I will not indulge in useless speculation about who would or would not -- oh, hell just one. I doubt Jimmy Carter would have stood up to nuclear blackmail. Who is to say whichever president we have at the time would?

James -

Point well taken. If the people found about it though... they might want to change presidents.

Two things about the Iraq Issue:

1) Our first mistake is asking for their advice. We need to decide on our own if this is necessary and if it is they are either with us or against us.

2) I think Bush has made up his mind to attack. Cheney and Rummy have been making the case for this in public. Bush would not let these two sound-off about the imperitive to attack Iraq without a concrete intention to follow-through. That would look very bad indeed. All of this sandbagging by the rest of the world is nothing more than an unintended, yet useful diversion;

3) Bush has nothing to lose by defeating Iraq, because it would be a preemptive strike. Everyone agrees how dangerous Saddam is. No one in America is going to say after this is over, boy I really wish Saddam were back in power. Just as the Israeli attack on Iraq in 1982, there may be some initial grumbling, but that will subside and no-one will really be upset with the end result of ousting Saddam.

Here are some warm words of support from M. Chirac, just off the wires:

"French President Jacques Chirac issued on Thursday his sharpest criticism of U.S. threats to attack Iraq, saying any such action without a U.N. mandate would run counter to international rules.

"This goes counter to the French notion of collective security, a notion based on cooperation between states, the respect of law, and the authority of the (UN) Security Council," he told a conference of French ambassadors gathered in Paris."

Yep, that'll be the "collective action" France that pulled its forces out of NATO, defies any European Union directive it doesn't like, and generally bases its positions on whatever winds up the Anglo-Saxons, while looking for nice little tyrant bribery deals for TotalFinaElf on the side.

Not to mention the sheer idiocy of leaving all vital issues up to the Security Council alone. Why is it so hard for people in Paris to figure out that the UN can get it wrong? Listening to this tripe, you'd think the UN was some all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being with a good line in divine justice. Instead of the mess with a sorry record that it is.

The problem is that I think Chirac and Co know full well that it is a mess. This is their tricky way to dodge responsibility - shout "UN" and half of France jumps. Shout "America" next and the other half jumps. Voila, problem solved.

Merde.

Re: #72, Well put, E. Nough. I agree with you on this one 100%.

Saddam delenda est!

Riverman,

Don't forget that France sold Iraq the nasty little nuclear reactor that the Israelis blew up in 1981.

Meanwhile Russia is helping Iran build 5 new nuclear reactors.

I need another bong hit.

#73 Kate:
Postings like yours grind on my last good nerve.

So in order for the US to better show its "altruism", it should sit with a bunch of unelected assholes feasting on champagne and lobster while contemplating "poverty"?

(Meanwhile, ignoring the thousands of people who are starving because of Mugabe's dictatorial regime.)

You must work at the EU or UN.

AAAArrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh.

Hi Ariel (#80),

I don't know if you're right. I have the feeling that the US would stand up to some nuclear blackmail. If we don't stand up to nuclear blackmail now, the demands will only get worse. The last thing we want to do is be in a situation were we're paying people not to nuke us.

I completely agree with you in what you are saying. There is no way the U.S. would ever give in to demands based on the threat of nuclear attack.

That said, I still think a nuclear-powered Saddam would have a much freer hand. It wouldn't be through blackmail as such -- you wouldn't hear explicit threats to the U.S., for example. Saddam would simply start conquering the weaker countries to his south, uniting them into a "Husseini Arabia," and letting our own fears paralyze us. How many Americans would be willing to risk confronting a nuclear-armed Iraq just to protect Saudis or Yemenis? How many Presidents would be willing to risk losing San Francisco to protect Sana'a? Provided Hussein didn't threaten our interests directly (and if he were smart, he'd actually discount Saudi oil once he had it), I doubt we'd have the political wherewithal to take action against his empire building. It's hard enough to do so now, when all he has is some old tanks and an army that is a poor match for the California National Guard.

I don't know any of this, of course. But it seems plausible. It certainly seems worth the risk, from Saddam's perspective. After all, he doesn't really give a rip -- even if Iraq does lose a city or two, it's worth the cost of trying to build his empire.

Frankly, I don't want to find out, which is why I want Iraq conquered, its weapons program quashed, and Hussein ousted. At the very least.

The rest of the world would like to see Iraq with nukes and use them on the US and Israel.

Why would anyone else think otherwise?

I mean, hello! The rest of the world has hated the US's guts for years. Israel too. Have you had your heads in the sand or something?

Sheesh.

Litchy great point in #84. One thing that everybody here has to realize is that Bush does not give a damn about what anybody else thinks is right or wrong. He is going to do what he thinks is right, fuck everybody else. Thats what really pisses everybody off, the Euros, the Dems, the UN crowd, the lefty college professors. They are trying their hardest for their opinions to count, but they know, he has made up his mind, on his own, guided by what he and he only thinks what is right and what is wrong. And you are fooling yourselves if you think that all this talk in the media made him cave to get a congressional vote before the attack, he wants it anyways, mostly for political reasons to call the Dems out.

The Europeans are worthless. They, over the years, after being protected from the communists by the United States, have allowed the communists to take over disguised as socialists. They, not satified with having local, state, and federal governing (and taxing) bodies, have given more freedom away in the form of a continental government, the EU, unelected by the people of those nations.

Their socialist nightmare economies are flaccid and weak, as they support those who are not productive by overtaxing the successful. There is no way that they could defend themselves against the threats of the modern world, so they hide in the shadows when the beasts approach, coming out only to support those who destroy their own people, and threaten the security of the world.

Simply put, European elites dine on lobster and caviar when the people upwind from their sensitive, upturned noses starve. When the American President does not show up to be scorned, the scorn him long distance. They cater to dictators, while shunning those who have always come to their aid when the chips were down. They deserve no less than the second rate status that they, if they are lucky, will always rate.

The United States should let them dine on ashes, as they always have done when left to their own devices.

As the son of a Syrian man and a Lebanese woman, I know first hand what happens when the European path is followed. I also know that there are enough conservative people in the United States that we will not have to worry about losing our freedoms to socialist elites. Allah has smiled on America, and no matter what the misguided demon worshipers who hide in our mosques say, Allah will continue to do so. When I first moved to this country, I was exposed to the wonderful game of American football. There was a coach that summed up my feelings exactly. He said, "Where else would you rather be, than right here, right now!".

I am proud to be an American Citizen now. I could have gone to Europe, it is much easier to become a citizen there, and most countries put you on the welfare system right away, but why risk your life fleeing from war and terror for a bargin basement existance? I came here, worked hard, and prospered.

My people will one day be free because of steadfast and honorable Americans.

God bless America.

Jarrah, that is one of best damn things I've ever seen writen here on LGF, bravo to you sir.

T.H. writes that Europeans don't hate America. That's mostly true for the ordinary folks, who eat at McDonald's, drink Cola (mostly Coke), watch American sit-coms etcetera. They do so because they like those things.

The cultural marxists that form the European elite are another story though. They eat at McDonald's, drink Cola and watch American sit-coms too. They like those things as well, but they can't admit it. They're lured into it by an evil conspiration of corporate wrongdoers. They're estranged by all this, as good marxists should be. And they hate the source of all that fancy stuff because deep down they know their own preferred system is unable of providing them.

Basically, they're in the same boat as the islamists : they believe their system to be superior (either because God told them so or because Reason dictates it), but they're constantly reminded of the wrongness of that belief. That's unbearable. So, what can they do, except hysterically shouting ugly things against the US ?

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing that he cares about more than his own safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

When I think of the euros the above quote usally comes to mind.

Jarrah al-Sayeg your post is fantastic.

Not everyone's against you.

Here in Australia we'll shoulder to shoulder (or, given our nations' respective sizes should that be shoulder to kneecap?) with our American buddies.

Jarrah (#92) And God bless you for your wonderful post!

How do we find more like you?

Thank You Jarrah,

As for Jeremy (#90),
Quite simply, YES.

The US is a major bump-in-the-face for the Europeans. For almost 1000 years they were the lords and masters of the world- superior in technology, politics, military might and influence, and in their culture. The US, once a small colony of England in the 'New World', has surpassed them all in all of those factors. The 20th century was taken up by the death-spasms of European pre-emminance. The US fought it out with the last European powers (Germany, then Russia) and overcame them all. The influence of the US is world-wide. If the US were to shut itself off from the world (except from the REAL allies of Israel, Australia, and MAYBE Britain and Canada), then the world economy would simply collapse. Without the US's funding, many countries would collapse into huge defecits and funding failures.

It is this influence which makes the U.S. an object of hate in much of the world. Envy over the unavailable leads one to hate.

The most successful are hated by those who fall to the wayside.

-Ratz

Why don't we propose a union of english speaking countries USA Aus, Can NZ UK etc- since we all get along well and back one another. What does the UK get out of the EU except problems. Coming from Australia and living temporarily in the UK (I AM ONLY GIVEN A 2 YEAR VISA) and seen the social problems that the UK faces it could do better outside. That way we would be a federalised superpower and no one would stand in our way. All we need is each other and the rest of the world can go to hell.

the notion that the USA gives Germany $4 billion in aid is fucking laughable you moron.

Its strange how my views on the UN has changed over the last year. Why strange? Because I did not see it before.

Previously, I thought the UN was basically a hapless but well-meaning body, tangled in the morass of its own beaurocracy and basically incapable of actually affecting any sort of positive change.

This was before I studied their record.

Now I put foward this idea:

The UN is, at best, an ineffectual 'peacekeeper' and a strong voice in support of cowardly appeasance. Its voice is strongest in this regard during precisely those occasions when deterrence is the most necessary.

At its worst, though, its an active participant and apologist for evil. While ignoring some of the vilest atrocities on this side of history, including many that are committed today in China against hapless Taiwan (just ferinstance), it instead spends the majority of its time coming up with resolutions against Israel. This is strange, considering the remarkable temperance Israelis have shown given the extreme seriousness of the threat against them, and the obvious butchery that is conducted against her people.

It bears thinking about that just about 2/3rds of -all- resolutions that the UN or the security council passes are simply attacks on Israel. Even the terrorist attacks cannot be condemned by this body (except lightly, and in the context of moral-equivalance arguments).

What is the real purpose of this organization? How much credibility can they have, if the UN Human Rights Commission, probably their single most prestigious organization, is now headded by the monstrous Quadaffi?

Why should ANYONE care what they think? And who should dare suggest that this corrupt organization should be the only legitimate arbiter of international disputes?

I think the importance of this has been vastly underestimated. If the terrible truth about the UN is known, then it will become clear that, for all her flaws, the US must be supported as the only great nation that is willing to stand up to evil.

Wayne (#71): The information you are seeking can be found at the USAID website under program summaries:

[Link: www.usaid.gov...]

There are also some studies of the UN voting records of top USAID resipients at

[Link: www.heritage.org...]

Germany does not seem to be a current recipient of US foreign aid, so I'm wondering where you got your figures. Perhaps you could elaborate.

On the other hand, it was US financial support which rebuilt Germany after the devastation to which Hitler exposed it. endelsung the Nazi troll (#100) has a short memory along with a foul mouth.

Isolationism is looking more and more attractive. They don't even like us when we pay them to. Anyone feel like a wealthy John being repeatedly rolled by starving prostitutes who spit in his face? Time to limit socializing to those who truly love you--even if they do so only out of a sense of duty.

Dear Sir,
we urgently need to contact the factories or the main plant of ZAMZAM COLA as we are in Pakistan (Karachi) and need to establish a plant there so kindly do us the favour and provide the contacts of different factories or the main people involved in it.
Thainking u,
FAHAD.

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about some dead Americans. Thousands of people die everyday due to war and disease. If the US bombs Iraq, yet more people will die. Stop shooting people, you fools. When was the last time it actually solved anything (Somalia? Vietnam? The exaggerated death of Bin Laden? Korea? To name but a few).

As an Englishman, I suggest that the UK has much better things to spend taxpayers' money on than going to war. Er, like healthcare and education.

And George Bush is a raving lunatic. Talk about need for "regime change"

Hmm. Perhaps a bit harsh Potemkin?
Whilst I agree that the past conflicts you have cited were perhaps not concluded in quite the way the US might have preferred, you have missed an important point.

Saddam is currently riding on a wave of popularity, is an undisputed dictator and can oppress any opposition ruthlessly and without check. He has also been engaged in ethnic cleansing using chemical and biological weapons.

Not so long ago we in the UK took a stand against a similar lunatic, which resulted in a war that engulfed the entire world. Was this the wrong thing to do?

I think we should support our allies.

WWII arose when one country unilaterally declared war on another. The UN was created to ensure that never happens again. I support the UN.

Breaking news....

Saddam Hussien has called for regime change in the US, calling on the American people to recognise the democratically elected President, not the one whom was brought to power via a rigged election.

Palestinian monitors will be present at the next US Presidential election to ensure it is fair...

Let's keep this simple:
If there is compelling evidence that Saddam has capability to go nuclear (note the absence of the much abused word "may" in that sentence"), then the UN weapons inspectors should go in, confirm and remove.
If there is no such evidence, then every one should have a cup of tea.
I say NO to a war that is really about oil and restoring the US national pride (and stock market).

Coming from a non-U.S. country, I have a slightly different perspective from most of you.

Did it occur to you that by assisting the US in their "War on Terror" that now seems to have branched out to Iraq (which is rather ironic, since Saddam has received quite a lot of help from previous US governments), other countries would make themselves a target for terrorism (or a greater target, if you prefer)?

Your government has caused upwards of 3500 civilian casualties in Afghanistan and has had little impact on the Al Queda network? You haven't even caught the mastermind behind it.

Your military uses weapons which deploy effective land mines - Cluster Bombs (CLU-87 and -89, off the top of my head). These weapons contain over 200 soda can-sized bomblets that are bright yellow. While the cluster bomb is undoubtedly an effective and cheap weapon (the CLU-87 costs under US$14,000), about 20% (this is an arguable figure - 5% was quoted by your government, but most quotes ranged from 15-30%) of the bomblets do not detonate. Curious childeren and adults, thinking that the bomblets are food, medicine or toys, accidentally detonate them, causing death or serious bodily injury. These cluster bombs are in the process of being classified as landmine-deploying devices (which makes the use of them violate international anti-landmine treaties), and this, unsurprisingly, is being strongly opposed by your government.

Your media deliberately silences facts, such as civilian casualties, humans rights violations, anti-war protests and general ineptitude of your military and government. Your government even had the gall to create a department specifically for the purpose of misleading foreign media (which, in turn would mislead international AND American media as a result) called the Office of Strategic Influence (although I think it may have been disbanded, so I am not entirely sure of whether it exists presently).

Your willingness to condemn other countries is appalling. You are targeting Iraq because you believe they have weapons of mass destruction and are willing to use them. Did it occur to any one that Korea, Pakistan, India, Japan, China, Russia, Israel, Britain, France, South Africa all possess these weapons? Many other countries are capable of constructing such weapons as well. Now, placing this information together with the fact that a large majority of you seem to believe that the whole world is out to get them and nobody likes you - dare I ask why you aren't attacking any other countries?

You also berate Iraq for attacking its own civilians (don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning such action in any way whatsoever), yet Sudam is refusing to allow aid to 1 million of it's people and is actively bombing them. Once again, where are your weapons, egos and blissfully ignorant black-and-white senses of right and wrong in this case?

With such a broad statement as "Nobody Likes Us" when referring to America, on the whole, I'd have to say I completely agree.

I know most of you will cry traitor, terrorist and morally deficient (as well as a stream of curses and threats) upon my saying all of this, but, this is the way I feel, and this is the way many other people feel.

I cannot speak for the rest of the world (nor to I pretend to), but I have attempted to briefly outline the frustration that I personally feel, as well as the way many other people I have talked to feel.

My only suggestion is this - before you go to war with Iraq, why not do some research into other countries that are equally as dangerous?

Regards,
Justin

PS - Has anyone noticed that America is the only country ever to detonate nuclear bombs in a hostile engagement? We did.