Anne Coulter: she's a quack as far as im concerned... see http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml
What's very worrying is that when Anne Coulter says Bin Laden wants to attack the US, it's taken as fact... but when i see a Bin Laden's Statement on Aljazeera saying that the only way of dealing with occupation is to take up arms (this is a rough translation from arabic, before poeple shoot me down for not being 100% on it), no one has a clue about this. No one seems to know what Bin Laden is actually saying. He's become more folklore than news.
Fact is we (the british) as well as the 'mericans are occupying forces in iraq at the moment, and wether we like it or not, the iraqi's have the right to fight it, that's why we need them on side.
So we sold the idea of some kind of rightous liberation, and how we would build a country for these poor people (after it was found out that actually the main reason for going to war wasnt actually real).
Photo's pop up of what seriously looks like torture in the same place we librated the iraqi's from. So the word liberate is now becomming more of a fancy than a serious goal.
I still keep seeing people, saying why dont we see pictures of torture under saddam? It's ok if saddam tortures but if our troops do then it's an outrage?
Well, it is an outrage. Firstly, we dont take our moral compass from Saddam, that's why we took him out of power. Secondly, after no WMDs showing up, the "liberation" is now souly the reason we're in iraq, and it appears that poeple's human rights arent part of the liberation. Bush Knew about these from January (i think), and only decided to condemn them when it was in the press...
Have you taken into account the number of civilians killed in this liberation? What about the number of poeple under sanctions?
About the media. I cant believe that embeded jernos are now considered a serious source of news. Al jazeera in my oppinion, is more impartial than the BBC. It's very worrying that poeple (who dont speak arabic) take it as fact that Al jazeera is basically a terrorist channel. Ofcourse they're going to disagree with what the us admin are putting out (especially when they film F16 firing into Faluja and the cammo c-nts are saying No we're not. That really did make wretch).
Hammurabi (where you from by the way? you know that name is from what's now called iraq :)): where did you get that from? I'm not calling you a liar. I've spoken to poeple here who have relatives in Bagdad, and er...that doesnt match a line of that list. When did girls get excluded from school for a start? Are you sure that's not pentagonian statement from the Afganistan era? Voting for whom exactly? I think that's a list for Santa...
What's the US done to adress the Kurds who want a seperate state? (on a side not, the take away across from the road is run by an iraqi kurd, but he still says he's from Kurdistan... which took me a while to figure out what he meant). The US's main ally, Turkey has declared that it'll crush any kurdish uprising, no discussion about it.
How can any of you talk about what iraqi's think, when what you hear has been channeled through the f-ing pentagon?!!!!!!!!! I'm an arab my self, and i get to talk to some arab's around here, which includes an iraqi family. From what i understand, they're happy Saddam is gone, but certainly not happy about the US being there. I think it's very sad some poeple think that the Us will go and liberate poeple out of the kindness of thier hearts, while no one talks aobut who's going to foot the bill. Anyone hear about how much the Kuwaiti's are paying to their gulf war saviours?
About the mass graves: Has anyone heard the Us admin talk about the mass graves being the victims of suddam's regiem? I certianly havent. It's just been left to hearsay and conjecture from poeple like the lovely the s.s. blonde Anne. I think i need to look into it, but it was mentioned that the mass graves were infact iraqi soldiers killed from the first gulf war. Wich to me makes more sense...
Gassing the Kurds: hmmm, has anyone else seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shakin hands with Suddam in the early eighties? Do you know why he did that?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
(brief note about the first gulf war: how many of you know that Iraq was promised oil well's from kuwait for the iran/ iraq war? Kuwait didnt cough up, and Suddam went in... Its wrong and there's no justification, but how many of you knew this at all?).
I'm totally against the war. Suddam was a tyrant. However there was no justfication to going and OCCUPYING iraq, with Wolfowitz still licking his lips at the sight of Syria... Where are the WMDs? Where was the Cakewalk victory? What about the claims of as little as 30,000 would be deployed? Why the f- does Paul Wolfwitz still have a job? (shouldnt he do a "richard pearle")?
The Bush admin has links to oil, wich you cant really brush off when it comes to war in an oil rich country like iraq.
"Killing your own people ect must have been a good enough reason to the president to attack iraq"
Well, what about Saudi? The Us admin know what's going on there, and that Saudi has produced more terrorist that any other country? oh except this oil rich tyranny is actually freindly with US trade... Dont get me wrong, I dont want war with saudi at all, it's just the contrast in approaches is stark when it comes to oil rich tyrannies that are complaint and those that arent to US oil needs...
I hope that made some sense... I've been out of sync politically for while, so i might have missed some points, and I did type it as i thought it, so that's why it's not so structured...
but it's nice to see musicans reading/ writing stuff other than bloody guitar mags...heeheh
Take care!
