Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.
Posted on 2004-04-16 21:19:43 by Mikky
Q & A
Posted on 2004-04-18 03:19:08 by netluck
Voice of the right :=>

Saddam said he had WMD and would use them against the coilition if they invaded. He used them on the Kurds soon after the Gulf War, and all international intellegence agencies believed he did have WMD.

Israel supposedly has satelite photos of trucks moving equipment into Syria and burying everything 10 weeks before the war started. Where are the large misslie launchers used against us earlier in the war and the Iraqi fighter jets? The anthrax Saddam was known to have? You know that the people who created the spider hole Saddam was hiding in were found dead and buried a few hundred feet away?

Troops found large drums washed out with gasoline. It is believed that these drums had contained chemical weapons and were washed out to destroy the evidence.

It's now known that there is\was a large scale cooperation between Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea and China to develop nuclear weapons for the Arab states. Libya gave up it's persuits and have handed over Chinese nuclear bomb documents. And it turns out Iran has a massive nuclear bomb facility with over 90% highly enriched uranium at the site.

We uncovered the Oil for Food scandal making Saddam and many corrupt U.N. officials very rich. Thus why France, Germany and Russia didn't support us going in.

3 U.N. sanctions not being met by Iraq and the U.N. being too liberal and weak to enforce the sanctions (when Iraq invaded and raped Kuwait). Once again the U.S. has to be the bad guys to make the world a safer place in the long run.

9/11, Bali, 3/11 and future terrorism by Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups being fought on their turf instead of ours. Most of the barbaric terrorists in Fallujah have been sent in from Iran who don't want an Arab democracy next door. The terrorists are using Fallujah residents as human shields and taking over their houses. So it can be viewed that Iran is attacking Iraq and the U.S. forces in Iraq.

War is the lesser of two evils in this case in my opinion and many others. Yeah, killing sucks. And George Bush isn't the brightest light bulb. Perhaps in a couple years when a loved one is killed by a cowardly terrorist attack "in the name of Allah" in their country, people will start focusing on who we should be bad mouthing. Maybe with U.N. reform and support, the world will be a safer place in twenty years.
Posted on 2004-04-18 17:47:47 by Masmer
I think http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ pretty much sums up the reason to goto war.
Posted on 2004-04-18 21:24:08 by archphase
Troops found large drums washed out with gasoline. It is believed that these drums had contained chemical weapons and were washed out to destroy the evidence.


Just as a side note, it wouldn't work. They can detect it anyway, the only way to get rid of the residue is to burn them till they melt then hide the slag because they can still find it.

There were no WMD, that is a fact that even the administration has come to almost admit. They used it as a premise to go to war and it may have been bad information or it may have been wishful thinking, who cares. Fact is that Saddam was a butcher and had to go. But if the accusations in Bob Woodwards new book are true, namely that funds were diverted from Afghanistan where the real war on terror is taking place, in order to pay for Iraq, then Bush should be taken out back and shot as a traitor.
Posted on 2004-04-18 23:36:53 by donkey
@Mikky: Very good work! :alright:
@Masmer:
Originally posted by Masmer
Voice of the right :=>
Saddam said he had WMD and would use them against the coilition if they invaded. He used them on the Kurds soon after the Gulf War, and all international intellegence agencies believed he did have WMD.

The last part is not true. Actually, if you had read foreign newspapers, you would know that all international agencies believed that he didn't at the time of the invasion (he did back in the 90's, but not anymore). I understand US papers didn't reflect this situation faithfully. Also, the "evidence" presented to the UN by the USA consisted of documents and satellite pictures dated back in the 90's, so... no-one has proven anything. In fact, since UN inspectors were driven away from Iraq, we're not likely to ever know the truth... even if Bush actually finds anything, one can still think the evidence was planted. With only one source of information, how would you know?
Israel supposedly has satelite photos of trucks moving equipment into Syria and burying everything 10 weeks before the war started.

In that case, how come those burial places were not found? I mean, if they really have such pictures, they would know where they are, right?
Where are the large misslie launchers used against us earlier in the war and the Iraqi fighter jets? The anthrax Saddam was known to have?

You mean ten years ago? Anthrax doesn't last so long, the missiles were destroyed quite some time ago. The remaining ones were destroyed right before the war, but nobody made a secret out of it.
You know that the people who created the spider hole Saddam was hiding in were found dead and buried a few hundred feet away?

I never read that in any newspaper! :eek:
Anyway, if those people were dead and buried, how do you know the dug the hole? :grin:
Troops found large drums washed out with gasoline. It is believed that these drums had contained chemical weapons and were washed out to destroy the evidence.

As donkey pointed out, that doesn't work. And no serious security agency would ignore that fact. I'm sorry, that sounds like propaganda to me :(
It's now known that there is\was a large scale cooperation between Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea and China to develop nuclear weapons for the Arab states. Libya gave up it's persuits and have handed over Chinese nuclear bomb documents. And it turns out Iran has a massive nuclear bomb facility with over 90% highly enriched uranium at the site.

I honestly didn't know about it, but it sounds possible (despite the rivalries amongst those countries). But this would mean that the target for the war should have been Iran (not Iraq). And in any case, I don't see the connection with 11-S...
We uncovered the Oil for Food scandal making Saddam and many corrupt U.N. officials very rich. Thus why France, Germany and Russia didn't support us going in.

I'd love to say because of high ideals, but the truth is this countries had oil contracts with Saddam that are now just wet paper. If the US had kept those contracts, this countries perhaps could have supported the war (despite 90% of public opinion against it). But of course, that would have been against the interests of Bush and his corporative friends...
3 U.N. sanctions not being met by Iraq and the U.N. being too liberal and weak to enforce the sanctions (when Iraq invaded and raped Kuwait). Once again the U.S. has to be the bad guys to make the world a safer place in the long run.

The thing is, there are many "rogue" countries, but the US only seems to invade when having other interests in the area. I doubt the US government ever had any high ideals either.

9/11, Bali, 3/11 and future terrorism by Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups being fought on their turf instead of ours. Most of the barbaric terrorists in Fallujah have been sent in from Iran who don't want an Arab democracy next door. The terrorists are using Fallujah residents as human shields and taking over their houses. So it can be viewed that Iran is attacking Iraq and the U.S. forces in Iraq.

War is the lesser of two evils in this case in my opinion and many others. Yeah, killing sucks. And George Bush isn't the brightest light bulb. Perhaps in a couple years when a loved one is killed by a cowardly terrorist attack "in the name of Allah" in their country, people will start focusing on who we should be bad mouthing. Maybe with U.N. reform and support, the world will be a safer place in twenty years.

None of which invalidates Mikky's (or my) points. Saying "they're bad guys" is not enough to justify a colonialist invasion, even less to say that the reason for the war was democracy. That's my opinion.
Posted on 2004-04-19 11:23:59 by QvasiModo
Any US polititian can tell you it is much more complex than that. First you recieve information of possible attacks. Then you adjust your investments to profit on the deaths of others and the ensuing battle. The layers of support for this system are very deeply convoluted and you make it sound so linear. This isn't just about money, but a system of control that has taken years to hone into the great corporate machines we have today -- isn't it wonderful. Be sure to get out there with your dollars to voice your opinions and take advantage of all the choices. :rolleyes:
Posted on 2004-04-19 12:06:01 by bitRAKE
Money and power are very important factors in the world's History. Of course they're not the only ones, nothing in this life is really linear. But I hope you all get my point.
Posted on 2004-04-19 12:28:26 by QvasiModo
QvasiModo, sorry, but I meant this aimed at the first post. Even though it is linear I do believe it is a good starting point for most people to understand what is wrong with general public view being pimped by the media. I agree with your point.
Posted on 2004-04-19 13:08:41 by bitRAKE
Well, most of that information\propaganda I've heard over the past few months via Fox talk radio. Some of it may not be 100% reality, but most stuff they cover eventually makes it into main stream media.

Drums being washed out with gas and other chemicals is a method used to clean containers. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030304-chem-weapons01.htm

I was refering to the missile launchers that were used at the beginning of the 2003 war.

I hear there are enough oil reserves under the Caspian sea basin alone to meet the demands of the entire world for over two decades.

There are so many spins on current events that almost any issue can be shaped into something for or against the U.S. led liberation of Iraq.
Posted on 2004-04-19 21:19:28 by Masmer
Anthrax spores, however, are tougher than that. They can be destroyed with formaldehyde or high heat if they haven't been released into the environment, Jones said. Once out, they can linger for years.


They can be destroyed, the evidence is still there and you can still tell that anthrax was once in the containers.

If the United States invades, Williams wants the military to avoid burning Iraqi chemical weapons and instead neutralize them, building special facilities if necessary.


Yes, they seem very confident that it will neutralize the agent, that does not mean that it destroys all trace of the element. "washing them out with gas" is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The firms that are used to destroy these things in the US are using extremely high temperature furnaces and they cannot even guarantee 100% neutralization. This is not to say complete destruction of the component parts, they can't even say that it will be 100% safe.

Elsewhere, the military has opted for incineration. Another new, Bechtel-built plant, at the Anniston Army Depot in eastern Alabama, has furnaces burning as hot as 2,000 degrees.

It can destroy mustard agent as well as the deadly nerve agents VX and Sarin, Mahall said, with the furnace exhaust scrubbed to remove residue. The plant has not yet started operation


Yeah sure, pouring in a couple of gallons of gas is the same, should work :rolleyes:
Posted on 2004-04-19 22:26:58 by donkey
Yeah, Saddam probably didn't use gasoline to scrub out anything deadly. And no doubt residue would be detected if such simple disposal means were taken. Perhaps the report I heard was actually a ruse used by Saddam to waste our time. But I see your point.

This is an interesting new development I heard on the radio this morning and covered on this website: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45969 Massive explosive bomb with Sarin gas plot against Jordan uncovered. Please read it if interested.
Posted on 2004-04-20 04:25:10 by Masmer
Hi Masmer,

Talk about twisting the facts. That is the worst job of misreporting I have ever seen. It makes it look as if David Kay believes that there were WMD in Iraq :grin: What a load of crap ! David Kay has been attacked by the White House for saying that he no longer thinks that there were any at all, and he publicly said it before that article is dated :

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1615880.html

He actually resigned his post and his final report in March specifically addresses the issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html

Who writes that news ? The ten year old across the street has better sources and more journalistic integrity than that load of crap.This is just about as reliable as that source of news but at least I know it's bullshit..

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/013004.asp

I guess I should mention that I always believed that there were WMD but seriously, the evidence is in and there were none. I was duped by the Bush propaganda machine. I was against the war but supported it once the troops were on the ground because then there is no longer a choice, you have to finish the job. Not as tacit support for Bush or his regime, but as support for the soldiers who I rabidly defend against the idiots who try to insult them, be they American, British, or even Iraqi. I was always worried about it diverting attention away from the real threat, terrorists and have said that since before it started, not as some johnny-come-lately. I have always said that Saddam had to go but it was a job for his neighbours and there is no reason that Americans should have to die to do the job for them.
Posted on 2004-04-20 10:01:59 by donkey
Is CNN more to your liking? (Note no mention of WMD.)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/14/jodan.attack/index.html
Posted on 2004-04-20 12:42:58 by Masmer
It is very hard to believe that WMD could have been moved to another country before the war started? Maybe taking Iraq was strategic for mounting operations against terrorists in Arab countries in the surrounding area?

It looks like other Arab countries in the region (like Jordan) will have to be dealing with terrorist attacks in their own country, such as Saudi Arabia has supposedly been doing. Iraq itself is and will continue to be the target of terrorism for perhaps many years. The U.S. is going to have to pull out their troops at some point. The war is nowhere near over as our enemies are busy. At least President Bush hasn't attacked Syria or Iran (yet?). China may invade Taiwan soon anyway.

Even the insects are attacking us: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/18/baghdad.boil.ap/index.html

I know that the preemptive strike against Iraq without U.N. approval (thus the rest of the civilized world) was not the best thing to do. Saddam had billions (USD) in kickbacks from the "Oil for Food" scam and while building all his palaces, had enough left over for other projects besides helping his people (die). <g>
Posted on 2004-04-20 13:18:45 by Masmer
Exactly my point Masmer, the terrorists are still operating and still transporting their weapons and they are NOT coming from Iraq, they never have. That was just more misrepresentation of the facts from the Bush Whitehouse, the arms are coming from the exact places where everyone said they were. Syria and Afghanistan and Iran were the biggest suppliers and the biggest threats but they don'thave a hell of a lot of oil and are not the target of a Bush family obsession. Instead of being targets in Iraq the soldiers could have been destroying Al-Qaida instead of moving the focus just as they were beginning to make progress and letting them slip away.

There was an operative in the FBI (John O'Neil) just before 9/11 who warned that the attack was coming and was told to shut up about it and eventually was pushed out. He was adamant that it would be on American soil and do you know where he was on 9/11 ? He was in the world trade center working as their security cheif because that was where he thought the attack was coming. The same thing is happening again, for political expediency they have let the real enemy get away in order to sate the obssession that Bush has over Iraq.
Posted on 2004-04-20 13:28:29 by donkey
Hi,

Yeah, the Clinton\Bush administration knew some form of attack somewhere in the U.S. from Al-Qaida was emminant. The WTC was a likely target again among many others. John O'Neil's hunches about another attack at the WTC panned out.

OK. Saddam Hussien may not have bought any WMD like chemical weapons, despite his over flowing pockets and his past use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurd uprising, playing with weapon inspectors and then claiming he would use them against us if an invasion took place. Saddam was an evil dictator with deep pockets who probably would help those who would strike against "The Great Satan". Our intelligence sources at the time were sure Saddam had WMD and it wouldn't have been hard to get rid of them quickly.

Someday, if victory is ever achieved and the Middle East is defanged of radical Islam, history will record that the invasion and control of Iraq was a necessary step for the welfare of world peace. Despite all the coalition soldiers that will continue to die fighting Syrian, Iranian and Iraqi terrorists in Iraq. I know you probably don't take this view and I'm not saying that anything you said is wrong. I'm just defending some of my points you challenge and expressing my own beliefs.

At least the Patriot Act among others is helping protect us here in the U.S. Not that another major terrorist attack won't happen in the U.S. as we also have our own sickos to deal with as well. At least we don't need our soliders to guard all our borders and ship\air ports (yet). I can't wait to get this election process over with, so we can better focus on fighting terrorism instead of amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, I fear what the terrorists are plotting.
Posted on 2004-04-20 14:29:52 by Masmer
At least the Patriot Act among others is helping protect us here in the U.S.


The Patriot Act is the worst abomination ever perpetrated on the American people. It does nothing to protect you and is an insult to the founding fathers vision of a free country where individual rights were paramount and protected. In the 9/11 hearings J. Cofer Black said there was only one reason that they failed, money, it was not that they did not have the authority or the mandate, it was that they were strangled by the bean counters. The patriot act is the souse that the administration has given to the baby to appease him make it look like they are "on top of it". It has not stopped anything and never will, except perhaps to stop any illusions that America, once the great hope of the world and the light of freedom in the darkness has fallen and pissed away everything generations have fought and died for out of fear.
Posted on 2004-04-20 15:12:39 by donkey
So how do you suggest we protect America? You don't want us fighting against them overseas. You don't want the government to have the ability to "spy" on people up to no good. I don't have anything to hide. I'd rather feel safer knowing we are supposedly taking steps to prevent the next major terrorist attack then ignore it.
Posted on 2004-04-20 15:47:10 by Masmer

So how do you suggest we protect America? You don't want us fighting against them overseas. You don't want the government to have the ability to "spy" on people up to no good. I don't have anything to hide. I'd rather feel safer knowing we are supposedly taking steps to prevent the next major terrorist attack then ignore it.


Where did I say not to fight them overseas. I just said fight the real enemy and take it right to their home and shove it down their throats. I have no problem with this. I specifically said several times in this thread that Iraq was distracting attention and diverting resources from the real war in Afghanistan. I have said on several occasions that I think we should hunt down and kill the terrorists. But that aside there is no need to remove freedoms in order to fight them at home, just give the CIA the money it needs, they don't need any more power or any more authority they just need the funds. Tell the ambassadors and diplomats to let them conduct their investigations, John O'Neil was mainly stopped by the US ambassador to Yemen who didn't want to rock the boat.

Yes, you would rather feel safer, I am absolutely sure that there are many in Russia who are saying the same thing about the former Soviet government. It still doesn't make the policy right, freedom has its price, people understood that once, not anymore. Now they just hide in their shell and let the government strip away what their fathers have spilled rivers of blood buying for them and suck their thumbs.

Posted on 2004-04-20 16:36:32 by donkey