George W. Bush has the reputation to be a secret-monger, but sometimes you only need to LISTEN to him, to find out what he truly has on his mind. In congress he recently has said: "Today is the beginning of a process..." He couldnt make himself more clear than that! With his speech in front of the congress members he had started the countdown, which end shall be the end of Saddam Hussein.
I have no doubt about two things: Nothing will change his mind. And he will realize his plan quicker than most allies or enemies will appreciate-- no matter if they sit in Berlin or Bagdad. The ideal for Bush would be the following situation: The next State of the Union Speech in January, and a new leader from Bagdad on the guest tribune, same place where afghan president Hamid Karsai was sitting a year before. The perfect scenario, and a logical step.
Bush is using the international criticizm for his advantage. He is following a particular and clever strategy. The first step was the meeting with senators and congress members and his promise, to ask for the permission of the congress to strike against iraq when the time is right. That way he fulfilled the most important demand of his inner-political opponents.
The second step will follow this weekend, when Bush will brief Britains premier Tony Blair in Camp David. Shortly after that he will inform the leaders of the five permanent member-countries of the UN-security-council and other partners, who are all waiting anxiously for proof which would justify an attack against Saddam. To be consulted - that was the most important demand of the European critics. Consider it fulfilled as well.
Step three is planned for next thursday, when Bush will speak in front of the United Nations. Allegedly Bush still doesnt know all the details of his speech yet. But it is quite likely that he will agree to send UN-inspectors to iraq one last time. That was the most important demand by the UN, consider it fulfilled as well. However, the conditions for the inspections will be formulated by the US. They will, as Donald Rumsfeld recently pointed out not without sarcasm, be so hard and tough for Saddam to accept that Bagdad HAS to refuse them if they dont want to loose the last piece of their self-respect.
Then the US get what they want: The reason to strike! A reason which all critics in the middle east, China and Russia would accept. If the non-american allies dont have another option of how to solve the problem, of how to get the inspectors back in the country. They dont have that, so George W Bush will finish off, what he had long on his mind. He never made a secret out of it, after all...

TRUTH has allways been in front of the eyes of those who don't fear...Don't Fear.

All that is being done in the present has allways been known being handed to us all within the Biblical Coding "between the lines". We have a choice to LIVE in FEAR or to LIVE with FREEDOM "state of mind, body & spirit" of knowing what TRUE freedom is...that being...who u are created by the creator in LOVE...DON'T FEAR GOD is everywhere. It doesnt matter what war is NOW there has allways been war in heaven from bad to good to good to bad and visa versa...the PROMISE, however, is the truth... Believe in the son, who was given by the father for our redemption of the acts for which we have done to one another and give up our transgressions and sufferings to GOD...thru the ways of the son (follow the ways of the son) all is forgiven and all is redeemed...and U live eternally. Whatever man creates on earth, remember Heaven watches and GOD being the father knows all and will give us the road to victory no matter what country you are in...GOD created us GLOBALLY not CONTINENTALLY and FREEDOM is thru GOD and man is not GOD but is a part of what GOD has created and that which allways has been and allways will be which is LOVE...remember this no matter what happens...ALL IS LOVE...with GOD (in the name of the father, in the name of the son)...there is LOVE for everyone.

thank u.

with love honor and respect

SingMia~Arjuna

It looks like war with Iraq is inevitable. Bush is going to fight his war alone, because no other nation is with him on this.

Lleena said:

I just wonder who's gonna pay for it. That war will cost the US 100 billion dollars. The one in 1991 cost 60 billion, many countries helped out with cash. Still Bush senior lead the country into recession through that war. This time Bush junior is all alone - so far. Germany wont give a single dollar for sure. The recession to come might be a bigger one as a result. There's only one way to make up for that: The US will have to get their hands on ALL of Saddams oil reserves.

Now I am really scared!

The war will also cost in lost lives, and no amount of oil can compensate for losing a loved one.

Lleena said:

which will then creat a much bigger hatred towards our country...Great thinking there Bush!! All for REVENGE!! REVENGE FOR SEPT 11th!!!


damn, lets give this man a talk show...and give the presidency to Oprah.

SkletonKee said:

Or to Dr. Bill!

its all in the sig

Who the hell gave USA the right to take out Iraq's air defence bases?

NuPwrSoul said:

I Feel You...
but all you people who drive...
Do you think that way when you pull up to the pump and THE NEW PRICE is $2.10.99gl
really, the thing is if the man don't do his thing, HE WILL MAKE US PAY...
he promised his folks the would make MONEY
BY HOOK OR BY CROOK!!!
and that's what he gonna do.
i cry more for AMERICAN BABIES than i ever have for any others, because those are all i see.
i dont wish to see any child in jepardy, but the days of SAFE HAVEN have nver been, nor will they ever be...

Bush is using this war as his re-election strategy.He wants Americans to focus on the war,so they will forget all about the failing U.S. economy,high unemployment and the many corporate scandals surrounding him and the Vice-President.September 11 convinced him that,in times of national tragedy,his ratings will inevitably go up.Let's hope that people wake up and realize what his REAL motivation is.

DavidEye said:

This is my take on it, too. He's doing this to garner votes for Republicans in the House and Senate, whose balance may shift either way this November.
Also, because there is a consensus that Bush Sr didn't finish the job in '91, and Bush Jr has repeatedly said he wants to oust Saddam, Ol W has backed himself into a corner on this one. It's the "I've said it, now i've got to do it or appear soft"-sort of macho mentality Americans eat up like crack on a stick at the State Fair.

Iraq has made it clear that any inspections should lead to lifting embargos on Iraq if they come up clear(the trade embargos have kept the Iraqis very poor since 91). As is, the US--thru the UN--won't allow that, and Iraq will then reject them, appearing to be hiding something.

All hail The Commander In Thief!! Another war to start when they haven't gotten Osama yet. What will be the end result of this other than more death and destruction?

According to my gifted friend, Soulpower (I'm starting to like you, man), it seems we should take pity on poor Saddam Hussein. Apparently, the future terms of the return of UN weapons inspections will be too much for Saddam's "self respect" to bear. For this reason, he'll refuse to allow the weapons inspections, and we'll get our secret wish to invade. According to the most cynical here, the whole point of invading is to satisfy some sort of blood-lust that is intrinsic to most Americans.

Enter George Bush (hell, he has very few friends on the org - and don't anyone dare suggest that I'm in his corner! He's a friggin' idiot). Acording to the analysts here at P.org, he's going to start a new "war" with Iraq, not because he's obsessed with the potential threats associated with the development of a nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal by his nemesis Saddam Hussein, but he'll do it to bolster support for his cronies at the polls.

It seems he didn't get a big enough political boost from his other violent campaigns - especially the one where he either "planned" or "allowed" the Sept 11 attacks so that he could come out swinging and show all of his naysayers just how bad-assed he really is!

As many acknowledge here at the org, we're actually already at war. I'm not talking about the dismembering of the beloved Taliban in Afghanistan, I'm referring to the response that we, as Americans, have pledged to the rest of the civilized world: that we will wage war with terrorists and those who support them.

To the extent that Iraq (Saddam Hussein) supports the Al Qaeda network, he may be our next target. I do feel that this administration needs to do a vastly better job of communicating the evidence for his regime's terrorist links, and if the evidence is compelling, then I stand in support of removing him from the face of the Earth.

My bottom line: they picked a fight with the wrong country. We will defend ourselves - relentlessly. To anyone who would "justify" or somehow say we "deserved" the inhuman attacks of September 11 - I say you are my enemy. The attack against civilians, using civilian aircraft as suicide weapons of mass destruction, was wrong, very wrong. In my view, short of prior campaigns of genocide, this was the most atrocious, destabilizing act of human cruelty in history.

TheMax said:

No max, the whole point is the lust of Bush and co to control the region and its RICH OIL resources. That is not "intrinsic to most Americans". You are accusing others of saying things that have never been said. When you do that you start to look an awfull lot like your administration and that "friggin idiot Bush", as you yourself so eloquently call him.
In theyes of Bush and Rice, rumsfeld and Cheny, Perle and all the other neo-conserbative hawks, "terrorism" is a threat to the US control of the region and thus the control of its oil. THAT is why Bush and co. will take any reason and turn it into a reason to gain even more control of the oil in the region than they already have..


Then WHY are you supporting his friggin idiotic rethoric? Why are you supporting his frigging idiotic foreign policies? Are you saying that you are a friggin idiot too?



Rule #1 in politics: do not make any statements that your political supporters don't like, unless you have a very good reason to do so. ALL politicians ALWAYS and ONLY talk with elections in the back of their mind. Without political legitimacy you can't stay in power now can you? So what about those 2000 elections? Still think he "won" them by just a couple of hundred votes more than Gore?
...
he STOLE the elctions, America is not a democracy anymore... it is a demo"crazy". You people voted oil executives into the presidential office. The 2000 elections were bought off, better believe that max... The neo-conservatives have been palnning this "war against Iraq" for a long time already... it was just a matter of time to get Clinton out of the White House and put a marionet like Bush in there.



No, it seems he rather hides the corporate scandals of his OIL clan friends, in which he himself and Dick Cheny are heavily involved. The American people will not see what kind of "thief in chief" he really is.
That you still trust your administration is HUGE mystery to me... Then again an easy explanation would be that you must be charmed by the "neo-consrvative" wave rolling over your country. You just love yourself some good old fashioned violent rhetorics don't you max?

At war with "terrorism"...Yes, but how to define "terrorism"? Is it just the grou[ps like AlQaida? No... in Rice's theory it is also the countries who America has had a long history of violent disputes with: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libia.

There was a cease fire agreement between Iraq and the Persian Gulf War allied coalition. Bush sr. could have invaded Bghada, but he didn't...
As a result the war never was really resolved into a complete peace agreement.
Why didn't they want to do that? because this way UN resolutions could be enforced upon Iraq. This way UN inspectors could be forced upon Hussein for as long as nmay be necessary. No flight zpones, for as long as may be necessary. Those are the legal instruments by which the USA was granted CONTROL over Iraq. The economic embargo is the political instrument to make the Iraqy people crawl like beggers in front of your American "moral" superiority. You thought that would cause a revolution against Saddam, but keeping a people poor will not give them enough power to cause a revolution.
America has been vigourously enforcing the embargos for over 10 years... now not caring one bit how many innocent Iraqi children die because of your presidents bullshit.



"the beloved taliban"??? "we Amercians"???
NOBODY here has ever supported the Taliban. You always come out with those under the belt made remarks. YIt jus goes to show that you CAN't properly argue your opinions without sayibng something derogatory about your opposers.

You are always implying that the ones who criticise your oh-so "beloved" government are by definition terrorists supporters. Your allegations are completely unreasonable and a dumb move if you want to keep some friends in the world. Again you frightenly resemble your president.


What America needs to do is PROOVE that he supports them and then you can talk with the rest of the world on how to deal with the problem. Problem is themax... he probably doesn't support Al Qaida, rather he ahtes them as well.

Don't think that just because you are "America" you don't need to comply with international law. You are entitled to no more and no less than any other country.
But the principal of "equality" already was always hypocritacally applied by your country (slavery, Jim Crow) Your foreign policies are full of unequality, now how good does that sound from a country which is so bent up on his principles of 'freedom and equality". You are just hypocrits.



Finally some sense of reson: YES they NEED to show evidence.

But why haven't they done that already???

You don't ask... you don't question your government, you believe all their intentions are "right"...
You don't realise that the Bush administration thinks it doesn't need to proove anything when it comes to terrorism. Just take a look at the thousands of Muslims arrested without any legal grounds in your country after sept. 11. They are still being held captive and nobody knows who they are or where they are!!
You think they are all terrorists? There is no solid proof, but Ashcroft gets away with it regardless. You judge other people anyway, with proof or without it, on the basis of their RELIGIOUS background!!!
You apparently know it all, but don't feel any other person or country has the right not to be held accountable of a crime that hasn't even been committed when there is ONLY a suspicion of terrorist involvement. Who creates that suspicion? Yes, it's that CHRISTIAN fundamentalist called ASHCROFT. I know where he comes from...

Under Ahcroft Muslim people don't have the right to know what they did wrong when HE accuses them of doing "something" wrong. Your government points out MUSLIMS as potential terrists and arrest them for it, BUT they don't have the right to protest on the grounds of the FIRST amendment ...

Did anyone say "America land of the free"???
LIES


The US administration is walking over fundamental principles of law without any form of self restraint. And you go along with them, following BLINDLY.



Not I, nor anybody else here, ever said that the attacks on sep 11 were "justified". They were in my view completely unwarranted and one of the most atrocious acts of aggression in history. Therefore I think the USA has the fullest RIGHT and DUTY to go after TERRORISTS, ... BUT not after innocent people or countries to which not enough evidence exist that they "harbour" or "help" terrorists.
If you take that road you will lose for sure, legally, morally, politically and diplomatically. You want to further broaden the breeding ground of terrorsim? Good luck, you are on the right way with Dubbya as your president.

And I am saying that if Bush doesn't come with hard evidence and doesn't involve the UN in its plans to invade Iraq he will be acting illegaly, because it is NOT "justified" and a country can NOT invade another country justy because it "feels" threatened.

It will just be another bad illegal move from your "thief in chief".

Abrazo tried

to say:

I am pleased to report that you now sound like a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein. Talk about "friggin idiotic rhetoric"!



Gee, and I thought that "terrorism" had more to do with a threat to our national security as evidenced by the latest group of religious an ideologic fanatics who hijacked civilian aircraft and used them as suicide weapons by flying them into our nation's largest buildings. Thanks for the "clarification."



Frankly, you are the one who sounds "crazy." The 2000 election controversy (conspiracy theories about the intent of ballot designers in Florida, the merits and deficencies of the anachronistic Electoral College and why the will of the popular vote doesn't necessarily determine the election outcome, the various ballot recounts, and review of the election by the Supreme Court, etc) has been enthusiastically discussed here before. While I was not personally pleased by the election outcome (see my consistent support for Clinton-Gore policies), the peaceful transition of executive power in the face of a highly contested election was an excellent demonstration of our democracy.



Agreement.



More evidence that people like you harbor the view that Americans have an intrinsic blood-lust or desire for violence.




And Saddam Hussein has defiantly chose to challenge the "no-fly zones" and prevented the UN weapons inspectors from carrying out their mission. Remember their mission - to find and destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and to see that new weapons were not developed. So what action against do you now propose?



Thanks for proving your own point about inserting derogatory comments in your responses to others.



We agree again. But when the evidence is offered, I sense that you're far too skeptical and paranoid to be able to believe any of it. In my opinion, the weapons inspectors should be allowed to return. If they are denied access, I feel that we, preferably the UN, are justified in the use of force against Saddam Hussein.



First of all, I'm not religious. For me, the only thing scarier than a Christian fundamentalist is a member of Al Qaeda. Of course I think it's tragic that people have fallen under suspicion on the basis of ethnicity and religious affiliation. I support expediting the investigation of all who have been detained, expelling any who are in the US illegally, and prosecuting those who can be linked to terrorist activities.

One thing that has been eerily absent in the international debate that has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11: Where are the voices of those 1 billion peace-loving Muslims who should be clamoring to distance themselves from the inhuman policies of the AlQaeda? Where is the repetitive, unqualified condemnation of the September 11 attacks from Islamic countries around the world? The silence has been deafening.



More of those inflammatory comments that you discourage. This entire country is saddened by the loss of freedom that has resulted from the September 11 attacks.



More agreement.



Well, like it or not, that's been the basis for war since the beginning of civilization. Please remember, we don't just "feel" threatened. We were attacked.

Okay Max I let the 'derogatory' statements out. You are right that some of my comments were not necessary, but inflamatory. That you felt the need to inflame back at me again I will ignore just for the sake of civilized discussion. I nevertheless feel very offended when I am compared to terrorists, so please know that is where my reaction was strongly influenced by.
You know I thought the same thing as you, that is untill Bush dropped the worldwide coalition against terrorism. A coalition carefully and well crafted mainly by Powell. When Bush decided he didn't need no more support and thought he could also go alone was when he released his axis of evil doctrine. That was when I started to get really suspicious about the agenda Bush is pushing BESIDES the war on terrorism. You know Max, politicians always have a different agenda they aren't telling the public.
And you know that presidents with close ties to oil will serve the interests of the ones who put them there.


Max a "peacefull" transition does not yet make it a "democratic" transition.
you know ...in this respect, my country has recently, for the first time in its history, experienced a political assasination RIGHT BEFORE the parliamentary elections that form a new parliament and administration. Pim Fortuyn, the man shot had a big chance of becoming the new prime minister. Now that is 'only' the Netherlands. You do know the history of your country and the enormous amount of power it offers to politicians, so I think you should know how much some people will do in America to reach their political goals. assisanations are not foreign to american politics... not "foreign" at all.

It was Supreme Court conservative hawk mr. Scalia who suppported the case that ultimately Americans (the 1st democracy in the world) do NOT have the right of suffrage in the election of the president, rather it is the electoral college that has that ultimate right. Never mind that the electoral college so far only existed on paper it will be used when necessary.
By taking this approach they could basically ignore the countles problems and reports of serious irregularities during the voting in Florida. Ignore these serious problems on the basis of a system only existing on a 18th century paper when almost everything that could go wrong went wrong... Now what was the American public going to do max?


Agreed, but he has done that before and always did the inspectors get back in without the need for war. Moreover some of them have stated with certainty that Iraq does not pose a threat in this respect anymore.


That Bush finally backs up his allegations with solid evidence. If he says he has it, he has to show it in order to convince the world of the need of action. Since he has recently finally said he is going to do that I will have to wait and see what he comes up with before I can really make an opinion on what the response should be. If Bush can make it clear without a doubt that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction, an SC resolution must be adopted instantly ordering Iraq to let inspectors in, on immediate terms, to destroy the means of development, on the penalty of airstrikes which can only involve an invasion if the strikes are not effective, i.e. if the effect is not that the inspectors can do their job to dismantle the weapons and their means of production.
An invasion is still several cautious steps a way from that moment and that is what this process needs: caution.


Then what do you think about the ear deafening silence the USA has offered the palestinian people for DECADES?

I think many people in the world including many Muslims genuily felt deeply saddened by sept 11. If only by the shere atrocity of them. The entire western world felt the shock and horror too, in that respect you are certainly not alone.
The WTC towers also were not inhabited only by Americans, tho' Americans never seem to mention that fact.
I think the huge international support your country got after the attacks was however seriously hindered after Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech... something started to sound really fishy then...
Because whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Bush swore to get him... "dead or alive"... he hasn't, but he already picked his next fight... howveer now it is not with a terrorist organization, but with a country it has been at war with. Things just aren't right Max... not from the side of dictators like Saddam in Iraq, but neither from the side of Bush.





I remember.
And I also remember that you were not attacked by Iraq, but by Al Qaida. Two different things do not suddenly become one thing, unless you make them. That is what, in my view, Bush is doing right now.


No, I will not be sceptical and certainly not paranoid about it, if what he shows is solid. The fact tho' that we haven't even been offered one little piece of evidence is the first problem. Especially since we have heard important (American) politicians and advisers, countless of governments in the world and several former weapon inspectors strongly contradicting Bush's allegations and repeatedly calling for reconsideration.

Abrazo, I'm beginning to like you too.

TheMax said:

Thanx for the love, max, its highly appreciated. But now about the controversial content of your post. Abrazo has already analyzed it pretty well and respectful, there's little to add. However, since yiu wanna make me, a critic of your country's foreign politics, a friend of Saddam Hussein, I'd like to say a few things. First, your behaviour is very much the one of your friend Mr Bush (you say you dont like him, but somehow you think much like him). And that is your categorizing in black and white. If I am not a friend of your government, you think, I shall be the enemy of your government, ergo I am the friend of Saddam. Thats a very narrowminded and ignorant view, sorry. I have never at no point shown any sympathy with Saddam. He is a cruel dictator, no doubt. However, there's many cruel dictators in this world max, and many have been installed by yourgovernment. Saddam has - since you are tempted to make him the big enemy of your country - never threatened the USA. He has never even attacked Israel out of his own motivation, a country which is just around the corner (with the exception of a few shot missles during Gulf war 1).
I dont need to argue that Saddam is bad for his people. But he is the ONLY factor of stability the region has to offer. With him gone, it will go up in flames. Unfortunately, the US have no plan for a post-saddam-regime in iraq. there's not even ideas. second point: there is no link of saddam to al quaida. this past weekend your vice president stated that 9/11 organizer mohammed atta had direct contact with saddam. he said it bluntly, with nothing to prove this, with the intent of justifying an attack with the idea that saddam was somehow even responsible for 9/11. I thought Dick would be smarter than that. I have investigated the life of atta into the last detail, since 9/11 was planned and organized fom germany. atta has never been to iraq, and that is what the secret service an intelligence of the US and Germany believe also. they are just trying to construct more and more reasons to justify an attack. very simpleminded, who might believe that crap? well, there's enough people, like you.

I got into an in-depth conversation about this with my father over the weekend. I'm not sure where I stand now.

He told me that there are videos of meetings with Sadaam and if anyone voices their opinion that is not like his they are executed. These tapes showed Sadaams soldiers come in and take the men who disagreed with him out of the meeting and they were never seen again. You can't even look at him the wrong way or you will be executed. He kills his own people and doesn't care. His country is so poor, yet he is so rich.

We could have stopped Bin Laden if Clinton did something about it. But people were too scared. Now look what happend. What if we're too late and Sadaam launches a nuclear missle? It takes one or 2 of those bombs to destroy the world. If we see one coming our way, we launch our bombs. Bye bye everyone.

Like I said, I'm not sure where I stand with this now. I hope Bush can come up with some hardcore evidence that will change people's minds and support him. War sucks either way, but if Sadaam isn't doing anything wrong why won't he let anybody in to see what he's up to?

CarrieLee said:

I understand your confusion. however, Saddam is one of about 40 dictators who are currently in power worldwide, using vilolence to keep their power. Many of them, as I said before, installed by the US. After all, Saddam used to be Americas friend in the war against Iran. He was no different back then, but he was feeding America's needs. now that he served his purpose, your country wants to start a war, which will guarantee the death of at least 150,000 soldiers and probably more innocent civilians - the victims of more connected conflicts not included.
the US media in the next 2 months will show you lots of material on saddam, propaganda material so you start hating the man. some material will be true, some will be made up.
I wonder my America doesnt to anything about President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, no less evil than saddam? there's many more examples...
it will be up to you to decide where you stand. just make sure you keep a clear head. dont believe the hype, think, read in between the lines... good luck!

CarrieLee said:

That is how dictatorships function, don't argue with the leader. And his people may be very poor and he very rich but !) they are not only kept poor by Saddam himself, but especially by the brutal economic embargo the USA has supported vigurously for more than 10 years now. Many, many innocent died because of this. Lastly it was the USA who put Saddam in power... as a dictator... when they could use it.


How do you suppose? And don't you know that Bush sr could have gotten Saddam during the Gulf war?... he didn't, but let the dictator he now hates stay in his palaces, still killing his own people.



Saddam has been complying for more than a decade now while his economy and his people are heavily suffering under all the sanctions. Legally he has always resisted because Iraq is still a souvereign nation.
Imagine this: If other countries would only accuse the USA of developing illegal weapons, would they have the right to send in inspectors or even attack the USA when Bush denies acces? ... of course not... you will say that America is a souvereign nation and that no other nation has the right to breach its souvereignity. Same case with Iraq, only difference is that Iraq signed a cease fire agreement after the Gulf war which obligates them to respect UN inspections. Then they dispute the terms of the obligations when the situation has changed again. Whenever they showed the inspectors that weapons were not being developed they argued that the sanctions must be terminated. Nothing like ever happened tho', because the USA holds on to the sanctions as much as they can, keeping the people poor and ultimately causing many people, especially children to die of famine and disease.

-
[This message was edited Mon Sep 9 10:36:56 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

TheMax said:

Okay then max, however... Does that mean that you agree with my statements or that you just "like" me for a different reason?

soulpower said:

It is sooo confusing. I am trying to read between the lines. I consider these video tapes to be hard evidence, and someone that can kill their own people for simply just disagreeing with them is seriously fucked up. And therefor it scares me to think that he is hiding nuclear weapons.

The thing that saddens me the most is that all of this is giving America a bad name. We're not all evil, we're not all vain, we're not all rich spoiled assholes that don't give a shit about anybody but ourselves. There is a lot of good here, you just don't hear about it.

CarrieLee I suggest we send an e-mail to the Arabs, and Saddam asking them to log on to Prince Org and see all of the wonderful Americans that post!

sag10 said:

Yeah right! They'll blast that bomb sooner than you think!

CarrieLee said:

Nobody is saying that you are all evil. in vain, spoiled assholes. that would be like dictating that all of iraq is evil, brutal and killing. I know about the good, the positive. this is not about pointing with the finger at the US, its about reasonable critizism. you have a government which is deciding over your people's interest. theres no reason to be confused. stand up, be different, be one of the many beuatiful people in your country. you can be sure that you are not alone, that there's many who are not willing to put up with the shit your government lays on you. after all, you still consider yourself a democrazy, right?

Sign O' The Times...2-0-0-0 came, and gone, party almost over, we almost outa time.