Current Affairs

[Tales from Tanelorn]

I finally figured out why they were looking so carefully in Saddam's mouth and down his throat...its those WMD, they have to be somewhere right?
Seriously, do they think that humiliating Saddam on TV in front of the world is going to help get world opinion on their side or help reduce terrorism?

Well we are rid of Saddam, next it is time to get rid of those who think that telling lies to go to war is the correct thing to do in the 21st century. If they can tell lies this easy about something this important then how can we trust them about anything at all? When is someone going to take Bush and his cronies to task about the lies?

http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush

No more imperialism, no more dangerous politicians. Lets all start learning to live together on this planet of ours before we really do snuff ourselves out.

All best
CMO

[Michael Moorcock]

I think it was probably a mistake for Saddam to disguise himself as Castro,
but there you go. I can see their point about needing to show that Sad was
in pokey, but I don't think THEY think it's going to make a lot of difference to the situation. I suspect there are people now in the White House who actually desire more conflict, especially from that area of the world. It's a very unhappy situation at the moment. I can only hope that the ordinary realities will kick in and that the sane Republicans will do something about their own rogues. I don't think we can expect much from the Democrats at national level. I think we might expect a fair bit at state levels, however.
That's where I'm putting my faith in American sanity.

[Tales from Tanelorn]

Saddam first used then discarded

Saddam was first used then discarded by the Christian right of the GOP.
Ending this hypocritical manipulation of other regimes must surely be a step forward towards a safer world and for America to be viewed favourably by the world community.

All Best
CMO



Sunday, December 14th, 2003
We Finally Got Our Frankenstein...and He Was In a Spider Hole! -- by Michael Moore
Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get. America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.
But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.
But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him! We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, click here. We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created. And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983. -Michael Moore

[Tales from Tanelorn]

Warning... Big Brother may be watching

I dont think I believe much of this this, but I think we should be concerned if the government ever behaves like big brother.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/12/prweb95564.htm

Government web sites are used to record the IP addresses of persons visiting them. Those IP addresses are registered and monitored by the government through services provided by World Comm and other major carriers of Internet traffic such as AOL to the US government agencies.

The Internet, originally developed by the US Government, is in reality the largest intelligence gathering information system in the world and has cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

The government has been working hard to spend billions more on homeland security and defense against hackers who are aware that the U.S. government has become the “Big Brother� to the world in the true Orwellian sense, as written in the book by George Orwell titled 1984.

[Anonymous]

Is there anything that is GOOD about the USA??

I would love to put these posts in a time capsule for aliens to find and read. To listen to most of them, it is hard to imagine there is anything GOOD about the USA. The Army finds Saddam, and the US government is BAD becuase the media (who are supposedly independent, neutral sources of information, but you probably have an opinion on that too) show pictures of him with his mouth open. The government helps develop the internet, which just may be the single greatest advancement in the last 50 years, and it is BAD because they track who visits their site(s). Got news for you, from someone who works for a publicly traded company with an extensive web face, MOST websites track their visitors. Isn't new, and isn't exclusive to the government of the US. And it isn't necessarily bad.

In fact, if you are worried about websites tracking you, you are in for a rude awakening. Under certain circumstances, depending where you work and live, your time can be accounted for almost around the clock without you even knowing it.

[Anonymous]

What's good about the USA and most sophisticated democracies is that our right to free speech is preserved. However, because our personal standards are higher, we are right to hold our governments and authorities up for examination. It's worth mentioning, too, that the
US knew where to find Saddam for most of his career. He was usually standing there waiting for his share of our tax dollars. No doubt some of those dollars were discovered with him. Meanwhile it might be worth asking if we have learned the lessons of supporting vicious dictators who appear to be working in our interests ? This was the argument in favour of Hitler and Mussolini, remember ? If we ever DID learn that lesson,
it would be a distinct advance in our development as rational, moral
democracies...

[Jerry Cornelius]

Outer Space

It's worth noting that the outrage expressed by so many viewers at television preemption has more to do with their favorite soaps not being broadcast than having their freedom of speech suspended.

Excerpt:

TELEVISION ECONOMICS

MUST MERGE TV
Issue: Television Economics
A recent morning in broadcast television...September 21, 1998: CBS and ABC were forced to preempt their regular profitable programming to keep up with cable channels that aired the videotaped testimony of President Clinton before the Lewinsky grand jury. CNN lost because its audience was divided up even more and CBS lost a quarter of a million dollars airing something that added nothing but redundancy. Despite the resistance caused by TV executive egos, why should CBS and CNN merge? 1) Broadcast news looses money. Magazine shows like 48 Hours, Dateline and 20/20 are the news formats that are profitable. CBS News loses about $70 million a year according to a senior executive. 2) 24-hour cable news can make money. This is a lesson that NBC and Fox have learned, evident in their creations of MSNBC and Fox News. 3) CNN in the US is steadily losing money. According to Neilson Media Research, from 1995-96, 71% of the cable news audience watched CNN. In 1998, this percentage was split among competing cable channels: 48% watched CNN, 46% tuned to MSNBC and 6% watched Fox. 4) Appointment television hasn't been working for CNN. Programs that audiences make it a point to watch have been attempted, such as NewStand, but the only one really working for CNN is Larry King Live, with an averaged viewership of 1.3 million households in 1998. 5) NBC's broadcast/cable model has been a success. The NBC/MSNBC team is able to have star appeal on both channels and are able to self-promote on a broader stage. 6) Broadcast is the platform CNN needs. Adding a Dan Rather news show at 8PM would undoubtedly increase CNN's current news hour, the article says. 7) Money-losing news isn't likely to be tolerated much longer. It used to be tolerated because it was considered, "public interest television" and kept federal regulators happy. But now, "Washington is relatively sanguine about broadcasters' public-interest obligations in a world of infinite cable and Internet news alternatives," Brill writes. The article proposes that CNN buy CBS News and have the programming stay the same for the next 20 years, only it would be called CNNCBS. One of the biggest objections to a merger would be from CBS affiliates. They would be forced to promote CNN, their competition. On the other hand, the affiliates would have the strengthened news channel and become "priority recipients of the news service that CNN now provides to local TV outlets across the country." As far as ego problems, Ted Turner of CNN parent company Time Warner would be able to bolster his failing CNN and CBS Chief Executive Mel Karmazin, would not be likely to be too attached to CBS News in light of the financial potential of merging.
[SOURCE: Brill's Content, Feb. 1999 (p. 85), AUTHOR: Steven Brill]

Source: Benton Foundation
URL: http://www.benton.org/news/extra/broad020999.html

And like the virulent spam that it is, behold The Internet's most useless document:

Source: CNN
URL: http://www.cnn.com/starr.report/

Don't participate and you get what you deserve.

[Anonymous]

How Free, How Much Speech ?

>Subject: Quarantining Dissent
>
Of course, there's free speech and there's free speech.
Interesting to see how, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which on paper had one of the best constitutions around, we are managing to
make free speech into a crime against the state.
Take a look at this:


>Quarantining dissent
>How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech
>
>James Bovard
>Sunday, January 4, 2004 (c)2004 San Francisco Chronicle
>URL:sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/
>INGPQ40MB81.DT
>L
>
>When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret
>Service
>visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up
>"free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush
>policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined.
>These
>zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight
>and outside the view of media covering the event.
>
>When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old
>retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign
>proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so
>many of us."
>
>The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated
>free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence
>a
>third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.
>
>The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but
>folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path.
>Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for
>disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.
>
>Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a
>free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who
>criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."
>
>At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the
>Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there
>making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in
>a
>so-called free- speech area.
>
>Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police
>Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site
>survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like
>to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "
>
>Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the
>disorderly
>conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America.
>Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the
>death your right to say it'?"
>
>Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A
>recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at
>Legends
>Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers --
>were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside
>the
>designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when
>Bush
>came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned
>off
>into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."
>
>One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign,
>"War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with
>trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."
>
>Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St.
>Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying
>signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively
>quarantined.
>
>Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern
>Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In
>addition,
>the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow
>any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the
>protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."
>
>When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains
>and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest
>area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her
>crying daughter away in separate squad cars.
>
>The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was
>arrested
>for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C.
>Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a
>"free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was
>standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president.
>Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."
>
>Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police
>officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's
>the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he
>had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak.
>Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept
>moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."
>
>Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was
>dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for
>trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the
>person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in,
>charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding
>"entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."
>
>If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000
>fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a
>jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense.
>Some
>observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a
>conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used
>against protesters nationwide.
>
>Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the
>Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official
>policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The
>Bush
>administration sought to block all access to the documents, but
>Marchant
>ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.
>
>Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and
>presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts
>declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the
>decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused,
>however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel
>testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech
>zone" but refused to cooperate.
>
>The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters.
>Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio,
>"These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their
>support
>or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade
>route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these
>places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech,
>but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end
>of
>the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their
>constitutional rights shredded.
>
>The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret
>Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing
>protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut,
>Michigan,
>New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak
>said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't
>pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."
>
>The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is
>ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to
>carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much
>closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs
>-- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because
>potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that
>terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal
>bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.
>
>The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for
>two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech,
>resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free
>countries.
>
>When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist
>Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a
>new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush
>and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to
>speak
>as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."
>
>Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament
>building and prohibited from using any public address system in the
>area.
>
>For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that
>British
>police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and
>impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil
>disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's
>Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush
>administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from
>protesters' messages.
>
>Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying
>himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at
>Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and
>declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom
>brings."
>
>Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the
>Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police
>departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential
>terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security
>Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on
>anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S.
>government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of
>Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.
>
>Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during
>demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.
>
>One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest
>occurred when local police and the federally funded California
>Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful
>protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a
>number of people.
>
>When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van
>Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information
>Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link
>that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause
>that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have
>terrorism at that protest You can almost argue that a protest against
>that is a terrorist act."
>
>Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard
>terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic
>impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic
>impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."
>
>Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush
>administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of
>nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local
>police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.
>
>On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI
>surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One
>FBI
>internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews
>with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will
>enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service
>to
>get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."
>
>The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the
>FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented
>because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate
>commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate
>report.
>
>On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance
>of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by
>extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal
>law
>enforcement official.
>
>Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the
>past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who
>falls into official disfavor.
>
>James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism &Tyranny: Trampling Freedom,
>Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is adapted
>from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American
>Conservative.

[Anonymous]

My point exactly... kind of

I don't know if "Guest" no. 1 is the same as "Guest" no. 2, but I am responding to both together.

"Free speech" is a wonderful concept, and arguably it is the first of the amendments for a very specific reason: it is the most important, and leads to many of the remaining amendments. But, like Sean Penn, Natalie Maines, and several others have found out, it does not mean you can say any thing at any time in any place. There are restrictions, and quite significant ones at that. Nor does the amendment guarantee speech with absolutely no consequence.

I can't say I am fully in favor of the development of "free speech zones", but it is absolutely legal, and not without significant precedent. For examples, I can cite limitations on campaigning adjacent to voting booths, statues and regulations dictating where pornographic materials can be bought or viewed, and specific administrative requirements for parades or other political rallies. Further, Bush would not be the first President (of either party) to be the recipient of such treatment.

It is very convenient and easy to criticize the government for its past alliances but much harder to answer this question: "What, without the benefit of ANY hindsight, is the best decision to protect the lives of 275 million Americans as well as 6 billion human beings?" I abhor bin Laden and all he stands for, and in hindsight there was a better answer, but supplying him with low grade, almost obsolete weapons to provide support in the battle against our greatest threat (at the time) isn't as ludicrous as the emotions of 9-11 have made it out to be. A similar argument can be made involving Hussein.

I absolutely agree with the concept of holding our government up to the cold light of day and I do think we should be using a higher standard to judge it by. But I do believe that there has to be some context, and some understanding of the rationale and basis for the decisions made and the steps taken by our leaders. We have tilted off the axis somewhere to the point where we judge our President by whether we think he is "smart" or not based in large part on skits on a late night comedy show rather than by whether he actually does what he says he is going to do (and more importantly, whether he is truthful in what he says).

Further, if we really believe that we should be holding our leaders to a higher standard, we are not doing too good a job of that; our previous President committed a felony. Admitted to it. A felony is by definition a crime with a possible penalty of longer than one year in jail. How much jail time did Mr. Clinton get? Just to show this is not partisan, how much will John Rowland, Republican Governor from Connecticut, get for the same crime?

The bottom line in much of politics today is simply that we as individuals and as political parties like the system when the system gives us the answer we like. And when it doesn't, we blame. Did Bush set up the electoral college? Nope. Did he do anything to influence or change the process? Nope. But there are many who still believe he "stole" the election. Gore was so hungry to be President, and came so close, I am reminded of the quote "Sadder still to watch it die then never to have known it". If it weren't the swing state, we never would have heard two words about the Florida voting process. Did Bush arm, antagonize, promote or encourage bin Laden in any way? Nope. Did Bush arm, antagonize, promote or encourage Hussien in any way? Nope. But his foreign policy is under fire as a result. My point isn't to say that Bush is blameless, or shouldn't be called to task. My point is that if we are to call him to task we have to understand that politics, especially world politics, don't get answered in nice sound bites, and don't get wrapped up in neat, four-year increments like the latest episode of Friends. Sometimes these events take years, or even decades to play out, and are far, far bigger than one man or even a few men.

[Anonymous]

Saddam and what have you...

I'm slightly confused by the public message both here and in the world at large.
How have we (As a public consensus) come from opposing war, to more or less admitting that his incarceration is a good thing. surely, if you opposed the war, then you object to him being incarcerated?
Personally (though not some bloodthirsty maniac, or any other implication this might cast upon my person) I was all for the war. In fact, I was bemused as to how long it had taken to get to this point. Does nobody remember the Kurds. Has nobody seen the images of what Saddam inflicted upon an entire nation. Mr. Moorcock has frequently drawn our attention to the frank evil of the genocidal campaign of Hitler and his compatriots. So, I find it difficult to understand how anyone who reads his work can justify the cessation of any sort of hostilities, regardless of whether they have begun or not.
Yes, people will die, but that is both the nature of war and the nature of life. Also, we have seen the efficiency of the American and English armed forces, it would all be over soon. I also believe it is unfair on the parents of those soldiers who fell in the brief war, that the cause their childeren fell for should be sullied. Their childeren freed a nation from the grip of a tyrannical dictator.
Though only 15, and thus, still at school, I am well aware of what is going on in the world. And, to be honest, I am both amazed and appalled at the ignorance of some people when they talk about the war and the subsequent after events.
Fine, yes, America armed Saddam. Yes, that was a mistake on a grand scale, yet is that really enough to condemn a country to endless torment at the hands of an uncompromising fiend of a leader?
I believe most fervently, that, foolish, imbecilic and absurd as George Bush may be, it is no reason to sully him for his Father's mistakes. Judge him on his own merits (few as they may well be) not the attitudes, actions and opinions of his genitor.

Also, I really must vent my spleen here about Michael 'Oh I'm so sodding hilarious' Moore. To use this ignorant, overweight fool as a valid political commentator is sacrilidge. Not only is he utterly unfunny (Again, any aspersions cast upon my comprehension of the humour are ridiculous and unfounded) but his views are that of a Drunk one could find in any English pub on a Friday night. Anyone can compose a book based on unfounded allegations, belligerently put across, with humour as subtle as a 5 pound lump hammer, in so primitive a dialect that a 5 year old could read and absorb it. It does not require a great weight of intellect or analytical talent to do waht he odes. The only remarkable thing about Michael Moore is how he sells so many books!

Thank you for getting this far anyone who does so.
Rant over.javascript:emoticon('')
javascript:emoticon('')

[Paul]

I am for a war against America.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not a war lover, I just think that its only fair that we are going after dictators and governments that violate the rights of their own citizens, and people of other nations, that America should be pretty high at the top of the list considering what it has done to South America, South East Asia, and the Middle East over the past fifty years.

The only logical conclusion, by Shrub & Co.'s logic, is the American Government should execute Kissinger and topple itself.

[Michael Moorcock]

One of the problems I have with our policies towards Saddam is that we supported him (and by default supported his treatment of the Kurds).
Not so long ago the British also used gas against the Kurds (who were
generally depicted as being sneaky savages at the time). I am all for realpolitik when it comes to protecting one's countries interests, but I happen to believe something else is going on here and that's an agenda by a bunch of 'neocons', many of them ex-Trots and Commies, who are, as far as I can tell, barking barmy. We have a president who by his own admission never reads anything and relies on these same people for most of his information regarding foreign policy. He's a deeply ignorant man by all the evidence. I happen to be one of those who also doubt he's very smart. Not very smart people are inclined to make more mistakes and to listen to simplified arguements from advisors they can understand. Unsophisticated, untravelled people are also inclined to make very simplistic decisions over foreign policy (cf the Nazis, though I
make no other comparisons) and to attack people they have diminished in their own minds, thus causing their own soldiers considerable hardship and, ultimately, many more deaths to their own citizens (cf Stalingrad).
My main dismay at present is the number of completely unnecessary deaths of civilians and our own people which have occurred as a result of policies which have gained us little or no advantage. Perle, Frumm and Rumsfeld never apper to consider these questions when they argue that the US (or 'Western Democracy') is somehow stronger as a result of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are careless of human life and that makes me deeply suspicious of anything else they argue. A horrible lack of imagination is in play here, at very least.

[Corum]

Visions of Swastikas, Plans for everyone
David Bowie

What ever happened to the concept of non interference?

[Michael Moorcock]

Machiavelli For NeoCons, apparently.
:?

[Anonymous]

Down with Bush!

Is it possible for Bush to lose Texas in
the election?