"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 from such 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.


"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.


"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, Muslim Fundamentalists, Saddam's and Kim's of the world. (2) Further,  the four examples of slaughter above 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?


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

Response: Crippling Bush is not the answer. 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.


"Bush alienated US allies before the war.":

Response: No, in fact he brought out their true colors.


"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 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 on both sides of the fence.


"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 is much worse.


"Bush has support of world after 9/11, 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 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: Terrorist, 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.


"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?


"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: I see no falseness about it in this situation.


"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.


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

Response: There isn't 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) It 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.


"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 past? 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.


"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 23% of military, but only 11% of casualties, and only 10% in combat roles.


"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 Mad Muslims.


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

Response: I presume the media 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 had filmed otherwise.


"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 a failure.


"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: This liberal parasite has blinded himself to 9/11 and the madness of the Muslim world. If this liberal is right, I would still take big business over Muslim madness.


"Iraq war is not making Americans safer":

Response: It will because Bush is speaking the only language bullies like Osama 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: No, every country in the world is looking for Osama, including the US intelligence.


"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 to scare the US away from Saddam.


"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: 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.


"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.


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

Response: No, Kuwait is grateful to the US, and hates Saddam.


"Live and Let Live":

Doesn't work when your enemy wants you dead.


"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?


"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.


"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.


"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: 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.


"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 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, and openly supporting terrorist acts against the US.


"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 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). It is completely unfair to side with Saddam. It is just plain blind prejudice.


"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: Mere conjecture. There are already many countries who have not forgotten the US's role in liberating them from evil totalitarian regimes.


"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 runs.


"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.


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

Response: What do you expect, the civilians fight the 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":

and double further, my pro-war peep parodying 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":

and further, my pro-war peep parodying buffoon, 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.


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

Response: How can anyone with an ounce of brain-matter accuse the US, and not Saddam, of destroying Iraq?


"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 back then.


"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 is 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.":

Response: 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, liberals or conservatives? The Liberals themselves, that's who.


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

Response: the money was for humanitarian aid.  The Taliban then turned around and bit the hand that helped them by harboring US-citizen-murdering 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: US has tested Iraq to see how deep Saddam's evil goes.


"US is evil"

Response: 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.  The "US is evil" statement comes from mis-information ministries in totalitarian states.


"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 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 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 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.


"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.


"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.


"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 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 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.


"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.


"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.


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 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 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 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 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.


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 good, 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.


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 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 be "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…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: 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.


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 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.


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?


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:

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, and Middle East 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.


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 an 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 2.0100. 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)."


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.":

He is not fighting for Iraq, Iraq was going to take over Saudi Arabia. Children in Iraq are not dying, anyway. The main cause of death in Iraq is obesity.


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":

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.


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

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.


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

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.


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.


bin Laden: "We have lost loved ones unjustly, or are being treated with unjust prejudice":

 They are relying on the civility of their targets, who then won’t retaliate in kind. If they don’t care if more of their loved ones are killed in return then they are contradicting their initial purpose "for Allah and country".


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 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.


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.


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……..


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 - like 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. (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: Other country's expense like those run by un-elected, brutal, perpetual, anti-American lie-spreading dictators, such as communist countries.


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.


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 Iraq, 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 doubles?


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, and Saddam is destroying them. So who is playing the Democrats and the Media for fools? Saddam is.


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."


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

Response: Sick viewpoint. If you want to see arrogance of power, visit any anti-US country.


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

Response: 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:

Final 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: "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.


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: 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.


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.


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

Response: 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.


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

Response: 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.


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.


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 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: 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? You illogic is complete.


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, or just plain illogical?


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

Response: 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: 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.


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: I hate to argue with a Father, but you are being a typical ill-aimed sheltered American.  Iraqis 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.


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) (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.


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: 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.


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.


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?


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.


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.



 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.



Contrary, the criminal justice system's approach to allowing evidence and higher reasoning is ludicrous. Take the case of illegally obtained evidence. What des 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.



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 it will not save you from the insanity of today's Muslim fundamentalists.



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.":

"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.


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!"


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.