CONTRIBUTED THOUGHTS TOWARD THE WAR ON TERRORIST THINKING. Thru addendum 45 as sent to the State Department





















(1) POINT/COUNTERPOINT addendum 45








"…the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Response: The US has achieved half of that, no oppression. Unfortunately, when confronting madness, non-violence is weakness.


"A country which has dangled the sword of nuclear holocaust over the world for half a century and claims that someone else invented terrorism is a country out of touch with reality." -John K. Stoner

Response: There would be no John Stoner if the US had not developed a nuclear arsenal before Hitler, his axis buddies, and Stalin, a fact completely missing in the fantasy minds of meaningless word-weaving John Stoners.


"After 9/11, Bush needed to assert American power, but should have adopted a posture of consultation and cooperation.":

Response: (1) Bush can't dance indefinitely with nations unwilling to confront obvious evils in the world due to their profiting in reckless capitalism that deals with the evils. (2) Can't do both. Bush did consult, but to cooperate to do little about the evils that have attacked the US is not an option for a US President sworn to protect his people.


"All weapons are boomerangs":

Response: Not if Saddam is dead.


"As a priest for more than 40 years, I have yet to encounter the God who counsels pre-emptive slaughter in the name of peace.":

Response: (1) Unfortunately this statement has been misdirected at Bush rather than the Osama's and Muslim Fundamentalists of the world. (2) Further,  the Osama's and Fundamentalists still do not give two cents for peace, but only for their own power, (3) the Priest has not heard of Allah or Mohammad, it appears, (4) and why are peaceniks afraid to direct their barbs at the real killers in the world, and instead pick on the honorable guy doing the right thing, such as Bush?


"As soft as angels wings, As quiet as night, As gentle as a snowflake, May Peace come to your heart." -Unknown:

Response: Had this Unknown known his verse would have been so misapplied here, he wouldn't have said it. Misapplied because this loony liberal is directing it at the US rather than where it should be directed at, the tyrants of the world aligned against the US.


"Basra is a humanitarian disaster since the war began.":

Response: Then how does that explain the population rising from 15,000 to 40,000 since the Brits took over?


"Boycott Bush's Corporations to stop the war":

Response: Bush would be in dereliction of his duty to protect airheads like you if he did not pursue terrorists and the states that deal with them to the ends of the earth, as he is doing.


"Breathe in terrorists, Breathe out sleeping children and fresh mown fields. ...Act as if armistice has already arrived. Don't wait another minute. Celebrate today." -Judyth Hill:

Response: Creepy, and eerily irresponsible, in the face of such blatant tyranny and Osama, terrorists, Mad Mullahs, and their millions of blind, prejudiced, arrogant, and ignorant followers. More like "Breathe in terrorists, Breathe out sarin gas, and then breathe no more." and "Celebrate today, because you are targeted by terrorists who kill defenseless, unsuspecting people like you to acheive their goals, and tomorrow may not come for you."


"Bush alienated US allies before the war.":

Response: No, in fact he brought out their true colors… red is dead, so it can't be that… it might be yellow for some but not all, the rest are doing it for big oil contracts with Saddam, so their color is green.


"Bush and cronies are war-mongers":

Response: No, they did not war-monger before 9/11, and it doesn't take a genius to see what needs to be done. It does however take a lot of courage, which Bush's spineless critics lack.


"Bush committing the United States of America to a policy of Hitlerian military aggression…" -Chris Floyd

Response: There is no comparason except in the uninformed, devoid-of-history, juvenile mind of Chris Floyd.


"Bush does not think he is doing God's work, he thinks he IS God.":

Response: Clever, but untrue. Is Bush just pandering to the Bible thumpers in the US? No, again. In fact, Loony Liberals completely miss the point once again. Bush is bringing up religion to challenge Osama's an Muslim Fundamentalist's self-proclaimed monopoly on God's will, bringing up the point that God's Will works here too.


"Bush drunk with power"

Response: Bush would be derelict in his duty to protect American citizens if he was not pursuing terrorists, their means, and their supporters to the ends of the earth. The only one drunk with power is the one making the "drunk with power" statement.


"Bush endangering the survival of the planet":

Response: Mere cowardly conjecture.  Counterpoint: Leaving dictators in power  who desire weapons of mass destruction is much worse.


"Bush had support of world after 9/11, now he has squandered it":

Response: He has not squandered what was not really there in the first place. The rest of the world never had the nerve to stand up to the task of combating terrorist and rogue states, and therefore lash back at the US when asked to help.


"Bush has lied about Saddam and 9/11 and took advantage of that, Saddam never was a threat to the US.":

Response: To say this is to ignore the many means of indirect threats, such as a terrorist in a jumbo jet.


"Bush is a warmonger.":

Response: The only fault Bush Jr. has is that he has not displayed the proper distaste for a War that has been wrongly thrust upon his country, thereby projecting the image in the world that Americans enjoy war because they can't be touched and can't lose.


"Bush is an idiot.":

Response: Maybe it's ironic, but it seems that those Presidents who were capable of the least, accomplished the most in our recent history, just by defining clear goals and recognizing that they were not qualified to meddle.


"Bush leader of international gang of bastards"

Criminals (who said this) attack others in public by describing themselves.


"Bush spending money on "what-ifs" when "is's" are killing people in the world at this very moment":

Response: It is his job to address the what-if's when it concerns the lives of masses of American civilians.  Dealing with the "is's" is being funded.


"Bush will cut social programs to make war in Iraq":

Response: Terrorists, using Saddam's CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) agents and weapons, will target population centers full of the very deadweights who live off of the social programs and protest Bush's war on terror.


"Bush's war is aimed at diverting attention away from domestic problems.":

Response: International terrorism and states that publicly applaud them and desire weapons of mass destruction have been domestic issues since 9/11.


"But what of war and the much vaunted crime of slaughtering whole peoples?" -Seneca, c. 4 B.C. - A.D. 65:

Response: Only an all-powerful God can afford to be all-merciful. It is a law of nature, the smaller combatant can less afford mercy than the larger, and the less you are all-powerful, the less you can afford mercy. This is why Iraq was so brutal and the US so merciful, because of the degree to which each could afford it.


"But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that.  Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white." -Nelson Mandela:

Response: A typical weak-minded liberal. Let me help him: Did Israel call 9./11 "God's Justice" as Saddam did? Are Israelies Muslim, as the terrorists who have declared war on, and have been attacking the US, are? Need I go on?  Because I can. Is Israel a closed and secretive tyrannical society, as Saddam's Iraq is? Is it more likely Saddam or the Israelies would harbor Muslim terrorist organizations that blindly hate the US? Have the Israeli regimes used weapons of mass destruction against it's neighbors and own people in order to keep itself in an unelected, perpetual state of power? Need I go on? Because I can. But it's time you think for yourself. As for your Black/White statement, you are racist.


"Calling them 'death squads' is a loaded description with legal implications.":

Response: (1) We'll leave that to Iraqi civilian justice after Saddam is gone. (2) Death Squads is only an accurate description of their job function as ordained by Saddam.


"Civilian deaths (accidentally caused by the US's war on Saddam) would cause hate in the future.":

Response: A cowardly statement, considering that US hate is a matter of prejudice and has nothing to do with civilian deaths, otherwise Saddam and the Baath Party the US is a war with would be hated and not the US, considering the millions of Iraqis the Baath Party has murdered.


"Death to America":

Response: Who are they going to start with, Muslim Americans?


"Death to America.":

Response: "I normally wear a pendant around my neck, inscribed with an Arabic prayer for safety; similar to the cross. A hasidic Jew came up to me and held the pendant in his hand, and looked at it. He read the Arabic out loud for a second. What he said next, I will never forget. With a deep Brooklyn accent he said "Brother, if you don't mind, there is a cloud of glass coming at us, grab my hand, let's get the hell out of here."He was the last person I would ever have thought, who would help me." -Usman Farman,
Pakistani Muslim relating experience of September 11, 2001. -Story typifies the "America" the Muslim world fails to comprehend, and chants death to.


"Democracy will never happen in Iraq. Old rivalries will resume.":

Response: (1) that is not an option for Iraqis. (2) A little enlightenment and creativity and compassion applied to the problem is enough to solve it, along with the heavy hand above. (3) a good example of Liberal defeatism bread by a generation of cynicism that should have died with the objects of that cynicism.


"Desert Storm will be another Vietnam.":

Vietnam:  Political Leaders during Vietnam fancied themselves tacticians who could instruct the military how to conduct daily operations in response to minute perceived foreign relations. Ask Robert McNamara if it was successful. Also dig out a history book.   Desert Storm:  In Desert Storm, the military was given a clear goal and allowed to do their job to reach it, without meddling from Washington. Do you remember if that was successful? In fact, the only failure in Desert Storm was when Washington stepped in at the end and meddled.


"Diplomacy never got tried with Iraq":

Response: only for 12 long years. Also, the sanctions you condemned for killing 5000 children a day were part of your very "diplomacy".


"False reality where war=peace, invasion=democracy":

Response: The only falseness I see is your logic.


"How long until you occupy…"

Occupy? As for occupy, it would be less costly for the US if the UN contributed to the guidance of Iraq away from a Saddam system of government to something more inducing to peace and prosperity.  France has shown interest in a bellicose fashion in leading that coalition, if for honorable reasons, good, if they go in as a colonial vulture, bad.


"I do not see Iraq liberated. All I see is the murder of innocent men, women and children.":

Response: (1) By who? People like this only see accidental casualties cause by the US as it frees Iraq from it's cancer, while turning a blind eye to all the innocent men, women, and children Bin Laden and Saddam are killing. Why? Blind prejudice against the US. (2) I see Iraqis liberated.


"I would like to see an International Court established in which to settle disputes between nations." -Robert Green Ingersoll
Boston, 1897:

Response: (1) Unfortunately the French and Russians would corrupt the court in the interests of their pending huge oil contracts with Saddam. (2) Send armies of debate teams instead to help the disputing parties ferret out the truths.


"If a reporter pursued the story of why we are spending $300 billion on the military, he or she would appear to have an axe to grind and therefore to be unprofessional." -Robert McChesney:

Response: Another confused, distorted liberal.  The fact is the US spends proportionally less of it's gross national product on the military than any other nation in the world.


"If AIDS were pandemic in the White population, the reaction to AIDS would be much different":

Response: There isn't a pandemic for a good reason- White people are hard at work making the world a better place to live in, rather than fooling around in flea-bitten beds with other disreputable pleasure-seekers.


"If Saddam has Civilian Mass Murder weapons, why weren't they used on 9/11?

Response: (1) Because Osama wanted something more dramatic. (2) It was Osama's poetic justice to attack the World Trade Center and it's supporting apparatus on the day his crony was being sentenced for the first World Trade Center terrorist bombing attempt. (3) Hijacking planes was easier than smuggling in, hiding, and implementing Civilian Mass Murder agents.


"If they don't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush will lose face.":

Response: Not with me. I have enough insight in the matter to see that with one swing Bush has struck blows against terrorism, tyranny, and anti-US prejudice throughout the world.


"If you want peace, work for justice." -Pope Paul VI:

Response: The very adage the US is abiding by in it's war on Iraq.


"Implication in some of these emails that 'worried coalition families are somehow morally superior' to worried Iraqi ones.":

Response: (1) This person misread them. It's "morally superior to Saddam's regime", (2) Worried coalition families are not ruled by a murderous madman who openly supports terrorist attacks against others.


"In it's campaign in Iraq, the US is virtually alone.":

Response: (1) I can foresee this same despicable coward will trying to take credit for being behind the US once the US is victorious and the benefits of that victory begin to bear fruit in the world. (2) 45 nations support the US, and they aren't all Micronesia's.


"In the history of world British troops along with their allies probably killed more innocent civilians then any other "regime". What about Hiroshima and Vietnam, USA has forgotten history.":

Response: What about the Imperial Japanese in China, the Communist Chinese in China, the Communist North Vietnamese in South Vietnam, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, not to mention Stalin, Hitler, and the dozens of other mass-murdering dictator regimes Britain and the US have fought in the last century? To single out Hiroshima and Vietnam against the US is to have an unbalance, unhealthy, if not to mention twisted, view of history, with equally twisted nefarious motives behind such twisted statements. You're probable a dictator.


"In the past, Europe could oppose the US, but that opposition was balanced by the Soviet threat of Stalinist Communism":

Response: Looks like Europe has forgotten who it's friend is.


"In Vietnam, a disproportionate amount of blacks were killed."

Response: Only 11% of vets were black, and sustained 12% of the casualties. In 1991 Gulf War, blacks were 23% of military, but only 11% of casualties, and only 10% in combat roles.


"Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." -Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950:

Response: Aimed at the US, but more aptly aimed at the subjects of the remaining tyranical states, and states that harbor terrorist organizations.


"Iraq celebration in the streets after being liberated by the US is a slap in the face of the Muslim world.":

Response: Good, I hope the Muslim world wakes up out of it's anti-US state-induced stupor.


"Iraq does not pose a threat to the US":

Response: Read Saddam's headlines "God's Punishment" in reference to 9/11, and it is not hard to deduce the threat in today's present generation of International Terrorists and Mad Muslims.


"Iraq more credible to media in terms of civilian casualties."

Response: I presume this person believes the Iraq MisInformation Ministry when it stages bombings in civilian areas?


"Iraq more credible to media in terms of troop placement."

Response: (1) I hope the US military is not giving away it's troop placements to the mindless media. (2) This statement was made before the Iraq MisInformation Ministry revealed it’s true job (of making false statements in favor of Saddam) by denying the US held Baghdad International Airport or had entered Baghdad itself, when embedded reporters were a block away among US troops.


"Iraq success could embolden Bush to go on to other wars.":

Response: (1) Mere conjecture. If Bush goes on to other wars, it will be out of his oath to protect and serve as the President. (2) This reveals the Left’s intent on making the Iraq campaign appear a failure even if it is a success.


"Iraq war a gamble, we don't know if it will create less or more terror.":

Response: Take it from a Muslim, "Muslims respect power. You will see less terrorism now."


"Iraq war is a big business war, like US trade policy, is part of globalization where Third World is exploited for labor. Look at the corruption of the stock market to know who's controlling things":

Response: (1) This liberal parasite has blinded himself to 9/11 and the madness of the Muslim world. (2) If this liberal is right, I would still take big business over Muslim madness. (3) France, Germany, and Russia's stance is due to Big Business, which liberals refuse to see in their blind hatred for Bush.


"Iraq war is not making Americans safer":

Response: It will because Bush is speaking the only language bullies like Osama, Terrorists, and Saddam know.


"Iraq war is not making Americans safer":

Response: Yes it is.  It is keeping Osama at bay and dealing with an unstable and evil regime that has collected Civilian Mass Murder agents and weapons, a regime that deals with unprincipled Militant Muslims and barbaric savage terrorists.


"Iraq war off target, totally forgot about Osama.":

Response: (1) On Target. Every country in the world is looking for Osama, including the US intelligence. (2) Saddam is part of the terrorist problem. (3) With Saddam gone, the Shiites are part of the terrorist problem.


"Iraq war will beget more terrorism.":

Arab American: "No, there will be less terrorism, because the Muslim World respects power."


"Iraq will become another Vietnam.":

Response: (1) There is no Jungle for the evil forces to hide in; (2) there is no Johnson/McNamara to screw things up, (3) this is just enemy propaganda the Liberals have swallowed, designed to scare the US away from Saddam.


"Iraqi Looting Bad":

Response: In two days the Iraqis damaged more of Saddam's regime than the US coalition did in three weeks.


"Iraq's rebuilding will cost more than $70 billion, and, coupled with Bush's proposed tax cut for the rich and the aid package for a bankrupt Israel will devastate the US.":

Response: typical portent of liberal doom and gloom. Liberal fails to mention the alternative, billions thrown away on socially destructive harebrained liberal programs designed to create zombie economic dependents of the Democratic Party who's rallying cry is "Give Me da Money".


"Islam is not a violent, hateful religion, so by creating an image that Muslims are all bloodthirsty warriors of jihad will only create more hatred. Don't let the few truly bloodthirsty fanatics of Islam ruin it for the many peaceful Muslims.":

Response: (1) So you freely admit Militant Muslim extremists are bloodthirsty. So what are you doing about it, waiting for the US to confront them?  This is exactly the reason Osama attacked the US in the first place, to get their attention and have them topple every totalitarian regime in the Middle East. (2) By "few" you mean many mindless millions, not like a David Koresh's few dozen.


"It is a conviction that war is not an answer to human conflict." -Bruce Kent, Pres.
International Peace Bureau:

Response: If Bruce was doing his job, he would have gotten to Osama.


"It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation's foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process." -Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg:

Response: Again the reality-denying liberal is implying Congress did not give Bush the go-ahead already.


"It's our world. We want peace. US, please stop":

Response: What about 'Jihad, please stop', or 'Militant Muslims, please stop', or 'Terrorists, please stop'?  It is plain to see that you're too afraid to confront them, because they are so mean, ignorant, arrogant, and bloodthirsty, so you cowardly and despicably pick solely on the nice guy on the block - the US.  If you want peace, you will address both sides, please.


"Jessica Lynch was rescued because she was white. The US would never have rescued a black.":

Response: (1) No, she was rescued because the US received a tip from an Iraqi, who couldn't stand seeing a woman being beat by Saddam's thugs. As to racism or gender prejudice, you'll have to take that up with the Iraqi lawyer who repeatedly risked his live to aid in the planning of the rescue. (2) Now the seven POW's have been rescued, and I saw the one black female being treated kindly by her fellow soldiers.


"Kuwait is a US colony for allowing the US military there.":

Response: (1) No, Kuwait is grateful to the US, and hates Saddam. (2) This person is a Saddam henchman for being anti-US.


"Lack of law and order in newly-freed Iraq US's fault:

Response: Bizarre conclusion. One has to have a deep insight into human and animal nature to understand what is going on. I see the Iraqis tearing down anything that has the smell of their oppressors, taking what was denied them, and after they are finished with such destruction and taking, they will turn to their own construction and giving. Unfortunately Saddam let loose the criminals who will take advantage of this apparent chaotic tearing-down process to take the looting beyond Baath Party targets. (2) With Saddam's currency worthless, looting is the only source of potential income until the US and UN pays them for reconstruction jobs.


"Live and Let Live":

Doesn't work when your enemy wants you dead.


"Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. . ." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Response: Bush moved on, the world stood mesmerized.


"Muslims in despair over yet another defeat in history of an army of the Muslim world.":

Response: Spoken like a true blood-thirsty Muslim who identifies with a blood-thirsty dictator over a nation that has shown such a high regard for individual life and individual property, even in other countries.


"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." -Albert Einstein:

Response: Obviously aimed toward taking an anti-war stance. More aptly applied to Bush's going after Saddam in the face of loony liberal peace demonstrations.


"Non-violence is not inaction. It is not for the timid or weak. . . non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice." -Cesar Chavez:

Response: If applied here then the sacrifice the peaceniks are willing to make are the lives of other Americans, as long as it is not themselves. There is nothing honorable in that.


"Not a shred of evidence Saddam was supporting terrorists":

Response: How do you know what he's been up to, his being a closed society?


"Our only real safety lies in crafting an American success story that does not rely upon the repression of the world's people and the destruction of their systems of self-determination for the sake of our industrial needs." -Granny Haddock

Response: This hogwash is typical of the liberal left's confused state of mind. They attack phantoms that do not exist, such as an Iraq system of self-determination under Saddam, and the US's interest being only it's own industrial needs.


"Painful armed conflict is threatening humanity's hope in a better future.":

Response: Tell that to the recently freed Iraqi civilians who wanted no part of Saddam and the Baath Party of terror and death.


"Painful armed conflict is threatening humanity's hope in a better future.":

Response: This statement is completely out of touch with the minds of dictators.


"Peace is not only the absence of violence, but the presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and integrity toward humankind." -Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Response: This is totally lost on the Osama's and Saddam's of the world. To abide by these platitudes unilaterally has shown it's consequences on 9/11.


"Peace lies in the hearts and minds of all people." -John F. Kennedy:

Response: Unfortunately Osama has declared war, and lives by it.


"People who are for the war are getting unbalanced information from the media.":

Response: As for myself I had to buck the liberal media to come to self-deduced conclusions that supported the war.


"Reagan spent 2 trillion on Star Wars and it got the US nothing but foreign debt.":

Response: (1) To date $40 billion as of 1998, or $60 billion as of 1999 (depending on the source) not $2000 billion. (2) With Kim Jong Il's madcap antics, Star Wars seems perfectly justified now. (3) It helped defeat the Soviet Union and end the Cold War (the US's show of strength in the Gulf War was the nail in the coffin).


"Republicans paid Noreiga to let drugs enter the US in exchange for intelligence information.":

Response: Liberals never ask themselves "What were America's enemies doing then, was it worse than what the Americans were doing? (Yes). (2) Liberals use US activities in the past to attack Bush in the present, when there is no link. (3) When bringing up past US transgressions, liberals always forget about the Cold War, and which side was evil. Liberals have forgotten Stalinism, and embrace Communism like the first fools before the Lenin/Stalin/Mao Communist system defect revealed itself.


"Saddam and Osama posed no threat to the US.":

Response: Saddam and Osama were both thugs, were both in the business of Civilian Mass Murder, each for their own purposes; both wanted Weapons of Mass Destruction; both have used them; and both were at war with the US, Osama openly declaring and pursuing it, Saddam openly applauding it. It escapes me how liberals and peaceniks can't figure this one out on their own.


"Saddam is a leader.":

Response: Saddam is not a leader. Where is he leading Iraq?


"Saddam is a US product":

Response: No, Saddam is a Cold War product, an only an idiot fails to see who was the good-guy and who was the bad-guy in the Cold War.


"Shock and Awe are oppressing the Iraqi people":

Response: Pure liberal hogwash.  The Iraqis have been amply told the purpose of this war, that they are not the targets or to be used as targets, and actually go about their daily business waiting for Saddam and his evil regime to fall.


"South Korea more worried about what the US may do rather than North Korea, where the US may cause 100,000 South Korean deaths."

Response: A typical liberal statement, not at all concerned about what tyrants do in the world, and instead picking on phantoms in the US that were gone in the 60's.


"Spend money on fighting AIDS instead":

Response: Money is being spent on AIDS, a self-inflicted disease caused by irresponsibility and avarice.


"The Bush Administration worries critics.":

Response: (1) The nature of critics is not to help, but to sit back and criticize. If I had a choice between Bush and critics, I'd take Bush. At least he has the capacity to do something. (2) Should read "worries enemies of freedom and democracy, and enemies of the US."


"The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

Response: Lucky for the Dr. the US did not act out of hate.


"The debate is not about Saddam anymore, but about America and it's roll in the world.":

Response: (1) A victory for the Iraq MisInformation Ministry, and the reckless capitalist allies of the US. (2) The child (anti-US elements) will always rebel when the mature parent (the US) is protecting them from themselves.


"The economy is going to hell and Bush wants to spend money on war":

Response: The war is upon you. The enemy's aim is civilian mass murder and economic disruption.  There will be no economy with dead civilians and said disruptions.


"The fact that it is monstrously immoral ought to count for something, too." -Granny Haddock:

Response: Unfortunately this peacenik is addressing the wrong party, the US, instead of the tyrants of the world. They are too chicken to address such murderous parties. Simply despicable.


"The Geneva Conventions are very clear that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.":

Response: Again aimed at the wrong party (the US) by US bashers. More appropriately aimed at the UN for their sanctions rather than the deposing of Saddam.


"The Iraq war is a war for oil.":

Response: Contraire, gas prices have fallen since the war began, while gas prices rose considerable while the US was playing footsy with the UN over Iraq.


"The media only reports the facts.":

Response: If the media reports only the negative aspect of a social situation, the media will have a negative effect on that which they are reporting on.


"The media only reports the facts.":

Response: The media does not just report the facts, because the media has an effect on any social event which it is reporting on, and they know it, and they use it to sell more media, and damn the victims or social consequences.


"The Muslim world is in shock (at the celebration in Baghdad).":

Response: (1) A good example of the results of a controlled media by totalitarian states. The celebration was nothing like the anti-US bias their state-controlled media was feeding them, while calling for suicide bombers. (2) From radio interview: The suicide shops have since closed saying "go home, the war is over.


"The only rays of hope I see are the growing anti-war protests here in the US and the fact that each day brings us closer to the 2004 elections.":

Response: In other words, the only ray of hope this person sees is taking the pressure off of Osama and leaving Saddam and his acknowledged evil regime sitting on top of the largest oil reserves on earth, spending it's wealth in keeping themselves in perpetual power through brutality, starvation, and murder of the Iraqi population, blaming it on the US, stiring up hatred against the US, and then openly supporting terrorist acts against the US.


"The question one must ask when confronting this doctrine of preemption is, where will it end? Which dictator will be next?" -Rep. Barbara Lee:

Response: That entirely depends on the actions of the tyrants of today's world.


"The resolution for war with Iraq reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch." -Senator Robert Byrd:

Response: Nonsense. It is and ever has been the primary duty of the President of the United States to PROTECT and serve the American people. Protect in this case is "go get them", something fraidy cat liberals refuse to acknowledge.


"The resolution for war with Iraq would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation." -Senator Robert Byrd:

Response: Again a misnomer, and a weak beg of the question that Iraq is a soverign nation. The author is assuming Iraq is a Soverign Nation, which it is not, having an illegitimate leadership that came to power through the murder and oppression of it's own people.


"The trumped-up war in Iraq is power madness and pure stupidity." -Granny Haddock

Response: Again the confused liberal left has confused Bush's simple common sense and gut instinct with trumping up.


"The UN process could have worked if Saddam realized the seriousness of Bush's intent.":

Response: Negative. Saddam was too entrenched in his totalitarian brutality and murder to pay much attention to the outside world.


"The United States spends a fortune on the military for no publicly debated or accepted reason." -Robert McChesney:

Response: The world can thank it's lucky stars for that, otherwise Osama's, Saddam's, and Kim Jong Il's would rule the world, and believe me, there would be no loony liberal left.


"The US did away with Iraqi police, and left the civilians at the mercy of criminals.":



"The US did not sign on to the International Criminal Court, and therefore is selfish.":

Response: The International Criminal Court was a ruse by totalitarian governments to protect themselves from the free world. It would have given them an avenue to try American soldiers for political reasons.


"The US hasn't been able to use its power and abilities to deal with Pakistan."

Response: Again liberals and Muslims let their pride skew their perceptions, here confusing US "restraint" with US "inability". I have no doubt that if Pakistan declared war on the US, Pakistan would be gone in 21 days, maybe sooner if it nuked itself in a vain attempt to have an effect on a US military that is NBC hardened.


"The US is killing children in Iraq.":

Response: If you want to be fair, you should side with the regime that has killed less women and children, which is by far the US (score: Saddam and the Baath Party: 1.5 million deaths, US: 400 deaths). It is completely unfair and blindly biased to side against the US.


"The US is making the world unstable and dangerous.":

Response: The rest of the world can be thankful the US is not suicidally evil like the Taliban, Palestinians, Saddam's killers, or dozens of other murderous, anti-American Muslims who, with America's arsenal and their own peanut brains, would have brought an end to the human race already.


"The US is nothing but big corporations exploiting the poor of the world.":

Response: Hogwash. (1) The US has helped billions of poor around the world who wish to help themselves. (2) Working for or in the US means wages many times that which the poor can get in their own homelands. (3) Liberals are still chasing phantoms of the past.


"The US is wrong if it thinks a successful war in Iraq will snap the world out of a deep resentment of US foreign policy.":

Response: (1) Mere conjecture. There are already many countries who have not forgotten the US's role in liberating them from evil totalitarian regimes. (2) You forgot the war is on terrorism and the underlying causes, not Saddam alone.


"The US isn't doing enough in bringing medicine into Iraq.":

Response: (1) That's a tall order with fighting still going on. (2) Liberals forget that Saddam completely destroyed the medical, economic, and educational base of the country.


"The US may embark on a path of making the world safer FOR THE US."

Response: Typical liberal US bashing. It was totally unnecessary to throw in FOR THE US. This was said as if the US only had it's own interests at heart. Only a fool again would try and pin a selfish label on the US in this matter, or fail to see that what the US is doing will make the world safer for the world, and not just "FOR THE US".


"The US must stop preemptive invasion policy and keep our sons out of harm's way"

Response: Best defense is offense when pursuing an enemy that hits and hides.


"The US should not use force.":

America roused to a righteous anger has always been a force for good.


"The US should not use force.":

At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration.


"The US thinks the Third World is not as human as Americans, because Americans gave money to the World Trade Center attack Victims, but not to the African Embassy bombing victims."

Response: It seems more like a case of a nation taking care of it's own.


"The US wants to take over the world.":

Response: No, it all comes down to killing. If the Muslims didn't want to anything but kill, kill, kill, the US would not even be in Iraq right now.


"The War is for Oil.":

Response: I see no greed or cynicism in the Bush White House. I see integrity, strong beliefs, and vision, all which happens to be right. In the Left, however, I see blatant misapplied cynicism, self-aggrandizment, bizarre conspiracy theories, and taking anti-US sides on international issues.


"There are some fears in the world of US imperialism.":

Response: (1) Sure, from totalitarian regimes and their cowardly apologists. (2) These are the fears created by media in the childish mind of world opinion.


"There is a lack of an uprising in Basra.":

Response: What do you expect, the civilians fight Saddam's armed assassins with sticks and stones?


"This seems to portray the mentality of pro-wars to the people across the globe, you pro-war peep":

You obviously know nothing about human suffering. What are these anti-US history-revisionist professors teaching kids these days? Drivel designed to impress one another, with no concern about the damage it's doing to the few forces of good in this world, of which the US is a leader.


"This seems to portray the mentality of pro-wars to the people across the globe, you pro-war peep":

You seem to be more concerned about the US image abroad than doing a deed so blindingly right while protecting American citizens in the process. Let me tell you about "images": Images are "soft power". Soft power only works when your opponent wants to be like you. I'm afraid, my egotistical peacenik, that Saddam and Osama and their zombie Muslim minions do not want to be like you. In fact, they despise you.


"To want to eradicate Saddam's regime is respectable, but to destroy a whole nation in the process is immensely immoral.":

Response: (1) How can anyone with an ounce of brain-matter accuse the US, and not Saddam, of destroying Iraq? (2) An area held together by assassins is not a nation. (3) good example of typical mindless bizarre leftist babble with no correlation to reality.


"Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent, arrogant and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president." -Jack M. Balkin:

Response: Pure horse manure. Tyrants have put the US to the test. Liberal weenies like this are not up to the test, and boo-hoo Bush because he is.


"University of Tennessee against the War.":

Response: Does the University of Tennessee know what Saddam did with his Universities? He used them for ammunition dumps. Is this the kind of University the University of Tennessee supports?


"US and Britain want to control gulf oil.":

Response: No, just get an obvious evil off the top of it, and change who spends it's wealth from a small, murderous, self-serving body to a body that pursues peace and prosperity.


"US betrayed and abandoned Kurds and Shiites after Gulf War.":

Response: Myths. Bush called for the Sunni Muslims to rise up against Saddam.  The US then did all it could to protect Shiites and Kurds, in the face of international opposition, by setting up no-fly zones in Iraq. People who mindlessly spout out that the US abandoned anyone is to ignore the forces aligned against the US at the time, and which there still remains many remnants (consider France, Germany, Russia, and China, to name a few). It was worse back then. The US could not get rid of Saddam. The free world was not as strong willed back then.


"US causing less peace in the world.":

Response: Woolsley summed it up succinctly: World War IV is upon the US from three sources: (1) Mad power-hungry Mullahs, (2) Facist states like Iraq and Syria, and (3) the Osama-like terrorists of the world.


"US demonizing Iraqis.":

Response: Saddam's regime has demonized itself. The US doesn't have to do anything other than report it.


"US Forefathers a million times worse than Saddam. They used the same tactics. It's hypocracy.":

Response: More liberal cracked logic. (1) US Forefathers used guerrilla warfare, but without human shields or execution of families, or calls for suicide bombings. They were, 200 years ago, more civilized than Saddam's defenders are today. (2) Racist Liberals want the US and all of it's history to be perfect before they confront today's evils. (3) US Forefathers were fighting for the people against tyranny. Saddam is fighting for tyranny against the people.


"US foreign debt $2 trillion, US living beyond it's means; the dollar has fallen 25% against the Euro. This is the US's Achille's Heel.":

Response: (1) Is this paranoid, leftist economic views, or a true finger on a US problem? And who is more inclined to self-indulgence and largesse beyond their means in order to garner votes, liberals or conservatives? The Liberals, that's who. (2) The US has given the world far more than $2 trillion. A few years of no foreign aid will pay that off many times over. (3) This one-sided anti-US-biased view fails to give the figure of how much other countries owe the US, of which the US forgives much in the end.


"US gave $40,000 to the Taliban, then turn around and oust them":

Response: (1) The money was for humanitarian aid.  The Taliban then turned around and bit the hand that helped them by harboring US-citizen-murdering Osama. (2) As time marched on, the Taliban mutated into a monster with the aid of the gangster Osama.


"US giving out misinformation, like Saddam dead and his Generals defecting.":

Response: Who said that was misinformation?


"US has failed in Iraq because it is calling in more troops.":

Response: (1) US has tested Iraq to see how deep Saddam's evil goes. (2) US plan was to get war underway with what's there and test the waters, then gradually bring in more troops if necessary.


"US is bombing Iraqi Hospitals.":

Response: Saddam's thugs have used all hospitals for military headquarters and ammunition dumps.  Has anyone in the leftist or Muslim media complained or mentioned that? Hell no. They are completely anti-US-biased.


"US is bombing Iraqi schools.":

Response: Saddam's thugs have used 123 schools for military headquarters and ammunition dumps. Has anyone in the leftist or Muslim media complained or mentioned that? Hell no. They are completely anti-US-biased.


"US is evil":

Response: (1) US is leading the world in making the world a better place for the human race, and in improving the human race's behavior altogether, and improving the life of the common man.  (2) The "US is evil" statement comes from mis-information ministries in totalitarian states. (3) The US shares it's good with the world, such as advances in medicine. Who do you think eradicated smallpox? Osama? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mussolini? Pol Pot? Mao?


"US is protecting the oil and not the hospitals.":

Response: The US is protecting the future well being of Iraqis. Hospitals can be repaired faster than another Kuwait ecological disaster caused by Saddam, a disaster for which Saddam should have been deposed right then and there, if the UN had it's shit together. It didn't. It was poisoned by harebrained liberals.


"US is racist. Just look at the Tuskegee experiments in Alabama, the Smallpox and nuclear experiments on American Indians…"

Response: The present US generation has made up for those acts by previous generations, who incidentally lived in a universally prejudiced-filled world, 1000 times over. The "racist" card blacks play is now no more than a con game by liberal-created government dependent prejudiced parasites.


"US is the most powerful nation on earth, unfortunately":

Response: The "Unfortunately" is a product of the anti-US drivel American University ex-hippie conspiracy-crazed professors feed their student population.  Let the moron Salih live under Kim Jong Il for a while.


"US is unconcerned about world opinion."

Response: This is an unbalanced statement. Balance it with how much regard Saddam gives for world opinion (when he is not in danger of being deposed by the US).


"US journalists are firing on Arab journalist to keep Arab journalists from reporting the truth.":

Response: When was the last time an Arab journalist reported the truth? Never. They are too anti-US biased for that. The Muslim world did not even air the toppling of Saddam's statue.


"US led sanctions that prevented water treatment equipment from reaching Iraq, and Iraqi children died."

The alternative to sanctions, which was the UN's idea, was removing Saddam from power, which the UN opposed.


"US losing war."

Response: Erroneous view of the left as a result of the anti-Bush and pro-Saddam media blitz.


"US should not confront evils as they perceive them in others.":

Response: This is a good example of the complete lack of perception on the part of liberals. What this liberal is implying is that the evils of Saddam are just a matter of perception and don't really exist.


"US sold Saddam his bio and chemical weapons":

Response: And 23 other countries. Yet Saddam tells the UN he doesn't have any, and the peaceniks who pointed out the US sold them to him believe him.


"US strategy in Middle East risks the wrath of the Muslim world due to the mounting toll of civilian life and property in the War in Iraq.":

Response: If the Muslim world's wrath is based on biased reporting, then it is the Muslim world who risks the wrath of US strategy, the Muslim world being much weaker that the US, more barbaric, and less educated.


"US strategy in Middle East risks the wrath of the Muslim world.":

Response: (1) Author of this statement has little knowledge of human nature and the diversity of the Muslim world, and is instead referring to a sensationalist media's representation of the Muslim world. (2) Statement is mere bogus and biased conjecture, and is trying to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.


"US trying to take over the world.":

Response: No, US is merely taking the lead in combating the problems the world faces, from terrorism to AIDS to nuclear proliferation to evil regimes.


"US used A-bomb on Hiroshima":

Response: It was refugees and dissidents from fascism, which would have crushed Islam, that convinced the US to go on a crash program to develop the A-bomb in the first place.


"US war on Iraq is not supported by the international community.":

Response: By "International Community" you mean countries that had lucrative oil contracts lined up with Saddam, to the detriment of Iraq and the world.


"US war on Iraq will harm Muslim/Christian relations":

Response: Nothing can harm Muslim/Christian relations more than what the Muslims are doing themselves to Christians and non-Muslims alike.


"US will attack Iraq":

Response: Saddam is not Iraq. He holds it hostage.


"US will look bad if it finds no weapons of mass destruction.":

Response: Oops. Here, Iraq, we'll put Saddam and the Baath Party back in power. Sorry for the inconvenience, Iraq. You can go back to your nightmarish state of affairs. At least France, Germany, and Russia will be appeased, and can rub the US's nose in the dirt.


"Use the money for the war instead on the poor in this country":

Response: There is nothing worse than internal parasites on a free democracy.


"Victory in Iraq will embolden Bush to wage more wars.":

Response: (1) Yes, wars on ignorance, poverty, disease, the unknown in science, auto fatalities, potential conflicts around the globe, and global misunderstandings, and recognized evil leaders and their blood-stained supporters, for starters. (2) Saddam was a unique and immediate threat. The others still have a chance to mend their diabolical ways.


"Vietnam draft favored Whites through college attendance.":

Response: (1) If blacks had a higher regard for academic smarts rather than street smarts they would have been in college; (2) Most whites go deep into debt to get through college, blacks are not willing to take that risk, and do not value academic education enough to work so hard for it.


"Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence." -Alexander Solzhenitzyn:

Response: More aptly applied to Osama and his gang of Mad Mullahs and Imbecilic Imams.


"Want proof Saddam has WMD's":

Response: Then peaceniks turn around and say the US sold them to him.


"War in Iraq unjust":

Response: Just read Saddam's headlines "God's Punishment" in reference to 9/11, and there is ample justification, apart from Saddam's being able to contribute to the mad Muslim jihad against the rest of the world.


"War is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." -Major General Smedley Butler:

Response: The war on Iraq was just the opposite, a feat the liberals will deny in their US-bashing fantasies.


"War is over if you want it. War is over now." -John Lennon:

Response: Tell that to Saddam's subjects.


"War on Iraq not legitimate (according to the UN).":

Response: UN did not authorize force, not out of concern for the continuation of terrorism, or out of concern for Iraqi civilians that do not take part in Saddam's regime, but out of a twisted need to contain the US.


"War will split the international community":

Response: Mere conjecture. The opposite may equally occur.


"We are critical of the US."

Only a fool who turns a blind eye to tyranny would be against the actions the US has taken since 9/11.


"We are critical of the US."

Self-criticism is healthy as a people, but to take it to the extremes demonstrated on this topic reveals a world that does not know a good thing (US power) when it sees it.


"We are rushing into war without fully discussing why." -Senator Robert Byrd:

Response: Only a cowardly fool would sit around and discuss why after 9/11.


"We have overlooked the long-term solution of peace for instant gratification of war." -Congressman Dennis Kucinich:

Response: Unfortunately the current liberal movement has overlooked the long-term solution of war for the instant-gratification of peace in regards to the tyrants of today's world.


"We hope to succeed in presenting the most accurate and objective picture," Maher Abdullah, a reporter with al-Jazeera, said Sunday while reporting from Baghdad.

Response: He's really saying "Maybe if we say this the US won't bomb our facilities for propagating known complete falsehoods against the US to gullible ignorant Muslim masses in order to stir up a larger war (which, Al Jazeera irresponsibly neglects to foresee, will result in more Muslim casualties).


"We must never be allowed to divide world religions.":

Response: This statement is completely out of touch with Muslim desires.


"Wealth governs this country, and wealth uses military violence to control the rest of the world as best it can." -Ramsey Clark:

Response: This statement last had relevance during World War I.


"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." -Nelson Mandela:

Response: Mere cowrdly conjecture in the face of tyranny.


"What we need now are techniques of harmony, not those of contention. The Art of Peace is required, not the Art of War." -Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido

Response: This art only works from a position of no current war, or in the preventing future wars.  The terrorists have already declared their war and have embarked on civilian mass murder. It is too late for them.


"When the chosen people grew too strong, the rightful cause became the wrong."

Response: (Alluding to the US becoming too strong with a rightful cause and the rest of the world countering with false claims in order to oppose the US): It is the rest of the world that has to wake up and benefit from this statement, so they don't fine themselves countering that which is good in the world out of sheer jealousy, envy, ignorance, selfishness, and hate.


"Winning the peace will be more difficult than winning the war.":

Response: Poetic, but wrong. Peace, according to liberals, only requires inaction.


"World uncomfortable with the US going out and changing regimes whenever they want to":

Response: This is a stupid and inappropriately over-generalized statement completely ignoring all right/wrong/moral aspects of the present situation.  The only nations opposed to the US actions are nations that are prejudiced against the US.


"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." -Jeannette Rankin:

Response: Poetic, but stupid in the face of tyranny.


10,000 Protestors: "No Saddam, No US, we want Islam.":

Response: You are but 10,000 Sunni's in a land of 23,000,000, which includes Shiites and Kurds. Where do they fit into your Imam's scheme of things?


9/13/01: "Bush's policy on national defense is wrong (Missile Defense System).":

Response: This person did not know about Kim Jong Il's nuclear plans like the US did, and it was before Kim Jong Il's statement "The world does not need to exist if there is not Kim Jong Il."


Abdul Bari Atwan: "Having borne arms against the Russians in Afghanistan for 10 years, we think our battle with the Americans will be easy by comparison." :

This is the stuff that gets liberal Americans peeing in their pants.  He forgets who gave them the arms and training to fight the Soviets - the Americans.


Afghan Extremist Schools:

Afghan Children in Extremists Schools: Do the Afghan children being taught "All non-Muslims are their enemy, and "Osama bin Laden is good.": Are they taught America is a country where Muslims go to be free, and a nation where all religions in the world live side by side in peace? Are they taught that people from all over the world and from many different religions worked in the World Trade Center, including Muslims, and bin Laden praised the suicidal murders who snuck into the United States, hijacked passenger jets, killed the pilots, stabbed the attendants and passengers, then crashed the jets into the World Trade Center, killing themselves and many people from all religions from all over the world who were working peacefully in the World Trade Center? Are they taught this is a crime praised by bin Laden? They need to be taught facts and morals so they can stand on their own two feet in today's world, and contribute something positive, rather than be taught to go suicidally through it with a worthless, pathetic life.


Afghanistan and Ramadan:

The US could stop the overt military action (just the bombing), and use the time to get ahead in the other behind-the-scenes aspects of the war on terrorism - resupplying, maintenance, R&R, propaganda, intelligence gathering, planning, government forming, and ally building. Bombing could be restricted to reacting to the enemy's military actions - which include digging in, resupplying, and maneuvering.


Al Douri on Iraqi Thought: "Saddam hero for standing up to superpower so long.":

Counter Insult: Yes, Saddam's evil runs deep, as deep as evil runs in the rest of the Muslim world.


Al Douri on Iraqi Thought: "The US already took longer that the Israelis did in the '67 war, making the US look bad.":

Response: Not considered: how long it would have taken Israel to depose Saddam.


Al Douri on Iraqi Thought: "We can't get rid of Saddam, but once the US does it, it will be easy to get rid of the US, because the US is easier to terrorize.":

Response: I don't think any Iraqi is thinking that, but I do think Al Douri is presenting a good example of Muslim madness.


Al Douri: "US bombed hospitals, schools, and civilians.":

Response: Where did Saddam's thugs hide themselves and their ammunition? In hospitals, schools, and next to civilian homes. Did the Americans deliberately bomb them? No. Why? The Americans have a higher regard for innocent human lives that Saddam and his lackies like Al Douri.


Al Jazeera "Coalition forces defeated at Kut a 'shining example'…":

Response: Yes, this report is a shining example of why Al Jazeera is an enemy of the free world, and a shining example of how Al Jazeera has no regard for the truth or for objectivity, since there wasn't any coalition defeat at Kut, only a few disabled vehicles and a few casualties, with thousands of Saddam's killers sent to their Satan master.


Al Jazeera News:

"Innocent Afghans being killed by US bombing, and the world remains silent." Al Jazeera itself turns a blind eye and remains silent on the atrocities of the Taliban. It views the world with one eye - anti-American. The bombing must be weighed against the innocent people being killed by the enemies of America - the Taliban. Al Jazeera does not do this, it is strictly anti-American.


Al Jazeera: "Iraqis didn't like the war, but are relieved Saddam is gone.":

Response: Al Jazeera is implying the US did a bad thing in conducting a war to get rid of Saddam, and won't admit there is no other way of dealing with an entrenched, murderous dictator and his mad party in a timely manner, which was required due to that other madness in the world - fanatical, mass-murder-crazed Islam.


Al Qaeda:

"Muslims should not be fighting Muslims." They try to hid the fact that there are good and bad Muslims, and they are the bad.



Alouni: Referring to Northern Alliance in Kabul: "witnessed scenes that, I'm sorry, I couldn't describe to anybody." How about the atrocities the Taliban committed while they were in power, why has Alouni been so silent on that? Because he is slanted toward the Taliban and is unreasonably anti-Western.


American Citizen: "Since Americans and most whites do not care much for Asians…." and "Americans secretly think whites are superior to all others…" and "Americans only really, deep-down, care about their white families and dynasties…" and "The religions of America are businesses derived from industrial thinking.":

Response to this juvenile thinking: Certainly not the back-to-nature hippies in America. Certainly not the Americans who give money, food, and medicine to every nation on earth, even nations that hate Americans, which is a Christian thing to do. Certainly not the scientists who have developed medicines that keep everyone in the world free from disease, including nations that hate America. Certainly not the Americans who have shared inventions with the world in order to free people around the world from daily toils. The only prejudice I see in America is from those who work hard for their freedom and strength against those who do not.


American Citizen: "The united states should also ask themselves why this happen in a highly secured country like the US.":

Response: "Highly secured" is a common misconception by people from countries that do not allow their citizens many freedoms at the pain of death.  Why it happened is easy to see.  This happened because the brainwashed barbarians who did this used the freedoms in America that allow American citizens to become strong and peaceful against Americans.



American: "It would be U.S. geopolitical folly to simultaneously attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups in other Muslim countries." This could only have been spoken by a weak old American.


Amin, an Iraqi General: said on Iraqi TV that Bush's speech was full of ``cheap lies with a political purpose.'':

The only interest the General has is to score points with his dictator, and thereby keep his head another day, fully knowing that his dictator himself is full of cheap lies with political purpose.


Anti-American News Article: "(The US unilaterally) Stop the fighting during Ramadan":

If Ramadan had already been here and the US had stopped the fighting, (1) the citizens of Kabul would not be presently liberated, (2) the 8 relief workers may have been murdered or killed already rather than rescued, (3) Radio Afghanistan would not be up and running, (4) women would not have been hired at Radio Afghanistan, (5) children in Kabul would not be flying kites, (6) men would still have their 5 year old beards, (7) the Taliban would still be terrorizing the citizens of Kabul, (8) Tribes would not be revolting against the Taliban in the South, (9) people in Kabul would not be literally dancing for joy in the streets. The author's aim perhaps was to impress his imaginary (and eternally naive) hippie friends. It is sad that people view the world with only one eye, and an anti-American one at that.


Anti-American News Article: "(The US unilaterally) Stop the fighting during Ramadan":

If the Afghans wonder why the Americans waited so long to liberate them if it was going to be so easy, the answer is easy: Democrats and their one-eyed anti-American rhetoric that does not weigh the suffering caused by the enemies of America on us and on their own people.


Anti-American News Article: "(The US unilaterally) Stop the fighting during Ramadan": "We need more dialog and less fighting.":

 A one-eyed anti-American statement that should be addressed to the terrorists who blow up civilian targets and proclaim they are going to continue to do it until they are masters of the world.


Anti-American News Article: "(The US unilaterally) stopping the bombing during Ramadan would show the Muslim world we are not savages.":

 The Muslim world already knows that. The issue with the Muslim world is America's decadence.


Anti-American News Article: "The US (unilaterally) stopping the fighting during Ramadan would accomplish more than continuing…":

 It would only cause Muslim extremists to conclude the US is weak, and they would be emboldened once again.


Anti-American News Article: "There are those pressing the US to respect the Islamic tradition of Ramadan." :

Does the author naively think that if there were only 50 US soldiers exposing themselves to 50000 Taliban, that the Taliban would take a month off before slaughtering the 50 Americans? Unfortunately, all of mankind is not ready or capable of honoring such a high ideal as Ramadan, least of all the terrorists and the Taliban leadership.


Anti-American News Article: "There is a pall over Ramadan as the US fights the war." :

This anti-American-slanted statement should read "As the US-led coalition, Terrorists, and the Taliban fight the war." We all know the terrorists will continue to fight their anti-American war through Ramadan.


Anti-US Dogma: "US is a bully":

Maybe. However it's Big Bully picking on Little Bully so Little Bully can't pick on you.


Anti-US Leftist: "Iraq is not a model of the New Order in the Middle East.":

Response: I beg to differ, my leftist anti-US anti-Freedom-spreading loony. Your statement should read "You don't want Iraq to be a model to the rest of the Middle East because the US has brought it about, and you harbor a blind, ill-conceived hate for the US.


Anti-US Leftist: "The US doesn't know what to do with Iraq.":

Response: I have submitted many proposals on Post-War Iraq, beginning with getting the UN in there to protect civilians from Saddam's assassins and criminals and to administer humanitarian aid, the nationalization of oil revenues to keep greedy, reckless capitalistic nation-rapers who wanted to keep Saddam in power like France, Germany, and Russia at bay, and having term limits, checks, balances, and a free press to keep religious and political tyrants at bay.


Anti-US Leftist: "The US in acting on it's own will cause discord in the world.":

Response: So what wrong with stirring up a few insane dictators, a few nations engaged in greedy, reckless capitalism, and a few nations encouraging fanatical mass-murdering terrorism to advance their agendas?


Anti-US Leftist: "The US wants to impose it's will on the world.":

Response: Let's assume this shot-in-the-dark conjecture is accurate. So what's wrong with US will? It's been right on target for the last 100 years when it mattered on a world-wide scale regarding the promotion of peace and prosperity.


Anti-US Leftist: "US feels it's view of the world has been confirmed.":

Response: So, what's your point? What other view is there, other than those of brutal dictators and those weenies that appease them?


Anti-US Liar: "The US and Britain want to take over the world.":

Response: Simpleton statement with a blindness to right and wrong.


Anti-US Muslim Media: "The new Iraq will have an American taste and an American smell."

Response: So you prefer the Muslim Fundamentalists' taste for blood and the smell of atrocity?


Anti-US Muslim Media: "The new Iraq will have an American taste and an American smell."

Response: So, what's your point? You liked better the taste and smell of Muslim tyrannical politics or Muslim tyrannical religion?


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist "Although you feel somewhat reticent about taking advantage of the modern American Wehrmacht…":

Response: Totally bad analogy, America and the Wehrmacht. I think the author could not find any other use for his new-found word, and so misapplies it here. The Wehrmacht represented murderous repressive Dictatorship. America represents individual freedom, including oil moguls.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist "Khalilzad has an unsavory past. during the Reagan years, Khalilzad helped supply the anti-Soviet mujihadeen with weapons they're now using to fight Americans. During the '90s he worked as Unocal's chief consultant on its Afghan pipeline scheme.":

Response: What's so unsavory about these things, protecting the world from the Soviets and working in the oil business?


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist "The Taliban government and their Al Qaeda "guests", after all, both were at best bit players in the terror biz. If the U.S. had really wanted to dispatch a significant number of jihad boys to meet the black-eyed virgins, it would have bombed Pakistan. Instead, the State Department inexplicably cozies up to this snake pit of anti-American extremists (Pakistan), choosing a nation led by a dictator who seized power in an illegal coup as our principal South Asian ally.  Moreover, the American military strategy in Afghanistan – dropping bombs without inserting a significant number of ground troops – all but guaranteed that Osama would live to kill another day.  So the Third Afghan War obviously isn't about fighting terrorism – leading cynics to conclude that it must be about (yawwwwwwn!) oil.":

Response: How cynics mislead themselves into webs of illogical conclusions.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "1. During 1989-1990, the Kuwaiti monarchy was overproducing and driving down the price of oil, a policy that cost Iraq $14 billion in lost revenue.":

Response: We know now what Saddam was spending his billions on, with his 27 odd palaces while Iraqi civilians starved.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "1. General Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions.":

Response: Lucky for the world he was.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "1. King Fahd also told King Hussein that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border, and that despite American assertions, there was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia.":

Response: I guess good ole King Fahd was wrong, wasn't he. Again, the author is saying these things even after Iraq's invasion of Saudi Arabia, because his intended audience is unread and weak-minded.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "1. The Bush administration lied when it stated on August 8, 1990, that the purpose of the U.S. troop deployment was "strictly defensive" and necessary to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion.":

Response: Looks like Bush was proved right when Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War at the Battle of Khafji. I don't know how the author expects any intelligent person to swallow his vapid arguments, but then I believe the author is playing to the populist airheads.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "1. The Saudis only bowed to U.S. demands that the Saudis "invite" U.S. troops to defend them following a long meeting between the king and Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. The real substance of this discussion will probably remain classified for many, many years.":

Response: In retrospect we can see this was spoken like a true conspiracy theorist to his airhead audience.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "As many as 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi soldiers may have died after the Iraqi government had fully capitulated to all U.S. and UN demands.":

Response: Saddam never offered any capitulations, this was the time of his infamous "Mother of all Battles" statement.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "Bush also rejected Iraq's withdrawal offer of February 15, 1991, two days aver U.S. planes incinerated hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter.":

Response: Incinerated, the author conveniently leaves out in order to make the US look bad, because Saddam put them there, knowing full well it was a military installation by day, and that it was a legitimate military target.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "Heller concludes that as of January 6, 1991, the Pentagon had not provided the press or Congress with any proof at all for an early buildup of Iraqi troops in southern Kuwait that would suggest an imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia. The usual Pentagon evidence was little more than "trust me.":

Response: In hindsight it's lucky Congress trusted the Pentagon.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "Information that has come to light suggests that the United States interfered in and aggravated the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, knew that an Iraqi military response against Kuwait was likely, and then took advantage of the Iraqi move to carry out a long-planned U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.":

Response: OK, I'll give him an ear…. Wait a minute, the author is singling out the US completely out of  context of the Cold War, which was still raging. If fact, Iraq's military almost completely consisted of hardware purchased from the evil Soviet Union. So, personally, even if this was true, I can clearly see that the Soviet threat (and an evil one it was) clearly outweighed any oil conspiracy theory for US actions in the Middle East.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "Iraq neither attacked nor threatened the United States. We believe that this was a war to re-divide and redistribute the fabulous markets and resources of the Middle East, in other words this was an imperialist war. The Bush administration, on behalf of the giant oil corporations and banks, sought to strengthen its domination of this strategic region. It did this in league with the former colonial powers of the region, namely Britain and France, and in opposition to the Iraqi people's claim on their own land and especially their natural resources.":

Response: (1) Author forgot the 1987 USS Stark incident during the Iraq/Iran conflict, in which Saddam shot an Exocet missile at because the US would not sell him modern tanks, and before Saddam's hand in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. (2) Redistribute the oil, yes- from a paranoid murderous dictator to a democratic and free Iraq. (3) "In league with Britain and France": France's opposition to the second gulf war shoots this theory down the toilet, just as Iraq's French Mirages were blown out of the sky. (4) "Iraqi people's claim on their own land and especially their natural resources": The author sounds like a true lying Communist. If fact, the Iraqi people presently claim nothing that Saddam does not want them to claim.  Saddam owns everything, and distributes the wealth through a network of assassins.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "It is thus obvious that the U.S. government did not fight the war to secure Iraq's eviction from Kuwait but rather proceeded with this unparalleled massacre for other foreign policy objectives.":

Response: I don't know what bonehead would believe that the casualties inflicted in the Gulf War compares in any way of the massacre the author's beloved Saddam inflicted during his butcherus reign of terror, of which the author mentions nothing of, for whatever twisted reasons.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "Satellite photographs taken by the Soviet Union on the precise day Bush addressed Congress failed to show any evidence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait or massing along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border.":

Response: Again the audacity of the author to say these things even after the events to the contrary have already occurred. This is clearly a case of a conspiracy theorist not wanting to give up his conspiracy theory even after events have proven him wrong, such as the Iraqi army in Kuwait being destroyed while 100,000 other surrendered, and Saddam's thwarted invasion of Saudi Arabia during the Battle of Khafji..


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "That's why it is important to get the facts. There is ample evidence that the U.S. was eagerly planning to fight the war even before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990.":

Response: This implies a US conspiracy to get Saddam to attack Kuwait, then mass his forces on the Saudi Border and then invade Saudi Arabia, rather than the simple militaristic adventurism of a petty, meglo-maniacal, murderous dictator who no one has seriously opposed, like a spoiled child.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The "New World Order" is that the U.S. figures that if the Soviets are willing to abandon Iraq and their other traditional allies in the Third World then the U.S. and other western capitalist countries can return to their former dominant position in various areas of the world.":

Response: The author must be aghast and crying in his vodka now after the world has recently learned his beloved former Soviet Union is now engaging in the very reckless arms-dealing capitalism (GPS Jammers and Night Vision Goggles to Saddam) that the Soviets hypocritically berated the West for.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The basic premise of U.S. policy has been to eliminate or severely weaken any nationalist regime that challenges U.S. dominance and control over the oil-rich region.":

Response: Looks like Gulf War 2 is proving the author wrong again.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The Bush administration has never presented any evidence whatsoever for its charges that Iraq used poison gas on its own citizens.":

Response: There is plenty of evidence now since 1992. This is just the kind of thing foreign-influenced anti-US liberals wish to hide. This theorist quotes from a "Liberation and Marxism" publication, among other leftist media sources. I suppose this theorist thinks Stalinist Russia was a good idea, too.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The goal of the U.S. war is to roll back the Arab revolution and all the other revolutionary movements that have swept the region since World War II.":

Response: As if the Arab "revolutions" were good for the Muslim masses and not just a few self-enriching, murdering dictators.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The New World Order that Bush has in mind is, in fact, not so new. It is an attempt to turn the clock back to the pre-World War II era of unchallenged colonial domination and plunder of the land, labor, and resources of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East by a handful of industrialized capitalist countries.":

Response: Mistakenly thinks that only large, industrialized nations are capitalists.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The royal families of the oil-rich Arabian peninsula, who were put on their thrones by the British empire and are kept there by the U.S. military and the CIA, have loyally turned their kingdoms into cash cows for Wall Street banks and corporations.":

Response: The US would prefer independent democracies  that are on a path of peace and prosperity , than rickety kingships and bloody dictators.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The U.S. and its imperialist allies have won a temporary victory in the Middle East. But their policy of military domination to stop the natural progression of history - for people to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism - cannot succeed.":

Response: (1) Should read "help the people liberate themselves from the yoke of totalitarianism will succeed in spite of oil-conspiracy theorists." (2) Every Kuwaiti is born a millionaire. How does that fit in with the "poor and down-trodden" view espoused by this theorist? (3) Saddam's rule in no way represents this theorist's "poor and down-trodden" view.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "The U.S. ground war against Iraqi positions resulted in the greatest number of casualties in the conflict. As many as 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi soldiers may have died after the Iraqi government had fully capitulated to all U.S. and UN demands.":

Response: Now the conspiracy theorists want to rewrite history to suit their fantasies. I remember Saddam defiant to the last, just as he is 12 years later.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "While the Pentagon was claiming as many as 250,000 Iraqi troops in Kuwait, it refused to provide evidence that would contradict the Soviet satellite photos.":

Response: So now the oil conspiracy theorist is putting his faith in a post-Stalinist Soviet satellite photo. This oil-conspiracy theory is beginning to look like a weak-minded attempt to fool the weak-minded with the aid of weak-minded, lying regimes.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist, 1992: "With its plans in tact, we must determine if it is possible that the U.S. government actually sought a pretext for a military intervention in the Middle East.":

Response: I'll give you a pretext now: the Osama's running around the world committing civilian mass murder and Saddam publicly applauding it.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: ""Bush's administration seems almost uniformly to dismiss most of the civilities and practices that other nations would identify with a common civilization. Civilized people operate by consensus . . . Diplomacy is the common language.":

Response: The world has tried diplomacy with dictators, many times over, with the same sorry results. The author is erroneously placing dictators on a civilized plain.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: ""For example, they repeat accounts of al Qaeda members seeking refuge in Iraq and of terrorist operatives meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials, even though U.S. intelligence reports raise doubts about such links.":

Response: The war in Iraq has cleared up this issue, with al Qaeda in Iraq and aligned closely with Saddam.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "Americans will not have heard much about PNAC because the national media has chosen not to tell them about it.":

Response: Because it came and went according to human tiredness.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "And a front-page story in the Jan. 9 New York Times reveals that "the United States is preparing a military presence in Central Asia that could last for years," including a building permanent air base in the Kyrgyz Republic, formerly part of the Soviet Union. (The Bushies say that they just want to keep an eye on postwar Afghanistan, but few students of the region buy the official story.":

Response: The author is again taking the stand that anything American is defacto bad.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "Any compromise of Washington's freedom to act is treated as a hostile act.":

Response: Should read "any act by Washington is treated as a hostile act by it's enemies and competitors."


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "Did Bush exploit the Sept. 11 attacks to justify a Central Asian oil grab? The answer seems clear. On Dec. 31, Bush appointed his special envoy to Afghanistan: Zalmay Khalilzad. "This is a moment of opportunity for Afghanistan.":

Response: (1) Again, I don't see anything wrong with helping Afghanistan generate some income. The author seems to be saying anything that generates a profit is bad, especially if it's the oil business. (2) I think Afghanistan has more to fear from our "Unwilling Allies, France, Germany, Russia, and China, who are still not above swooping down like vultures in a reckless, dangerous, irresponsible form of Capitalism, as evidenced by their arms dealings with Saddam in the past 12 years.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "Imagine how bad things would be if oil companies didn't rule the world.":

Response: What were the oil companies doing when Clinton was in office, or does this refute the conspiracy, and is not considered?


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "Meanwhile, Bush has not yet produced credible evidence that Iraq is the immediate and direct threat that his administration claims…(2) Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "To quash the International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, the administration threatened in June to withdraw all funds for UN peacekeeping. Global warming may be occurring, as an administration report finally admitted in the spring, but the White House nonetheless trashed the Kyoto Protocol that the international community spent ten years negotiating. And it offered no alternative plan.":

Response: (1) Once again the link that is staring them in the face the liberals cannot see - the misuse of mass media by Saddam and it's insane effect on the Osama's in this world. (2) So how do the separate issues of the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court tie in to the blatant evil of Osama and Saddam? I can agree with Bush on one issue and take odds with him on others, why can’t you?


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "On Iraqi weapons programs, administration officials draw the most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous sources," according to Diamond.":

Response: The author ignores the fact that Saddam's civilian mass murder arsenal was obtained from a not-so-ambiguous source - the US itself. So the US should know what Saddam has not declared.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "There is an oil conspiracy behind the war in Iraq.":

If you believe in an oil conspiracy, you lost money this summer. -Jerry Bowyer.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "To quash the International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, the administration threatened in June to withdraw all funds for UN peacekeeping. Global warming may be occurring, as an administration report finally admitted in the spring, but the White House nonetheless trashed the Kyoto Protocol that the international community spent ten years negotiating. And it offered no alternative plan.":

Response: There they go, back to the ICC and the Kyoto treaty. I should investigate them next, to see why Bush was against them.


Anti-US Oil Conspiracy Theorist: "With the US controlling Iraqi oil, the oil businesses will gain large profits.":

Jerry Bowyer: With the declining oil portfolio as evidence, the oil-conspiracy theory is false. If Iraq were to undergo a regime change, its production of oil would likely increase and this production would enter the flow of oil trade around the world. When supply goes up, prices go down, which is bad for the oil companies.


Anti-US Propaganda: "The Shiites in Iraq have an allegiance to Iran and Jordan and will not allow a democratic Iraq.":

Response: Shiite in Iraq are moderate, and have not allegiances to Iran or other extremist states.


Anti-US Protestor: "US wants to dominate the world.":

Response: Protecting your civilian population by combating international terrorists and their sympathizing states is not wanting to dominate the world.


Anti-US: "Press is censored.":

Response: That's a laugh, with the Bush bashing party going on.


Anti-US: "the humanitarian disaster in Iraq that the US created.":

Response: Fails to tell us how Iraq was a humanitarian disaster for the past 40 years under Saddam, which was much worse, and intentional, and still ongoing, as opposed to the US's unintentional hardships which it works hard to remedy as it fights Saddam. This anti-US bitterness has seriously blinded this person's judgment.


Anti-US: "US military experimented on soldiers with drugs, and soldiers could not refuse.":

Response: I don't know what happened in the past, but when I was in the military it was the healthiest place around in regards to psychology and medicine. I saw no conspiracies other than in the minds of the absurd.


Antiwar Activists "War is not the answer":

What are they going to do, spank Saddam? They are posturing with an imagined strength they do not possess. It is my theory that the weaker one is in relation to one's enemy, the more ruthless one will be, and conversely, the stronger one is in relation to one's enemy, the more merciful one will be. The activists are assuming the US is so much stronger that their enemies that the US can afford to be God-like in it's consideration and mercy, which is a current myth.


Anti-war Countries:

Are merely afraid of the uncertainties created by war, even if there will most likely be outcomes that promote peace and prosperity.


Antiwar Liberal: "What goes around, comes around." (referring to US military action against Saddam):

Response: Yes, liberation goes around, thanks comes around.


Anti-War Mother: "Our kids are dying fighting seasoned warriors. Bring them home.":

Response: (1) I would rather die fighting over there than die by Osama's hand here while hiding in my mother's lap. Oh, by the way, I am more of a seasoned warrior than they are. (2) This boo-hooing is a prime example of why women were banned from politics throughout history- their tendency to bury their heads at the first sign of trouble.


Antiwar News Article: "A gauntlet of antiwar protestors carrying American flags":

Terrorists, dictatorial nations, and Muslims hate the American flag. Try and carry it over there, as anyone is free to carry any flag over here.


Antiwar News Article: "America is an Aggressive Imperial Power":

Response: Does the US not have an all volunteer armed force? Did they not leave Afghanistan after the horrible situation there was taken care of? Are the enemies of the US and the supporters of terrorism and rogue nations pursuing peace and prosperity, or are they murderous repressive regimes, enemies of the free world, and whose arms clients include international terrorist organizations? Are you saying the US is not justified in it's actions?


Antiwar News Article: "Attack Iraq doesn't seem natural (in the war on terrorism).":

Response:  Deposing Saddam will have to be done sooner or later in the war on terrorism.  Bush is doing it perhaps sooner than most think "natural" or obvious, hence the protests and misgivings.  It is unfortunate that, with the technology available today, we will all be dead before it becomes "obvious".


Antiwar News Article: "Honk for Peace":

Muslim fundamentalists hate car horns.


Antiwar News Article: "I believe King’s principle of overcoming enemies with love is the only solution to the problems facing us today, both at home and abroad.":

Response: I don't think you'll soften Saddam with love. First of all you're not his type. Second, Saddam is holding on to power by committing crimes against humanity.


Antiwar News Article: "If Bush had to send his children to war, he'd think twice about it.":

Response: Sure, and then he'd do it anyway. All Americans should serve their country for a period of time.


Antiwar News Article: "Iraq is a Sovereign Nation":

Response: It is not. It is a nation held hostage. Put in in this perspective: You are developing a one-sheet summary on each government in the world which explains how the government works. In the US there are three branches of government than keep each other in check. In parliamentary systems you have Prime Ministers and Cabinets. Now you get to Iraq. Go ahead and do your summary, and then tell me Iraq is a sovereign nation.


Antiwar News Article: "Iraq is an elective campaign":

Response: This statement lacks the insight that all terrorist roads lead to Saddam, and lacks the wisdom that if the US has the capability to depose Saddam, they should do it. That it is a good deed is as plain as black and white.


Antiwar News Article: "Iraq is not a threat.":

How does anyone know Iraq did not attack the US with anthrax already? Saddam's desire to possess weapons of mass destruction, his already obtaining them, and his prior use of them makes him a threat to all, including the blind.


Antiwar News Article: "Only one congressman has a son in the military, so you can see their mindset (hawks).":

Response: It's this kind of weenie talk that has emboldened the Saddam's and Osama's of the world, and which has invited terrorists to US soil. They frequently gloat over Lebanon and Somalia where the US turned tail and ran, not wanting to sustain any casualties, being "civilized" and valuing human life over principles.


Antiwar News Article: "Russia during the cold war had many weapons of mass destruction. The US did not declare war on them.":

The world then was a much more barbaric place- repressive dictatorial regimes were more prevalent, and allies were less hesitant in screwing each other. In such a world the US would truly been acting alone in the name of good.


Antiwar News Article: "Soccer moms, religious leaders, longtime activists, senior citizens, and professionals have recently taken to the oft-freezing streets to show their support for a peaceful solution.":

The enemies of the US who these protestors want peace with do not operate on such lofty platitudes. In Saddam's world soccer moms are evil, religious leaders are repressed, activists never become "long-time" and their families killed and tortured, senior citizens are ignored, and professionals are enslaved or killed. What is keeping Saddam from exporting that rule here? The very government that is protecting them from Saddam. The protestors are blind in every direction except the direction of lofty platitudes.


Antiwar News Article: "The US is a bully, it did not sign the Kyoto treaty on global warming, did not support S. Korea's "Sunshine" policy toward N. Korea, did not join the International Criminal Court, withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile treaty, and has a preventive war doctrine.":

Response: The US has it's points on each of these issues, of which anti-US proponents have conveniently forgotten, especially regarding N. Korea, who make it known that they were going to pursue nukes long ago, and are now so eager for war.


Antiwar News Article: "The US is becoming the next colonial power.":

Response: How can the US do that with a volunteer military that is only a fraction of what it could be?


Antiwar News Article: "The US is bullying Iraq":

Response: The US is speaking in the only language a dictator understands.


Antiwar News Article: "What are you going to do after Iraq, attack all other dictators and countries with ties to terrorists?":

That depends on what happens after Saddam is deposed and his arsenal rounded up. If it is perfectly clear that must be done, then it must be weighed.


Antiwar Protesting:

Is snuffed out in the Iraq's and North Korea's of the world. Why should the US listen to it? Peace is not a unilateral phenomenon.


Antiwar Protestor Argument: "Why pick on Iraq? Saddam doesn't have the ballistic missiles to reach the U.S. with nukes, even if he had them.":

 He doesn't need them.  He can use Muslim Fundamentalists and Boeing planes.


Anti-war Protestor: " We can't change our position based on one news clip (of Baghdad celebrations in the street).":

Response: This proves that antiwar protestors will cling to their views inspite of actual contradictory events, not just as boobs, but as hard-headed boobs.


Antiwar Protestor: "Bush is a murderer."

Response: (1) If he did nothing, and terrorists murdered their next antiwar protestors in the US, then he'd be a murderer. (2) OK, let's take your view, he is a murderer. Who then, is the worse murderer, Bush or Saddam, and who's side is this person on?


Anti-war Protestor: "Iraqi people won't gain anything by the removal of Saddam.":

Response: Mere sour grapes conjecture. Sour grapes because anti-war protestors have, now that Saddam has been toppled, been revealed as biased anti-US propagandasts willing to throw the lives of a nation away in order to push their bizarre theories.


Antiwar Protestor: "Peace Now."

Response: When you enemy is suicidally dealing out civilian death and destruction, attacking those who are protecting you won't save you.


Antiwar Protestor: "Think of the lives of innocent women and children.":

Response: This war is far, far better for the lives of Iraqi women and children than leaving the Baath Party in power, a party that has killed an average of 43,000 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, every year for the past 35 years. Why? To stay in perpetual totalitarian power, keep the wealth, and let the population starve.


Antiwar Protestors:

Are hated because they are untested in the face of the trials the rest of the world has to endure. It  is easy to predict that the protestors ultimately would break down and act no less violently than others have in the face of such trials.


Antiwar Protestors:

Are hypocrites. They want to bully the rest of the world peacefully.


Antiwar Protestors:

Are not anti-war, or they would have been out on 9/12. It is merely a Democratic Party induced hysteria aimed at a Republican Party White House.


Antiwar Protestors:

Are posturing from a position of strength which was won not by appeasing the Saddam's and Kim Jong Il's of history, which was in fact won by the blood of their ancestors, who are being remembered ungraciously by such protestors in that the wars that they fought were wrong.


Antiwar Protestors:

They take the side of the higher principles of "no-war-at-any-cost" and "not-forcing-you-will-on-others-by-force" over the realities of good-vs.-evil and human suffering. So what side do you take, the principled side or the realities side?


Antiwar Protestors:

Think that opposing war in Iraq will appease terrorists and dictators.  It will not because Muslim terrorists and dictators already have a multitude of delusions logically-cracked mindsets that in their minds justify exterminating the West and everyone in it, such as bombing Hiroshima and killing civilians in Panama.


Antiwar Protestors:

Treat Saddam as an empirical issue, without any regard to good and evil. Bush cuts through this bull.


Antiwar Protestors: "Bush's imposing a Western-style government on others"

Response: Degrading those concepts shows they do not know anything about human suffering, such as the horrible conditions in North Korea under classic communism, or under any other classic communistic regime in the last century under Asian, African, European, and Middle Eastern totalitarian regimes.  They are speaking out of complete ignorance of human suffering, as taught at American University by revisionist anti-US professors.  Only a complete moron would diminish democracy as merely a "Western-style" government, especially after the recent lessons of the 20th century, which revisionists are attempting to rewrite to earn brownie points with fellow misguided intelligentsia.


Antiwar Protestors: "It's too bad Bush doesn't show the same sorrow over the Iraqi's he's going to bomb as he showed over the loss of the Shuttle crew.":

Another one-way criticism. What about the anti-war protestor's terrorist friends who show no sorrow in exhorting mindless Muslims to kill themselves while committing mass murder of civilian populations?


Antiwar Protestors: "War in Iraq like the massacre of women and children by out of control generals in the West":

Response: The only movie this person has seen is "Little Big Man", which was a bunch of one-sided and out of context horsedung playing to a mindless popular opinion.


Antiwar: "Bush and Blair delivering death and destruction, blood on their hands, and should be held accountable":

Where is the mention of Muslim Militants from this one-sided coward who is too afraid to confront Muslim Militants and instead picks on the nice guys?


Antiwar: "Bush and Blair delivering death and destruction, blood on their hands, and should be held accountable":

With this logic you'd tell your kid to not fight back when the bullies beat him up.


As the realist theorist Kenneth Waltz argues, "North Korea, Iraq, Iran and others know that the United States can be held at bay only by deterrence.":

Response: So Kenneth Waltz and Scott Burchell approve of Kim Jong Il's pursuit of nuclear weapons, given the hell North Koreans live in, and Kim's statement "The earth does not need to exist if there is not Kim Jong Il." Now they are apologizing for Kim Jong Il! It should be "Scott Burchell, lecturer in justification for evil and basher of heroic US". Let his punishment be his being exposed as an errant critic and a tool of evil regimes.


Baath Party "US has no right to change regime":

Response: The US has the right to protect itself from the whims of a dictator who possesses CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) agents and weapons who has had no one in his own country to stop him from passing them out or using them.


Baath Party:

Does not hesitate to push civilians in front of bullets in order to stay in power and out of the hands of civilian justice.


Baath Party:

Modeled after Stalin and Hitler, while those two were still in power. It is a present day evil anachronism.


Baath Party:

Only honorable thing left for them to do is to regret what they have done and face Iraqi justice.


Baath Party: "Defend Iraq, the dignity of it's people, and the destiny of the Muslim world.":

Response: Poetic, but deceiving. The Baath Party has raped Iraq, stole the dignity of it's people, and could care less about the destiny of the Muslim world as evidenced by the atrocities the Party has committed in it's perpetual quest for power.


Banned Omar Interview: "America controls the governments of the Islamic countries.":

The US does not control Saddam, Kadafi, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Malaysia, Indonesia, and others. This is a good example of a secularly ignorant Mullah's self-serving propaganda aimed at the ignorant street Muslim.


Banned Omar Interview: "Not an issue of Osama, but of Islam's prestige and Afghanistan's tradition.":

He is dragging down both. It is only an issue of the Taliban's atrocities being exposed, and the embarrassment it will cause to Islam and the Afghan tradition.


Banned Omar Interview:: "America is very strong… but it could not be strong enough to defeat us.":

Spoken like a true barbarian, using words like "strength". That is the only language he understands.


Banned Omar Interview:: "If you (I) start a journey on God's path, you can reside anywhere on earth and be protected.":

So who says he is on God's path? Not anyone with no stake in the matter.


Banned Omar Interview:: "If you look at Islamic countries, the people are in despair.":

Contradicts his other statements. And yes, because of corrupt totalitarian oppressive Islamic regimes, and not because of any Western nation. The US has been overly tolerant of recent Islamic antics and rhetoric.


BBC Headline: "Baghdad's anger: Residents' rage after a shopping area was apparently hit by coalition bombs.":

Should Read: "Iraq (Mis-)Information Ministry stages false public rage by threatening civilians if they do not, and makes false claim that coalition bomb hits shopping area."


Ben & Jerry's Ben Cone, a few days before 9/11:

"We don't need a large military (implying everybody loves Americans)."


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: If people want a quicker end to the bombing, then build a larger coalition force, and get other non-terrorist countries to contribute more toward the effort, especially those complaining and whining.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: If the military commanders are timid, burned out, need new blood, or need to implement a change of command appropriate to conducting a new phase, then get second opinions, be ready to back up your arguments, and then speak up and take action as an American citizen.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: Rather than meddling in US military tactics in order to appease the young, misinformed, minority, lunatic Fundamentalists in the Muslim world, you should instead be supporting your military commanders against our enemies, and the strategy and tactics they've been trained to create to reach their given goals, while they minimize American casualties, destroy the enemy in a timely manner, and adhere to the moral standards of the Western World.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: You should again understand that the US military commanders are doing what is necessary to win in the shortest time possible with the resources given, and within the highest moral standards.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: You should be fighting the misinformation spread by the Muslim Fundamentalist Menace faced by the US, rather than wringing your hands over their perceived (and in my opinion hollow) threats.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: You should be more concerned with goals, while trusting in the strategies and tactics created by military professionals, and stop being an armchair general.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: You should not be playing petty partisan politics during such a potentially dire crisis.


Biden "mano-e-mano":

Response: You should not succumb to taunting by ignorant Mullahs wishing for a ground war and eternal glory, or the impatient complaints of Northern Alliance troops, or the street shows in Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia put on by totalitarian states, street thugs, and self-serving Ignorants.


bin Laden:

Attacks a nation (in the name of Islam) that has been more welcome to Muslim immigration more than any other country in the world. A nation that has fought for beleaguered Muslims four times in four different places in the past decade alone (Afghanistan against Soviets, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against a militaristically adventurous neighboring Dictator, Bosnia against Christians, Somalia against anarchy. )


bin Laden:

Erroneously equates strong with bad, and weak with good, in international relations, but hypocritically is strong himself with respect to Muslim peasants.


bin Laden:

His plan would not have worked if he did not misuse the very freedoms that he, in his twisted mind, is at war with. He used American freedoms to sneak into the U.S., freely take specialized trainings with no governmental investigations, sneak aboard the planes, hijack them, and suicidally fly them into civilian buildings.


bin Laden:

Says the U.S. is "heavy handed" in one statement and "weak" in the next. A contradiction.


bin Laden:

The non-Muslim world must avoid talking the language of Islam - that of deceit, threat, and force. However, that is why bin Laden thinks the West is weak, because they don't talk his language (that of deceit, threat, and force).


bin Laden: "...if avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists.":

Here he is avenging the killing of his people by killing more of his people (Muslims who worked in the World Trade Center). Simply illogical.


bin Laden: "Children are dying in Iraq and nobody says anything.":

(1) Osama is not fighting for Iraq, he is Iraq's enemy. (2) Children were dying, but ask yourself who was killing them when Saddam's Republican Guard hoarded and ate the "Oil for Food" rations while protecting Saddam, while giving nothing to the starving, dying Iraqi children. Your blind hate for the West is misdirected.


bin Laden: "Iraq invaded Kuwait to liberate Palestine.":

How much more illogical can he get?


bin Laden: "Punish U.S. for all the pain it has caused the world":

(1) Suppose it is even partly true, what about all the good the U.S. has done in the world throughout the 20th century by present and past American generation, such a preventing a Nazi Middle East. That can't be unconsidered. Yet the terrorist mind selectively blocks out any facts that interfere with the activities that give them so much pleasure - that of death and destruction. It's their video game, and they're in an intoxicating fantasy world. It gives their miserable existence some meaning and companionship, however macabre. (2) by "the US" he does not know what or who he is referring to, he is over generalizing, has a fantasy mindset, and is criminally insane.


bin Laden: "The American soldier is weak as evidenced in Beirut and Somalia":

(1) Bin Laden mistakes the weakness as being the soldier instead of the leadership. He forgets that American leadership is up for election every 2-4 years. (2) then the Muslim world turns around and calls the US a 'bully' for deposing Saddam, the most brutal killer the world has ever seen.


bin Laden: "The Americans must pay for the pain and suffering they've caused.":

(1) The pain and suffering in the Middle East is caused by their own leadership's decadence and corruption which has left the general population in ignorance and isolation. (2) America is the birthplace of Barney the Dinosaur and Mr. Rogers. So what pain?


bin Laden: "The U.S. has caused suffering in Iraq.":

The Iraqi people and the Muslim world have caused suffering in Iraq, not the West or the U.N. They have, against President Bush Sr.'s advice, allowed Saddam to continue ruling in his insane maniacal ways, and violate U.N. mandates. Muslim extremists wish to shift the blame away from Saddam and the Muslim world where it belongs, and over to the West, where it does not belong. Like children, they are not accepting their responsibilities in the matter.


bin Laden: "Use of atom bomb in WWII was terrorism":

WWII was all out war between a free nation and deadly, fanatical, merciless, aggressive reigns in Japan and Germany. He refuses to admit there would be no Muslim world today if the Axis Leaders had the bomb. He is talking out of context, in which the US was the good guy, in order to support his twisted views.


bin Laden: "We have lost loved ones unjustly, or are being treated with unjust prejudice, so we kill Americans.":

 They are relying on the civility of Americans, who he gambles won’t retaliate in kind on his loved ones.  If terrorists don’t care if they are placing their loved ones in danger, then they are contradicting their initial purpose "for Allah and country" and for loved ones.


Blacks "were the only victims of Slavery in the US, and should side with the enemies of the US, such as evil dictators and terrorist organizations":

Slavery was the culture up to the 1800's in many countries and still exists today in many countries.  In 1834 a white man convicted of vagrancy was sold to a black man for a nickel in Chicago. Let the prejudiced blacks argue that one.


Bush whining about the Geneva Convention, what a joke! What about starting a war against the rules of the UN charter? What about the Kyoto treaty? What about the international court? What about import taxes of up to 30% on foreign steel? Bush doesn't care at all about international law and regulations. He uses them when they suit him, ignores them when they stand in his way.

Response: Another 'Peace Now, See No Evil' person. Bush has perfectly good reasons for his actions. He cannot let world prejudice against the US determine his actions. He has a responsibility to the United States, not to foreign powers trying to diminish it.


Chinese Citizen-Slave (or gov. propaganda): "America has never apologized for Vietnam, which was millions of times worse than the terrorist attacks in USA.":

Response: America was trying to stop the spread of the communist evil like Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung represented, but the world was too childish to understand. The US did not start that war. The communists attacked the non-communists. The US swore to protect the non-communists from the horrors of communism, and they failed.  The only apology the US should make about Vietnam is for letting the communists take over, which led to many times more deaths than the communists caused (for the US did not invade the South) during the Vietman war.


Chinese Citizen-Slave (or gov. propaganda): "Ever since Bush came to power, USA has committed many atrocity outside USA, causing huge loss of human life.":

Response: Can the US government shed some light on this? How come I as an American citizen do not know about these things? Let me check the Internet…….. Pure one-sided bull, with a blind eye to the many times more deaths caused by the evils the US battled.


Chinese Citizen-Slave (or gov. propaganda): "I think America needs to realize that not everyone in this world appreciate its way of life. In pursuing freedom, it cannot exercise its superpower at other country's expense, making war in other country's territory and threatening other nation's sovereign.":

Response: (1) Not everyone in world appreciate US way of life - yes, the likes of Kim Jong Il, Castro, Idi Amin, Saddam, Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Ho Chi Min, Mao, Charles Manson, and Al Capone, and a present-day repressive Chinese regime responsible for such self-perpetuating statements. (2) In Iraq, all email and all phone calls are censored. That doesn't sound like a sovereign nation. It sounds like dictator and subjects.


Chinese Citizen-Slave (or gov. propaganda): "In pursuing freedom, the US cannot exercise its superpower at other country's expense.":

Response: (1) Other country's expense like those run by un-elected, brutal, perpetual, anti-American lie-spreading dictators, such as communist countries. (2) A hypocritical statement from an evil "empire" like China.


Chinese Citizen-Slave (or gov. propaganda): "This should set people thinking about what USA has done to incur such a strong retaliation.":

Response: False anti-American propaganda and brainwashing by evil, non-democratic governments. The only thing the US did to incur such a strong retaliation is not countering false, weakminded, bizarre leftist (and Democratic Party) propaganda.


Chinese Citizen-Slave (or gov. propaganda): "US making war in other country's territory and threatening other nation's sovereign.":

Response: (1) The US does not go around chanting "Death to China" or "Death to the Middle East".  (2) The US is a peacemaker, and will defend itself from the many non-democratic madnesses in the world. (3) 62 year old Iraqi: "We (Iraq) have had so many wars I'm used to it." I don't hear any Americans saying that, while America's enemies, including China, falsely tell the world the US is a warmonger.


Christopher Dickey: "If the US stays in Iraq for 15 to 20 years, it will find itself at war with the rest of the world.":

Response: Mere cowardly conjecture. Fact is the rest of the world will counterbalance the US anyway if the US does not build alliances and coalitions.


Christopher Dickey: "Iraq will not stay together after Saddam is gone, too many tribes.":

Response: (1) Wait until the oil wealth is distributed. (2) Iraq does not have a choice, since they could not get rid of Saddam by themselves, and since terrorists roam free. It would in any case be to the US's advantage to have a splintered Iraq, then actions against terrorist-supporting states would be easier, but the US has higher principles than that.


Christopher Dickey: "Saudi Arabia a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US.":

Response: A cynical and inaccurate view. The Saudi Regime is the only present alternative to the Muslim Madness fomenting in the ranks of the barbaric.


Christopher Dickey: "War will not make the world a safer place.":

Response: It will as long as there are Saddam's to deal with.


Debate with Saddam:

How can you debate a knee-jerk denier and a pathological liar, and with one of his 17 plastic-surgeried doubles?


Democratic Constituency:

Crying "give me da money" is in competition with Africans who are crying "imagine what the War on Iraq money could do if the US gave to us needy in Africa…" and the similar statements of dozens of other nations addicted to US handouts, and then turn around and perpetuate hate against the US.


Democrats and the Media:

Believed Saddam when he said he has complied, and has no CMM's (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons.  Then the inspectors found missiles. So who is playing the Democrats and the Media for fools? Saddam is.


Democrats: "Republicans in bad situation because they haven't faced reality, are committing fiscal folly.":

Response: After Democrats were completely wrong about the war in Iraq, how can anyone listen to them on any other topic without seeing the selfishishness, blind ambitions, and morally vapid motives of their arguments?


Democrats: "This has been a long war.":

Response: This was said 14 days into the war.


Dictator Quote:

Hitler: "Democracy is Weak.."


Dictator Quote:

Kim Jong Il: "The world does not need to exist if there is no Kim Jong Il."


Dictator Quote:

Saddam: "I was elected unanimously."


Dictator Quote:

Stalin: "We are all happy here."


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. -Julius Caesar.":

Response: Unfortunately this confused liberal aimed this barb at the US, and not where it is more aptly aimed, the Saddam's and Mad Mullah's of the world.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "Either war is obsolete, or (humans) are." -Buckminster Fuller:

Response: War is almost obsolete. There are still a few Osamas and Saddams in the world, however, who live by war.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak [of war] is nothing more than an act of murder." -Albert Einstein:

Response: It would be if one was all-powerful, and could not be killed, but one isn't, and can be killed by the warlike lined up against him.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F. Kennedy:

Response: It is the means of putting and end to war that is at issue in the US's actions in it's war on terrorism. The US may put an end to terrorism, but as long as there is human weaknesses such as envy, misunderstanding, and hate, there will be war.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "No grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war." -Robert L. Jackson:

Response: The US's war on terror is a defensive war. The US was attacked first.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good." -Mahatma Gandhi :

Response: Duties the world is slacking in when it opposes the US in it's war on terrorism.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "Peace can never be achieved by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." -Albert Einstein:

Response: What then does one do when one understands that the other party wants to exterminate you out of a blind madness? Exactly what the US is doing in it's war on terrorism. That is understanding.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "War's influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people." -James Madison, 1795:

Response: Spoken in 1795 by James Madison. Does it apply today? Not as long as checks and balances remain, as well as a free and investigative press, of which Mr. Madison would have been astounded by.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: "We know more about war than we know about peace." -General Omar N. Bradley:

Response: Said during World War II. Now, if the US knew more about war than it did about peace, it would have had a blueprint for Iraq, for liberating oppressed countries, and it wouldn't have been such a mess, as unpracticed endeavors are apt to be.


Famous Saying Misapplied to current War on Terrorism by Liberal Left attacking the US: The club that kills can drive a stake into the ground to hold a shelter. The hands that build bombs can be used to build schools. The minds that coordinate the activities of violence can coordinate the activities of cooperation. When the activities of life are infused with reverence, they come alive with meaning and purpose." -Gary Zukav.:

Response: This can be aptly applied to what the US has done in Iraq, which is totally lost on loony liberals.


Fareed Zakaria: "America has an arrogance of power.":

Response: Sick viewpoint. If you want to see arrogance of power, visit any anti-US country, or Fareed when he is before a microphone.


Father John Dear:  “Fifty years from now, the next generation will ask, ‘What were you doing when the children of Iraq were dying?”:

Response: (1) Hiding behind a peace sign. (2) That actually goes against you, and how you want to prolong Saddam's murderous rule and his dealings with international mass murderer organizations that are renegades of all countries and all Gods.


Father John Dear:  Conclusion:

Response: The Father may think it is his duty to mindlessly oppose war, even when it means the continued humiliation and suffering of millions.  He is doing a good job of that.  But let me remind him that his country, which is in the right, is not at war against Saddam, who is in the wrong, but is using the threat of war very effectively, and in a most civilized manner, in spite of dealing with such a brutal self-serving barbaric military-adventurer of a madman. He is opposing good and wishes to perpetuate bad, out of cowardice, unreasoning principle, and self-aggrandizement, unless he is a fabrication of Saddam, which is reasonable to conclude given the illogic, inaccuracies, and misdirecting shown in his statements.


Father John Dear: "A war aimed at “regime change” is unjust, unwise, and incompatible with any criteria for establishing long lasting peace.":

Response: If an Iraqi heard you say that he'd pewk. You care nothing for their suffering, you care only for your own self-aggrandizement in the loony-liberal community where it is the current fashion to bash America.  Let me quote a few Iraqis: "They (referring to the antiwar protestors) have good intentions but are completely naïve. In Iraq, with Saddam in power, the absence of war is not peace." Saddam will continue to spill Iraqi blood to stay in power.


Father John Dear: "An attack on Iraq will further alienate U.S. allies and dramatically increase anti-American sentiment throughout the world.":

Response: Mere conjecture. I am of the opinion that when the terrorist cowards and their benefactors witness the dismantling of one of the most powerful regimes in the Muslim world, they will crumble like a house of cards. Your statement is not only fearful but cowardly. It is just such weak statements that gave rise and boldness to the Osama's of the world.


Father John Dear: "Anyone who claims to be a Christian and supports the bombing of the children of Iraq has renounced their faith.":

Response: Oh, now you are the Pope giving edicts. Your delusions are complete. You have not weighed the cost of children's lives with Saddam in power against the cost removing him from power. You are madly anti-US beyond all judgement and reason.


Father John Dear: "Anyone who claims to be a Christian and supports the bombing of the children of Iraq… they are practicing the ultimate form of child abuse.":

Response: I don't think you, as a Catholic Priest, can use that analogy to your benefit.


Father John Dear: "Bombing Iraq will only make matters worse; it may lead even to the use of nuclear weapons, and set a horrible global precedent, that it is okay to bomb preemptively.":

Response: (1) Mere conjecture about making matters worse, and completely irresponsible using the phrase "bombing Iraq" when it is Saddam who is going to be bombed, if bombs are the answer. (2) you left out "okay to bomb horrible regimes that murder the population in order to perpetually stay in power..." Why? Because your pointless point is US bashing while disregarding all human compassion or suffering.


Father John Dear: "Bombing the children of Iraq will not solve our problems or grant us security or bring us peace or save us from terrorist attacks or help the world.":

Response: More mere conjecture.  Your statements are beginning to sound like those of an Iraqi official planting this drivel, who will say anything Saddam tells him to say, because his family is in danger from Saddam.


Father John Dear: "From a Christian perspective, war is never blessed by God. . It is never the will of God.":

Response: (1) Now you are completely off your rocker. I am assuming you are referring to the Christian God and the Christian Bible, in which the words "God will smite them" occur more than once in the Jew's "holy" battles against the Philistines, the poor victims of Jericho, and countless others who stood in the way of the Jews obtaining their promised land and were duly slaughtered, down to the last goat. Not that they were any different than everyone else back then. (2) You have forgotten your history, such as the Spanish Inquisition.


Father John Dear: "From a Christian perspective, war is never blessed by God. . It is never the will of God.":

Response: (1) That may work on a personal level, but when dictatorial power is at stake, and crimes have been committed in keeping it, as in Saddam's case, then your love approach is not only inappropriate but dangerous. (2) You are addressing the US with this when you should be addressing your mad Muslim friends who continuously chant "Kill Americans, it is God's will" as if they have a monopoly on God's will, and as if they have any idea who 'Americans' are, other than what their cracked fantasies envision.


Father John Dear: "Heading to war with Iraq is a grave mistake. It can only lead to catastrophic consequences for the suffering people of Iraq, other suffering people around the world and ourselves.":

Response: Mere conjecture. On the contrary, most Iraqi's in exile, safe from Saddam's retributions, speak out for the US removing Saddam.


Father John Dear: "I worked in New York city as a Red Cross coordinator of chaplains at the Family Assistance Center, and counseled thousands of grieving relatives and exhausted rescue workers. I have seen up close the grief that comes from massive violence.":

Response: After seeing the wreckage of the World Trade Center, I told myself I wouldn't wish this on any nation. Unfortunately your terrorist and dictator friends do not have such compassionate notions.  Your message here against massive violence is being misdirected. It is not the US you should be attacking here, but your mad mass-destruction Mullah and terrorist friends whom you have so far completely failed to reproach as you single out the US, who is opposing them, and has been a victim of them.


Father John Dear: "In fact, it will inflame millions more people around the world against us, and guarantee further terrorist attacks against us.":

Response: The only thing that will inflame the rest of the world against "us" is a weak showing in Iraq, which you wholeheartedly endorse. Remember how angry the Afghan rebels were when the US was only dropping a bomb here and there on the Taliban and their terrorist benefactors, and how they cheered when the B52's came in? Your error in logic is that you think the absence of war is the absence of suffering, when in fact in this case it will only prolong it, and I an quoting Iraqis, who in your uninformed goodwill you would actually have them suffer more.


Father John Dear: "In March 1999, I led a delegation of Nobel peace prize winners to Baghdad. We met with religious leaders, United Nations and non-governmental organization officials, and even government representatives, but most importantly, we saw with our own eyes the reality of the suffering these sanctions have caused. We saw hundreds of children dying of relievable diseases, because we have systematically destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure.":

Response: (1) You did not see the Republican Guard eating all the "Oil for Food" rations and leaving the children to starve. (2) Your lack of knowledge of current events is alarming. First sanctions on food and medical supplies were lifted by your countrymen, if indeed you are an American, which you do not sound like. So any suffering from relievable diseases are solely the cause of Saddam. If Iraq's infrastructure has been totally destroyed, how come Saddam is still in power? It sounds like you were shown what Saddam wanted you to see, believe what Saddam has told you, and have been brainwashed by their religious leaders, who's brethren call for the extermination of everything non-Muslim, starting with your countrymen. You are either a trend-following loony liberal or a traitor or a Saddam propagandist. In any event your statements are ridiculous and anti-American, and you have not the benefit of history and how Stalin manipulated visitors and the media. In other words, your statements are ignorant.


Father John Dear: "In the end, we should not go to war because it risks the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, beginning with the already suffering, innocent children.":

Response: (1) There you go with the children again, whom you care nothing for in your argument to keep Saddam in power. (2) Not taking Saddam out risks the lives of millions of Americans. Saddam has the smallpox virus. There are no vaccines for all. It has been guaranteed by experts that 1/3 of the exposed population of an attacked country will die. You are blind to that? (3) You care nothing for the Iraqi civilians if you want to keep Saddam in power. What kind of people do you think they will grow up to be, knowing that the US has the power to alleviate them from Saddam but didn't, because of twisted arguments like yours?


Father John Dear: "Instead of funding jobs, healthcare, schools, low-income housing, environmental clean-up…":

Response: Now I know you're a liberal, who thinks the government can solve all of society's woes, when in fact such unmanaged government social spending only creates sloth and dependency.


Father John Dear: "Instead of trying to overthrow any government, we should root out the causes of terrorism, starting with global poverty, widespread starvation, and weapons sales.":

Response:  Don't you realize that it is evil totalitarian governments that are the root cause of your terrorism, global poverty, and weapons sales?


Father John Dear: "Making peace throughout the world is much harder than war, and requires long-term vision.":

Response: Now what are you saying, that the US can be friends with Saddam? Are you crazy?


Father John Dear: "Most critically, preemptive war is illegal under international law.":

Response: (1) Who attacked who, and who applauded it? Osama attacked the US, and Saddam applauded it. (2) You show a complete lack of common sense. No one will argue that it would be a good deed in getting rid of Saddam. But when it comes to doing it, the cowardly put abstraction ahead of reality.


Father John Dear: "No one supports tyranny in Iraq or anywhere, but bombing these suffering people will not bring democracy":

Response: (1) Again you are delusional, your country is not bombing the suffering people of Iraq, nor is it the intention of your country to make them suffer in the process of freeing them from Saddam's evil stranglehold. Saddam, however, has no reservations. (2) Leaving Saddam in power will cause more suffering, but you don't care.


Father John Dear: "Once one country takes preemptive action, other countries will follow suit. If the U.S. bombs Iraq, and calls it self-defense, we can be assured that similar wars will break out else.":

Response: The cowardly begin to generalize and do not face the facts in the situation presented to them. In this case there is not "one country", there is the US and all that it stands for. There is not "other countries", there is Saddam and all that he stands for. Cowards ignore all that things stand for and beg generalizations when things get tough, rather than act on a case by case basis, as your much wiser leaders are doing.


Father John Dear: "Since 1990, our sanctions on Iraq have killed over one million Iraqis, over half of them children under five, according to UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the Vatican and the United Nations.":

Response: (1) UNICEF did not see the Republican Guard eating the food intended for the children under the "Oil for Food" program. (2) I hate to argue with a Father, but you are being a typical ill-aimed sheltered American.  Iraqi civilians not a part of the Baath Party are applauding Bush right now, and see nothing for themselves in the plans of the French, Germans, and Russians except more Saddam.  Blame sheltered liberals like yourself for sanctions instead of removing Saddam by force, and for any suffering sanctions have given Saddam an excuse to cause. Blame Saddam, too, which you are glaringly failing to do.  It was perceived then by the liberals in power that sanctions were the politically correct and civilized thing to do. You as a liberal are now admitting to that failure.  Also you fail to mention the Iraqi's own leader's role in the suffering of Iraqis, beginning with his military adventurism. You fail to mention any wrong doing by Saddam. You also fail to mention Iraq's #1 health problem currently: obesity. So where is their starving, if not caused by their own leader of the past several decades?


Father John Dear: "The best way to security and peace in the region continues to be through the United Nations, the UN-administered process of weapons inspections, and a strategy of regional disarmament (as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 687, article 14)":

Response: (1) Your are a hypocrite. Now you want to "bully" them into disarming "peacefully". You can't have it both ways.  (2) You do not understand the mind of a mad dictator. The only reason inspectors are back in Iraq is because of the military threat Bush has imposed on Saddam. You are prolonging the pain of Iraqis. (3) You address regional disarmament, but completely miss the point as to why Bush is bravely putting his foot down with Saddam - the point is not regional disarmament, but the availability of modern mass-destruction technology to the Osama's of the world. In Saddam's closed society, no one knows what he's up to, and one must go by his track record and statements, of which there is ample cause for Bush's heroic actions, which you so completely fail to appreciate for your own petty reasons.


Father John Dear: "The Bush administration has offered no evidence of any links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There is no evidence that Iraq currently has useable weapons of mass destruction.:

Response: You do not have any proof Saddam is not dealing with terrorist organizations on a daily basis. His is a closed society, so proof is not possible. In such a case the worst case scenario must be assumed, and the appropriate responses carried out. It sounds like you just want to keep Saddam in power. Your proof will be more dead Americans, of whom you care less for than your twisted 'peaceful' views.


Father John Dear: "There are many alternatives to war, they just require patience and hard work.":

Response: You completely fail to realized that your leaders are doing just that, they are presently exercising an alternative to war: that of the threat of war. They are using the threat of war to good effect. Is that effect enough? I don't think so. That would entail trusting a brute like Saddam, and frankly I think he is daily dealing with terrorist organizations and has every intention of giving them the weapons they want to mount a suicidal offensive against the free world, which has sheltered ingrates like yourself from the Saddam's and Kim Jong Il's of the world.


Father John Dear: "These dying Iraqi children were born long after the 1991 Gulf war, have suffered under Saddam, but die because of our sanctions and bombs.":

Response: What children are dying by the bombs of the US? This is Saddam lying to us. This is no priest. (1) The sanctions were the ideas of liberals like this phony priest, and the extremely few bombs being dropped on Iraq by the US are dropped on your antiaircraft batteries that fire upon American planes, which you are so eager to shoot down. You have no reservations about using civilians as shields. Your arguments lack merit and your attitude, if you were an American, would be a disgrace to those countrymen who protect you from Saddam, who you in New Mexico think you are so safe from, and can afford to exude such high platitudes, which in any case are deplorable in their ill-aim.


Father John Dear: "War with Iraq is not only illegal and immoral, it’s just downright impractical. It’s not justified or noble, just stupid and lethal.":

Response: (1) Impractical? No military expert would even call it a war, it would be a one-way steamrolling over Iraq. Iraq has absolutely nothing to stop the "Anglo-American armada" as so disrespectfully put by a loony liberal. (2) It is justified a thousand times over (3) It is noble a thousand times over (4) As compared to higher reason, I agree, war is stupid (ask any woman), but in this case no war is stupid-er  (5) War is lethal, sure, but so is the absence of this war, especially in regard to the Iraqi children who will grow up under the thumb of an evil dictator who will sacrifice them to keep himself in power.


Father John Dear: "War with Iraq will hurt our already failing economy.":

Response: Again, mere conjecture. You cannot predict the future anymore than I can. You are a doom and gloom liberal, full of woe and foreboding, wringing your hands, incapable of dealing with such a problem, however unlikely, caused by a worthy effort.


Father John Dear: "We should lift all economic sanctions on Iraq and impose strict military sanctions not only on Iraq, but throughout the Mid-East.":

Response: (1) You are so stupid I don't know why I am wasting my time with you. Oh yes, now I know. Because the government does not waste it's time with you, and allows your drivel to go unchallenged, thereby making you believe yourself. It's the 60's all over again, when the government did not have the wit to respond to stoned-out-of-their-minds kids, who in any other epoch would have been immediately enslaved by a conqueror. (2) As to military sanctions, I don't think France, Germany, Russia, and China will abide when we are not looking. Reckless capitalism is still rampant with many nations.


Father John Dear: "we will be paying billions more to kill Iraqi children.":

Response: You are making false statements in order to be dramatic.  You are obvious in the former and a complete failure in the latter. You also care nothing for the children Saddam has killed with chemical weapons and power maintaining. What is your agenda? Personal fame? It sure isn't concern over human suffering.


Father John: "I know no God that endorses preemptive slaughter in the name of peace.":

Response: Father John has forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, hasn't he.


Fearniks "War on Iraq will divert attention away from the war on terrorism":

Response: War on Saddam a part of the war on terrorism.


France "Cannot accept ultimatum for war in face of progress on inspectors":

Response: Does anyone really think inspections will complete the job of ridding Saddam of CMM agents and weapons after 12 years of trying? Do you think inspectors will find barrels of sarin buried in a pit behind a pig farm?


France "War is always a result of a failure of the intellect":

Response: Unfortunately, no one possesses the intellect to depose an entrenched dictator who defies the UN and endeavors to hang on to his arsenal of CMM agents and weapons that he agreed to destroy 12 long years ago in exchange for his being allowed to continue to brutalize, murder, and rape his country, with thought alone.


France: "US is a rogue, reckless, arrogant superpower.":

Response: France should forgive the arrogance, considering French arrogance. Reckless, France leads the way in recklessness, considering their reckless capitalistic oil contract arrangements with an evil dictator like Saddam at the expense of the population of the country. Rogue? Only in the minds of that part of a corrupted UN that wishes to use the UN to throw their twisted weight around and impede other countries out of petty issues like arrogance, again, like France.


France: "US war on Iraq wrong morally, politically, and strategically, and will have a bad result internationally."

Response:(1) The same thing could have been said about the Nazis. (2) Mere cowardly conjecture. Look at the Baath Party. They care nothing for outside opinion as they commit their war crimes, kill civilians, and spew out transparent false propaganda, and yet they enjoy broad support from their fellow Muslims, albeit out of blind loyalty, while the US, tiptoeing on eggshells to do the civilized thing, has the entire international community against them, harboring an anti-US prejudice that turns a blind eye on good and evil.



Complain when they get blown up, but cheer when Jews get blown up.  At least the Jews express public regret for the loss in innocent life.


Hard Question Askers:  On war with Iraq: "The Soviets had such weapons, why didn't the US attack them?":

Response: The Soviets, as bad as they were, were more civilized than the free world's current enemies.  The Soviets did not go about the free world suicidally murdering masses of unarmed civilians who were guilty of nothing more than pursuing peace and prosperity.


Hard Question Askers:  On war with Iraq: "Where does it all end?":

Response: That entirely depends on the intelligence gathered and the analysis made, and what the enemies of the US are up to.



 From 99.5 AM  Radio Station in NYC: In America Muslims have good jobs, get a good education, sent their money to their poor extended family back in the old country, practice their religion fee from political oppression.



Do the people at 99.5FM in NYC still think the US is trying to bomb Islam out of existence, and that the US is bombing the poor?



From 99.5 AM  Radio Station in NYC: "America is trying to bomb Islam out of existence." From Muslim Surrendering Taliban Militiaman: "We agree with what the Americans are doing - going after International Terrorists even if it means going through regimes that protect them."



From 99.5 AM  Radio Station in NYC: (The US should) "Stop bombing the poor." Not only is this statement inaccurate - the only US bombs hitting the poor are strays and the ones the Taliban has put the poor under - but it is one-eyed in it's anti-American stance. The person who said this has not weighed America's actions against the evils the Taliban has been perpetrating against the poor over the last several years, and shows how some people, even Americans, will go to any length, even slander, to discredit the US.



From 99.5 AM  Radio Station in NYC: (The US should) "Stop bombing the poor." The US is not bombing the poor, it is bombing the wicked - the Taliban regime and the International Terrorist Organizations it protects.



From 99.5 AM Radio Station in NYC: (The US should) "Stop bombing the poor." The person turns a blind eye to the liberation US bombing has brought to the Afghan poor, as depicted through the media. The person is stuck in an Anti-American mentality fashion show devoid of all higher reasoning.



Michael Kramer: "Islam fanatics gave their lives to advance their distorted views of Islam, only a response in kind will deter them in the future." So who is Michael going to use for fodder? In fact, not throwing lives away over pride and taunts puts the US a cut above the Taliban, and the effects have rippled throughout the world. We no longer hear of protests in Malaysia and Indonesia, Pakistan and Palestine, Iran and Europe. Only cheap people with cheap personal agendas are protesting.



Michael Kramer: "Sleeper agents lurking among us indicate that the war will go on long after Afghanistan is liberated." On the contrary. Afghanistan being so obviously liberated from Muslim Fanaticism will take some if not all of the air out of the terrorist's balloon.



Michael Kramer: "We (Americans) need to prove we're not afraid to die. Winning the war in Afghanistan with bribes and proxy forces will only embolden those convinced that we lack the will to fight our own battles even when we're attacked at home." This is pure bullshit. The US under Bush doesn't have to make any amends for the US under Clinton. The US military is an arm of it's leaders, strong or weak. It has had both recently. It has always been the land of the free and the home of the brave, in spite of the temporary leaderships that have come and gone.



Michael Kramer: "We (Americans) need to prove we're not afraid to die." I'm sure he refers to sacrificing somebody other than himself. He also is not familiar with General Patton's Maxim: "You win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."



Michael Kramer: His "Prove" statement he said was echoed in "talk shows and on the Web". If it was (and I doubt it) then it only demonstrates the ignorance rampant in the US due to a lack of a military draft, where entire populations are completely ignorant of military insights and have been brainwashed by liberal anti-military, anti-American media since the Vietnam war.



American Apologists say "Look at what the US does to women (as compared to the Taliban). We need to look at ourselves." As if equal opportunity isn't enough. Nothing in America can compare with the scale of oppressive Medieval treatment of women in Afghanistan. As for children, nothing in America can compare with the insanity being taught to orphan children in Pakistan. Self-criticism is healthy to a point, but completely out of proportion comparasons will not save you from the insanity of today's Muslim fundamentalists. They will kill you anyway, because of your race, your faith, and where you live. It is their fantasy.



If the US gives Israel preferential treatment, it is by choice. Israel has the more democratic, industrious, and civilized culture, more akin to American values. This choice does not make the US evil.


Homefront: "Military Tribunal's rules of evidence more lax.":

Contraire. The criminal justice system's approach to allowing evidence and higher reasoning is ludicrous. Take the case of illegally obtained evidence. What does the criminal justice system do, accept the evidence and punish the obtainers? NO! They throw out the evidence and do not punish the illegal obtainers! Completely backwards! Take the case of employing higher reasoning - the criminal justice system does not employ it. They remain  mindlessly bound by the books.


Human Shields (flying to Iraq from Western nations to shield Iraqi civilians from US bombs):

Response: The only Iraqis they will shield are Saddam and his band of killers. Saddam even kicked some of them out for arguing where they will be shielding, military or civilian areas. Saddam wants them to shield military targets, thinking "Who cares about Iraqi civilians? You shield me and my band of killers!"


I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil is permanent. -Mohandas Gandhi:

Response: Unfortunately, when Osama attacked the US, no good even came of it. The evil would be permanent if the liberals had their way and Bush did nothing about Osama and Saddam.


Indian Peace Demonstrators:

Don't look so peaceful breaking windows and making effigies to mutilate. It is hypocritical.



Are a circle of folly that the US administration cannot stand by and pay for when it is American civilian populations that are being attacked and plotted against, with Saddam's CMM toys in mind.


Inspectors "Progress is being made in ballistic, biological, chemical, and nuclear domains":

Response: only ballistic, because Saddam knows it is not needed with the tool of insane Muslim terrorists at his disposal.


Inspectors "We should keep pursuing fruitful, albeit difficult, inspections":

Response: He conveniently left out "expensive", since his continued futile inspections are made possible by and at the expense of the US forces poised to depose Saddam and take care of the problem themselves.  Hans Blix only wants to stay in the spotlight for his own personal aggrandizement.



Even if they find and destroy CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) agents and weapons, with Saddam still in power and longing for them, he will obtain and produce them again, and thumb his nose up at the UN, much as Kim Jong Il is doing now.


Inspectors: "Military presence lends support to the inspection process":

Response: Not "lends support", but "makes wholly possible, yet still not effective". Who is going to pay for the military presence, the US alone? Not fair.


Inspectors: "Why attack Iraq and attack the inspection process now?":

Response: It is expensive and perilous for the US to just sit there and let the inspectors and Saddam play hide-and-seek for another 12 years while terrorists organizations plot and carry out plans of civilian mass-murder with Saddam's CMM arsenal.


International War Crimes Commission:

A joke created by totalitarian regimes that are a joke.  A kooky liberal mentioned these "war crimes" that were brought against Bush Sr. over the Gulf War, and that the US military experimented on it's soldiers with experimental drugs without their consent, among other things. The liberal, obviously anti-US and anti-Bush, called herself "intelligent" and "well read". Well, I have excerpts from her source, a paper from the self-proclaimed "International War Crimes Commission", and you won't believe the amount of fabrication that went into this document, as will be demonstrated by my responses to them below.  It will be shown that our self-proclaimed "intelligent" and "well read" lady has displayed a complete lack of judgment, or simply will unethically grind her axe.


International War Crimes Commission: " United States war crimes breaking the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977; and the international crimes of Genocide against the People of Iraq as defined by the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide of 1948 as well as by the United States' own Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, 18 <U.S.C>. 1901.  Finally, and most heinously of all, these Defendants actually perpetrated a Nuremberg Crime against their own troops when they forced them to take experimental biological weapons vaccines without their informed consent in gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation that has been fully subscribed to by the United States government.":

Response: (1) International Commission of Inquiry into United States war crimes at the Martin Luther, Jr. Auditorium (smells of racism already) , (2) the Nuremberg Crime Against Peace (sorry, Saddam waged war first, so there was no peace),  (3) No mention of Saddam breaking every rule in the book in war, and every rule in the book in peace (4) most points presented in this paper are complete fabrications that actual events have already proven wrong.


International War Crimes Commission: ""Superbombs" were dropped on hardened shelters with the intention of assassinating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - a war crime in its own right.":

Response: A national leader is a legitimate target in wartime, especially one who carries a sidearm and conducts his own executions with his children present to 'toughen them up'.


International War Crimes Commission: "After the Rebellion Failed, the U.S. Invaded and Occupied Parts of Iraq Without Lawful Authority in Order to Increase Division and Hostilities Within Iraq":

Response: The lack of punctuation indicates this drivel is emanating from the Iraq MisInformation Ministry. Iraq was occupied in accordance with UN mandates to protect civilians from Saddam's continuing indiscriminately slaughter.


International War Crimes Commission: "Aircraft and helicopters dropped napalm and fuel-air explosives on oil wells throughout Iraq and many, if not most, of the oil well fires in Iraq and Kuwait.":

Response: Nice try at distorting the truth again. The fact is the best way to stop Saddam's oil well fires was to bomb them.


International War Crimes Commission: "America's self-anointed policeman in the Persian Gulf had the blood of the Panamanian People on his hands.":

Response: Again the enemies of the US give a distorted and one-sided case, by not mentioning the horrible nature of the US's dictatorial enemies in Panama and Iraq.


International War Crimes Commission: "As a direct result of this bombing campaign against civilian life, at least 25,000 men, women and children were killed. The Red Crescent Society of Jordan estimated 113,000 civilian dead, 60% of them children, the week before the end of the war.":

Response: I don't see these numbers given anywhere else other than by the Iraq MisInformation Ministry.


International War Crimes Commission: "As a direct, intentional and foreseeable result of this anti-civilian destruction, over one hundred thousand people have died after the war from dehydration, dysentery, diseases, and malnutrition caused by impure water, inability to obtain effective medical assistance and debilitation from hunger, cold, shock and distress.":

Response: All allowed to happen by Saddam as punishment for rising up against him during the Gulf War, and totally preventable by Saddam through the UN's oil-for-food program.


International War Crimes Commission: "Bush Corrupted the United Nations:
To secure these votes in the Security Council, Defendant Bush paid multi-billion-dollar bribes; offered arms for regional wars; threatened and carried out economic retaliation; illegally forgave multi-billion-dollar loans; offered diplomatic relations despite human rights violations; and in other ways corruptly exacted votes.":

Response: Considering Bush Jr.'s treatment by the UN, it looks like the UN is alive and well, counter to the theory presented here.


International War Crimes Commission: "Bush pressed the military to expedite preparations and to commence the war against Iraq before military conditions were optimum for domestic political purposes so that the war would not interfere with his presidential re-election campaign.":

Response: These racist loonies cling to this view in the face of the contradictory facts of history.  The fact is Bush gave Saddam and the US military plenty of time, and the lack of US casualties reflect the time allowed for thorough US preparation to oust Saddam from Kuwait, Saddam's first step in placing the entire Arabian peninsula under his murderous boot.


International War Crimes Commission: "But as a direct result of Defendant Bush's mad rush to war, United States military personnel suffered needless casualties. Defendant Bush has still lied and covered up to the American People and Congress the true nature and extent of U.S. casualties during the Persian Gulf War.":

Response: I don't see anyone by loony liberals claiming that Bush Sr. lead a "mad rush to war". In fact, it was plain to see Saddam was the mad party in this conflict, and Bush had the courage and talent to confront it.


International War Crimes Commission: "Cluster bombs and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs were used in Basra, and other cities and towns, against the civilian convoys of fleeing vehicles and against military units.":

Response: Another fabrication.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush fully intended to go to war against Iraq and to seize the Arab oil fields in the Persian Gulf. ":

Response: Even after events have proven their theory wrong, loony anti-US liberals cling to their fossilized views.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush intentionally usurped Congressional power, ignored its authority, and failed and refused to consult with the Congress. This conduct violated the Constitution and Laws of the United States and especially the War Powers Clause.":

Response: Congress did not share these views, nor did the courts, who threw this false case out the door at the lowest level of jurisprudence.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush knew full well that he intended to destroy the armed forces and civilian infrastructure of Iraq.":

Response: These obviously racist loonies cling to this statement in the face of Bush giving Saddam plenty of time (months, in fact) to leave Kuwait and avoid any conflict at all, just as the present Bush gave Saddam plenty of time (going on 12 years, in fact) to come clean on civilian mass murder agents and weapons.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush pursued recourse to war as an instrument of his national policy and for the solution of international controversies":

Response: Calling Saddam's invasion of Kuwait an "international controversy" after the invasion had taken place is a misapplication of the term. It was an international controversy before the invasion took place. After the invasion took place, it was an invasion.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush, Having Destroyed Iraq's Economic Base, Demands Reparations Which Will Permanently Impoverish Iraq and Threaten Its People with Famine and Epidemic":

Response: The only person impoverishing Iraqis is Saddam, while he builds himself and his cronies dozens of multi-billion dollar palaces, bunker complexes, and secret assassin squads to keep the population under absolute control.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush's invasion of Panama was even more illegal, reprehensible, and criminal than Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.":

Response: Absolutely no mention of the drug trafficking of Panama's dictator General Manual Antonio Noreiga which lead to his arrest by the US, or that Panamanians voted for the anti-Noreiga candidates by a margin of over three-to-one, which were annulled by Noreiga, and that after the arrest of Noreiga and the end of his dictatorial rule the Panamanians moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Bush's successful attempt to subvert every effort for negotiating a peaceful resolution of this dispute.":

Response: No mention of Saddam refusing to leave Kuwait, after he had sunk his teeth into it.


International War Crimes Commission: "Defendant Schwarzkopf informed the Senate Armed Services Committee of this new military strategy in the Gulf allegedly designed to protect U.S. access to and control over Gulf oil in the event of regional conflicts.":

Response: A good example of the kooky liberals still holding to their failed views even in the face of history (in this case after the US left Saddam intact along with his oil fields).


International War Crimes Commission: "During January of 1990, massive quantities of United States weapons, equipment, and supplies were sent to Saudi Arabia in order to prepare for the war against Iraq.":

Response: Then why didn't the US take the Saudi oil fields right then and there? Because these Imperial US views and charges are bunk.


International War Crimes Commission: "Gulf War goes back to the 1973 Arab oil boycott of Europe. The Arab oil states imposed the boycott in solidarity with those Arab states that were then attempting to reclaim their Lands that had been illegally stolen from Them by Israel in 1967.":

Response: In reality the Arabs were mad they all attacked Israel and were beaten both times, while Israel rightfully occupied militarily advantageous positions the totalitarian Arab states used to harass and launch attacks against a democratic Israel. In their tantrum, they lashed out at the US and came up with this oil embargo.


International War Crimes Commission: "In one particularly shocking maneuver, thousands of Iraqi soldiers were needlessly and illegally buried alive.":

Response: They were given amply opportunity to surrender, but had ideas of slaughtering any American who entered.


International War Crimes Commission: "In regard to this matter, Congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas has already introduced an Impeachment Resolution into the House of Representatives, that is numbered House Resolution 86":

Response: Haven't read it yet, but if it's as ridiculous as the War Crimes paper, I'd be wasting my time.


International War Crimes Commission: "In the first hours of the aerial and missile bombardment, the United States destroyed most military communications and began the systematic killing of Iraqi soldiers who were incapable of defense or escape":

Response: The US dropped millions of leaflets allowing the Iraqis to surrender for months before the campaign began. The Iraqis, some in their arrogance, some with Saddam's assassins at their backs, did not surrender.


International War Crimes Commission: "International Commission of Inquiry into United States war crimes at the Martin Luther, Jr. Auditorium who launched and waged this brutal, inhumane, and criminal war. the Nuremberg Crime Against Peace, Nuremberg Crimes Against Humanity; and Nuremberg War Crimes. In addition, these Defendants also committed grievous war crimes by wantonly violating the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Declaration of London on Sea Warfare of 1909; the Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare of 1923;

Response: (1) International Commission of Inquiry into United States war crimes at the Martin Luther, Jr. Auditorium (smells of racism already) , (2) the Nuremberg Crime Against Peace (sorry, Saddam waged war first, so there was no peace),  (3) No mention of Saddam breaking every rule in the book in war, and every rule in the book in peace (4) most points presented in this paper are complete fabrications that actual events have already proven wrong.


International War Crimes Commission: "Most of the targets (of US bombing) were civilian facilities.":

Response: Another statement trying to rewrite history, ala Stalin or Mao.


International War Crimes Commission: "Obviously, in the brief space that has been allotted to me, there is no way that I could adequately describe all of the atrocities and war crimes that were committed by these Defendants":

Response: Obviously, there aren't any, and you can't, even though you have endless time and space. Would anybody keep them to himself if they actually existed? No.


International War Crimes Commission: "Oil well fires in both Iraq and Kuwait were intentionally started by U.S. aircraft dropping napalm and other heat intensive devices.":

Response: Another fabrication. If fact, Saddam set fire to all Kuwaiti oil fields in complete barbaric disregard for the environment, and it was the US who capped them all.


International War Crimes Commission: "One seven mile stretch called the "Highway of Death" was littered with hundreds of vehicles and thousands of dead. All were fleeing to Iraq for their lives. Thousands were civilians of all ages, including Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Jordanians and other nationalities.":

Response: This fabrication could only have been hatched by the Iraq MisInformation Ministry, and for only the weakest of minds. In fact, the 'highway of death' was nothing more than a plundering army in full tactical retreat, regrouping to strike later at their own convenience.


International War Crimes Commission: "Pursuant to this war plan, Defendant Webster and the CIA assisted and directed Kuwait in its actions of violating OPEC oil production agreements to undercut the price of oil for the purpose of debilitating Iraq's economy":

Response: Then why didn't the US take the Kuwaiti oil fields right then and there? Because these Imperial US views and charges are pure fabrications proven wrong by actual events.


International War Crimes Commission: "Rapid Deployment Force (RDF), whose primary mission was to seize and steal the Arab oil-fields of the Persian Gulf region.":

Response: More hogwash. It was to respond to the numerous small conflicts that the Third World ceaselessly inflicted upon itself.


International War Crimes Commission: "the American People must condemn and repudiate Defendant Bush and his grotesque vision of a New World Order that is constructed upon warfare, bloodshed, violence and criminality.":

Response: The only places I see Bush using force are in places already suffering from a lack of democracy which gives rise to the misery they are suffering under totalitarian leaders who's way of life is warfare, bloodshed, violence and criminality.


International War Crimes Commission: "The bombing continued for 42 days. It met no resistance from Iraqi aircraft and no effective anti-aircraft or anti-missile ground fire.":

Response: Both false statements. Saddam arrogantly fought in the air and was whipped. Saddam killed more civilians with his anti-aircraft fire returning to earth in residential areas than all coalition forces combined.


International War Crimes Commission: "The Defendants conducted this genocidal war against the Male Population of Iraq for the express purpose of making sure that Iraq could not raise a substantial military force for at least another generation.":

Response: I'm sure every Muslim will believe this, even in the face of the Americans mercifully sending tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers home without their weapons after the ground conflict ended, in hopes that American civility would somehow not be forgotten. Maybe it has not, but Saddam's threats overshadow it.


International War Crimes Commission: "The Defendants intended to provoke Iraq into aggressive military actions against Kuwait that they knew could be used to justify U.S. military intervention into the Persian Gulf for the purpose of destroying Iraq and taking over Arab oil fields.":

Response: Then why didn't the US take over Iraq's oil fields after the Gulf War? Because these Imperial US views and charges are false deceptions.


International War Crimes Commission: "The Defendants' intention was not to remove Iraq's presence from Kuwait. Rather, their intention was to destroy Iraq.":

Response: Again repeating their fabrications in the face of counter historic facts, completely ignoring history and clinging to their distorted theories. In fact the US stopped before a power vacuum was created, and the fanatical vultures moved in from Iran.


International War Crimes Commission: "The intention and effort of this bombing campaign against civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq's infrastructure leaving it in a pre-industrial condition.":

Response: Two Falsehoods. There was no bombing campaign against civilian life and facilities. In fact the US stopped the war before a power vacuum was created, and the fanatical vultures moved in from Iran.


International War Crimes Commission: "The Kuwaiti government itself estimated that approximately 300 people were killed as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and a few hundred more as a result of the military occupation. By comparison, Defendant Bush's invasion of Panama in December of 1989 took between 2,000 and 4,000 Panamanian lives, and the United States government is still covering up the actual death toll.":

Response: So this is where Muslims and leftists get their erroneous views from, and they are too weak-minded to challenge it. Fact is Saddam's barbarians tortured and murdered thousands of Kuwaitis, beyond those killed as a result of battle, all the while torturing and killing thousands of Iraqis who wanted no part of his terrible regime.


International War Crimes Commission: "The net effect was the summary execution and corporal punishment indiscriminately of men, women and children, young and old, rich and poor":

Response: It is now revealed to the world that Saddam and his regime employs these very tactics, and uses it's complete disregard for human life and the regard for human life by the US as a weapon in many different ways, from human shields to calls for suicide bombers to executions of families of Iraqis who want nothing to do with Saddam's murder apparatus.


International War Crimes Commission: "The purpose of these attacks was to destroy life and property, and generally to terrorize the civilian population of Iraq.":

Response: Another fabrication. The US targets were Saddam's infrastructure of aggression and terror.


International War Crimes Commission: "The U.S. bombing campaign killed tens of thousands of defenseless soldiers":

Response: Tell the Iraqi survivors in Saddam's terror that these were "defenseless" soldiers.


International War Crimes Commission: "The U.S. intentionally bombed alleged nuclear sites, chemical plants, dams and other dangerous forces. The U.S. knew such attacks could cause the release of dangerous forces from such installations and consequently severe losses among the civilian population. While some civilians were killed in such attacks, there are no reported cases of consequent severe losses. Presumably, lethal nuclear materials, and dangerous chemical and biological warfare substances, were not present at the sites bombed.":

Response: Wrong presumption. Why they didn't spread was because the US, in it's regard for innocent life, used carefully selected and highly incendiary munitions which incinerated the substances on the spot.


International War Crimes Commission: "The United States Foreign Policy Establishment consists of liberal imperialists, reactionary imperialists, and middle-of-the-road imperialists. But they all share in common a firm belief in America's "Manifest Destiny" to rule the world.":

Response: This false statement in the face of the US's abundant foreign aid in every sector of human endeavor.


International War Crimes Commission: "the United States government had been planning, preparing, and conspiring to seize and steal the Persian Gulf oil fields for over a decade.":

Response: This false statement is a product of Marxist paranoia.


International War Crimes Commission: "The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed centres for civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.":

Response: Another fabrication, judging by the spelling, the War Crimes Commission is of British origin. The US took great measures to avoid striking innocent areas, as is described in the journals of numerous coalition pilots.


International War Crimes Commission: "The United States Intentionally Bombed and Destroyed Defenseless Iraqi Military Personnel":

Response: Another fabrication. All were legitimate and armed military targets, who in many cases fired first and back.


International War Crimes Commission: "the United States of America constitutes an international criminal conspiracy under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, that is legally identical to the Nazi government in World War II Germany. The Defendants' wanton extermination of approximately 250,000 People in Iraq provides definite proof of the validity of this Nuremberg Proposition for the entire world to see.":

Response: The only people swallowing this crap are those already brainwashed by anti-US totalitarian regimes afraid of democracy.


International War Crimes Commission: "The United States Used Prohibited Weapons Capable of Mass Destruction and Inflicting Indiscriminate Death and Unnecessary Suffering Against Both Military and Civilian Targets":

Response: This only occurred in the twisted minds of the human baboons fabricating these statements.


International War Crimes Commission: "These Defendants must be impeached by the House, tried and convicted by the Senate, and removed from office.":

Response: Then why didn't it happen? It's plain to see it could not happen based on the fabrications presented by the self-proclaimed International War Crimes Commission, consisting of Saddam's propaganda henchmen a few misguided Marxist idealists, and anti-white racists.


International War Crimes Commission: "This paper (US War Crimes During the Gulf War) documents the numerous occasions that international laws were broken and disregarded during the Gulf War.":

Response: Fails to mention it makes no mention of Saddam's crimes, and is composed of numerous fabrications solely against the US.


International War Crimes Commission: "United States aircraft bombed and strafed indiscriminately.":

Response: Another fabrication. The US took great measures to avoid striking innocent areas, as is described in the journals of numerous coalition pilots, and chose it's targets carefully.


Iran: "Death of innocent Iraqis must end as soon as possible.":

Response: What they meant: "The US should stop the war, leave Saddam in power, and go home." What they should have meant: "They hope the US will depose Saddam and his killer Baath Party as soon as possible, and hopefully with few American casualties."


Iraq MisInformation Ministry:

Parrots what the West says. The West should Parrot what the MisInformation says back at them, since this kind of shoot-from-the-hip propaganda is what Muslims listen to.


Iraq MisInformation Ministry: "Iraq civilians damaging US tanks and helicopters.":

Response: I'll bet Iraqi civilians are hoping no one believes those fabrications.


Iraq Propaganda:

Likes to twist US accidentally caused civilian casualties into US deliberate civilian casualties, and the anti-US Al Jazeera makes sure that is the only propaganda Muslims get from them.



One moment denies it has weapons of mass destruction and the next moment is threatening to use them "anywhere there is sky, land, or sea".


Iraqi being interviewed "on the street", as to his reaction to Bush's ultimatums. "I don't like what Bush said, because I, as an Iraqi, do not like being dictated to.":

So what is he going to do about Saddam, his country's dictator for the past 30 years?


Iraqi Doctor:  ``Under sanctions, even now, the health situation for Iraqi children is bad,'' Dr. Ahmed Abdul Fattar told a reporter at a Baghdad children's hospital on Wednesday.:

Under sanctions, medicine and food are exempt. You only have Saddam and yourselves to blame for any bad health situations.


Iraqi Foreign Minister: "Kuwait media in service to the US, and destroys evidence of the US losing the invasion of Iraq.":

Response: Mere false Baath Party propaganda aimed at mind-controlled Iraqi subjects.


Iraqi Foreign Minister: "Palestinian Labor Union supports Iraqi people.":

Response: Note he did not say "supports the Baath Party", because they do not.


Iraqi Foreign Minister: "These are the days of honor.":

Response: For the US, maybe, but certainly not for the Baath Party as they push civilians in front of US tanks.


Iraqi Foreign Minister: "This is a Muslim country. It is your duty to rise up and fight the infidels.":

Response: (1)The US is a partly Muslim nation, and does not count as an Infidel. (2) What the Minister leaves out: "and keep the Baath Party in control of you".


Iraqi Foreign Minister: "US never admits Iraqis shoot down their planes, it's always an 'accident'. The US does not want it's public to find out the number of American casualties and catch Bush lying.":

Response: Spoken like a true liar accusing someone else of being the same.


Iraqi Foreign Minister: "Venezuela and the International Labor Union condemn the US attack on Iraq and the US's effort to control resources in the Middle East.":

Response: (1) Using condemnation to perpetuate Baath Party's repression of Iraq. (2) The US can get it's resources elsewhere. It does not need the Middle East.


Iraqi Officials: said they would submit their own rebuttal to the United Nations by Thursday, ``clarifying'' points raised by the chief inspectors.:

 By "clarifying" they mean deception and deceit. The only interest Iraqi officials have is the keep their heads.


Iraqi Senior Official Amer Rashid: ``They're not looking for the truth.  What they're looking for is to distort the truth.'':

Another example of a liar exposing his own tactics when attacking his foes.  In other words, Iraqi officials themselves do not look for the truth, but only how to distort it.


Iraqi UN Rep: "The Game Is Over.":

Response: Good description of the rule of Saddam and his manipulation of leftist media and the mush-minded liberals in the free world. He should have said "cruel" game.


Iraqi's: ``Banned weapons are not small objects that Iraq can hide,'' Maj. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, head liaison to U.N. arms inspectors, said on Iraqi television. ``Iraq has gotten rid of all these weapons.'':

So when other Iraqi's speak, who is going to listen to them when they put forth arguments after cheap lies with political purpose issued by Saddam and Aziz, and by others under the perilous thumb of the regime, for example:


Iraqi's: ``There's no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq,'' said lawmaker Hazem Bajilan, a foreign affairs specialist in the National Assembly.:

Whenever an Iraqi speaks publicly, one sees their main purpose, which is to protect themselves and their families from their murderous dictator. They will say whatever it takes, without any regard for reality or truth.



Saddam's palaces named "Peace" and "Flower" while he murders thousands of people out of political paranoia.


Islamic Fundamentalists:

Muslims should support all that is good in Western culture while helping the West in battling all that is bad in Western culture. To blindly attack the West as a whole is to attack what is good, and that is the mistake of Islamic Fundamentalists. But rather that be guided by reason, Islamic Fundamentalists are guided by the evil desires within them.  They are losing the greater Jihad - that for one's soul - for the fleeting (and twisted) fame and glory brought by the lesser Jihad.


Isn't it funny that the U.S. Government actually supported Hussein's regime awhile back? (throughout the 80s). Just like it has supported oppressive dictatorships in the Third World to reach its own agenda, and will continue to do so.

Isn't it funny the US saved the Middle East from Hitler genocide during World War 2, from Stalin genocide during the Cold War, and from themselves during the forming of Israel? And that it's own agenda was freedom and democracy for the common man, free from the horrors of communism and Nazism?  And that's the thanks the US gets, for doing things that were far less worse than what it's enemies were doing, and for a noble and selfless cause.  That's the thanks the US gets from an arrogant and proud Muslim world for attempting a noble and selfless cause?  Spare me your mindless populist Muslim street mentalities.



"Israel committed atrocities when they took over Palestine." Fact is the Palestinians committed an equal number of atrocities during that time. The US should not be beaten by those with a lack of historical knowledge.


It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace. -Andre Gide:

Response: This also is misapplied here. The US conducted the Iraq war without any stirring up of passion, and converted to the patient labors of peace without any effort, and with passion, without it even having to be stirred up. To apply that statement to the US is to not understand the US, or to be a complete fool.


Jim Kerry: "Other world leaders won't trust Bush no matter what.":

Response: Saddam didn't have your image complex.


Jim Kerry: "US needs a regime change.":

Response: The weak-minded masses overseas take it literally, and not just as a cheap campaign jab by a petty, underqualified, overly-ambitious candidate from the opposing political party.


Jim Kerry: "We need a President who has the ability to…":

What the rest really says: "to kiss up to America's so-called allies who want to diminish the US at every turn, such as France, Germany, and Russia.


Joe Cicerone: "Bush an evangelical foreign policy empty vessel that visionary Paul Wolfowitz filled with his "out to change the world" fringe right-wing philosophy, and fringe right-wing to mainstream occurred through the Presidential appointment process coupled with the catalyst of 9/11.

Response: I have no problem with that, as long as there are Osama's and Saddam's to deal with. Better to confront them rather that hide in the Oval Office diddleflitting around with cigars and the female staff.


Joe Cicerone: "Bush mishandled problems and turned them into crisis.":

Response: Sorry, but 9/11 turned your festering foreign problems which you had no solutions for into crisis.


Joe Cicerone: "The War in Iraq will cause other tyrannical regimes to speed up their nuclear programs to fend off the US.":

Response: No. The war in Iraq will send a message to the tyrannies that WMD's will get them nowhere except deposed by force.


Joe Cicerone: "US should have taken the negotiations course with Saddam.":

Response: (sarcastically): Yea, right. After the Baath Party said "screw the world".


John Kerry: "US needs a regime change.":

Response: I'm sure he was alluding to his own presidential bid, but he appeared to be a mindless, ambitious politician. The Democrats will get their chance in 2004, where once again foreign powers can manipulate and bully the White House under Democratic rule.


Joseph Cirincione "It is bad, this policy of eliminating regimes on a good-guy/bad-guy policy, because the good-guys and bad-guys are always changing."

Response: Again a US citizen brainwashed by totalitarian foreign propaganda.  It is not hard to see who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in terms of governments when it comes down to the average man.


Joseph Cirincione "US overthrew democracy in Iran in 1954 and put the Shah in power"

Response: Joe here is bashing the US for containing Stalin's juggernaut with methods that were widespread back then.


Joseph Cirincione "US overthrew democracy in Iran in 1954 and put the Shah in power"

Response: Only Joe here cannot appreciate what the world was like during the Cold War, and what lengths the US had to go to in order to contain Stalin and his evil offspring, and that other countries, such as the Soviet Empire, were doing much worse things to small nations during that period. With this one-sided, over-amplified, out-of-context anti-US sentiment, maybe Joe's implying the US should have stood by while dozens of political abominations like present day North Koreas sprouted up.


Kim Jong Il "North Korea has the right to a preemptive strike":

The fact is the first shot has already been fired by his terrorist friends and clients.


Lebanese anti-US Person: Want to see changes in Iraq, but not forced by the US.:

Sorry, but the following equation negates that: Osama-ites + Civilian Mass Murder agents and weapons = US force.


Leftist Media: "We show factual information.":

Response: Sure, but totally out of proportion and distorted, in order to support their political agendas.


Leftist: "…as war in Iraq batters the economy at home…":

Response: Mere conjecture, an unverifiable statement, and irresponsible, no matter how partisan the intent. But, let's assume for a moment it is true (which it isn't), then this leftist is placing a temporary state of the economy over dealing with the Muslim Madness so intent on mass murdering Americans.


Leftist: "People in the Middle East fear the US will influence politics there. They are very skeptical as to US intentions. They think the US wants to destabilize the region in order to advance nefarious causes.":

Response: By "people" liberal means "those in totalitarian positions".


Liberal Nonsense: Ted Kennedy "Should have gone after North Korea instead of Saddam":

Response: Ted would have played popular pacifist anyway. North Korea is not in the middle of the Middle East where the world's present generation's madness is centered.


Liberal: "Arsenal of Democracy is bad.":

Response: There would be no democracy without an arsenal, since it is with arsenals tyrannies spread.


Liberal: "Can't spread democracy at the end of a bayonet.":

Response: This liberal is blind to history, and does not learn from the lessons of history. The fact is, when facing tyranny, the end of a bayonet is the only way, the only language tyranny understands. Cases in point, World War II Japan and Germany, US Revolutionary War, Panama under Noriega.


Liberal: "Conservatives are causing an erosion of the Constitution."

Response: (1) Many times have the constitution rights been temporarily curtailed in US history in order to protect it's citizens from hostile powers. (2) I don't care. They can investigate my ties to Muslim terrorists all they want. I'll feel safer knowing a terrorist will get the same treatment.


Liberal: "In the Muslim world there are angry young men with nothing better to do than to hate the US, and will join Al Qaeda. The US should not stir them up.":

Response: (1) So why aren't these angry young men with nothing better to do than hate the US afraid of the US? Because of weenie liberals. (2) Weenie liberal wants the US to mold it's foreign policy around angry young men who have nothing better to do than hate the US.


Liberal: "Is against the war because innocent lives will be lost.":

Response: (1) More innocent lives will be grateful. (2) Liberal does not care about the innocent lives the Baath Party takes in it's bid for perpetual unopposed power, and therefore the liberal is a hypocrite and reveals his ulterior motives, his ignorance, his lack of judgment, and his selfishness.


Liberal: "It will take 10 years for Iraqis to use their oil revenues to rebuild their country because of the debt Saddam owed.":

Response: Pure hogwash. They can pay their reparations and debts and rebuild their country.


Liberal: "Republican Guard bound by honor.":

Response: That is a good example of sick liberal views, and a twisted way of defining "honor". The Republican Guard is fighting to hide the Iraqi civilian blood Saddam has put on their hands. They've been brainwashed to believe there is no future for them without Saddam, because Saddam prevents them from being brought to justice by a civilized court. I don't see any honor in that


Liberal: "The Iraqi people are not rejoicing. How about the 1.5 million protestors in Britain?":

Response: Reveals the illogic of the liberal mind. Since when were 1.5 million protestors in Britain Iraqis? They weren't. But liberals are so self-centered they think they are everybody.


Liberal: "US is a bullyboy.":

Response: Send this liberal back in time to Saddam's Iraq so this liberal can experience the true nature of "bullyboys" from Saddam's bullyboys. Then this liberal will come back demanding the US go over there and depose Saddam.


Liberal: "US is bombing Iraqi schools and civilians.":

Response: US found 40 human-bomb vests. Where? In a school. Who told the US? Iraqi civilians. Where is the liberal coming from? Outer space, man.


Liberal: "US should be bombed just like they are bombing Iraq.":

Response: Only if the US has treated it's citizens just like Saddam has treated his, and has shown public support for insane suicidal international terrorist organizations, just like Saddam has.


Liberal: "War is bad.":

Response: Sure, but not as bad as doing nothing in the face of evil.


Liberal: "You can disagree with me without making personal attacks.":

Response: If you want to say mindless, biased, untrue, outrageous things, you invite personal attacks.


Liberals and "US Interests":

Liberals like to say expanding "US Interests" rather than "Human Interests". Liberals say "US Interests" with the hiss of a snake. They are prejudiced against US interests, dismiss them out of hand as evil, and do now admit that US interests parallel the interests of peace and prosperity throughout the world.


Liberals Spouting off their Fears:

What liberals don't realize is that the enemies of the US will see these fears and endeavor to bring them about.



The moral failure of liberals, the useful idiots of evil regimes.



Think their viewpoints are about truth, when they are merely about slants. Case in point, negative headline in liberal rag: "(Iraqi) Resistance Increases, (US) Casualties Mount" (implying the Iraqi people are rising up against the invading Americans), shedding a very negative light on the event, when they JUST AS TRUTHFULLY could have said "Phenomenal (US) Progress Made, Casualties Extremely Light", which would have shed a more positive light on the event.



Want the US to be perfect before confronting obvious evils.


Liberals: "Iraq wanted to get rid of Saddam themselves.":

Response: Sorry, but the madness of Osama and Saddam meant the world could not wait any longer. I hope Iraqis didn't mind being liberated while the US conducted it's war on terrorism.


Liberals: "Iraq will become another Vietnam"

Afraid that Iran will be mad if Iraq becomes a pro-Western democracy. Too bad. It will only be a mad, sad, poor, ignorant, violent, suicidal country surrounded by peaceful, prosperous, pro-Western countries.


Liberals: "Iraq will become another Vietnam":

Response: Vietnam was prolonged and lost by miss-applied liberalism and high platitudes.  The US back then was also one of the few democracies in the world, and had little international support in it's fight against evil systems of government. Today there are more democracies that will side with the US once it is safe for them to do so.


Liberals: "Iraqis love Saddam.":

Response: They don't say that when they know they're safe from Saddam's assassins and bully-boys.


Liberals: "The fury in the Muslim world is a result of the War on Iraq.":

Response: The fury of the Muslim world is fueled by their own ignorance, arrogance, and blind hate towards the wrong country (the US). So to think the War on Iraq fuels Muslim hate is a joke. The Muslim world has shown time after time it will blame it's problems on anyone other than themselves.


Liberals: "The US owes people.":

Response:  Leaves out how much people owe the US.


Liberals: "US shouldn't bully others.":

Response: Loony Liberals say this without considering the nature of the "others".


Liberals: "Who will rebuild Iraq.":

Response: That answer is easy, the best and brightest of the Iraqis. In liberal minds, you need big government and liberal politicians for such tasks.


Malaysia and Indonesia:

Malaysia and Indonesia: "Stop bombing Afghanistan." Where were their protests when Muslims were operating terrorist training camps and declaring war on the U.S.? Where were their anti-Taliban and anti-terrorist statements (of pending Muslim unrest in the streets) if the Taliban and terrorists did not stop their atrocious and murderous ways, which they were not going to do? There weren't any such protests, because Malaysia and Indonesia do not care about U.S.-Muslim relations, they only want to make anti-US. statements. They are one-sided.


Malaysia and Indonesia:

Malaysia and Indonesia: "The U.S. should worry about what the Muslim world thinks about the bombing in Afghanistan." What was the Muslim world thinking when Muslim terrorists were bombing U.S. embassies? They were thinking anti-US. thoughts, and so did not protest. They should protest actions in their own world too when being concerned about U.S.-Muslim relations. They haven't been.


Malaysia and Indonesia:

Malaysia and Indonesia: Should care what their Muslim brothers do, and not just what the U.S. does, in regards to U.S.-Muslim relations.


Malaysia and Indonesia:

They like to pretend  that only what the U.S. does affects U.S.-Muslim relations. They turn a blind eye on things Muslims do that adversely affect U.S.-Muslim relations, and do not threaten unrest in their streets when Muslims insult, threaten, and disrespect Americans. There weren't any such threats of unrest when their terrorists were bombing U.S. embassies, calling for Jihad against the U.S., chanting "Death to America", calling the U.S. "the Great Satan", and openly declaring, training for, and carrying out war against the U.S. The fact is they don't care one bit about U.S. Muslim relations. It is all anti-US. rhetoric. The choose to see the world through only one eye.


Malaysia and Indonesia: "Stop the bombing in Afghanistan."

Where were their outcries when they found out the Taliban was massacring thousands of Afghans in village after village in atrocious ways for despotic reasons? Their insanely anti-US. stance prevents them from acknowledging such truths. They want to have their fun in the streets at any cost.


Malaysia President "West is trying to dominate Muslim world":

Response: Sounds like he wants to dominate the Muslim world, and assumes the West thinks like him, which it does not.



What God would accept a mass murderer into Heaven?


Mullah Mohammad Omar: "Death comes to everyone. We must stand proud as Afghans in the defense of Islam":

(a) There would today be no Afghanistan if it were not for the U.S. aiding them against the Soviet Union. (b) Omar is not defending Islam, there are Muslims in the United States of America. He is merely defending political boundaries and his own power, and is using the Islam argument to fool people for personal gains. (3) He does not talk from Islam but from political corruption and personal ambition. (4) It is not his death he is assuming but those of his poor subdued Afghans (5) He is in the pocket of bin Laden.


Mullah Mohammad Omar: "U.S. trying to link bin Laden unjustifiably and without any reason". :

How about bin Laden's rhetoric, and his terrorist bases and dealings, his anti-Western stance, his past crimes, and his being a terrorist?


Mullah Mohammed Omar: "If you don't fight (the US), you'll be like chickens with their heads cut off and falls in the ditch and dies." :

That is more descriptive of his own situation, while he tries to hide the atrocities he's committed while in power. The only thing that will fall in the ditch and die will be the Taliban's twisted ways of thinking and murderous oppression of Afghanistan.


Muslim Clerics:

Have remained silent on Muslim atrocities against humanity performed in the name of Islam. Where are the Fatwah's against Muslim terrorism? There are none. Where are the Fatwah's against Muslim Fundamentalist schools that teach their children to hate and disrespect all other peoples in the world? There are none.


Muslim Fundamentalists:

Are tyrants.


Muslim Fundamentalists:

Some in the Muslim world are deluded into thinking they are a world force beyond psychotic acts.


Muslim Fundamentalists:

Terrorists use religion and hate to add strength and fervor to their political and personal ambitions.


Muslim Fundamentalists: "Western culture is evil". :

Response: They see too much from Hollywood and Madison Avenue and the accompanying unreal and unattainable solutions to life's problems. Good and evil are constantly battling in the West, in the Courts evil may outwit good, but we do not like it, and the West is not totally evil. Is a government that governs by the guidelines of the Ten Commandments The Great Satan? Only a madman would sat it is. The terrorists have made it harder for good Americans to battle evil by opening up another evil front. What is more evil, the rights given to women in the US or the rights taken away from women in Afghanistan?


Muslim Hate of the West:

Muslim totalitarian regimes are doing what the old Soviet Union did, shift blame for their people's woes away from their Totalitarian governments and onto the West.


Muslim World "shocked" at the collapse of Saddam's regime.:

Response: Muslim world a casualty of  totalitarian cultures.


Muslims and Communists:

Use events that happened generations ago to bash the current US.  They can't comprehend a regime changing every 2 and 4 years, having lived under the same dictators all their lives.



Call the US "wimps" (with Clinton in office) one day and "bullies" (with Bush in office) the next.



Complain about US power when the US is confronting such an obvious evil bane on the Muslim world.  Talk about hypocrites!



The Muslim world was anti-West long before Israel and the present Muslim totalitarian regimes existed, yet they fail to mention that fact in their present anti-American rhetoric. The Muslim world's ancient anti-Western stance is the primary reason the US backs Israel, and I don't blame the US one bit.  It is a Muslim myth that the terrorists fight the West because of Israel and present repressive Muslim regimes.


Muslims: Hate the US for the US's biased foreign policy in the Middle East.:

Response: (1) The US has given as much if not more foreign aid to Muslim nations as it has given to Israel. (2) Israel is an enlightened democracy. The Muslim world is a Western/Christian hating world full of totalitarian regimes.


N. Korea "US is trying to dominate the world":

Wrong.  Not with an all-volunteer military.  Kim Jong Il and his gang of murderers are threatened by US power in business and culture, and not just their military.


NAACP: "See the conditions of some of our schools- they don't have up to date books, but we can send a million dollar bomb to kill people.":

Response: (1) The "people being killed" by the million dollar bomb are not innocent civilians who are already being killed by their repressive government, as is implied by the NAACP person, but those partaking in the killing. The NAACP therefore uses twisted logic and deceptions to gain it's ends.


NAACP: "The US spends billions on war yet there are people starving in our own country.":

Response: What this is really saying is "Give me da money".


NAACP: "There are a lot of domestic challenges facing blacks in the US that cause them to oppose the war.":

Response: If these black racist organizations stopped just thinking about themselves and started thinking about the betterment of mankind in general, they would begin developing ideas that would bring them prosperity if acted upon. Instead their chant is "We want money and power, and we want it given to us."


Naji Sabri  "Bush, not Saddam, should be the one to yield power. "He should go away from the presidency and let the Americans lead an ordinary life with other nations, not a life of aggression, a policy of aggression against other nations," Sabri said. "This policy has brought about disasters to the U.S. So for the U.S. to live properly with the world and for the world nations to live in peace, this crazy man should go.":

(1) "Let the Americans lead an ordinary life with other nations", he conveniently left out the war against the US by his terrorist friends that is already being carried out in the form of mass murder against the "Americans who've only led an ordinary life". (2) "For the world nations to live in peace" since when did Saddam or his terrorist friends care about peace? (3) "not a life of aggression" Saddam is the one planning more aggression with the CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) weapons and agents he wants but does not need for the good of Iraq. In fact, nothing Saddam does is for the good of Iraq.  (4) "the US policy of aggression" an unspecifiable false and weak fabrication, and propaganda that even the most ignorant Muslim is questioning.  The US has an all-volunteer defense/deterring military, which is positioned to contain madmen and evil regimes, and which is simply responding to the war declared on it's nation by insane Muslim terrorists and their supporting dictators. (5) Bush's' speech was much better. (6) Naji has taken on the role of a smart-aleck.


Nancy Pelosi: "It shouldn't have cost that much to bring down Saddam's statue.":

Response: It shouldn't have, but it did, due to mindless liberals undermining the effort with pro-Saddam/anti-US twisted propaganda like yourself.


Newsweek: "Why the US scares the world.":

Response: Should read "Why the US scares brutal regimes who are enemies of the free world, democracy, and the US, and those who appease them, including this magazine rag."

1.0571    " is quite doubtful that further military action will create a real peace for Iraq, the Middle East, or the planet.":

Response: You leave open the possibility that military action WILL create a real peace for Iraq, the Middle East, and the planet, and for good reason. Removing Saddam will lessen Iraq's harboring and abetting terrorist "Murder Inc." organizations.  Also the anti-US situations in the Middle East may be just a house of cards, which will tumble once the US does this "random and obviously good deed".

1.0572  "...the 12-year war with Iraq that has isolated and destroyed Iraqi society  and delivered death and deprivation to the people of Iraq.":

Response: the only thing that has isolated and destroyed Iraq, and has delivered death and deprivation to the people is Saddam, and, in spite of his connections with terrorism or not, you want to leave him in power, with complete disregard for the people of Iraq.

1.0573 "...a new war wouldn't even target weapon stockpiles since they're nearly impossible to locate.":

Response: It will remove Saddam's obstructions to locating them.

1.0574 "...terror is always the bedmate of political oppression and where oppression is left to grow terrorism will fester.":

Response: Then why do you want to leave Saddam in power?

1.0575 "A war on terror can never be won":

Response: Mere conjecture.

1.0576 "A war won't reduce Hussein's weapons stockpiles":

Response: A war will reduce Saddam's stockpiles.  It will also remove Saddam.  Therefore, by logic, there will be no "Saddam stockpile.  In any event, Saddam will either use them on US forces, his neighbors, the US mainland, or his own people, or the US will find and destroy them.

1.0577 "A war won't reduce Hussein's weapons stockpiles":

Response: A war will reduce Saddam's stockpiles.  It will also remove Saddam.  Therefore, by logic, there will be no "Saddam stockpile.  In any event, Saddam will either use them on US forces, his neighbors, the US mainland, or his own people, or the US will find and destroy them.

1.0578 "American policy is wrong precisely because we are at war not with Saddam Hussein, but with the people of Iraq-the citizens, the poor and meek, the downtrodden and hurting.":

Response: Wrong. First, the US is not at war with Iraq yet. Second, the US has voiced compassion many times with the Iraqi people, and has at many times identified Iraq's problem as the Saddam regime, and the Iraqi people as victims of it.

1.0579 "and it (a war) probably won't drive him from power.":

Response: It is my hunch that you alone hold that opinion.

1.0580 "Both sides were almost certainly lying and both were making self-serving claims about the other.":

Response: Which would you trust more, the statement of a free state of the statement of a dictatorship? You certainly are saying the US was lying in a glib and uninformed manner.

1.0581 "But Bush is apparently planning a war anyway. To do so will require that he come up with reasons for a war, and so we can expect to see him (Bush) provoke Hussein.":

Response: The reasons are perfectly clear to me - the easy link between Saddam and terrorists, that may have been happening all along, as exiled Iraqi's claim.

1.0582 "But there is no link Iraq with Osama bin Laden.":

Response: It is obvious you have not verified that ignorant statement.

1.0583 "But two incredibly bloody wars have failed to oust him (Saddam)":

Response: It was not the goal of Desert Storm to oust Saddam, although militarily the US could easily have done it. The US's deference to the sensitivities of it's global neighbors was the inhibiting factor, as well as the world being more barbaric back then with the Soviets still strangling most of Asia.

1.0584 "In fact, it (war in Iraq) will inflame millions more people around the world against us, and guarantee further terrorist attacks against us.":

Response: There is no fact in this, you are merely conjecturing, your being the Fraidy cat the terrorist organizations so despise and were emboldened by these past several years. Your kind were wrong in '91, and you're wrong now.

1.0585 "Iraq's Scud missiles are actually not very good at delivering chemical or biological weapons.":

Response: They are perfectly good at it, by virtue of their randomness and inaccuracy.

1.0586 "It is time to stand for truth (and oppose the war with Iraq)":

Response: Then you are against Saddam and the rest of the Middle East totalitarian regimes as passionately as you are against Bush? Then where is your rhetoric against them on the same page? Are you just a one-way Bozo?

1.0587 "It later came out that the Clinton Administration was behind the U.N. agreement and announcement. They realized that the American people were going to ask too many questions about Iraq and weren't going to support a second war against the country.":

Response: Could you please add a link to these questions. I'd be happy to respond to them in a way that justifies this war.

1.0588 "It will make a few rich people even richer, especially the stockholders of military equipment manufacturers and Arab sheiks who gain the longer Iraqi oil is kept from the world market.":

Response: Sounds like uninformed, unspecific, generalized 60's hippie drivel.

1.0589 "It’s (war in Iraq) not justified or noble.":

Response: Mere uninformed conjecture. The justification is in the hands of the US administration. The nobility of bringing down a vicious dictator is beyond argument. Your armchair disregard for the plight of Middle Easterners has ignited any anti-US movements there in the first place.

1.0590 "It's time to stop kidding ourselves. This is a war over money. The U.S. and Britain are getting rich off of Saudi Arabia's increased oil production and don't want anyone muscling in on their oil profits.":

Response: Yes it is a war over money, the terrorists wanting the money so Islam can rule the world.

1.0591 "Most New Yorkers know that bombing Iraq, just like bombing Afghanistan, is not going to bring back our loved ones or protect us from further attacks.":

Response: It's plain to see you have not interviewed "most New Yorkers", and are making this up.

1.0592 "Most of the people in his Cabinet and Administration were his father's friends and included those who had wanted to continue the war" and  "The horrible events of September 11, 2001, shocked everyone.":

Response: Why was it so shocking since "you stopped" the US from taking any action against Saddam?

1.0593 "Pentagon officials think it's unlikely that Hussein will launch any chemical or biological weapons in response to a U.S. attack.":

Response: Saddam has nothing to lose this time, so it is likely.

1.0594 "Remember: there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and the September 11th terrorists":

Response: It is obvious you have not verified that ignorant statement.

1.0595 "Saddam Hussein has just backed off. He's agreed to a diplomatic solution and has agreed to let United Nations weapon inspectors back in. ...U.S. officials said that they were about to attack…":

Response: And you still protest the only language the Saddam's of this world understand?

1.0596 "The Iraqi military is a shambles: it is a "shadow" of the army that invaded Kuwait in 1990 and is so weakened that it does not pose a threat to neighboring countries.":

Response: How does that have any bearing on Saddam slipping the Osama's of the world a little if this poison gas and a little of that biological agent?

1.0597 "The likeliest targets of a U.S. air strike are those facilities already under U.N. inspection and the bombing would most likely destroy the monitoring equipment now in place.":

Response: It is my hunch that this is uninformed drivel.

1.0598 "The Persian Gulf War in 1991 ended in a stalemate between Iraq and the international forces led by the United States and the first President George Bush.":

Response: Wrong. The US achieved it's self-limited goal of getting Saddam out of Kuwait.

1.0599 "The real world requires diplomacy, negotiating with people you don't trust, de-escalating rhetoric.":

Response: Chamberlain said the same thing concerning Hitler in the 1930's.

1.0600 "The real world requires diplomacy, negotiating with people you don't trust, de-escalating rhetoric.":

Response: How can you listen to or trust a dictator who's power is built on lies and deception? Why do you think satellite TV is banned in Iraq and the newspapers are state-run? So Saddam can pump his own distortions into the Iraqi people unchallenged. Only a boob would trust an Iraqi official statement. You fail to see the obvious.

1.0601 "The U.S. and Britain are getting rich off of Saudi Arabia's increased oil production and don't want anyone muscling in on their oil profits. It is in the economic interest of the U.S. and Britain to maintain Iraqi sanctions indefinitely and their foreign policy seems to be to set off periodic crises with Iraq.":

Response: Aren't you calling for extending the sanctions yourself rather than removing Saddam? Then you turn around and say it's all a US/British economic conspiracy. You speak in duplicity.

1.0602 "The U.S. and Britain are getting rich off of Saudi Arabia's increased oil production and don't want anyone muscling in on their oil profits. It is in the economic interest of the U.S. and Britain to maintain Iraqi sanctions indefinitely and their foreign policy seems to be to set off periodic crises with Iraq.":

Response: The US and Britain are not getting oil profits. How do you think Middle East totalitarian oil regimes are so rich?

1.0603 "There are plenty of countries with even more lethal nuclear weapons, including the U.S., Russian, the Ukraine, China, France, Britain, South Africa, India, and Pakistan. Most notably, Israel ...Yet the United Nations and U.S. Presidents have never proposed bombing Israel or any of the other countries for their weapons of mass destruction. There is very much a double-standard going on with regards to Iraq.":

Response: So you propose the US attack all these nations at once?  You have twisted logic.  The US has to evaluate countries on a case-by-case basis.  In Iraq's case, the threat is clear. Saddam has kicked out the weapons inspectors, and is playing games now. If all countries were exactly the same, then you would have your double-standard, but all countries are not even remotely the same, so your logic (drivel) fails.

1.0604 "They (the US) had wanted to install a U.S. government in Iraq":

Response: It is my hunch that this statement is glib and uninformed.

1.0605 "They're (US Administration) whining that now they have to once again work with the U.N. and with Iraqi officials.  …Why is the Administration so upset? It's because they have no real policy in the Gulf. ...they had no long- or mid-term vision for what these people were going to do after (removing Saddam from power)":

Response: After Saddam is gone and Iraqis are once again allowed to pursue peace and prosperity without the specter of being "identified as a traitor even before they are one" (Saddam's quote) and killed by such a crazed and paranoid dictator, and the easy link between Saddam and Osamaites curtailed, then I don't care if the US packs up and goes home.

1.0606 "This (the US not attacking Saddam militarily) should be cause for rejoicing. Blood won't have to be shed…":

Response: You mean "blood will continue to be shed by Saddam on the Iraqi people".  If you can rejoice about that, then you are sick.

1.0607 "We must stop war and we must stop all cause of war.":

Response: You are doing a piss-poor job of it by only attacking the US. What about your terrorist friends you remain silent about on your pages? Weren't they the ones who openly declared war first (based on their twisted logic) and were firing the first shots even before Sept. 11? Do you think they will not seek support from Saddam or anyone with money and power and who hates the US, just because they are secular? Did you not hear your Muslim fundamentalist friend's proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? That makes the religions fundamentalists and Saddam friends.

1.0608 "why war," "why now." To ask who gets rich when oil flows get disrupted.":

Response: Oil prices dropped from $35/barrel to $10/barrel after the gulf war, so how can it be about oil?

1.0609 "With the support of many Americans, President Bush started a war in Afghanistan":

Response: Wrong. Bush took their already declared war on the US to them.


North Korea "US Aggression":

Response: It is not US "aggression" but US "responsibility" to separate CMM's (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons from evil regimes that are inclined to deal with the mad international terrorist organizations and insane individuals.


Omar: "America is evil.":

Let's look in the media and categorically identify the goods and evils of America. They must both be counted and weighed. Omar self-servingly counts only the bad, when there is much more good than bad in America.


Omar: "If you (his Taliban and supporters) stop fighting, you will be like chickens with you heads cut off and fall into the ditch and die.":

That is exactly what will happen to the Taliban once it's evil leadership is captured.


Omar: "I'll never be a part of a foreign-backed evil government.":

He already is part of both in the Taliban - an evil, murderous, repressive government composed of international killers for hire financed by a rich, exiled Saudi madman.


Omar: "The Afghans will never accept the murderous communist generals who are being imposed on them by foreign powers.":

 (1) It seems Omar does not know the Afghan people, judging by the people of Kabul dancing in the streets after his Taliban was driven away. (2) He is ignorantly referring to the Soviet past, and wholly lacking in secular education. The US is not a Communist State.


Pakistani's: 50,000 Pakistanis want holy war with the US:

Response: It is completely unfair and just plain prejudiced to side with a regime that kills 43,000 of it's own civilians every year while wanting to go to war with a country that has such a high regard for civilian lives of a different faith and their property. Unfair and prejudiced? These 50,000 Pakistani's are just plain insane, not to mention evil, and obviously ignorant and arrogant on top of it all.


Panama and Leftist Crap

Note: there is plenty of other leftist crap pertaining to the "U.S. belligerence in Panama",  Just search "Panama, US, Invasion" instead of "Panama, US, Noreiga" and you'll get more leftist drivel rather than the objective truth.":


Peaceniks "We're only concerned about Iraqi citizens and the safety of our troops":

Response: Peaceniks are self-absorbed and (1) do not care about Iraqi citizens, or they would not want to keep Saddam in power, and (2) do not care about the safety of our troops because their protests only embolden the barbaric US enemies.



Fail to realize their enemies are not peaceniks, and never will be, after all the crimes against humanity they've committed rising to power.



It if folly to think that unilateral pacifism works in the face of despotic aggression and ambitions.



The US itself has not remained unified by peace alone, as evidenced by it's Civil War. The world can thank Lincoln for making the US bulwark against 20th Century despotism possible in the first place. Maybe he foresaw all of it.


Peaceniks: "Are you (the hawk) going to wave the American flag and lead the charge over the hill?:

Response: I served my country. Did you (probably not)? I was ready during those years to do just that. What were you doing? Were you a pot-smoking deadweight?


Person from France: "Trying to impose a governance system (western-style democracy) and values on the entire Middle East is a very naive thing to do.":

Response: Tell that to the Iraqi civilians Saddam is holding hostage and methodically murdering.


Person from India: "Let us remember no one in Iraq invited the U.S. and U.K. forces, so it is not even a question of liberation. It is pure invasion.":

Response: How about beginning with 4,000,000 exiled Iraqis who tell us if anyone in Iraq speaks out against Saddam they are murdered?


Person from India: "US forces should fight Saddam's military on ground face to face instead of killing innocent men, women and children by bombarding single city with more than 5000 bombs. It seems only American and British lives and psyche is precious and rest of the world's population is worthless and deserves to die.":

Response: What kind of crap is the mass media feeding the Indians?  Saddam's military does not want to fight the US face to face, they are hiding in civilian neighborhoods. Saddam's primary weapons are war crimes that endanger innocents, murder of his civilian population, and fabrications sent to mass media to shape the weak-minded.


Person from Pakistan: "A giant versus a pygmy - is that a fair match? The war is between unequals, so what is the US and its coalition gloating over?":

Response: Another naive misconception. I do not see the US gloating. I see a Pakistani who's culture is infuse with gloating assuming the US is gloating. And our Pakistani completely ignores the good/bad nature of the war, and if he didn't, he sees Saddam as good just because he is fighting the US.


Person from South Africa: "I wonder what innocent Iraqi's, many of whom will perish before this conflict is over, will say when you ask them to sacrifice their lives so that Americans can live in peace and security.":

Response: They will say "Thank You for removing Saddam and his thugs. Now my children can pursue peace and prosperity without Saddam and his thug army stealing the immense wealth of Iraq's oil fields and letting us starve."


Person from UK: "However, it sickens me that Bush can walk onto a podium, with trumpets sounding in celebration, to deliver the latest 'developments' in the war. Since when has war been cause for celebration?":

Response: When it throws off the yokes of repression, or have the liberals erased the tyranny of Hitler from UK history books?


Person from UK: "Seizing Iraq is the easy part (though it seems much less easy than Bush and Blair promised us a week ago). What will be difficult will be keeping a lid on a nation of 27 million angry people, all nursing many valid grudges against the forces of occupation.":

Response: Another naive casualty of the Iraq (Mis-)Information Ministry, Al Jazeera, and the political left.  There will be 27 million relieved Iraqis, and 1 million sorry Saddam thugs.


Person from UK: "What is the problem with docking and driving aid in from Kuwait which isn't very far away? This sounds like the allied forces are delaying aid in order to present the media with the opportunity of witnessing the glorious allied forces delivering aid through the newly "liberated" Iraqi port.":

Even US antiwar arguments are far less naive than what the rest of the world is spewing out, this one case in point. Response: (1) Saddam has mined his harbor. Would you like tomorrow's headlines to read "Humanitarian Aid Ship Sunk by Saddam Mine"? (2) Ships are dangerously navigating through the minefield in regard for Iraqi civilians. (3) Where is Saddam's humanitarian aid to his civilians? Where is Saddam's regard for his civilians?  No one ever asks that question, because they know Saddam is the one causing the hardships by bombing them, starving them, and cutting off their water supplies. (4) and presenting the media with false information and staged deceptions is the Iraq Information Ministry's  #1 job. Where is any mention of that?


Person in Russia: "America and Britain, though strange it may seem, have made the dictator Saddam the real liberator of Iraq and its people."

Response: Yes, that is too strange to be even close to reality. Please elaborate on how Saddam is the real liberator of Iraq and it's people- by cutting of water to Basra? By bombing civilians in Basra? By executing people chanting anti-Saddam slogans? I know the answer, it's by feeding deceptions and lies to the mass media to deceive the weak-minded in other countries.


Person in UK: "The more I look at it, the more I think that America is a desperately proud nation, due for a very big fall. They're just getting too big for their boots."

Response: At least America has principles they are brave enough to fight for, principles and courage that most of the world lacks.


Person in UK: "This war is not going to be won. There are 5 million Iraqis in Baghdad who blatantly do not want to be 'liberated'.":

Response: Person in UK is another naive casualty of the Iraq (Mis-)Information Ministry, which routinely uses mass media to spread deceptions, like the Baghdadians love Saddam.  They will chant anti-US slogans in the street as long as Saddam's detectives are doing their jobs.


Person in UK: "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future," And all they said they wanted is to replace Saddam and ensure the civilians enjoy the wealth of their nation, now an addendum - as long as it suits US needs.":

Response: So you are perhaps implying the US's needs do not include your needs? You are blind and wrong.


Peter Jennings: "Baghdad will be bombed by the US (and many civilians killed by the US)":

Response: He shows a complete lack of concern for the Iraqis currently being killed by Saddam, while he feasts in his dozens of palaces, and the wholesale mass-murder of civilian populations terrorist organizations are plotting with the aid of Saddam, and a complete lack of admittance that the US targets military units and installations, and that it is not in US policy to kill civilian populations, nor was it in World War II (it was the British's idea, even after it did not work for the Germans against them). Jennings thinks that to be liberal is to be popular, and to be popular is to be employed.


Post-War Iraq: "Why send US sons and daughters to Iraq to set it up?":

Response: A liberating country, to fulfill its mission, must bring peace to the liberated country. Iraq has no choice but to be peaceful.


Proud Muslim: "Are guerilla resistances forming behind US lines?" (as if the US were an unwanted invader):

Ask "What in the world would the guerilla be fighting for?  Maybe you can enlighten me? To keep Saddam his dictator (I doubt it, unless they were a part of his crimes)?  I can assure you if it is actual civilians it would be due to anti-US brainwashing from Saddam or Mad Mullahs.  If there were guerillas, do you think there judgment is impaired by living a life under a mind-controlling totalitarian regime?


Putin: "World is better off without Saddam, but the illegitimate use of force is also bad.":

Response: (1) Force was legitimate. (2) The UN is corrupted and defeated itself. (3) Looks like Bush's gut instinct was better that all the UN debates.


Richard Reid: "The US has supported the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and Jordan with their money and weapons.":

What Muslims do to Muslims is beyond the US. Also, with this logic, the US has the right to wipe out the Muslim world for the way Christians are treated there, or simply because their governments are corrupt.


Richard Reid: "We are Soldiers":

You are renegades from God and all nations. You are criminally insane cowards who prey on unarmed people who are pursuing peace and prosperity.


Richard Reid: "You will be judged by Allah":

Hypocrite. If he believes that, why did he try to take justice into his own hands?


Robert Farrakhan "America will head toward destruction" (if it attacks Iraq):

Response: Mere speculation, and not likely.  It is more likely America will give a nation a new beginning, freeing it from the yoke of a terrible political system. Iraq will have a choice between pursuing peace, prosperity, knowledge and compassion, or following the path of ignorance, repression, and violence that fundamentalist Islam represents. It is ultimately their choice after Bush leaves (and may they reap the consequences of either).


Robert Farrakhan "decried US plans to attack Iraq".:

Response: Farrakhan fails to realize that peace is not a unilateral phenomenon, and that every one of his statements should include his equal "decrying" of what his Muslim buddies are doing to each other and planning to do to the rest of the world. I fail to hear that in his speeches, making his statements one-sided, therefore with ulterior motives, and thus not worth listening to.


Robert Farrakhan "George W. Bush is leading the nation into darkness.":

Response: This is mere cowardly speculation.  Contrary, the only person in the dark about the benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqi people a chance to bring him and his regime to justice is Farrakhan himself.


Robert Farrakhan "The blind (Bush) leading the blind (Americans)":

Response: This is equally fitting as the blind (Farrakhan) leading the blind (his audience), whose false sense of security comes from their forgetting that terrorists do not distinguished racially between their targets. This is as example of someone (Farrakhan) biting the hand that protects him (Bush) from the Saddam's and Kim Jong Il's of the world.


Robert Muhammad "Farrakhan's words are meant to bring people together in the name of peace.":

Response: It looks to me like being together with "Whity" is the last thing these Brothers want.  It appears they became Muslim to spite "Whity". Farrakhan also appears to be willing to team up with anybody to bring down "Whity", including the dictators in Libya and Iraq, which he has recently visited.  Lastly, it is not hard to see that Min. Farrakhan's words are completely lost on and ridiculed by his terrorist and dictator friends, who have and do not in any way, shape, or form believe in peace, especially with pampered peaceniks, Muslim wannabe's, and anyone else they can dominate.


Russia is putting U.S. troops at risk in Iraq by selling antitank guided missiles, jamming devices and night-vision goggles to Baghdad, the Bush administration said Monday in a growing rift with Moscow.  President Bush raised the issue in a tense telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in turn charged that the United States was creating ``a humanitarian catastrophe'' in Iraq.

Sad to say, Bush's points are fact, Putin's mere conjecture, and erroneous at that.


Russian: "America is killing thousands of innocent people around the world every year and more and more people want revenge. i think sep 11th was just the beginning.…"

You get your information from the Iraqi Mis-Information Ministry, Kim Jong Il, Castro, and every other lying totalitarian brainwashing regime on earth, including ex-Soviet Party members.  In Asia they called the US a "bully" back in the 60's. Now, looking at the horrible state of North Korea, it looks like the US wasn't "bully" enough to save the North Koreans from that abomination of a political system, or the millions of Chinese intellectuals and professionals murdered by Mao, or you ignorant Russians from decades of living like zombie slaves under Stalin.



Realize that Saddam will try to destroy as much of Iraq and it's unarmed citizens as he can, just as he did when he was losing grip on Kuwait.



Says he's going to use the weapons he tells the weapons inspectors he does not have.  He in effect has just inadvertently revealed that he has them and is not going to let the inspectors find them.



Using the Stalinist trick of throwing civilian lives away in order to stay in power, and then fooling the outside world by hiding or denying it.


Saddam: "Iraq has huge capabilities and throughout history, Iraqis never allowed foreigners to stay on their homeland.":

It contributes to a dictator's weakness in logic and in senses that he is never questioned, for example this statement, which he spouts in spite of the no-fly zone enforced by foreigners. To call Saddam a madman would be accurate.


Saddam: "U.S. in Afghanistan is like the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan.":

There are only minor similarities. We all know what Saddam's ulterior motives are - hurting the U.S. as much as possible by any means, even disinformation. It is luck for the U.S. that he is so weak-minded. Brutal, but weak-minded.


Saddam: "US is criminal, Bush is an assassin":

He who lives in glass houses (Saddam the criminal assassin) should not throw stones.


Saddam: "US is trying to exterminate Iraq.":

Response: No, but I'm sure Al Jazeera will try to get the entire Muslim world to believe that.


Saddam: "US is trying to exterminate Iraq.":

Response: No, it is going to free Iraq from you.


Saddam: said the Americans have no right to attack Iraq ``and every one of them, from the top down to the smallest soldier, is coming as an aggressor with ambitions.'':

Saddam exposes the motives he had in Kuwait here, being aggression and ambition.


Salih Booker: referring with derision the "US checkbook diplomacy during the Cold War":

Response: Only a selfish, petty, ungrateful moron like Salih fails to appreciate what the Cold War was all about in the first place, his mind being poisoned by the anti-US propaganda of manipulating totalitarian regimes.  "Checkbook diplomacy" was absolutely necessary in such an evil world back then, where there were only 8 democratic countries in the world. What Salih is implying is that the US should have allowed more abominations like North Koreas to have developed in the world.  Then he could blame the US for not being "bully" enough to stop them.


Savage Areas of the World:

Response: Prejudice is stronger that acts of kindness, as evidenced by the hatred of the US in savage lands.


Scott Burchill "According to William Blum a "veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers.":

Response: And still you and your pasty liberal weenies believe Saddam when he says he doesn't have anything.


Scott Burchill "At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds.":

Response: You're crying in your liberal dictator-loving beer. Bush is President now.


Scott Burchill "George Bush's father authorized new loans to Saddam.":

Response: You're crying in your liberal dictator-loving beer. Bush Jr. is President now.


Scott Burchill "If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq's WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?:

Response: The answer to that is easy, two words: Cold War.


Scott Burchill "Iraq had chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War in 1991 and chose not to use them. Why would Saddam Hussein be more inclined to use them now knowing the horrendous consequences? AS CIA head George Tenet reminded President George W. Bush, Saddam was unlikely to launch WMD against the US unless the survival of his regime was threatened.":

Response: So the US is supposed to wait until Saddam becomes desperate and he launches an attack against the US just like he did against a neutral Israel during the gulf war?


Scott Burchill "loyal servants of state power within the fourth estate who will be reliable conduits for opinion management…(by the US)":

Response: There is no opinion management going on here other that Scott Burchell's. The "fourth estate", comprising mainly of former Soviet satellites, know a thug when they see one, and do not try to justify them, have sympathy for them, or appease them as Scott Burchell is doing.


Scott Burchill "Not surprisingly, hawks do not explain how Saddam could blackmail the United States and its allies when a rival superpower like the Soviet Union [with 40,000 nuclear weapons] never seriously attempted to blackmail Washington, much less did it.":

Response: The Soviets were more civilized than Saddam and Muslim terrorists, though not by much.


Scott Burchill "We are discouraged from seeing things from Iraq's point of view, but in many ways WMD make sense for vulnerable states.":

Response: (1) Iraq? It is actually "Saddam's" point of view. Iraqis have no say. (2) Now Saddam is a "vulnerable" state.


Scott Burchill "Why wouldn't Iraq develop WMD for deterrence purposes given threats by Washington and London?":

Response: Now he is an apologist for Saddam.


Scott Burchill, lecturer in international relations "If you want to deter the war addicts in Washington, you'd better have weapons of mass destruction and resources of terror.":

Response: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and resources of terror, and it is precisely why the US is taking military action.


Scott Ritter: "Bush has a West-Texas mentality.":

Response: Scott thinks he has a point here. I think Scott needs a good West-Texas kick in the ass.  Scott is focusing on the actions of Bush while completely ignoring the actions of Saddam, in a completely unbalanced argument, from obviously an unbalance state of mind.


Scott Ritter: "The US assassinated, executed Saddam without due process, which is a crime in itself.":

Response: A leader of the military, including Bush, is a legitimate military target, and a kangaroo court is not necessary. Thank God Scott Ritter is not running things, or Saddam would get off because he wasn't read his rights, in the twisted manner of the present American justice system.


Scott Ritter: "Where are the weapons? We found 90-95% of Saddam's weapons.":

Response: (1) If you didn't know how much Saddam had in the first place, how can you put a percentage on what you found? (2) Where is the other 5 to 10%, and how many civilians could that kill in the hands of mass-murdering Muslim terrorist? (3) As head of the first Iraq Weapons Inspection Team, I think Scott is creating cruel distortions in trying not to look bad.


Senator Tom Daschle: "Bush failed diplomatically which lead to war":

Tell me, Tom, how do you deal diplomatically with a murderous dictator entrenched in perpetual power and allies nations afraid to do what is necessary to confront him?


Shiite: "Saddam is in Baghdad. Why is the US attacking Shiites in the South? US doesn't want Shiites to unite.":

Response: US is attacking Shiites in the South who are a part of Saddam and the Baath Party's regime and who routinely kill civilians to keep Saddam and the Baath Party in power and modeled on Stalin's Soviet Union.


Shiite: "The US has to convey it is not staying forever here."

Response: Forever like Saddam and the Baath Party, no doubt. The Shiite should have no fear of that, only of democracy, education, and freedom, and the pursuit of peace and prosperity.


Shiite: "US wants to set up a puppet regime that recognizes Israel and pushes Western views on people."

Response: What this Shiite wants to do is run around with his Kalishnikov and rule with his religions tyranny, and sees democracy as an enemy.



Views have been manipulated by anti-US Baath Party-owned media.


some fear anti-American resentment in the Arab… There is a high risk that Iraq could become a symbol of Arab and Muslim resistance to the United about arms caches and guerrilla attacks in Iraq are worrisome...

Response: (1) Boo-hooy doom 'n gloom hand-wringing weenie liberal talk, if I ever heard it. (2) Let me counter it with a quote from a Middle East Muslim: "The only thing Muslims in the Middle East understand is strength." Now do you think such Muslims will respect the boo-hooy doom 'n gloom hand-wringing weenie liberal who never spent a day in the military? Heck no.


Stop the Bombing":

Consider who the target is, those who target and bomb US civilians. It is the government's duty to bomb them. The Muslims have declared war on the US and have proclaimed that Allah has directed them to destroy the US. The US is being very restrictive in their response, targeting only the most criminally insane in the Muslim world.


Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought! -Helen Keller

Response: Again, this does not work if only one side abides by it, such as the US in the face of terrorist aggression.


Suhail Shaneen: "The Human Rights Organizations are remaining silent while watching the bloodshed of innocent people at the hands of the Northern Alliance.":

Cheap, unverified propaganda. He also has no room to talk after all the atrocities he's remained silent on during the Taliban's abuse of power.


Syed Tayyab Agha: "You should forget about Sept. 11… there is a new fight against Muslims and Islam… by global terrorists America and Britain… they are killing our people daily.":

Cheap false propaganda.  Fewer and fewer people are listening to an evil regime's deceiving propaganda from the likes of Agha and Tarik Aziz. Their statements used to send hordes of ignorant Muslims into the streets in protest against America. Now it seems they aren't so ignorant anymore, and are more resistant to the cheap mind control tricks used by totalitarian regimes who control the media.


Syria: "What logic allows the US to arm Israel with CMM (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons while ignoring the Muslim world, while Israel occupies Arab lands?":

Response: Israel is the only democracy in the region, and is under constant threat of attack by totalitarian Muslim nations who side with the Palestinians who do not want to share their land with the Jews who've lived there as long as anybody. Israel occupies militarily important positions that their Arab neighbors used to attack and bomb Israel from. I don't blame them for continued occupation as long as the present generation of Arab leaders remain in power. Israel needs what it has to protect it's culture of peace and prosperity against the Madness of the Muslim world, while Arabs want those weapons for world threatening and world domination.


Taliban Leader:  "U.S. attack is a terrorist attack". :

The only people in terror are the terrorist Taliban leaders. Also the U.S. did not sneak into their country and commit suicide attacks against peaceful civilian establishments.


Taliban Leaders: Mullah Mohammad Omar: "bin Laden couldn't have been involved because there are no flight training schools in Afghanistan". :

He is not only illogical and a liar by virtue of attempted deception, but he is weak in mind if he expects to fool anyone with that illogic - that flight training can only be done in Afghanistan or nowhere.



The Afghans are setting up their radio and television stations again, shaving off their beards, hiring women, and listening to music. Are these Muslims (and they are Muslims) "evil"? Is this the doing of "America"? According to the Taliban, they are and it is, and has nothing to do with human evolution, which it does. What would the Taliban have done to these Muslims? One can only shudder to think.


Taliban: "Come down out of the sky and fight like men." :

What morons. The US is fighting like men. It is the Taliban who are ignorant, violent children.  They just want to see the enemy that will send them to their imaginary martyrdom, it is an earthly desire, and hypocritical to their cause.


Taliban: Banned Omar Interview: "America cannot beat us." :

He keeps going back and forth on the state of the Muslim world - in despair or in defiance. This is what American Liberal over-tolerance has helped create - self-deluded murderous meglomaniacal despots in far-off, distant, starving uneducated countries.


Taliban: Banned Omar Interview: "America has created the evil that is attacking it.":

 So now he (read Muslim) takes no responsibility for his (Read Islam's) evil actions. A childish ploy.


Taliban: Banned Omar Interview: "If someone follows the path of Islam, the (US backed) government arrests him, tortures him or kills him. This is the doing of America.":

 True brainwashing. In reality if someone follows anything other that their brand of Islam, then their own particular Islamic regime arrests them, tortures them, and kills them, like the true barbarians they are. America does not do this to Muslims even in it's own country, where many Muslims live free of such political oppression. Ormar is full of propaganda aimed at the ignorant which he wishes to lead into violence.


Taliban: Banned Omar Interview: "If we give up Osama, Islam is finished.":

Read "Omar" is finished.


Taliban: Banned Omar Interview: "The US should stop trying to impose it's empire on the rest of the world.":

In fact it is Omar who is trying to impose a Taliban empire on the rest of the world. Just look at how he is brainwashing poor Pakistani children, to "Spread Islam throughout the world and gouge the American's eyes out." (I quote a child of their school.)


Taliban: Banned Omar Interview:: "America has taken Islam hostage.":

Correction: Corrupt, ignorant Islamic leaders like Omar are trying to take Islam hostage, being afraid of the Age of Reason.


Tarik Aziz "We have higher principles than the West":

Response: Iraq set fire to Kuwaiti oil fields, causing an ecological disaster. The West refrained from doing the same to Iraqi oil fields out of concern for the ecology. Therefore the West has higher principles, and therefore Tarik is not only a liar, but an outrageous one.


Tarik Aziz: "Just leave us alone.":

The US did that to terrorist organizations, and look what happened.


Tarik Aziz: "Other countries all laugh at Bush's "With us or against us" statement." "We are not going to attack anyone." "We have higher principles than the US, and do not make bedfellows with our enemies."  "We will let you inspect our arsenal if you inspect Israel's arsenal for NBC weapons.":

If the US has no response to these statements it is weak in the head. Let me help: Saddam's killing Iraqi's to stay in power is higher-principled that the US? No. Do not make bedfellows - isn't it the Muslim proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? "We are not going to attack anyone".  Iraq will attack anyone as soon as it has the means. What about their attacking Iran, Kuwait, and Israel? "If you inspect Israel's arsenal?" Israel has no ambitions beyond their borders. Iraq is an imperial nation. To the Tariks of the world, truth means nothing, and the US government has not possessed the faculties to respond. It's playground and street rules to side with the witty over the witless. The US government has to get it's wits about them.


Tarik: "Just leave us alone.":

Alone to vengefully spread anthrax throughout the world. Alone to plan vengeance on America.


Tariq Aziz: ``The accusations of Mr. Bush in his statement last night are baseless, simply baseless,'' Aziz said in an ABC interview.:

A liar describes himself when attacking others. In other words, much of what Aziz says is baseless, simply baseless.


Terrorism Today:

Definition: Holding mass populations hostage and then murdering them in order to obtain an evil political or personal end.


Terrorist: "We are suffering. We don't care if we blow ourselves up.":

They are attacking the only country that can help them - the US.  Their suffering is self-induced, and caused by their cultural values that do not value education and daily work.


Terrorists, Mad Mullah's, and Muslim Dictators:

Routinely pervert God's will.



Are hypocritical - using the very technology they deem evil - cell phones, satellite communications, airliners.



Die over twisted ideas.



Do not pursue the path of dialog. They instead, in their ignorance and pride, pursue their own shameful madness.  That's why they are so eager to kill themselves, to avoid the shame of their madness.



don't abide by the fact that in a free country an individual must exercise a higher degree of international responsibility than someone living in a totalitarian state.



Feel they are not bound by moral principles, because they would be weakened.



Mistakenly thought they were attacking an Icon of American commerce in the World Trade Center. Instead they were attacking an icon of international cooperation. People from 60+ nations worked there, in a country with almost infinite freedoms for it's citizens and guests.



The terrorists takes justice into their own hands (the first criminal step toward anarchy). They have no respect for any government or religion. They also take pleasure in their work, and so block out all opposing facts. Anyone could see that to redress their grievances that could employ a sue-happy American law firm and push their cause in American courts. Instead they prefer death, violence, and destruction due in part to ignorance of the law and in part to the orgasmic pleasure they get from causing death and destruction - lacking electronic toys, it's their action video game.



There are many Muslim citizens of the United States who practice their faith in political tolerance. Therefore the United States is a partially Muslim country, therefore they are killing Muslims for Islam.



They say they are willing to die. What they're too embarrassed to say is that they are willing to indiscriminately kill others.


Terrorists: "Why didn't the US attack the Soviets when they threatened the world?"

The Soviets were more civilized that the current sneaky murderous Muslim madness.


The "Madness of the Muslim World" Defined:

Political totalitarianism, religious centricism/fatalism, and a lack of a grip on reality through poor education.


The voice of a tempered capitalistic vulture: "Global trade rules should guide any awarding of contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq.":

Response: Alternate voice: "Let Iraqis rebuild Iraq, and get honest help when needed."


This is the way of peace. Overcome evil with good, falsehood with truth, and hatred with love. -Peace Pilgrim:

Response: Nice, but doesn't apply in the US's war of terrorism, when murder has been committed. The terrorists have committed mass murder already out of false claims that the US has caused mass deaths in the Muslim world.


Those who  think Biden should refrain from commenting on military strategy ("mano-e-mano statement)...  neither understand the American form of government nor that military activity always has a political side.":

Response: I read the Vietnam debacle and not the success of Desert Storm, and the LBJ/McNamara micromanaging travesty in Vietnam and not the successful Bush, Sr.'s "Define a clear goal and  keep thy political hands off" approach.


Tony Blair Interview: "Accusations from the audience of hypocrisy in his demonization of Iraq above other "rogue" nations.":

Response: First you are against war, now you want to attack all rogue nations at once?


Tony Blair Interview: "Before any military action you will seek another U.N. resolution specifically authorizing the use of force?":

Response: (Assuming there is not one already, in which the answer should be "no", because one is enough) Yes. But let's say they do not authorize it. Is there still an easy link between the arsenal of Saddam and the terrorist organization that have declared war on and attacked the US? Yes. Is there any other means of severing that link? No. Can the U.N. be reasonably overruled? Yes, reason should rule.


Tony Blair Interview: "How much greater the threat of terrorism might be if there was an armed conflict":

Response: That is a possibility. The opposite is also possible, in that once it is seen that the US's intentions are pure, many terrorists organizations will have no moral justifications on which to continue their operations against the free world.


Tony Blair Interview: "I don't share any confidence that people are behind you at the moment.":

Then the people cannot see the threat. Let me explain. What is to prevent a piece of Saddam's mass destruction arsenal from passing to the hands of suicidal murderous madmen who you generously refer to as terrorists? How many of you can say that has not been happening all along?  Better for Britain's leader to err on the safe side in such a matter.


Tony Blair Interview: "Iraq is not the foremost threat":

Response: The war on terror involves many steps, it is now time for this step, to hold this dictator to the fire.


Tony Blair Interview: "One questioner called the prime minister "the right honorable member [of Parliament] for north Texas" and "Mr. Vice President.":

Response: Are you saying the US is wrong and Saddam is right? If not, then are you proposing I contest the US on principle, without any thought of right and wrong?


Tony Blair Interview: "One questioner called the prime minister "the right honorable member [of Parliament] for north Texas" and "Mr. Vice President.":\

Response: We can go back and forth all day calling each other names, for example you are an ignorant baboon, and I'm ashamed to have you as a countryman.


Tony Blair Interview: "Since Sept. 11, obviously, the United States has been aggressive to Afghanistan and Iraq. Where does it stop and who's next, and does it mean we'll be tagging along on Mr. Bush's shirttails all the time?":

Response: If it is not obvious to you who is in the right here, the US, Saddam, or the terrorists, then wake up now.


Tony Blair Interview: "Whether Tony Blair would go to war without the support of the British people.":

Response: To be against the threat of war in this case is to turn a blind eye to the suffering a dictator does to his people, and the danger a dictator is to the rest of the world, in Saddam's case his easy link with mindless terrorism.


Tony Blair Interview: "Whether Tony Blair would go to war without the support of the British people.":

Response: Yes, it is abundantly clear the intentions of the US are pure. As for the British population being against their government going to war, that is reassuring. It should also be a message to terrorists who mindlessly target such people. It is also sad, and the British population is sadly turning a blind to, the fact that the people in Iraq do not the freedom to voice such opposition or to make their leader answer hard, reasonable, and compassionate questions before acting.


Tony Blair Interview: "Why Britain didn't stick to a policy of trying to 'contain and deter' Iraq":

Response: If there were any other way to sever the easy link between Saddam's arsenal and terrorist organizations, I would do it. Any suggestions?  Saddam passes the effects of sanctions on to his people anyway.  He still has his dozens of palaces.


Tony Blair Interview: "Why Britain wasn't continuing a policy of containing and deterring Iraq through sanctions":

Response: Sanctions will not prevent poison gasses, anthrax, smallpox, and nuclear material from being passed from Saddam to the suicidal mass murderers you generously refer to as terrorists.


Tony Blair Interview: On war with Iraq: "Where does it all end?":

Response: Be more specific. When does WHAT all end? You ask this question as if to assume what the US is doing is somehow wrong. Can you not distinguish good from evil anymore, especially when it is as blatant as in the case of Iraq? If you cannot, you are part, and most likely the cause of terrorist hate, and give justification to all the totalitarian regimes in the world.


U.S. Muslim Sympathizers Quote: "Why is the U.S. trying to create hate against the Palestinian people?":

Typical US-fashion-bashing liberal, does not address the other side of the coin, Palestine's state-induced hate of the United States for getting in the way of their dominating Palestine.  Also hate in the United States towards Palestine is well founded, as well as restrained.


UN - China: "Peace needed for a long-term investment in human development":

Response: Unfortunately peace is not a unilateral phenomenon, and while the madness of the Muslim world conducts war, the US cannot create peace by itself through pacifistic means.


UN "Applying pressure on all sides will work with Saddam":

Response: That is a farce. Pressure from any other side other than military force is being made possible only through the immediate and expensive threat of military force. It is not fair that the US has to sit there and fund the diplomatic games it's allies are dabbling in for their own aggrandizement and without any regard for Iraqi or American civilian populations.


UN "Cost of delay less than the cost of war":

The UN can't logically be referring to the present situation of a Saddam-terrorist link, both of whom the Iraqi and American people are paying huge costs for delay, and if Saddam slips terrorist one of his CMM (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents or weapons, will pay with their lives.


UN "Multi-lateralism is in the interest of peace":

Response: and at the expense of American civilian populations being exterminated by rogue terrorist organizations with access to CMM (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons held by evil anti-democratic regimes.


UN "Multi-lateralism is in the interest of peace":

Response: But UN is asking the US to wage peace unilaterally. Where is the UN's plea with Mad Muslims?


UN "Nothing to indicate a link between Saddam and Terrorists":

With the Headline "God's Punishment" in reference to the 9/11 attacks, Saddam has shown that he supports terrorism and those who pursue the taking hostage of and the murdering of mass populations in order to achieve evil political and personal ends. There is your link between Saddam and terrorists.


UN "The value of peaceful methods":

Response: Peaceful methods work only when women have political power on both sides of an argument. While women have political power in the Western world, they do not in the Muslim world, so peaceful methods will not work in dealing with the Muslims. This is what Western women, who make up many of the UN's spokesmen, do not perceive.


UN "True global democracy is the only way to promote democracy":

Response: 50 years ago democracy was a small island in the world, with only 8 countries democratized. The civilian populations of the free world cannot wait for global democracy to arrive when there are insane organizations and individuals loose that so desire to commit civilian mass-murder with the CMM agents and weapons in the possession of totalitarian states.


UN "US wants to use military force automatically":

Response: The US has restrained itself for 12 years while Saddam played hide-and-seek with weapons inspectors. There is nothing automatic about it.  In the face of this generation's insane terrorist attacks, the US administration in this generation has a responsibility to act in order to protect it's civilian populations.


UN "War is always a human catastrophe, a failure of intellect to achieve an end":

UN fails to mention that sometimes a nation cannot hide from war, as is the case with the US in the face of Middle East's present generation of madness.  When war is upon one, it is not madness to defend oneself by seeking out the enemy if he then hides and destroying either him or his madness.  War, when done with compassion for those who have done good and justice for those who have done bad, and with intellect, can achieve good ends.


UN Agency: "There will be 100,000 casualties, and the war in Iraq will be a catastrophe of major proportions."

Mere Saddam-comforting "scare" conjectures, conjectures to which I take complete odds against.


UN Catch-22:

The UN wants to prevent military action against Saddam until all diplomatic means are exhausted.  Diplomatic means will only be exhausted when the US exhausts it's funds to keep the military force present in the Middle East that makes diplomatic means, however ineffective that they have been, possible. And when that happens, and the UN calls for military force, the US will not have the funds to take military action, UN having exhausted all means of making Saddam comply with it's resolutions.


UN to US: "Peace, not War":

Response: UN is addressing the wrong side of the combatants. It is the madness of the Muslim world that wants and is conducting war on the US. The UN is afraid to address them out of fear of retribution.



Admits that Saddam violated international law with impunity and has a criminal attitude, yet wants to leave him in power all the while chastising the US as a war-monger for wanting to remove him and destroy his collection of CMM (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons before the insane terrorist organizations who desire to take hostage and murder mass civilian populations get their hands on them.



Allows Saddam to stay in power in hopes that Saddam, an entrenched murderous dictator with many crimes to protect himself from having to account for, and has been in breach on UN resolutions for more than a decade, will suddenly turn around and mend his ways.



Does not want to admit inspections have not and will not work.  They are just fooling themselves, at the peril of Western civilian population centers.



Imploring peace on the US alone, a nation that DOES NOT take murderous retribution on bodies that contest it's will, while avoiding the Mad Totalitarian Muslim Organizations who desire to commit cowardly civilian mass-murder, and who DO take murderous retribution on those who contest their will, is an overt and obvious act of weakness by a collection of small, timid countries who are not brave enough to take on the evils present in their generation.



Pressures the US to wage peace while not addressing the self-proclaimed enemies of the US on their open declarations of war against the US.



The hypocracy of the UN in dealing with Saddam is that their path of not using military force is made possible only by the hammer of military force being held over Saddam's head. If there was any hope of a civilized method succeeding with Saddam before he can slip terrorists some of his CMM (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons, then the members of the UN opposed to the use of military action, not the US or members in favor of military action, should pay for the military force required to make a long, drawn out, and equally uncertain "peaceful" method possible.



Unfairly asking US to act civilized and restrained in the face of Muslim state-induced wanton civilian mass-murder madness.



What kind of organization agrees Saddam is a bad guy, has the means through the US's war on terror to depose him, and argues to let him stay in power? It is an organization made of small countries afraid of the retribution of the madness of the Muslim world, and afraid to stand along side the US and fight it.


Unidentified: "American choose Bush, war choose America,he is hostile, they are hostile too, in fact,amercia destory the twins by themselves.":

Response: As childish as this is, there are millions of adults with childish minds in the world, so these comments need an adult response. Let me try: This goes back to (1) the false propaganda spread by evil totalitarian regimes threatened by US power, freedom for it's citizens, and democracy, and (2) the US's silence on that psychological front.  In today's world, the meek shall be slandered.


US Allies:

Some of the US's so-called allies will side with the Devil in order to diminish the US's presence internationally, even if the US's presence is altruistic and beneficial to all mankind.


US Democratic Senator (hand-wringing weenie) on attacking Iraq "The US shouldn't use it's strength to bully other countries.":

Bullying is not bad in itself, it is a tool too often used by the bad and too little used by the good.  Does the Senator deny the US is in the right, or is he merely afraid to act? Does he deny bullying is used by the Assassin-Dictator he is siding with?


US Democrats on Attacking Iraq "The US should be considerate of what the Russians and French want.":

The French and Russian's views are wholly economical.  The French want to profit from selling nuclear technology to Saddam, and the Russians profit from conventional arms sales to Saddam.


US Hater (50 Questions) "13. How many gallons of Agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?  17 million.":

Response: (a) Who was the aggressor in Vietnam? The enemies of democracy. (b) Who were the communists trying to kill? (c) The defenders of democracy. (c) Where were the communists hiding? In the Jungles. (d) How do you clear a Jungle full of aggressive enemies of the free world? Agent Orange. (e) How many people died in Cambodia as a result of the victory of communism in Vietnam, when the communists then invaded Cambodia? Millions.


US Hater (50 Questions)"3. How much is spent every year on military budgets worldwide?  Over $900 billion.  How much of this is spent by the U.S.?  50%":

Response to 5.: (a) "How did the US defeat the evil Soviet Empire and keep Stalin's successors from exterminating 50-question people?" It out-did it through military development. (b) How did the US out-develop the Soviet Union?" By out-spending them. (c) Why is the US still spending so much on the military? Because of the billions of 50-question people in the world who are brainwashed and brutalized by dictatorial threats and propaganda into thinking the US is bad and Stalin was good.


US Hater (50 Questions)"8. How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? Since the early 1980's.  9. Did Iraq develop these chemical and biological weapons on their own?  No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government and its allies.  10. Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?  No. 11. How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?  5,000  12. How many western countries condemned this action at the time?  0":

Response: I don't know the facts about questions 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, but I'm not taking this US-hater's word for it. Nevertheless, true or false, (a) Should Bush not depose Saddam because his predecessors look like hypocrites out of context if you disregard the Cold War and what the communist Soviet leaders wanted to do to the world)? No.  (b) Did the Soviets not invade Afghanistan as part of their world-conquest plan? Yes  (c) Did Iran as a nation chant "Death to America" and embrace a mindless regime even more brutal and repressive than the Shah's? Yes.  (d) Was the US in Iran as part of the Cold War?  YES.  Did the US keep the Middle East, including Iraq and Iran, from becoming Soviet Satellite States, and before that, Nazi subjects? YES.  (e) Would Muslims have survived under either of these superpowers, if it were no for the US? NO.


US Hater (50 Questions): "1. What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have? ~6%  2. What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have? 50%":

Response to 6: (a) How did the US get 50% of the world's wealth? It created it itself." (b) Who wants to take it? The rest of the world.


US Hater (50 Questions): "14. Are there any proven links between Iraq and the September 11th terrorist attack? No.":

Response: (a) Is this enough reason any more not to topple Saddam and have a peaceful Iraq spending the wealth of the largest oil reserves on earth instead of a certified mad dictator? No.


US Hater (50 Questions): "15." What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?  35,000.":

Response: (a) If true, how many were caused by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his ouster by the US? 100%.


US Hater (50 Questions): "16. How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?  40 tons.  17. What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?  700%

Response: (a) How much of this is Bush's fault? 0%. (b) Who is brave enough to go in there and clean up the mess and save Iraqis and Kuwaitis from further cancer caused by his predecessors? Bush.


US Hater (50 Questions): "18. How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?  80%   19. Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than national defense? No.

Response: (a) Is it likely Saddam will sooner or later slip Osama some Civilian Mass Murder agents and weapons just to spite the US? Yes. (b) Is Osama in the business of Civilian Mass Murder? Yes. ( c) What has Saddam used his weapons on since the Gulf War? To kill Iraqis in order to keep himself in perpetual power. (d) Is there anyone other than Saddam who knows what his plans are? No. (e) Does Saddam even know what he's going to do next? No. (f) Is Saddam unstable? Yes.  (g) What does Saddam spend the wealth created by the world's largest oil deposits on? Himself, and killing those who oppose him. (h) Would Saddam kill our 50-question person here if our person were a Saddam subject and these questions were casting Saddam in a bad light? Yes, but only after the 50-question person's family, in front of the 50-question person. (i) Is the US government going to do this to the 50-question person for falsely casting the US in a bad light? No. (j) Does the US then have higher principles than the dictator the 50-question person is foolishly defending? Yes.


US Hater (50 Questions): "20. Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?":

Response: (a) With his friend Osama running around, Yes. (b) Are Osama and Saddam both enemies of the US? Yes. ( c) What is the old Muslim saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (d) Does it take a genius to see that Osama and Saddam can be "friends"? No. (e) Should Bush wait until Saddam and Osama commit Civilian Mass Murder again before pursuing both of them? No.


US Hater (50 Questions): "21. How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2003?  10,000  22. How many of these will be children? 50%."

Response: (a) Who has a higher regard for human life, Saddam or Americans? Americans.  (b) Who are using their women and children as human shields on the battlefield? Saddam's forces. ( c) Who has two choices, to die fighting Americans or to die at the hands of the Iraqis they've been brutalizing? Saddam's forces. (d) Who follows the Geneva Convention concerning prisoners of war, the US, Saddam, or both? the US only.


US Hater (50 Questions): "25. How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?  20 million.  26. How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?  12 years.  28. What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?  131 (that's an increase of 345% over 1989).":

Response: (a) Who kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq before their job was done? Saddam. (b) Whose idea was it to impose strict sanctions on Saddam rather than depose him right then and there, thereby preventing large losses of Iraqi civilian life by Saddam? The UN and the US. ( c) Who could have prevented Iraqi children from dying, but chose not to for propaganda reasons? Saddam. (d) Does the Iraqi Information Ministry routinely release false information in order to keep itself in perpetual power? Yes. (e) Who is fighting for the betterment of humanity, the US or Saddam? The US.


US Hater (50 Questions): "29. How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?  1.5 million.":

Response: Who could have prevented it? Saddam.


US Hater (50 Questions): "32. How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? 300.  33. How many of these inspections had problems?  5.  34. Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?  Yes.":

Response: (a) If these numbers are true, how many inspectors were eventually kicked out of Iraq? 305.  (b) Why do you think they were kicked out? They were getting too close to finding what Saddam didn't want them to find. (c ) Could the process on weapons inspections find what Saddam truly didn't want them to find? No.


US Hater (50 Questions): "35. Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history?  Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief."

Response: (a) Where did Scott get his information from? The Iraq Information Ministry. (b) What has Saddam been doing in the years since he kicked the inspectors out of Iraq? Rearming. (c ) Why? To kill Iraqis in order to stay in perpetual power and to attack Israel and the US in order to regain the awe of the Muslim World.


US Hater (50 Questions): "36. In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?  90%.":

Response: (a) What percentage of Saddam's remaining 10% of Civilian Mass Murder weapons and agent capacity does it take to wipe out all the people in New York City  (Pop. millions) using a handful of Osama's suicidal terrorists? 1%. (c ) Should Bush wait for that to happen before toppling Saddam? No.


US Hater (50 Questions): "37. Is Iraq willing to continue with the weapons inspectors?  Yes.":

Response: (a) Can the weapons inspectors find what is stored in a tanker truck or a tractor trailer? No.


US Hater (50 Questions): "40. How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?  Over 65.  41. How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?  30+.  42. How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?  $5 billion.":

Response: (a) Who originated the resolutions? Arab states. (b) Why? As part of their war on Israel, in order to weaken it, so it could be driven into the sea. (c ) How many Arab nations simultaneously attacked Israel once? Several. (How many times have Arab nations attacked Israel? Several. (d) Did the Palestinians want to share the land that they and the Jews have lived in for thousands of years? No. (e) Who started the 1948 genocide first? The Palestinians. (f) Who still engages in genocide? Arab states.


US Hater (50 Questions): "44. How many nuclear warheads does Iraq have? 0. 45. How many nuclear warheads does US have?  over 10,000.  46. Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?  the US."

Response: (a) Who has 10,000 nuclear weapons but has refrained from using them for 60 years? The US.  (b) Who, even if he had one nuclear weapon, would have used it already? Saddam. (c ) Who is an unstable meglo-maniacal paranoid murderous perpetual dictator? Saddam  (d) Who is developing nuclear weapons?  Kim Jong Il. (e ) Who said "The earth does not need to exist if there is no Kim Jong Il?"  Kim Jong Il.  (f) Who is going to end up having to protect the rest of the world from Kim Jong Il?  The US. (g) Who is not only not going to get any thanks for it, but will get jealously and abuse soon after and be called murderers of children? The US.


US Hater (50 Questions): "49. Which country is perceived in worldwide polls as the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?  US  50. Who said: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.":

Response: (a) Which country is perceived in worldwide polls as the greatest benefactor of humanity? The US. (b) Which country is perceived in worldwide polls as the greatest threat to global peace? North Korea. (c) Who is developing nuclear weapons?  Kim Jong Il. (d ) Who said "The earth does not need to exist if there is no Kim Jong Il?"  Kim Jong Il.  (e) Dr. Martin Luther King, with that logic, would then applaud Bush not remaining silent on Saddam, and applaud even louder that Bush is actually taking action against Saddam.



Not only is the US concerned about Iraqi civilian lives, but it goes overboard and is concerned about the property of Iraqi civilians. And still the enemies of the US, such as Al Jazeera, continue to try and deceive their Muslim audience with false anti-US propaganda.


Vladimir Putin: "End Iraq war, or it could threaten world stability.":

Response: Putin really saying once the US finds out how much Russia was profiting Saddam the US will be mad at Russia.


Walter Cronkite: "America has a dark future.":

Response: Let's assume for a moment that this cowardly statement portends the future. America's future would then be dark, but not by anything it did other that be free and pursue peace and prosperity. It would be due to the tyranny in the world attacking it.


Walter Cronkite: "World War II GI's grumbled about how things were being run.":

Response: Yes, but I see nothing of the kind in Iraq, due to it being obvious who's in the right, and due to a sound battle plan, however misjudged by armchair generals not in the know. The only grumbling I see in Iraq is about the inconveniences of war.


War on Iraq:

It is not a war on Iraq, it is a war on Saddam and his evils, which most likely includes daily transactions with terrorist organizations. Since he runs a closed society, the US ha a right to only assume the worst and act upon it.


War on Terrorism:

If the easy links between rogue countries and terrorist organizations can be curtailed by means that do not include the use of military force, then please come forward.


War Protestors:

What are they protesting? Removing the Stalinist-modeled Baath Party? US-caused civilian casualties? Baath Party murders of civilians? Bush? I think the latter.


Wars can be prevented just as surely as they can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent them must share in the guilt for the dead. -General Omar Bradley

Response: Again the loony liberal pretends the US is provoking a war, even after it has been attacked and war declared on it. In the cloudy liberal mind, poetry comes before reality.


We should take our example not from our military and political leaders shouting "retaliate" and "war" but from the doctors and nurses and medical students and firemen and policemen who have been saving lives in the midst of mayhem, whose first thoughts are not violence, but healing, not vengeance but compassion.

Response: Unfortunately the Osama's of this world make no distinction about who they kill next in order to achieve their goals, be they doctors, nurses, medical students, firemen, or policemen.


What Al Jazeera won't tell the Muslim World:

Two Iraqi vehicles approach a US checkpoint at high speed, the first with a family, the second two men. The family stops, the two men plow into the family, get out, and shoot the woman. The US kills the two men and finds the car filled with ammunition. Their harebrained plan was for the family to take the US fire as human shields, under pain of execution by the two Saddam assassins, while the ammunition got through.


What anti-US Liberal don't tell you:

The US accounts for 40% of the world's high tech production, and 50% of the worlds research and development. To chastise the US for being powerful is sheer envy and folly.


What the anti-US Liberal leaves out of his argument:

Anti-US Liberal: "The US will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined." Point Left Out: The US spends a smaller percent of it's gross national product on defense than most other nations.


What the anti-US Liberal leaves out of his argument:

Anti-US Liberal: "The US, with only 5% of the world's population, has 43% of the world's wealth (implying the US stole it)."  Point Left Out: The US accounts for 43% of the world's economic production, meaning they created the wealth through hard work. It is an intellectual crime to imply the US stole it. Therefore this liberal is an intellectual criminal.


World Islamic Front: " on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.":

The need a lesson in good neighborliness. US wrongs exists only in their psychotic heads. They are only mad about the US stopping their flow of cash to terrorist organizations.


World Islamic Front: "...despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres (in Iraq)…":

The US hasn't massacred anyone. The Iraqi leadership has done it's own massacres in order to stay in power, once again the World Islamic Front turns a blind eye to their own Muslim evils, of which they are a part, in order to spread such evil throughout the world, so they can be in power.


World Islamic Front: "...despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…":

 (1) They turn a blind eye on the great devastation Saddam inflicted on their Muslim neighbors Kuwait and Iran, (2) The alliance included no Zionist nations, but did include Muslim nations, again they turn a blind eye to those facts. The World Islamic Front is in fact spreading disinformation, as usual, in order to further their own corrupt ends.


World Islamic Front: "...the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…":

The Iraqi people are only being aggressed against by their own corrupt, murderous, dictatorial leadership.


World Islamic Front: "...their (the US's) endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and  Sudan into paper state-lets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.":

The US is in fact pressuring the remaining Islamic totalitarian regimes to democratize in order to promote human rights, education, and welfare of the general populations, and protect them from the cruel rule of Osama's, a fact that the World Islamic Front chooses to turn a blind eye to in order to further their corrupt existence.


World Islamic Front: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors.":

Sounds like the Afghan people (especially the women who can't work and children who can't play) lamenting against the cruel rule of the Taliban.


World Islamic Front: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth!":

Read: "Die for us, fools, so that we may obtain the totalitarian power we so desire on earth."


World Islamic Front: "So here they (the US) come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. ":

Cheap, false propaganda. The US does not humiliate the Muslims in the US, or try to annihilate them.  The US has given Muslim countries billions in aid, and has Muslims living free in it's own country. The World Islamic Front turns a blind eye to those facts. They are out for their own glory here on earth, nothing more.


World Islamic Front: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.":

These are the minds of children talking. An overly-simplistic statement and solution to self-inflicted problems, and blame-shifting.


World Opinion:

Response: After 1.5 million murders, world opinion still sides with Saddam over a country that gives the highest regard for human live no matter what race or religion. It seems the compassion of the US is too much for world opinion, and world opinion can't stand it, and would rather side with the Devil.


Worried US will use power and ability over rules and norms.

Response: Again this is a disconnected statement. If anyone doubts the merits of US actions they are fooling themselves. The only rules and norms the US has disregarded thusfar are those rules and norms that have become corrupted by nations with less-than-reputable intentions.


Zais: "If there is high US collateral damage in Baghdad, US will lose support for the war.":

Response: This is a cowardly conjecture. He should have said "US will face possible challenges".


Zais: "If there is high US collateral damage in Baghdad, US will lose support for the war.":

Response: Those who support the US and those who don't will not change, since it is based on other factors (those who don't, prejudice against the US, those who do, the honor of fighting tyranny in the world and doing their duty of protecting their citizens from Osama/Saddam linkups).


























"Bush could not find Osama, but he knew where Saddam lived."

Response: Typical liberal statement based on false assumptions. The false assumption here is that Osama is alive and not buried alive. Furthermore, the  reason the US cannot find Osama if he is alive is because he is in a country that won't allow the US to enter in force in order to find him.


"Bush took the US to war no matter what anybody said."

Response: Typical self-centered liberal. Fact is not everybody was against the war.


"In Iraq, Law and Order was not part of the plan.":

Response: Any weaknesses in the 'plan' is due to there being no "blueprint" for liberating countries that have been under repressive, brutal, murderous regimes for decades. I'm sure the US will get better at it if the weenie liberals, who's motto is "live and let suffer", let it.


"In Iraq, Law and Order was not part of the plan.":

Response: Any weaknesses in the 'plan' is due to there being no "blueprint" for liberating countries that have been under repressive, brutal, murderous regimes for decades. I'm sure the US will get better at it if the weenie liberals, who's motto is "live and let suffer", let it.


"Iraqi celebrations in the streets of Baghdad were staged by the US for the media.":

Response: (1) Only people who've lived under state-controlled media for decades could seriously think that. (2) Only investigations will tell, and you know what, investigations are actually allowed now with Saddam gone. Let's celebrate! Oops. Then we'll make Al Jazeera and the left look absurd. (3) Let's ask the people from Saddam City if the celebrations were staged, people who's relatives were killed, religious leaders imprisoned and assassinated, who had little food, little water, and no jobs.


"Iraqi celebrations in the streets of Baghdad were staged by the US for the media.":

Response: (1) Only people who've lived under state-controlled media for decades could seriously think that. (2) Only investigations will tell, and you know what, investigations are actually allowed now with Saddam gone. Let's celebrate! Oops. Then we'll make Al Jazeera and the left look absurd. (3) Let's ask the people from Saddam City if the celebrations were staged, people who's relatives were killed, religious leaders imprisoned and assassinated, who had little food, little water, and no jobs.


"The US deliberately fired into the Al Jazeera news building.":

Response: (1) There were probably hostiles conducting the war from the windows of that building. (2) The military unit that fired the shot didn't have a clue what building it was. (3) The military unit that fired the shot was under fire. (4) The military unit that fired the shot has been going three weeks without adequate rest in order to minimize civilian casualties.


"The US deliberately fired into the Al Jazeera news building.":

Response: (1) There were probably hostiles conducting the war from the windows of that building. (2) The military unit that fired the shot didn't have a clue what building it was. (3) The military unit that fired the shot was under fire. (4) The military unit that fired the shot has been going three weeks without adequate rest in order to minimize civilian casualties.


"The US is a Bully"

No country in history was a bully with an all-volunteer military, least of all the present US.


"US is bad, it did not sign the Kyoto Treaty."

Response: The backers of the Kyoto treaty themselves are failing miserably to meet the treaty's goals. It was a pie-in-the-sky proposition.


2-Pronged Pincer Assault involving the 7th Cavalry:

Does anyone hear Custer screaming "Not again!"


A Lack of Support for the War:

There is lack of support only because the Witless Wonders in the White House cannot argue this clear and necessary case effectively.  People know instinctively that if they can't even argue the case, then they probably cannot carry out the mission successfully and without bungling and unnecessarily costing many American lives, not to mention the atrocities possible against Iraqi civilians. If you want more support, argue your case on the level presented here.


A Public Opinion Recommendation:

Do not try to use liberation as a basis for deposing Saddam, but a beneficial side effect.  Use the terrorist/CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) agents and weapons of Saddam link, Saddam's sympathizing with said terrorists, and the 12-year failure of the inspection process for deposing Saddam, and concerning the suffering of Iraqis with war, balance it against the suffering Iraqis will endure if Saddam is left in power, the benefit to them if they are liberated, and the suffering of the American people when Saddam gets the chance to slip one of his CMM agents or weapons to the terrorists he openly sympathizes with (remember his headline "God's Punishment" in reference to the 9/11 attacks.) 


Addendum to Speech (continued):

It is not the fault of the US they are mired in political darkness, yet in their madness individuals, organizations, and states from that political darkness attack the US on it's soil and abroad, and have stooped to covert civilian mass-murder operations.  While the American civilian population has demonstrated their opposition to war in principle, they are still the targets of this madness, and it is the duty of their commander-in-chief to thwart such dark plots before they are carried out and rain down death and destruction upon the peace-loving, if naive citizens, of the US and other free or non-Muslim nations. 


Addendum to Speech (continued):

Other nations and US citizens should be commended for maintaining their principles against war in general, but in the face of such mad, merciless, murderous, and brutal enemies of peace and prosperity, who do not abide themselves by such principles, it is sheer folly, if not suicide.  Soft power has only enraged the enemy.  It is time for hard power against hard dictators in this war on terrorism.


Addendum to Speech (continued):

Other peaceful nations do not have the means or courage to confront such obvious murderous madness, and continue to delude themselves that a unilateral passive stance will stem the madness and create peace for themselves and for future generations.  It hasn't, and it will not before the Muslim madness gets it's fill of Western blood.  Therefore it falls upon the American citizen and a few courageous and far-sighted allies to confront such madness before it takes it's toll on American citizens.


Addendum to Speech:

The founding fathers of the United States of America gave it's citizens democracy and freedom when the world was mired in political darkness.  200 years later their descendants and millions of immigrants enjoy the individual personal and political freedoms in America, and the path of peace and prosperity set up 200 years ago, while half the world still wallows in political darkness. 


Administering Iraqi Oil Revenues:

(1) Profits split between Kurds, Sunni's, and Shi-ites according to population; (2) split between other Muslim non-oil states for non-brainwashing education systems.


Administration, US:

If you do not want to be known as another group of "Witless Wonders in the White House", you should take up some of the counterpoints laid out here. A person sacrifices a lot to be able to bring them to light and to bring them to you voluntarily. And some of these points will have an effect on the "Walking Cliches" that populate this country.



Afghan's request for the right to self-determination should mean an elected moral government with protections from the evil in human nature.



Air strikes should be flexible enough to seek out and support moments of anti-Taliban uprisings, wherever they are currently occurring. The actual physical damage may not be a great as the initial target would have been, but targeting should think psychologically, as to what effect such a show of support will have on solidifying anti-Taliban opposition in the particular battle and region.



Answer to question "When will victory in Afghanistan be achieved?": When there are no terrorist camps and no brainwashed children. When there is a strong moral national government elected by a well-fed, educated, self-sufficient population that has goodwill toward all nations on earth and that contributes to the well-being of mankind. When Afghanistan is a nation that is the envy of the world. When Taliban murderers are brought to justice. Short of that, since no nation on earth has reached those ideals, the Taliban gone, the terrorist network destroyed, and the terrorist leaders rounded up.



Arrest Taliban leaders as terrorists and enemies of the people.



Battlefield tactic: Since the Taliban is made up of mostly kids, drop candy bars on them, giving notice there is more if they switch sides.



Bomb Afghan civilians - with bread, blankets, and teddy bears. The problem with that however is that the Taliban will kill them and take it for themselves.



Concerning the US not helping to rebuild it: The US should help only after the war on terrorist reaches a satisfactory point.



Film U.S. servicemen vacationing on tropical isles, and broadcast it to Taliban militia holed up in Afghan winter caves and desolate desert hideaways. Attach the messages "Wish you were here" and "You are fighting for lost causes" and "You are fighting for an evil regime and suffer for it" and other propaganda. Find something that sticks.



For any decent Taliban fighters who got caught up in it all, give them a way out. For the permanently psycho, lock them up permanently.



Forming a post-Taliban government and installing it now will contribute to the war's end by giving the population an alternative. They may even have the strength to find and arrest bin Laden.



Get all world leaders together in Afghanistan to form an innovative model government that can be an example for the rest of the world..



If bin Laden is in the Mountains, let him stay. Don't let anyone in or out. Disrupt his communications. Shoot at anything that moves. Let him rot there with his rats and scorpions. Don't shed one drop of non-terrorist blood over him just to please the Taliban.



If military operations are suspended during the month of Ramadan, then ask anyone to come forward during that time who possesses great enough enlightenment that will cause the entire world to throw down their weapons and hug each other, and repent their ways (the spreading of viruses taken into account).



If the U.S. wants to be nice during the month of Ramadan, then restrict bombing to non-populated Taliban positions. But then the U.S. has been inappropriately too nice for too long and has paid the price for it.



It would be best for the US to go in in the dead of winter to root out the Taliban. That would shut everyone up. The US is better equipped for such warfare anyway.



Negotiate with the Taliban? Ask yourself, is the Taliban a benevolent, peaceful regime?



On "Talking" to the Taliban: When they have an elected government by the people and for the people and not just for a few rich maniacs at the top, then talk is possible.



Parting Remarks to fighting men: "You have shown yourselves to be good fighters on the field of battle. The time has come to see how good you are at nation building. How good you are at organizing, planning, inventing, learning, and teaching. At being businessmen, husbands, fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers. How good a neighboring country you can be, and what you can contribute toward the good of humanity. That is where your children and children's children will speak well or ill of you. The glory of the battlefield will forever be confined to and kept on the battlefields, while the glory of the rest of life will be sung throughout all other daily facets of life."



Tactically, in a stronghold siege it shouldn't be hard to taunt the suicidal terrorists to come out and die for Allah. To stop hiding behind women and children. "Here is your chance to beat the West, to kill Americans. What are you waiting for?"



Taliban Official: "U.S. is too soft for a ground war in Afghanistan." All he wants is an American target to kill and boast about. Don't give him the opportunity  unnecessarily.



Taunt bin Laden and he will foolishly come out in a rage. Then he can be captured.



Tell the Afghan refugees to go home. The Non-Terrorist Nations have no intention of killing anyone. The Non-Terrorist Nations will capture bin Laden and cage him like the rabid dog he is.



The Afghans would say to America, "If you knew you could so easily liberate us from the Taliban, why didn't you liberate us sooner?" That answer is easy: Democrats, and the overly-liberal philosophy currently infecting the US "Intelligentsia". They have filled the US with self doubt, self criticism, and a lack of moral identity. It's time to take a step in the direction of simplicity again. We are being blinded to the obvious by over-philosophizers who are out to impress each other.



The coalition needs a border air guard to identify and interdict border-crossing terrorists and their supporters.



The conduct of the war on terrorism must be conducted as though the terrorists were successful in their every effort so far: killing 50,000+ people on Sept. 11, killing the President and the White House Staff with anthrax, killing Senators, Congressmen, and their Staffs with anthrax, blowing up other Western structures, flying other aircraft into buildings, cropdusting bio and chemical hazards over populated areas, and (in their own words) "Killing all Americans, military and civilian, and stealing their money whenever and wherever you can".



The entire Muslim world is watching the Afghanistan post-war government. A successful solution could in itself create a domino effect against the rest of the totalitarian Muslim world, toppling regimes, clamping down on terrorism, bringing more tolerance to their mental frame of mind, and bringing some self-respect to an otherwise ignorant and arrogant body of people. The US should therefore be careful about it's over-control of the situation, yet aid in enhancing it's positive effects throughout the Muslim world using mass media and pop culture.



The longer the U.S. takes in Afghanistan, the weaker it looks in the eyes of Muslin fundamentalists. Even other nations with a dubious alliance to the cause like Russia and China are telling the U.S. to hurry up. Don't put diplomatic pressure on the military unless you want disaster after disaster. It's hard enough not to bomb civilians in accordance with American moral standards (and not because of fear of maniacal Muslim fundamentalist retribution). Rushing the job will result in wholesale civilian casualties.



The military is the arm, the intelligence the brain. They both must be pursuing and heading-off border-crossing terrorists and international Taliban criminals.



The new government should be approached with a new frame of mind customized to the Afghan situation: There should be a Central Government and semi-autonomous Provinces ethnically divided. The new mentality would apply to running the central government - as a Provincially rotating duty. Each Province should rotate with that responsibility, and approach it as a job that needs to be done, as a chore. There should be no power hungry career politicians, they should pass the baton with a relief that their "watch" is over. When a Province's turn is beginning, the whole of Afghanistan can vote on who to lead the Central Government from that Province. The Governmental process and structure should be flexible enough to accommodate currently recognized talent, and not lock them out as in the rest of the world. The government could be a model to the rest of the world.



The new government: If I were an Afghanistan I would set up a country with Provinces, ethnically identified, and all supporting a Central Government who's purpose should be to aid each Province in keeping out terrorists and other criminals, keeping the peace, dealing with disasters, and other Central functions necessary to keep the population living there willingly. Providing for a common defense may be necessary in the future, but I don't see the need for it - there are no aggressive neighbors. Interacting with the rest of the world would be a Central Government function. It would provide for a meeting place for all Afghan groups who realize that divided they fall.



The U.S. should fight for the rights of Afghan women.



The U.S. should weigh the costs of nation building with nation destroying: if Afghanistan is left with a power vacuum and another Taliban gains power, the U.S. may have to destroy it again. This will not make the U.S. look good in the eyes of third parties. Also Afghanistan is going to become a template for the other Muslim nations that are going to overthrow their repressive regimes sooner or later. They will follow the success or failure of the new Afghan government, and act accordingly.



The US government has a necessary job to do in Afghanistan. If the neighboring ignorant hordes want to take up arms and take potshots at American soldiers, they will be posing as hostile forces, and should be targeted as such.



The US should help the women lift weights, get physically strong, take the guns and staffs from the men, make the men cover up head to toe in burqua's, make them stay home unless escorted, and beat and humiliate them in public, execute them for trivial offenses, and not let them vote or hold jobs.



There must be created in Afghanistan a state where terrorists cannot move back into. This means no patchwork of warlord fiefdoms, which allowed bin Laden and the Taliban to take control once already.



Upcoming U.S. military winter strategy should be to drive the Taliban into the most inhospitable regions during the Afghan winter and cut off their supplies, then flush them out in the spring, telling them "the war is over, come down and lay down your weapons."



When the US is satisfied that they've caught who they are after, then the US should leave Afghanistan. If Afghanistan goes bad again, then repeat the process.



Why is the U.S. playing around with the Taliban monsters and other terrorist regimes? Occupy, disarm, and move on. The road to true peace and happiness is a long enough one.


Airport Security:

Airport Security - Feds should aid, considering the present circumstances, in drawing up a higher quality airport security process, and conduct audits as to it's compliance and effectiveness. I'm not talking about financial aid, but brainpower. It's not easy developing a quality security process. The airlines should at least shop around for a better security service with the $20 billion they received from Congress. The security system should remain commercial and not run Federally, but remain in compliance with whatever standards are developed, and be governmentally audited, evaluated, and enforced.


Airport Security:

There are 4 scenarios: (1) Feds install their own program and run it with Federal employees, (2) Airlines do it themselves, no outside contractors, (3) Airlines contract with a better security service, (4) Feds draw up stricter airport security standards while the terrorist threat exists, and hold the commercial enterprises to them.


Al Jazeera News:

Doubts captured bin Laden tape authenticity, while remaining silent about the authenticity of Islamic extremist claims against the US. The US should ask them when was the last time they questioned the twisted reasoning of their precious Islamic extremists? They claim to be an open and impartial media. It is time they practice it, rather than remain hypocritically one-eyed.


Al Jazeera:

By it's propaganda, distortions, deceptions and outright lies on the behalf of Saddam, for the sole purpose of inciting Muslim attacks on the US, Al Jazeera has by it's actions entered the war, and is now a legitimate military target of the US. Case in Point: Severed head of child Al Jazeera blamed on the British while Saddam's forces are attacking the civilians and the British are attacking Saddam's forces. Al Jazeera makes no mention of Saddam's forces killing Iraqi civilians, and cutting off Basra's water supply, and though Saddam's force's civilian killings be 1000 times more numerous and horrendous, with no regret, than the British, who accidentally and regretfully cause the death of civilians, and no mention of Saddam's forces placing civilians and future civilians, the Red Cross, Hospitals, and surrendering soldiers at risk with their war crime ruses and reckless, dishonorable tricks. We demand Al Jazeera tell their Muslim audience the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, immediately.


Al Jazeera:

Should be tried for war crimes.



Accept the fact that US allies must do what is in their best interest nationally and personally politically.



Tell them we don't mind them playing petty power politics, but in this situation the safety of American civilian population comes first in US administration decision making.



The US can forgive allies for doing things the US has done, such as having naïve good intentions, or looking out after their own interests, or engaging in reckless capitalism. But the Allies can't wait for the US to be perfect before the US confronts evil.


Answer to "How long will war last?"

Length is proportional to the amount of Iraqi blood Saddam's defenders have on their hands.


Answer to "How Long"?

Response: "That depends on what the enemy does, and how deep Saddam's evil goes."


Answer to Question: "What do you think of Iraqi civilians chanting against the US?"

Response: I see people forced to chant by Saddam's threats, or just plain deceived by Saddam's lies, case in point- Basra, where the people blame the US for the water problem Saddam put upon them.


Anti-Terrorist Leadership:

Rotate anti-terrorist leadership in the US Government when the current leadership tires and becomes ineffective and bureaucratic, or begin to generally lack energy, or when they have done all that they can.


Anti-US Arguments that bring up the past:

Response: "After WWII, America helped get the rest of the world back on it's feet by pumping out vast amounts of aid, technical assistance, and investments.": Time to call that loan in.


Antiwar News Article: "Other nations have ties with terrorist networks, why not attack them?":

Response: Following this logic the US would attack all such nations at once. That does not sound like the best course of action by any measure. Take one down, see which way the wind blows.


Antiwar Protestors:

Tell them the enemies of the US do not want peace. Go protest them. The US is open to a peaceful solution, the enemies of the US are not. Go protest them.


Anti-war Protestors: "Anti-war Protests are not all anti-American":

Response: but... that's not what I see on the Internet- our "uninsulating" technology- thank you very much- the rest of the world argues like blind sheep out of a liberal kindergarten against the US... (sometimes I think they're all twelve year olds) spewing out childish conspiracy theories like "it's all for oil" (as if that could be hidden in a society with a free, investigative, liberal, bloodthirsty, for-profit press), or parroting one-sided arguments like "The US bombed Hiroshima" (remaining completely silent on the mass horrors Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had planned for them), or the US did this or the US did that in history, completely ignoring the evils the US was taking a lead role in confronting (usually Stalin's Soviet Empire) (who also had great plans for them!), I'd say it's ignorant, arrogant, childish, and ungrateful on the part of the rest of the world's hippie wannabes, while giving fuel (however ill-conceived) to the likewise terrorist organizations!


Anti-war Protestors: "Anti-war Protests are not all anti-American":

Response: I don't know, anti-US protests in other countries are rampant if you follow our "liberal" media... so if what you're saying is true... and they aren't... this would verify my conclusion that our "liberal" media is using isolated incidents to blow anti-US sentiment (in Iraq and everywhere else) way out of proportion... which is what Bush (no genius) is saying all along...


Arch of Skulls:

Note that the US will not build an arch out of the skulls of Saddam's thugs, like Saddam did with Iranian skulls, because the US has higher principles than Saddam.


Ask Iraqi's:

Now that Saddam and the Baath Party is gone, what are you going to do?


Atomic Power

OK for non-juvenile countries. Juvenility defined as what that country's decisions are based on- fact or fiction.


Attacking Syria:

Not warranted. Syria has not attacked neighbors (except Israel); not accumulating weapons of mass destruction; their terrorists aimed at Israel, not the US; no real atrocities for 22 years.


Attacking Syria:

Not warranted. Syria has not attacked neighbors (except Israel); not accumulating weapons of mass destruction; their terrorists aimed at Israel, not the US; no real atrocities for 22 years.


Bad Battlefield News:

Always tests the mettle of the troops.  If they are fighting for high principles, then it is easier to bear.


Baghdad Iraqi Civilians:

Are afraid of the chaos and looting that may occur, just as it did after the 1st Gulf War.


Baghdad Plan:

(1) Defeat heavy military forces; (2) Disarm city; (3) Get humanitarian aid in; (4) Provide for Iraqi Law and Order; (5) Provide for new Iraqi government.(6) Get economic aid in;



Realize that every building, vehicle, and mailbox will be wired with remote-controlled or booby-trapped explosives.



Since Saddam's assassins are committing the war crime of fighting in civilian clothes, round up all men encountered, detain them, let them volunteer for paid word against Saddam or remain detained until identified as friend or foe.


Battle Shock:

Use it as a weapon by the battle-experienced on the battle-inexperienced.


Big Business:

Let the world know that your predecessors in the US government worked for Big Business, but that in this case you are motivated by the protection of innocent civilian populations around the world.


Bush  "the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war":

"reasonably avoid war", for war can be avoided foolishly when dealing with such self-proclaimed enemies that the US has.


Bush and Gloating:

Bush: "You will allow me a gloat when Iraq is on a path of peace and prosperity, and the US is no longer the Great Satan in Muslim eyes, and Al Jazeera no longer fosters terrorism.


Bush and Gloating:

Bush: "You will allow me a gloat when Iraq is on a path of peace and prosperity, and the US is no longer the Great Satan in Muslim eyes, and Al Jazeera no longer fosters terrorism.


Bush Speeches:

Are getting redundant and boring.



If he wants to take the moral high ground in Iraq, he needs to keep his nose clean and take care of festering problems like the Guantanimo Bay terrorists prisoners, global warming issue, antimissile system issue, and the International Court issue, either capitulate or make your position clear.



Improved statement: "I don't care if we get him today, tomorrow, next week, or next year"… (improved portion:) "We are in this for the long haul."



Is on the right path.  He just has not been given the wit to debate it successfully.  It is ten times easier to debate on the side of evil than it is on the side of good.


Captured bin Laden tape:

The US should be more open about the tape's authenticity.


Change WMD's to CMM's:

The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is getting tired. Change it to "CMM's" (Civilian Mass-Murder agents and weapons).


Chuck Raasch: "Iraq is the vessel of American Military Might"

Response: More US bashing in spite of the good the US has done in the world. Blind cynicism. Nothing less than a mental disease. In fact, the US tried to take Saddam down bloodlessly, but 400,000 Saddam henchmen were bound to Saddam through murder.


Clear and Present Danger:

Tell the UN that there never will be a clear and present danger when dealing with subversive organizations until the act has been committed.  The act has already been committed on 9/11.


Coalition Losses:

Most likely causes: (1) Iraqi ambushes, (2) Accidents, (3) Friendly Fire, (4) Criminal Iraqis in Saddam regime who do not want to face Iraqi justice, (5) Criminal Iraqis who own Saddam something., (6) Last, valiant Iraqis fighting for a misguided cause.



Should not base decisions on fears, such as a fear of a Muslim uprising. The Muslims will go with whoever is in power.


Cost of War:

$90 billion for removing Saddam and creating a democratic ally in the Middle East, $180 billion for doing nothing and allowing Saddam to go on and terrorist to run amok.


Counterterrorism Policy:

Speculative Question to US: "Would you attack North Korea if it were sitting on oil?" Answer: "You mean to ask me if I would attack the North Korean regime if it were sitting on valuable natural resources and mis-spending the wealth to keep itself in perpetual power through brutality, repression, and murder, while making the world a more dangerous place by purchasing Civilian Mass Murder weapons, while living in a region of poor education and insane state-induced mass prejudice against the West, coupled with mad international suicidal civilian mass murder organizations who have already committed civilian mass murder on US soil and are planning more? Answer: Yes."


Counterterrorism Policy:

You've responded to the violence in the streets, you now need to response to the madness in the media.



The US can either get international help in fighting terrorism and it's root causes, or must crack down on Middle Eastern Muslims within it's borders.



Fair Game Rule: The US administration should only consider as much criticism as Saddam gets and considers from his people (which is nil).


Dealing with Iraq:

Go with the information you have.  The other Western leaders are blindly playing self-survival politics.  Saddam is a self-proclaimed scumbucket, as well as running a dangerous political system.


Dealing With Tyrants:

The US has been attacked by tyrants in the past.  The US should use tried and true methods in dealing with them, as in post WWII.


Debate with Saddam:

Question to Saddam: What prevents you from slipping anti-US terrorists some of your CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) agents and weapons?


Declaration of War:

Needed to place restrictions on reckless Leftist Media that puts the rest of us in danger.  Declaration should stay in effect until the Muslim world grows up and improves it's mindset, and is pursuing a path of peace and prosperity.


Democracy in Iraq:

May not work with such limited resources. Democracy worked in the US the way it did because the US has so many resources that when one resource was controlled by a greedy few, there were plenty of other resources left. That will not work in Iraq. If the oil revenues end up in the hands of a greedy few, it's all over for the masses in Iraq. I'm sorry, but Iraq needs to be part socialist and part capitalist.


Democracy in Iraq:

May not work with such limited resources. Democracy worked in the US the way it did because the US has so many resources that when one resource was controlled by a greedy few, there were plenty of other resources left. That will not work in Iraq. If the oil revenues end up in the hands of a greedy few, it's all over for the masses in Iraq. I'm sorry, but Iraq needs to be part socialist and part capitalist.


Democracy in Iraq:

Tell them it means being able to gradually improve one's life day by day.



Tell Iraqis democracy means being able to improve your life little by little each day.



Tell Iraqis democracy means being able to improve your life little by little each day.


Desert Storm Took 2 Days:

And where did this leftist "Desert Storm took 2 days" crap come from? It took 3 months of preparations and 1 month of air strikes before the ground phase began.



Inform population they better do something about their dictators, or the free-world will



A failing of governments is that they take foreign relations upon themselves, rather than encouraging and funding their populations to interact culturally, intellectually, and economically. The governments in this case are too self-important, and create many needless conflicts.


Disarming Iraq:

Can only be done by force, and through a regime change.  The inspection process is only being done through the immediate and expensive threat of force.


Disarming Iraq:

In the climate of Muslim madness in today's world, it is necessary to finally disarm Saddam, rather than let him play hide-and-seek for another 12 years with his CMM (Civilian Mass-Murder) agents and weapons.


Do you see any Guerilla units forming in the American rear?:

Response: No. Only Saddam's thugs we've bypassed, Republican Guard units herding human shield hostages in front of them, and bands of village idiots taking potshots at troops.


Domestic Doubt (such as

Merely shaking you administrative heads silently in exasperation at such drivel is not enough. You must actively and publicly respond, because left unchallenged, it infects people.


Embedded Reporters:

General Rule: If a commander gets the feeling that a decision is "being nice" to the reporter, don't do it, it will kill troops.


Europe: "Some states say the US could still disarm Iraq peacefully.":

Response: It's hypocritical of them to say they are disarming Iraq "peacefully" when it is the US military threat that has made it all possible. Europe is pursuing this "peaceful" path and making themselves falsely appear "civilized" at the expense of the US military forces being in the Middle East poised to depose Saddam and find his population-extermination weapons themselves and cut the ties to terrorists.


Europe: "Some states say the US could still disarm Iraq peacefully.":

Response: Tell Europe the US is already under attack. The issue is no longer "terrorism" but "population genocide".


Evil Dictators

If Saddam is replaced by an evil dictatorial regime, then Saddam should be the last evil dictator the US overthrows for others, and it should be the last of the criticism the US gets for dealing with evil dictators.



Consists of pardoned criminals.


Fighting the Enemy:

The enemy needs to be fought on land, sea, air, media, and Internet.


Foreign Policy Goal:

The goal is to have all nations pursuing peace, truth, and prosperity, where the individual human is served by the state and is free from state-sponsored repression.


Foreign Policy:

After WWII, instead of building an empire, the US built alliances, with special efforts given to diplomacy, that contributed to world peace, through the Marshall Plan. Stay on that course.


Foreign Policy:

Cannot formulate it's foreign policy on liberal cowardly conjectures, when there are equal and opposite conjectures. Example: Liberal: "War in Iraq will create hate for the US". Opposing Conjecture: The world will love and respect the US after it deposes Saddam.


Foreign Policy:

Can't formulate it around the prejudice of Muslims and the malevolence of paranoid totalitarian regimes.


Foreign Relations:

Realize that just because heads of state can't get along does not mean their respective populations do not get along in the social and business arenas.  It should be the business of government to foster the latter, and not create havoc with the former.


Foreign Relations:

The government should not take it upon itself to conduct foreign relations. The government's role should be to support economic and social interaction with foreign populations, which is where foreign relations naturally occurs.  If citizens leave foreign relations to governments than they are asking for trouble.


France, Germany, Russia:

France, Germany, Russia have had military arms deals with Iraq. US should consider how these allies would be affected economically by a regime change in Iraq.



France is playing bigshot at the expense of the US. Nothing the French leader is proposing will work without the US threat to Saddam. It's time he pays for maintaining that threat so he can continue playing bigshot.



Get France to admit it opposed war out of fear and not out of higher principles.



Should allow the US to depose Saddam and round up his aggressive arsenal, or pay for the US military presence there so their plan may have a chance (what little there is) of succeeding.



Tell France if they want to avoid war, they must get Saddam to give up his twisted arsenal of CMM (Civilian Mass Murder) weapons and agents immediately.  The US cannot wait when civilian mass-murder war is already being waged on it by the current initiating terrorist organizations.



Tell French you don't appreciate them playing petty power politics in such a grave situation.


Funding War:

Solicit donations for the humanitarian and occupation aspects of the war, and use the electronic apparatus that is in place with the IRS for processing donations.


Gaining International Support:

Invite all nations, large and small, to input ideas on a post-war Iraq.  This will have the effect of having them look forward to the US deposing Saddam so they can input their wisdom.


Gains vs. Losses Chart:

In Iraq, at press conferences, you should have a general summary of gains/losses, because people are wondering why operations aren't going as initially hoped (which was a gamble on the Iraqis being weary of Saddam and causing his and his regime's demise.  Saddam was easy. His regime, however, has a greater reluctance of facing the Iraqi population other than with the barrel of a gun.


Global Terrorism:

America has sacrificed greatly to secure it's freedom and build forces to defend it in a hostile world. It has every right to use it's technology to defend it.


Global Terrorism:

Attack with like kind those who take up arms. Hold discussions with those who do not.


Global Terrorism:

Base criminal prosecution on involvement in the organization, not just on who pulled the trigger. Convict the organization and anyone associated with it as an accomplice.


Global Terrorism:

Begin a national policy supporting reason worldwide and at home. Support moral goals. Identify and attack the causes of human suffering.


Global Terrorism:

Can't throw away one non-terrorist soldier. He has a job to do that may take a generation. That of occupying and disarming the mad male Muslim population and those who support them.


Global Terrorism:

Disarming would involve a large yellow symbolic bin for them to drive their tanks in and drop their weapons in. Occupying would involve limiting their freedoms in regards to interacting with the rest of the world. They will have religious freedom, if it is not Satanic.


Global Terrorism:

Extraditing bin Laden does not apply. He has declared war on the U.S. and is state-sponsored. This makes him and his sponsoring state targets of war. The U.S. was just being nice to ask for bin Laden first.


Global Terrorism:

Fighting terrorist abroad: Do not align with terrorist supporting regimes. Help the poor get back on their feet.


Global Terrorism:

For Plan A, B, or C: hire Chinese to help with the occupation. They are our friends, they need the work, they are industrious, and they are historically and traditionally, in spite of their communist plight, a fair-minded population. They would be doing the world a service in the cause of peace.


Global Terrorism:

Give in to terrorists and they'll find another employer, and then terrorize you more.


Global Terrorism:

Have a fair-minded representative from every nation study and come up with a solution to conflicts around the world. Then evaluate them all in a non-self-serving manner and arrive at a consensus, then enforce that consensus.


Global Terrorism:

If the attacks on America turned widespread and biological/chemical, with millions of U.S. casualties, what should America do? Simple, implement Plans A, B, and C above, like it should be doing right now, before it happens.


Global Terrorism:

If the non-terrorist world does not have the resources to carry out my plans, then bombing or waiting to be attacked again are the cheapest alternatives.


Global Terrorism:

If you don't agree with a nation's policy, shame it with reason, awaken it with enlightenment.


Global Terrorism:

In fighting terrorists, the enemy must be found and engaged. If one is caught, turn him over to the military as a spy.


Global Terrorism:

Inform terrorists nations if they set up decent governments before the non-terrorist coalition forces get there, and successfully police out their terrorists, then they won't be occupied, disarmed, and dismantled.


Global Terrorism:

Let evil terrorist nation leaders know the non-terrorist world is coming. Then come.


Global Terrorism:

Letting terrorists roam free in the world is madness.


Global Terrorism:

List the U.S.'s and Muslim World's common enemies: viruses, bacteria, warlike aliens, ignorance, hunger, communism, immorality, evil, political repression, philosophical repression.


Global Terrorism:

Military equipment that the terrorist regime does not want to turn in will be sought out and destroyed. If people are in them, they will be given due regard.


Global Terrorism:

Muslim fundamentalists are operating from within a frame of mind that needs to be attacked with psychological warfare. Truth and logic can also be employed to sway all but the most suicidal.


Global Terrorism:

Neutralize any army raised by a terrorist regime. Have them do community time when it is over and a decent government is set up.


Global Terrorism:

Pep talk to non-terrorist coalition army in a terrorist nation: "You are the underdogs here. Everyone expects you to be defeated with poor generalship, poor political leadership, small arms fire, knives, box-cutters, suicide attacks, hijacked planes, and TOW missiles, lack of psychological warfare, low moral, lack of Intelligence, and decadence at home. The only thing you have on your side are Plans A, B, and C."


Global Terrorism:

Plan B: Global Terrorism: Have a coalition force composed of non-terrorist nations large enough to begin occupying, disarming, and dismantling the regimes of historically terrorist nations one by one, quarantining the population, and staying there until there exists an intelligent, educated indigenous generation that has developed a higher reasoning ability, a life-enhancing industriousness, a moral fiber, a respect for peace, a measure of tolerance for other cultures, and a regard for life. The subject terrorist nations should contribute toward the cost. If the population resists and are mentally unbending toward violence, Then implement Plan A3 above on the nation.


Global Terrorism:

Set up a dialog table where the world's nations can come and discuss their views. Have some record arguments for all sides. Then analyze them and come to conclusions. Maybe something good will come out of it. I don't know what the UN is doing, but it is not this.


Global Terrorism:

Since terrorists are barbarians and murderous psychos, it takes a certain measure of like mentality to effectively deal with them.


Global Terrorism:

Small bands must be fought with more small bands. A concentrated army is exposed to one-stroke defeat.


Global Terrorism:

Tell the people of Afghanistan "Prepare for a non-Taliban Afghanistan." Tell the people of Iraq "Prepare for a non-Saddam Iraq." Tell the people of Libya "Prepare for a non-Khadafi Libya.", and so on, all the way through the terrorist nations.


Global Terrorism:

The Anti-Terrorist reaction shouldn't behave in a way that can be considered evil, even out of context, by a third party.


Global Terrorism:

The best allies to psychological warfare are moral goals and a moral means to achieve them.


Global Terrorism:

The current Western generation asks for no respect from Muslim countries, so they don't get any. A good slap in the face and an appropriate follow-up stance is all those countries need.


Global Terrorism:

The enemy is not like a snake, it is like a weed - chop off it's head and it grows back. You must attack the roots - evil at home and abroad.


Global Terrorism:

The non-terrorist nation policy should be to let populations solve their own problems and get themselves back on their feet after their terrorist regimes have been toppled. If they turn murderous against other nations, and export death and destruction, then it's time to step in and dictate policy there. The most the non-terrorist nations should do is provide policing while the indigenous population gets their act together.


Global Terrorism:

The non-terrorist world should invoke the WWII Germany/Japan solution on terrorist nations: Unconditional surrender, disarmament, dissolution of the government, occupation, policing, and nation rebuilding. The only difference is that Germany and Japan were a more enlightened population than the present Muslim populations, and were able to govern themselves peacefully and get along with the rest of the world in a short period of time. The Muslim populations have been brainwashed and repressed by state-controlled media and police forces for generations, just as Germany and Japan were. But can they recover in as short a period of time?


Global Terrorism:

The non-terrorist world should look for ways to beat terrorism in the mind as well as on the battlefield. It is as ancient as "The Art of War".


Global Terrorism:

The terrorists "did" the U.S. Now the U.S. should "do" them.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. could do better at coalition building. I personally do not want to foot the entire bill for the war on terrorism. It would also get the job done sooner.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. does not know which organization was behind the Sept. 11 crimes, who recruited them, indoctrinated them, trained them, financed them, gave them orders, and maintained discipline over them, so it should target all similar organizations and any oppressive regimes that support them.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. fight should first be with all international terrorist groups not supported by regimes, then terrorist regimes.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. is after terrorists. If a government and it's military wants to protect them, then that must be dealt with first.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. should deliver freedom from oppression around the world. Short of that, aid in fighting terrorism.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. should help any nation fight it's terrorists.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. should merely return the war to the war mongers.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. should not deal with non-elected repressive governments. They are the true enemy of the U.S., even when they are allies, because their people suffer.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. should return the war to all those who have been at their self-proclaimed war with the U.S., all those who call for war against the U.S., and all those who support them. Target first those who have proclaimed they are at war with the U.S., then those who encourage hate.


Global Terrorism:

The U.S. should understand the causes of some terrorist organizations, but attack them for their methods.


Global Terrorism:

There are groups and nations that have called for war against America. It's time for America to fight back.


Global Terrorism:

There are terrorist regimes, aggressive regimes, and repressive regimes. The terrorist regimes should be our focus now.


Global Terrorism:

U.S. must stop ignoring those who say they are at war with the U.S.


Global Terrorism:

U.S. policy should be to remove any threats to the U.S. while Muslims solve their own problems. If new poisons arises and attacks the U.S., then the U.S. has the right to remove that poison also.


Hard Power vs. Soft Power:

The US can use Hard Power to bring down every terror-supporting regime in the world, or use Soft Power and go about it's business of pursuing peace and prosperity, thereby setting a benchmark for the rest of the world to pursue.


Hard Power vs. Soft Power:

Use both Hard Power (military, police) with Soft Power (the pursuit of peace and prosperity).  The hard power will catch the criminally insane, the soft power will shame those with a conscience.


High Expectations:

Where did this leftist "high expectation" crap originate from? Fact is Plan A was to roll into Baghdad, not firing a shot a Iraqis, and remove Saddam, giving Saddam a chance to allow the Americans to do the job with minimum Iraqi civilian casualties.  Unfortunately, we now know how Saddam has stayed in power for so long - he has 100,000 thugs that do his murderous bidding.  They have been bid to kill the Americans, use Iraqi civilian women and children as human shields, and use Iraqi civilian men as cannon fodder.  So, Saddam, having been given the chance to surrender with minimal bloodshed, has chosen to fight, and being desperate, fight with no principles. Time for Plan B. Let them have their fight, which will of course take longer than Plan A.



A culture, including the U.S., should be self-critical and consider the view that a culture's morality is measured by what it allows it's children to do and it's young adults to become.



Another reason to increase investigative forces is so Muslim terrorists won't think they can come here and get away with those actions.



Anti-war protestors in the Western world need to be given superior reason, not derision.



At home raise the penalty for being caught involved in terrorist activities. Instead of deportation, incarceration. Re-fund the forces to detect them. More strongly encourage civil reporting of suspected terrorist activities on a community level.



Bill Maher's "Cowardly" statement made a point. So argue the point wrong, don't