Should the US seek International approval for Foreign Policy actions?

[BigBadBrian]

John Kerry obviously thinks so. GWB doesn't. Kerry thinks he can bring alienated European "allies" back to the table and possibly help out in Iraq. Discuss.

[Warham]

If Kerry had it his way, when North Korea would be about ready to fire a nuke over here, he'd be trying to go to the UN for the umpteenth time to get a resolution passed, most likely vetoed by the French and Russians.

No thanks.

If North Korea is getting ready to fire off a nuke, I prefer Bush's way. 'Knock it off, or we'll knock you off.'

[Wayne L.]

If John Kerry wants international approval to invade a foreign country for any reason as he said in the presidential debate then he has no right to win the election possibly against George W. Bush or call himself an American.

[FORD]

Bottom line, assholes...

The BCE accused Saddam Hussein of violating a UN resolution, which by it's very definition is the law of an International body. Therefore, such a law is to be enforced by that International body. As it happens, Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, so there's a question of whether he violated the resolution to begin with.

Of course he may have very well violated others. But then, so has Israel and I don't see PNAC pushing to disarm them.

Gee.... go figure :rolleyes:

Cue asslip to come out of his dungeon at PNAC headquarters and call me a "Jewhater".....

[Big Train]

Bottom line, assholes??

Gee, Dickhead, they all DID agree about the use of force in regard to Iraq. He violated international resolutions for 12 fuckin years. Of course, those nations had a stake in keeping him in power, so they liked clintons tough talk, no action policies.

We did not need anyone's ok to go in there and neither does any other country. If there is an issue, conflicts arise, they way it always has and will be. We tried to play the diplomatic game and it failed. Kerry's useless statements hold no water.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Bottom line, assholes...

so there's a question of whether he violated the resolution to begin with.



You're an idiot...

[FORD]

You guys don't get it, do you?

Junior just established a very dangerous precedent. What would happen if China decided that Junior was a maniacal dictator with weapons of mass destruction who needs to be disarmed.

If Junior really felt that Saddam was a threat to the US - or other countries then he should have gone about it the right way, with the majority of the world backing him up. His dad was able to figure that out..

[LoungeMachine]

Here's MY take, and BBB and E can rip me all they want.

Where do we stop?

At the SOTU address the shrub spoke of the Axis of Evil

the OTHER 2 sides of this trifecta HAVE WMD.

Are we now going to invade?

If not, why the double standard?

Why are we such close allies with the Saudis? They aren't exactly beacons of freedom and democracy, AND they support terrorism.

Why are we not going to the UN to disarm NK or Iran?

Again, why the selective double standards??????

Please explain to this Liberal what the litmus test is BEFORE we invade and destroy a country.

[John Ashcroft]

Cause we can't take on all tyrants in the world at this particular time.

We simply need to start at the top and work down.

And Ford, Iraq has been in violation of the cease fire agreement from Gulf War 1 for years. Technically, and accurately, this is simply an extention of Gulf War 1, regardless of U.N. resolutions that have been shit out in the past few years.

Do you know how many U.S. aircraft have been fired upon patrolling the no fly zones established after the first Gulf War? Does that sound like an act of war to you? What if he hit one? What do you think would happen if North Korea took shots at our aircraft patrolling the DMZ?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Cause we can't take on all tyrants in the world at this particular time.

We simply need to start at the top and work down.

?

Gee, silly me.

I thought this was a war on terrorists, not tyrants.

So you are saying it is our mission TO RID THE WORLD OF TYRANTS?

You're an idiot. plain and simple.

Start at the top?

Saddam was THE TOP?????????????????///


ARE YOU FUCKING HIGH?

If you think Saddam was the most dangerous leader in the world, then you're a dolt. Borderline retarded.

mission accomplished my ass

If THIS is how we take out a cluser fuck of a country like Iraq, I cant WAIT to see our plan to invade and disarm N.Korea and Iran.

Get a fucking clue.

This war has NOTHING to do with removing a tyrant.

And to think I once thought you were somewhat bright.

[John Ashcroft]

Dude, calling me an idiot doesn't validate your misguided positions.

Saddam had so many ties to terrorists and terrorism that only a fool would chose to ignore them. Not to mention, look which countries surround Iraq. Don'tcha think that'd be a good place to plant a seed of democracy? Are you that narrow minded that you can't see the big picture? Are you that ate up with team-sport politics that you'd ignore obvious benefits to U.S. security just to see your team win? That's the problem with you liberals, you're "all thrust, no vector". You're guided by nothing but emotions and sound-bites. You couldn't make a hard decision to save your fucking life! All you care about is today, and maybe tonight. No fucking concept of strategical defenses at all.

If it were up to people like you, Europe would be under the iron grip of the U.S.S.R., and there'd be a whole shit load more mass graves to uncover.

You're a fucking waste of time dude. You've got no concept of national defense. I'd like to know what you think you know about the subject. Lay it out. Come on.

What qualifies you to proclaim your "expertise" on just what America should and shouldn't do in regards to national defense. Where have you been in the world?

[John Ashcroft]

In the mean time, here's some stuff to chew on you fucking child.

The Iraqi connection

As evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to the 11 September hijackers begins to emerge, David Rose gathers testimony from former Baghdad agents and the CIA to reveal the secrets of Saddam's terror training camp

War on Terrorism: Observer special

David Rose
Observer

Sunday November 11, 2001


His friends call him Abu Amin, 'the father of honesty'. At 43, he is one of Iraq's most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as 'M8' - the department for 'special operations', such as sabotage, terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre.

Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. The Observer has learnt that Atta's talks with al-Ani were only one of several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has 'credible information' that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be Atta's closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah, the other two members of the 'German cell ' who lived with Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s.

In the strongest official statement to date alleging Iraqi involvement in the new wave of anti-Western terrorism, on Friday night Milos Zeman, the Czech Prime Minister, told reporters and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, that the Czech authorities believed Atta and al-Ani met expressly to discuss a bombing. He said they were plotting to destroy the Prague-based Radio Free Europe with a truck stuffed with explosives, adding: 'Yes, you cannot exclude also the hypothesis that they discussed football, ice hockey, weather and other topics. But I am not so sure.

In Washington and Whitehall, a furious political battle is raging over the scope of the anti-terrorist war, and whether it should eventually include action against Iraq. According to the Foreign Office, British Ministers have responded to this prospect with 'horror', arguing that an attack on Saddam Hussein would cause terrible civilian casualties and cement anti-Western anger across Middle East.

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary, heads a clique of determined, powerful hawks, most of them outside the administration - among them James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA. The doves argue that an al-Qaeda-Iraq link is improbable, given the sharp ideological differences between Saddam's secular Baathism and Islamic fundamentalism. They also say that claims of Iraqi involvement are being driven by the agenda of the hawks - a group which has for years been seeking to finish the job left undone at the end of the Gulf war in 1991.

Nevertheless, Saddam does not lack a plausible motive: revenge for his expulsion from Kuwait in 1991, and for the continued sanctions and Western bombing of his country ever since. In this febrile atmosphere, hard information about who ordered the 11 September attacks remains astonishingly scarce.

US investigators have traced the movements of the 19 hijackers going back years, and have amassed a detailed picture of who did what inside the conspiracy. Yet what lay beyond the hijackers is an intelligence black hole. If they had a support network in America, none of its members has been traced, and among the hundreds of telephone records and emails the investigators have recovered, nothing gets close to identifying those ultimately responsible.

It still seems almost certain, intelligence sources say, that parts of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network actively backed the conspiracy: about half of the estimated $500,000 the hijackers used reportedly came from al-Qaeda sources, while some of the terrorists are believed to have passed through bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. At the same time, however, evidence is emerging of direct Iraqi links with the US hijackers in particular, and with radical Islamic terror groups in general.

In the early period after the attacks, Western intelligence agencies said they knew of nothing to suggest an Iraqi connection. That position has now changed. A top US analyst - a serving intelligence official with no connection to the 'hawks' around Wolfowitz - told The Observer: 'You should think of this thing as a spectrum: with zero Iraqi involvement at one end, and 100 per cent Iraqi direction and control at the other. The scenario we now find most plausible is somewhere in the middle range - significant Iraqi assistance and some involvement.'

Last night, Whitehall sources made clear that parts of British intelligence had reached the same conclusion. Uncomfortable as it may be, this reassessment is having a political impact. Last month, when the CIA was still telling him it did not believe Iraq was involved in 11 September, Powell said there were 'no plans' to attack Iraq. Last Thursday, speaking in Kuwait, he abruptly reversed his earlier pronouncements. He promised that after dealing with bin Laden and Afghanistan, 'we will turn our attention to terrorism throughout the world, and nations such as Iraq'.

The FBI is now sure that Atta, the Egyptian who had studied in Germany, was the hijackers' overall leader. He personally handled more than $100,000 of the plot's funds, more than any other conspirator, and he made seven foreign trips in 2000 and 2001 - all of which appear to have had some operational significance. Investigators lay heavy stress on a captured al-Qaeda manual which emphasises the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.

Two of those trips were to meet al-Ani in Prague. The Iraqi's profile has been supplied by defectors from Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, who are now being guarded by the London-based opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC). CIA sources have confirmed its crucial details. 'There's really no doubt that al-Ani is a very senior Iraqi agent,' one source said.

The Observer has interviewed two of the defectors. They began to tell their stories at the beginning of October, and have been debriefed extensively by the FBI and the CIA. Al-Ani's experience in covert 'wet jobs' (assassinations), gives his meetings with Atta a special significance: his expertise was killing.

According to the defectors, he has an unusual ability to change his appearance and operate under cover. One defector recalls a meeting in the early 1990s when al-Ani had long, silver hair, and wore jeans, silver chains and sunglasses. Al-Ani explained he was about to undertake a mission which required him to look like a Western hippy. A member of Saddam's Baathist party since his youth, al-Ani also has extensive experience working with radical Islamists such as Mohamed Atta.

Since the 1980s, Saddam has organised numerous Islamic conferences in Baghdad, expressly for the Mukhabarat to find foreign recruits. Al-Ani has been seen at at least two of them. On one occasion, the defectors say, he took on the cover of a Muslim cleric at a fundamentalists' conference in Karachi, presenting himself as a delegate from the Iraqi shrine of the Sufi mystic Abdel-Qadir al-Gaylani, whose followers are numerous in Pakistan.

Last Wednesday, Iraq made its own response to the news of the meetings between al-Ani and Atta. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, denied Iraq had anything to do with the hijackings, saying: 'Even if that [the meetings] happened, that would mean nothing, for a diplomat could meet many people during his duty, whether he was at a restaurant or elsewhere, and even if he met Mohamed Atta, that would not mean the Iraqi diplomat was involved.'

Yet the striking thing about the meetings is the lengths to which Atta went in order to attend them. In June last year, he flew to Prague from Hamburg, only to be refused entry because he had failed to obtain a visa. Three days later, now equipped with the paperwork, Atta was back for a visit of barely 24 hours. He flew from the Czech Republic to the US, where he began to train as pilot. In early April 2001, when the conspiracy's planning must have been nearing its final stages, Atta was back in Prague for a further brief visit - a journey of considerable inconvenience.

On 17 April, the Czechs expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. Last night, a senior US diplomatic source told The Observer that Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 11 September.

The senior US intelligence source said the CIA believed that two other hijackers, al-Shehri and Jarrah, also met known Iraqi intelligence officers outside the US in the run-up to the atrocities. It is understood these meetings took place in the United Arab Emirates - where Iraq maintains its largest 'illegal', or non-diplomatic, cover intelligence operation, most of it devoted to oil exports and busting economic sanctions.

The source added that Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which has now effectively merged with al-Qaeda, maintained regular contacts with Iraq for many years. He confirmed the claims first made by the Iraqi National Congress - that towards the end of 1998, Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and a key member of the Mukhabarat leadership - went to Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he met bin Laden.

The FBI believes many of the 11 hijackers who made up the conspiracy's 'muscle', Saudi Arabians who entered the US at a late stage and whose task was to overpower the aircrafts' passengers and crew, trained at Afghan camps run by al-Qaeda. But they have no details: no times or places where any of these individuals learnt their skills. Meanwhile, it is now becoming clear that al-Qaeda is not the only organisation providing terrorist training for Muslim fundamentalists. Since the early 1990s, courses of this type have also been available in Iraq. At the beginning of October, two INC activists in London travelled to eastern Turkey. They had been told that a Mukhabarat colonel had crossed the border through Kurdistan and was ready to defect. The officer - codenamed Abu Zeinab - had extraordinary information about terrorist training in Iraq. In a safe house in Ankara, the two London-based activists took down Zeinab's story. He had worked at a site which was already well known - Salman Pak, a large camp on a peninsular formed by a loop of the Tigris river south of Baghdad.

However, what Zeinab had to say about the southern part of the camp was new. There, he said, separated from the rest of the facilities by a razor-wire fence, was a barracks used to house Islamic radicals, many of them Saudis from bin Laden's Wahhabi sect, but also Egyptians, Yemenis, and other non-Iraqi Arabs.

Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab said the foreigners' camp was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein. In a telephone interview with The Observer, Zeinab described the culture clash which took place when secular Baathists tried to train fundamentalists: 'It was a nightmare! A very strange experience. These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying.'

Asked whether he believed the foreigners' camp had trained members of al-Qaeda, Zeinab said: 'All I can say is that we had no structure to take on these people inside the regime. The camp was for organisations based abroad.' One of the highlights of the six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. According to Zeinab, women were also trained in these techniques. Like the 11 September hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five.

In Ankara, Zeinab was debriefed by the FBI and CIA for four days. Meanwhile he told the INC that if they wished to corroborate his story, they should speak to a man who had political asylum in Texas - Captain Sabah Khodad, who had worked at Salman Pak in 1994-5. He too has now told his story to US investigators. In an interiew with The Observer, he echoed Zeinab's claims: 'The foreigners' training includes assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking. They were strictly separated from the rest of us. To hijack planes they were taught to use small knives. The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I saw at the camp. When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came into my head was, "this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak".'

Zeinab and Khodad said the Salman Pak students practised their techniques in a Boeing 707 fuselage parked in the foreigners' part of the camp. Yesterday their story received important corroboration from Charles Duelfer, former vice chairman of Unscom, the UN weapons inspection team.

Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training. 'Of course we automatically took out the word "counter",' he said. 'I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect? Iraq presents a long-term strategic threat. Unfortunately, the US is not very good at recognising long-term strategic threats.'

At the end of September, Donald Rumsfeld, the far from doveish US Defence Secretary, told reporters there was 'no evidence' that Iraq was involved in the atrocities. That judgment is slowly being rewritten.

Many still suspect the anthrax which has so far killed four people in America has an ultimate Iraqi origin: in contrast to recent denials made by senior FBI officials, CIA sources say there simply is not enough material to be sure. However, it does not look likely that the latest anthrax sample, sent to a newspaper in Karachi, can have come from the source recently posited by the FBI - a right-wing US militant. 'The sophistication of the stuff that has been found represents a level of technique and knowledge that in the past has been associated only with governments,' Duelfer said. 'If it's not Iraq, there aren't many alternatives.'

If the emerging evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September becomes clearer or more conclusive, the consequences will be immense. In the words of a State Department spokesman after Powell's briefing by the Czech leader on Friday: 'If there is clear evidence connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to Iraq, that would be a very grave development.'

At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam.

The case for trying to remove him now might well seem unanswerable. In that scenario, the decisions Western leaders have had to make in the past two months would seem like a trivial prelude.

Link: here (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html)

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row

Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal.

Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international terrorist network.

The head of Iraqi intelligence holds photographs purporting to prove Abu Nidal's 'suicide'
According to reports received from Iraqi opposition groups, Abu Nidal had been in Baghdad for months as Saddam's personal guest, and was being treated for a mild form of skin cancer.

While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.

When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him. He was shot dead last weekend when Iraqi security forces burst into his apartment in central Baghdad. The body was taken to the hospital where he had had cancer treatment.

The Iraqi authorities later claimed that Abu Nidal had killed himself when confronted with evidence that he was involved in a plot to overthrow Saddam.

"There is no doubt that Abu Nidal was murdered on Saddam's orders," said a US official who has studied the reports. "He paid the price for not co-operating with Saddam's wishes."

Last week, American intelligence officials revealed that several high-ranking al-Qa'eda members had moved to northern Iraq where they had linked up with Iraqi intelligence officials.

It now transpires that Saddam was hoping to take advantage of Abu Nidal's presence in Baghdad to persuade him to use his considerable expertise in terrorist techniques to train al-Qa'eda fighters.

Abu Nidal worked closely with Saddam during the late 1970s and early 1980s to carry out a number of terrorist outrages in the Middle East and Europe, including the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982.

In recent years, Abu Nidal, who has been ill for many years, had scaled down his terror operations.

With the prospect increasing of the US launching a military campaign to overthrow Saddam, however, the Iraqi dictator was keen to combine Abu Nidal's expertise with the enthusiasm of al-Qa'eda's fanatical fighters to launch a fresh wave of terror attacks. In this way, Saddam hoped to disrupt Washington's plans to overthrow him.

The presence of al-Qa'eda fighters in Iraq has become a source of great concern in Washington.

US Defence Department officials said that a number of very senior al-Qa'eda members was now based in northern Iraq close to the Iranian border at Halabja.

Although Iraqi officials have denied any knowledge of the al-Qa'eda fighters' presence, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said last week that it was highly unlikely that they could have entered Iraq without Saddam's knowledge.

"There are al-Qa'eda in a number of locations in Iraq," he said. "In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what is taking place in the country."

Link: here fuckwad (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F25%2Fwnidal25 .xml)

Abu Nidal murder trail leads directly to Iraqi regime

It has now become very clear and much confirmed that the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the assassination of the Palestinian terrorist Sabri al-Bana, known to the world as Abu Nidal.

A wide-ranging Jane’s investigation into the incident, gathering information from various official and non-official sources in Ramallah, Amman, Baghdad, London, Washington and Beirut, has confirmed the Iraqi regime’s involvement in the killing of Abu Nidal, whose death in a Baghdad apartment from gunshot wounds was announced last Friday (16 August).

So why has Saddam acted now? The best explanation is that the Iraqi dictator is now feeling the pressure from the ongoing US deliberations over a potential invasion to topple his regime. In any such adventure, the anti-Saddam elements within Iraq would most likely play an important role in turning the tide against Saddam. He has therefore moved to eradicate those dangerous elements, both as a pre-emptive measure to protect his position and as an example to other prospective internal enemies still at large.

Given Abu Nidal’s propensity to ‘go with the smart money’ to survive and his past treachery during the 1990-91 Gulf War (he sided with Kuwait), any suggestion of him plotting against the regime would have been enough to sign his death warrant.

Various Palestinian and Arab officials and sources contacted by Jane’s have confirmed the reports of Abu Nidal’s death in his Baghdad apartment under “mysterious circumstances”. It remains unclear, however, whether Iraqi agents killed him or whether he committed suicide. His body bore several gunshot wounds, according to Palestinian sources.

A senior Iraqi official said on 20 August that Abu Nidal, who had returned to Iraq several months earlier bearing a false Yemeni passport and was placed under house arrest, killed himself after Iraqi agents accused him of conspiring with anti-Iraqi forces, including Kuwait [and Saudi Arabia]. Iraqi intelligence had apparently confronted Abu Nidal with evidence of his involvement with foreign agents to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime, with an Iraqi senior official claiming that classified documents and plans concerning a US attack on Iraq were found in his house.

Iraqi intelligence agents had followed Abu Nidal to check on his alleged dealings with the Gulf states, according to Palestinian sources in Ramallah on 20 August, who said that Iraqi intelligence arrested three of Abu Nidal's men early last week before raiding his Baghdad house late on 14 August. The raid sparked clashes between the agents and Abu Nidal's guards, two of whom were wounded, the Palestinian official said. Abu Nidal then ran into another room where he “committed suicide”. The Iraqi agents apparently arrested three more of Abu Nidal's assistants, later releasing two of them.

Tahhir Jalil Haboush, the head of Iraqi Intelligence, told reporters in Baghdad on 21 August that Abu Nidal shot himself as Iraqi officials waited to take him to court. He was then rushed to hospital where he died eight hours later. Haboush was asked what day Abu Nidal died, but did not reply.

Link: There's still more if you can understand all these big words (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml)

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
If John Kerry wants international approval to invade a foreign country for any reason as he said in the presidential debate then he has no right to win the election possibly against George W. Bush or call himself an American.

Kerry's mind-numbing disregard of US sovereignty is exactly that.

Pray hard.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
You guys don't get it, do you?


If Junior really felt that Saddam was a threat to the US - or other countries then he should have gone about it the right way, with the majority of the world backing him up. His dad was able to figure that out..

Check the meaningless documents they ALL signed, I would say they kinda sorta agreed. Nobody thought we would go THROUGH with it though...

[John Ashcroft]

And here's an educated op ed to digest.

See Ya, Iraq?

"War is a series of catastrophes that results in victory." — Georges Clemenceau

A few conservative strategists — from the Financial Times to Edward Luttwak — have recently floated the idea of a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. "Exit strategy" is suddenly the realist buzz. In addition, Clintonites — for a time staying low as scrutiny turned to their past appeasement of terrorists in the 1990s — now boldly proclaim that Iraq is another Vietnam (notwithstanding 49,000 fewer American dead, no nuclear Soviet Union or China in the neighborhood, and no army of three million insurrectionists under the banner of worldwide socialist revolution).

Nevertheless, given our successful removal of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent increasing chaos in the country, the idea may grow popular to re-declare "Mission Accomplished" — and then quietly leave. We have fulfilled our goals of ensuring that a Baathist Iraq no longer threatens its neighbors or the strategic Gulf states, and can now let Najaf fight Fallujah rather than both of them us. Or so the new wisdom goes.

Furthermore, should another Saddam-like tyrant arise from the ashes, we can always GPS him back into oblivion. That is much easier than losing another 1,000 Americans in an attempt to craft consensual government at the price of some $87 billion in aid.

Because such ideas are sometimes offered by the strategic establishment, and are couched in terms of our self-interest, many Americans may find them appealing — especially since the daily televised fare from Iraq is little more than fist-shaking militants full of ingratitude, if not hatred, toward the United States, mixed with RPGs and suicide bombings.

Yet leaving unilaterally from Iraq would be a tragic mistake. We have already done something like that before — many times. What rippled out afterwards was not pretty. American helicopters flying off the embassy roof in Saigon in 1975 gave us the climate for the Soviets in Afghanistan, Communists in Central America, and embassy hostage-taking in Tehran. Ignoring murders in Lebanon, New York, East Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, or lobbing an occasional cruise missile as tit-for-tat payback when terrorists harvested one too many expendable Americans abroad, ensured us September 11. In our loony world, losing credible deterrence (and we would) is an invitation for disaster — as bin Laden himself illustrated when he logically thought that the toppling of the World Trade Center would be followed by another Black Hawk Down American pullback.

Leaving Afghanistan to its own misery after the Soviet retreat, not going to Baghdad in 1991, turning boats around from Haiti, or quietly ducking out of Mogadishu all were less messy in the short term, but in the long term left even greater chaos. The ultimate wages were the Taliban, 350,000 sorties for over a decade above Iraq, the current mess in the Caribbean, and terrorist havens and worse in Africa. We forget how often in history a perceived stumble or the half-measure only emboldens enemies to try what they otherwise would not.

In contrast, on those occasions when we have shown the patience to stay engaged after victory — in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Panama, or the Balkans — there was less chance that Americans would be left with either perpetual autocratic enemies or terrorist sanctuaries.

We also have a moral stake in Iraq, whose people have suffered from 30 years of Baathist state terror and terrible fatalities in three losing wars. Our defeat of Iraq in 1991, our subsequent abandonment of the Kurds and Shiites to a wounded Saddam Hussein, twelve years of occupying Iraqi airspace, the corrupt U.N. embargo, and the recent final defeat of the Baathists brought untold misery to the Iraqi people.

In contrast, for the last year and a half, the United States has paid a high price to ensure the Iraqis a chance for the first humane and civilized government in the entire Arab Middle East. If it was callous to abandon the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, it is certainly right now to ensure that Saddam's gulag is not superseded by either a Taliban theocracy or a Lebanon-like cesspool.

Finally, for all the media-inspired pessimism, progress continues in Iraq. Despite all the killing, a logic of freedom persists, one that is slowly becoming a way of life for millions and that cannot be derailed by media-savvy murderers. Scheduled elections are on track. A culture of personal liberty is sprouting up, from Internet cafes to secular schools. Kurdistan is emerging as a federated republic. Indeed, Kurdish good will is proof that America wants no one's oil, promotes democracy, and is becoming once again a dependable friend. When the United States has chosen to confront the militias, it has won handily. It can do so again in Fallujah and Najaf should the interim government wish a final victory — and our political leadership at last allows the Marines to eradicate terrorist killers who have turned the city of Fallujah into a murderous sewer.

It is always difficult for those involved to determine the pulse of any ongoing war. The last 90 days in the Pacific theater were among the most costly of World War II, as we incurred 50,000 casualties on Okinawa just weeks before the Japanese collapse. December 1944 and January 1945 were the worst months for the American army in Europe, bled white repelling Hitler's last gasp in the Battle of the Bulge. Contemporaries shuddered, after observing those killing fields, that the war would go on for years more. The summer of 1864 convinced many that Grant and Lincoln were losers, and that McClellan alone could end the conflict by what would amount to a negotiated surrender of Northern war aims.

It is true that parts of Iraq are unsafe and that terrorists are flowing into the country; but there is no doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein is bringing matters to a head. Islamic fascists are now fighting openly and losing battles, and are increasingly desperate as they realize the democratization process slowly grinds ahead leaving them and what they have to offer by the wayside. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others must send aid to the terrorists and stealthy warriors into Iraq, for the battle is not just for Baghdad but for their futures as well. The world's attention is turning to Syria's occupation of Lebanon and Iran's nukes, a new scrutiny predicated on American initiatives and persistence, and easily evaporated by a withdrawal from Iraq. So by taking the fight to the heart of darkness in Saddam's realm, we have opened the climactic phase of the war, and thereupon can either win or lose far more than Iraq.

The world grasps this, and thus slowly is waking up and starting to see that if it walks and sounds like an Islamic fascist — whether in Russia, Spain, Istanbul, Israel, Iraq, or India — it really is an Islamic fascist, with the now-familiar odious signature of car bombings, suicide belts, and incoherent communiqués mixed with self-pity and passive-aggressive bluster.

For all these reasons and more, something like "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" is the absolute worst prescription for Iraq — both for America and those Iraqis who are counting on us in their historic efforts to reclaim their country from barbarism. Amid the daily car bombings in Iraq, murder in Russia, and slaughter in the Middle East, we cannot see much hope — but it is there, and we are winning on a variety of fronts as the world continues to shrink for the Islamic fascist and those who would abet him.

Link: Does it hurt your little brain yet? (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200409162229.asp)

[John Ashcroft]

More you say?

Case Closed

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

Link:
For the national security expert (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)

[John Ashcroft]

Some words from your favorite liberal....

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:

Please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.

Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being here and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.

Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

Link: here (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)

[LoungeMachine]

I just LOVE cut and paste experts.

YOUR ability to right click astounds me JA

You and your entire administration fucked up. repeatedly.

And now you claim dominion over the entire world.

Start at the top........

Let us know when you're done ridding the world of tyrants, will ya?

[John Ashcroft]

Fucking typical, didn't read a single line because the truth doesn't jive with your bullshit.

When you grow a pair and can bring something halfway intelligent to the table, come on back.

Till then, don't go calling me out, lightweight.

[LoungeMachine]

yawn

[John Ashcroft]

Is this a display of your superior intellect?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Fucking typical, didn't read a single line because the truth doesn't jive with your bullshit.

When you grow a pair and can bring something halfway intelligent to the table, come on back.

Till then, don't go calling me out, lightweight.

everything you cut and paste = truth

everything I believe = bullshit.

Strong position JA

Typical of cyber-tough guys overcompensating for personal failures.

Grow a pair?
Call out?
Lightweight?


Bet you jerk of Rush Limbaugh


I'll call your ass out anytime I fucking want to. And there's not a god damn thing you can do about it but ignore me.

Kind of like what your admnistration does to intel it doesnt like

ignore it

[ELVIS]

Excellent excellent excellent JA!

One pointer though...

That's a hell of alot of facts for a liberal to swallow at one time, provided they read it, that is...

You do your best work when you're pissed off...:D

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
everything I believe = bullshit.



Tell us something about yourself we don't know...

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Excellent excellent excellent JA!

One pointer though...

That's a hell of alot of facts for a liberal to swallow at one time, provided they read it, that is...

You do your best work when you're pissed off...:D

Heh heh heh.. Thanks dude.

Yeah, I killed a gnat with a sledge hammer, but hell, 10 years in the military... It's in my blood. It's what we do. :D

[jcook11]

Heres' my take: "HEY REST OF THE WORLD GO FUCK YOURSELF' EVERY TIME SOMETHING GOES WRONG YOU COME AT ME WITH YOUR HAND OUT! I DONT' NEED YOUR APPROVAL TO PROTECT MYSELF"

UNCLE SAM

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by jcook11
Heres' my take: "HEY REST OF THE WORLD GO FUCK YOURSELF' EVERY TIME SOMETHING GOES WRONG YOU COME AT ME WITH YOUR HAND OUT! I DONT' NEED YOUR APPROVAL TO PROTECT MYSELF"

UNCLE SAM

protect yourself against iraq....think it's the other way around

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Heh heh heh.. Thanks dude.

Yeah, I killed a gnat with a sledge hammer, but hell, 10 years in the military... It's in my blood. It's what we do. :D

With the accuracy of your lot there was a good chance you would hit your toe too and put it down to friendly fire...:)

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh... Good one.

Sorry bout that whole ordeal Sesh, you limey's just simply need to learn how to move out of the way faster!

Hey, if I wound myself, can I get three purple hearts and a Silver Star?

[scorpioboy33]

obviously you have respect for Kerry as a Soldier correct?

[ELVIS]

obviously you have respect for Kerry as a Soldier correct?

I don't...

A real leader would have stayed and led his men, as did many other officers who were wounded in battle far worse than Kerry was...

Kerry bailed out and turned on his fellow men with made up rhetoric designed to politicise the war effort...

[DrMaddVibe]

http://prisonplanet.com/video/CAS.wmv

They should ask for more of this...duuuude!

[knuckleboner]

anybody who says that the U.S. should always get international approval on its foreign policy actions is a fool.

just like anyone who says the U.S. never should.


the world's a bit more complicated than that.

yes, we should never make our national security subservient to international whim. but sometimes, our short-term security and our long-term security are a bit different.

in the long term, we need international cooperation to help combat terrorism. it doesn't do much good if we rout most of the terrorists now, world be damned, but piss off enough quasi-allies (like pakistan, yemen, saudi arabia, etc) who stop helping us and wind up giving the remaining terrorists more latitude.


each issue is different. and whether or not we should seek intenational approval depends on a bunch of factors. but it ain't usually a clear-cut case.

[DrMaddVibe]

Says it all!

[JCOOK]

Almost all of the rest of the world hates us. They hate our freedom every thing about us. We spend the most money in the U.N. and for what so that they can shit on us Fuck them we should throw all of them out and see what happens.IMO

[FORD]

Originally posted by JCOOK
Almost all of the rest of the world hates us. They hate our freedom every thing about us. We spend the most money in the U.N. and for what so that they can shit on us Fuck them we should throw all of them out and see what happens.IMO

Put down the bong, shoot your TV and fucking step out of the Busheep mindwarp

Look at the total fucking ignorance of the the statement "they hate us for our freedoms"

BULLSHIT.

How could someone who has no fucking concept of what "Freedom" is, hate it?

The obvious answer is, they can't.

What they DO hate is how their lands have been taken over. By the corporations, the CIA, Israel, or whomever. And they have every right to hate that. As you would hate it if somebody invaded this country.

And believe me, continued fascist arrogance will bring exactly that upon all of us.

[JCOOK]

Do you actually believe that Ford (although Ialready know the answer)
The world hates us because of our stuff. the stuff that they dont' have whether its microwave ovens or porn.Look at all the stuff they found in Saddams' palaces.good old American stuff!

[FORD]

Originally posted by JCOOK
Do you actually believe that Ford (although Ialready know the answer)
The world hates us because of our stuff. the stuff that they dont' have whether its microwave ovens or porn.Look at all the stuff they found in Saddams' palaces.good old American stuff!

That's ludicrous. These people have no idea what a microwave is, and to them "porn" means if you can see a woman's face. You don't miss what you don't know.

Your theory makes as much sense as me saying I hate some alien out on the west end of Alpha Centauri because he has a kickass spaceship capable of intergalactic travel, and I don't.

And if I could just figure out how the fuck to get to Alpha Centauri, I'd fly one of those spaceships (that I don't have the slightest idea how to fly) into a really tall building just to show those damn Alpha Centaurians how much I hate their freedom.

You realize how COMPLETELY FUCKING MORONIC that sounds??

[Jerry Falwell]

Actually, to them porn is an American getting his head cut off with a dull knife. Why, do you say? Because they hate Americans and what we stand for. I think part of it is freedom, part of it is our ability to gain status monetarily without being killed for trying, and I think the greatest reason is religion. They have a deep hatred for a country that was founded on Christianity. If the theological belief structure that Christianity is founded on is actually right, then they would be on a fast train to hell. Not to mention that they would have been wrong all of this time. If you think we have an ego, just try having a conversation with a die-hard muslim extremest. They don't like to admit guilt at any time. That's why they have had to write a completely different book of war to justify being wrong. I really believe that it's this simple. Of course this is just my opinion, and I'm by no means an expert.

Ford... when have you been over sees and interviewed any of these people that you so diligently defend? I have multiple family members who have lived a majority of their life in the Middle East and can attest that these people don't really feel like America or its allies have taken over their land! Them feeling this way is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard from such an "expert" as yourself. And, if in fact you meet someone who does feel like this, it's because they have been influenced by a liberal American (such as yourself) into believing that the Big, Bad, Free Americans have made their life a living hell. Then you try to convince them, that only a loving, caring, Communistic America would really stop taking over their land. Your quite pathetic my friend. You must live in constant turmoil. I feel sorry for you!

-Cordially-

[FORD]

Right, and this is coming from the guy who blamed 9-11 on the gays and pro-choicers :rolleyes:

[John Ashcroft]

Uh Ford, he's simply using a screen name...

It's not the real Falwell...

Now kindly address his observations if you can.

[Warham]

Kerry scares me with this 'global test' shit.

Is he going to call Chiraq and Shroeder when he wants to attack somebody?

And what about banning the bunker-busting nukes?

He thinks that by us getting rid of our nukes, the N. Koreans and Iranians will? LMAO! Sure, John, sure.

Yeah, and after we have gotten rid of all of ours, they'll fire theirs at us, and we won't be able to counterattack.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
In the mean time, here's some stuff to chew on you fucking child.

The Iraqi connection

As evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to the 11 September hijackers begins to emerge, David Rose gathers testimony from former Baghdad agents and the CIA to reveal the secrets of Saddam's terror training camp

David Rose
Observer

Sunday November 11, 2001

His friends call him Abu Amin, 'the father of honesty'. At 43, he is one of Iraq's most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as 'M8' - the department for 'special operations', such as sabotage, terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre.

Link: There's still more if you can understand all these big words (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml)

Johnny, if you're gonna quote 3 year old articles, you should do a reality check before you embarrass yourself. I know it's hard to keep up with the lies bush&friends have spewed since then, but this meeting in Prague has been debunked by numerous sources.

THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE VIEW FROM PRAGUE; PRAGUE DISCOUNTS AN IRAQI MEETING

FOREIGN DESK | October 21, 2002, Monday

By JAMES RISEN (NYT) words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 2

The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and...

that's just the New York Times you jerkoff

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40816FB34590C728EDDA90994DA4044 82

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by JCOOK
Almost all of the rest of the world hates us. They hate our freedom every thing about us. We spend the most money in the U.N. and for what so that they can shit on us Fuck them we should throw all of them out and see what happens.IMO

What a load of bullshit.

And the reason the Arabs hated you prior to 9-11 was

List of US vetoes cast against UN Security Council Resolutions on Palestine
1. 24 July 1973
S/10974
The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

2. 23 January 1976
S/11940
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the Palestinian people's right to self determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.

3. 24 March 1976
S/12022
In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, and human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

4. 29 June 1976
S/12119
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian people's right to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US) 4 abstentions.

5. 30 April 1980
S/13911
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

6. 1 Apr. 1982
S/14943
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Forth Geneva Convention.

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
7. 20 April 1982
S/14985
The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshipers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

8. 8 June 1982
S/15185
The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

9. 25 June 1982
S/15255/Rev. 2
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

10. 6 August 1982
S/15347/Rev. 1
The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto(US), 3 abstentions.

11. 1 August 1983
S/15895
The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance.
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

12. 12 September 1985
S/17459 Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions. The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

13. 29 January 1986
S/17769
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as, the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Forth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

14. 29 January 1988
S/19466
The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

15. 14 Apr. 1988.
S/19780
The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Forth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

16. 17 February 1989
S/20463
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Forth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

17. 9 June 1989
S/20677
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Forth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

18. 6 November 1989
S/20945/Rev.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Forth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.
1 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

19. 30 May 1990
S/21326
The draft resolution established a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

20. 17 May 1995
S/1995/394
The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

21. 7 Mar. 1997
S/1997/199
The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

22. 21 March 1997
S/1997/241
The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

23. 26 March 2001
S/2001/270
The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

24. 14 December 2001
S/2001/1199
In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation
Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.

25. 19 December 2002
S/2002/1385
The resolution expressed grave concerns over the killing of UN employees, especially with regards to Iain Hook in the Jenin Refugee Camp, expressed deep concerns at the deliberate destruction by the Israeli occupying forces of a United Nations World Food Programme warehouse in Beit Lahiya, recalled the protection accorded to such facilities under international humanitarian law and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and refrain from the excessive and disproportionate use of force in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Vote: 12 in favour, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions

26. 16 September 2003
S/2003/931
The resolution raised concerns over the possible deportation of Yasser Arafat - "Reaffirming the illegality of the deportation of any Palestinian by Israel, the occupying Power, and affirming its opposition to any such deportation"
Vote: 11 in favour, 3 abstentions, 1 Veto (US)
News Story

27. 14 October 2003
Text
The resolution raised concerns regarding the security barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank.
Vote: 10 in favour, 4 abstentions and 1 veto (US)

[Angel]

Originally posted by JCOOK
Do you actually believe that Ford (although Ialready know the answer)
The world hates us because of our stuff. the stuff that they dont' have whether its microwave ovens or porn.Look at all the stuff they found in Saddams' palaces.good old American stuff!

The world hates you because of your arrogance, your rudeness, your lack of compassion, your being ruled by the almighty dollar, your "my way or the highway" attitude. Material possessions have fuck all to do with it.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Angel
The world hates you because of your arrogance, your rudeness, your lack of compassion, your being ruled by the almighty dollar, your "my way or the highway" attitude. Material possessions have fuck all to do with it.


And when you need our protection you'll come begging like a whipped puppy looking for a treat...as always. :gulp:

[Warham]

The Arab world hates us for ONE reason. Israel. We are Israel's only true ally. If the U.S. would turn a blind eye to Israel, all the Jews over there would be wiped out.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
The Arab world hates us for ONE reason. Israel. We are Israel's only true ally. If the U.S. would turn a blind eye to Israel, all the Jews over there would be wiped out. Maybe in 1949 that would have been the case, but they are certainly well armed enough now to take care of themselves.

[Warham]

Not if Iran gets ahold of some nukes.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
anybody who says that the U.S. should always get international approval on its foreign policy actions is a fool.

just like anyone who says the U.S. never should.

the world's a bit more complicated than that.

yes, we should never make our national security subservient to international whim. but sometimes, our short-term security and our long-term security are a bit different.

in the long term, we need international cooperation to help combat terrorism. it doesn't do much good if we rout most of the terrorists now, world be damned, but piss off enough quasi-allies (like pakistan, yemen, saudi arabia, etc) who stop helping us and wind up giving the remaining terrorists more latitude.

each issue is different. and whether or not we should seek intenational approval depends on a bunch of factors. but it ain't usually a clear-cut case.

I think that's a reasonable, well thought out argument and answeres the intial question.

The vast majority of people in the middle east do not hate the United States. My cousin, who lives in Algeria has told me this many times. Yes, there are extremists and she attributes this mostly to an archaic patriarchal society which uses Islam for it's own benefit of controlling women. Arab propogandists utilize the Arab male mindset of a sense of humiliation brought on by "outside forces" to target Israel. Muslim men use the Palestinians as an army by proxy to wage war against their own feelings of shame, humuliation, failure etc. - in the tangible forms of Israel and the United States. As other totalitarian dictators have done, dictatorships in the middle east use this to their own advantage to seize and hold onto power - but they only allow it to rise to a certain level so it doesn't engulf them.

Once the backward Patriarchal culture changes, and Muslim men cease to think they are victims of outside forces that they must strike back against in some way, things will improve. Not sure when that will be.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Not if Iran gets ahold of some nukes.

Please.......

Israel has nukes, and they've had them for quite a while now. The only reason they haven't used them is that usually there's been a SANE administration in the US restraining them. Junior has been unable to restrain Sharon's barbaraism - not that he's been trying all that hard. Small wonder, given the number of Likud spies in this Fraudministration.

[Lqskdiver]

And do you honestly think someone like Kerry would be able to "restrain" Sharon, by your deluded logical spin?

Not everybody hates. Not everbody likes. Same shit goes on the individual level. The question is are you going to live your life by how someone else feels about you?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Angel
The world hates you because of your arrogance, your rudeness, your lack of compassion, your being ruled by the almighty dollar, your "my way or the highway" attitude. Material possessions have fuck all to do with it.

Sorry darlin', but I must disagree.

First off, the world doesn't hate us.

Secondly, our compassion is missing??????

What does Canada consider compassion? Simply spouting liberal bullshit about any particular issue while actually doing nothing to help it??? Your politician's kind, "compassionate" words don't stop genocide now, do they...

Other than words, it's a simple fact that Canada does almost nothing to better the situations in the world that you're so "concerned" with.

Your country is behind all most every other Industrialized nation in regards to international aid. Period.

And as far as the "my way or the highway" mentality, well... If you enlightened socialists would actually act on world affairs rather than endlessly debate them, the U.S. wouldn't have to move forward without you.

[ODShowtime]

JA, you're a lot of fun when we're on the same side.

[Angel]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Sorry darlin', but I must disagree.

First off, the world doesn't hate us.

Secondly, our compassion is missing??????

What does Canada consider compassion? Simply spouting liberal bullshit about any particular issue while actually doing nothing to help it??? Your politician's kind, "compassionate" words don't stop genocide now, do they...

Other than words, it's a simple fact that Canada does almost nothing to better the situations in the world that you're so "concerned" with.

Your country is behind all most every other Industrialized nation in regards to international aid. Period.

And as far as the "my way or the highway" mentality, well... If you enlightened socialists would actually act on world affairs rather than endlessly debate them, the U.S. wouldn't have to move forward without you.

Oh yeah JA, so many have shown me the compassion that you have right here on this website! What are some of the things I've read here?

They should nuke the entire mid-East
All Arabs are Terrorists, etc. etc. etc.

THAT is NOT being compassionate. I'm not talking about compassionate governments here, I'm talking about plain old Joe's like you and I.

At a recent multi-cultural worship here in Edmonton, a muslim religious leader was asked how bad it was for the Arab community in the days immediately following 911. He replied that unlike communities in the US, the citizens of this city reached out to the community to show that we know they're not terrorists, and went out of our way to make them feel safe and welcome.

That's what compassion is all about, and not too very many of you have it, IMO.

The US is moving forward without us? Sorry, bud IMO Canada is a model for the direction the world should be going for this century, and there are some Americans that feel the same way:

"Canada has proved you can be a model of multiculturalism. That people can
get together, work together, live together, across religious, ethnic and
racial lines,"
"You can assimilate new immigrants without losing the fundamental
character of your country. You can be a very old fashioned,
family-oriented, work-oriented country without discriminating against
gays.
"You can be an aggressive country willing to send your military around the
world in the defence of freedom and to stop genocide without, in effect,
ridiculing the United Nations but instead supporting it."

I would have to look into the stats for international aid, but like everything you say about us, I'm sure I'll find you're wrong, as usual. ;)

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Angel
At a recent multi-cultural worship here in Edmonton, a muslim religious leader was asked how bad it was for the Arab community in the days immediately following 911. He replied that unlike communities in the US, the citizens of this city reached out to the community to show that we know they're not terrorists, and went out of our way to make them feel safe and welcome.

That's what compassion is all about, and not too very many of you have it, IMO.


I don't recall 3,000 Canadians in Edmonton being murdered by Muslim extremists..........................

[Angel]

I don't recall 3,000 being killed in Los Angeles, or Miami, or Chicago, etc...

However, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a muslim in USA!

[scorpioboy33]

YAH! like Angel said.!

Angel...every go to medicine hat?

[Angel]

I competed there in the Alberta Winter Games, about 30 years ago. Other than that, nope. Do you have family there?

[scorpioboy33]

yes my uncle....hey so you were in the olympics.....WOW!

[Angel]

NOPE, not the Olympics. The Provincial Winter Games. ;)

[scorpioboy33]

k still cool though :)