--------------------

--------------------

JonD, ya kill me! Ya really do!

O

--------------------

quote:

---

how ethnically insensitive of me ...

---

Not at all, you're just the messenger after all.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by jondster:
how ethnically insensitive of me ...

---

Shit. I'm sorry. I take it all back. My bad.

--------------------

..now send a letter to junior telling him how you don't want war.

BTW, below is the updated "official" group photo of the new Bush Judicial nominees

--------------------

So sure, let's just take saddam at his word. Fuck being a "warmonger" when all those fellas over there want is a little fucking peace. Let's bring the boys back home and all set around for some Fear Factor hosted by Inspector Clouseau. Maybe, if you look close enough at the commercials, you might see allah promising the best prices in town at Mecca Deal Used Auto Sales. Allah's number one big guy salesman, Jesus, can work the showroom like no other. As happy customer,Bob Plant once commented, "I'm so glad I took a look inside your showroom door"

But that is the basis for american ideology, so you've made a good start. Way to go colonial citizens of America.

I guess if doesn't smell, look, taste, fuck, dress, drive, live, pray or think like you, then well... kill it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Broch:
People act like they really give a fuck..

But that is the basis for american ideology, so you've made a good start. Way to go colonial citizens of America.

I guess if doesn't smell, look, taste, fuck, dress, drive, live, pray or think like you, then well... kill it.

Remember you flag waving brown eyed/haired colonist, the other blue eyed/blond hairs are accepting you today, but watch out for tomorrow.

---

You are an ass broch. Do you think ALL Americans think alike? This is the most diverse population in the entire world. Look how hard it is for Bush to sell his war plan. Doesn't look like the mindless masses are lining up to follow their fearless leader blindly does it? This is a good sign my friend. It is proof that democracy works.

America is a shining star in a very hostile galaxy. Those who resent the US are ignorant. They probably think "The Constitution" is some sort of feminine hygiene product.

I live in Canada. People around me, my friends, family, all think differently about the US. Some doesn't like it, some does think that Bush is doing a great thing, some think that Bush is a total moron, some think that american are only there for the money and doesn't care about the rest of the world.

Whatever... I don't hate americans, I'm just afraid that their leaders are taking some decisions (that I think are wrongs sometimes).

But at least I have some hope when I know that NOT everybody agree with their leaders. This way, there is always room for more (maybe peacefull) solutions.

You don't have to agree with someone's else opinion, but you should respect everybody's choice, as everybody respect your choices.

The problem with that? Easier said than done...

But something that Bush could never stop, the american empire will fall like all the others: Egypt, Greek, Rome, Europe.
Empires are created, live and die. as all the other one.

--------------------

DGhost

What was the saying? "Do not bite the hand that feeds you"

I'm tired of people refusing to see the good in this country. They still actually believe our beef with Saddam is about oil. They do not realize that we have a president who may appear to be a moron but he actually is viewing his moves far in advance. He is pressuring the world to focus on it's REAL dangers. If the threat of terrorism and dictatorship is not eliminated things are going to get even worse for everyone everywhere. What a thankless job our president has.

I don't think that the US is bad itself, I admire a lot of things that came/will come from the US. But on the historical side, yes, empire do live and die. And for terrorist, if it wasn't the US, some other country would have taken the flag and start a war against terrorism I guess.

All country on this world got their hands dirty somewhere, this is not, sadly, something new...

Maybe I'm dreaming too much, but I always hope that there is a peacefull solution and I will continue to think in that direction.

It's not like the US itself that supported Iraq/al quaeda, it's only some people who are always running after more money/power. I don't think that all citizens in the US (or on this planet) would have done the same things as certains persons who has the power did.

Do I want to leave my children in a world where you have to pay a fortune to have something crafted in wood because there is no more trees?? Where garbage are everywhere? Where there would be no more animals running in the wild? Where the air we breathe is not polluted by some industries? These options should have more priorities in any governments bodies on this planet.

Sadly, the human kind is more centered toward making the best profits in any economic situations, even at the cost of our own ecology. Profit is what drive all companies. Installing a system that will clean the garbage an industry produce? Only if the company don't invest money in it. Or make money out of it.

Why can any government pass any laws that will force companies not to polluted instead of making profit?

Because all of us want 4 tv, 3 cars 2 houses and cheap booze, north america, US and Canada, represent a little bit more than 2% of the world's population, but we ingest more than 70% of earth ressources. For 2 country only.

I can understand why there is some people who wish us dead.

Sadly I'm losing faith in the human kind.

--------------------

DGhost

The one thing that really stands out in all of this, that you all haven't touched on yet is the religion angle.

The reason that Al Queda attacked us is mainly due to religious beliefs and not necessarily our foreign policy, use of oil or whatever other things you can come up with.

1. In the belief system they hold, and in the viewpoint of the god that they say they serve, the United States IS the embodiment of evil to them. The Quraan is NOT the Bible, and Allah is NOT the same as Yahweh, no matter how much historians want to tie the two together. Just look at the difference between the Old Testament God, and the one in the New...

2. We are immoral to them because we don't bow down to Mecca 5 times a day, smack our women around and force them to be hidden from head to toe, and totally silent! There are a hundred other examples.

3. They have been instructed by their deity that they will achieve heaven if they die gloriously in battle against evil. That means US, folks. I love listening to the left wing "Peace at ANY cost" type people, that really don't comprehend deep down in their hearts that the world has people in it that would LOVE to see that U.S. citizen die a gruesome, horrid death, right in front of their eyes. They cannot get their mind around the fact that you don't sue the Devil for peace, you don't make a pact with him to live and let live. THAT is the ideology we are facing here. They won't EVER stop. Kind of like Rutger Hauer in that Satan movie.

-----------

I find it amusing that all of these Hollywood weenies are yammering about peace in the media. Especially the women! Gee, let's throw our support behind the guys that stone women to death in stadiums for being immoral! How are they gonna treat YOU, Madonna, you pea brained wannabe actress? To them, you are the Whore of Babylon, and you would die. Horribly.

Gah, people cannot even think for themselves anymore...

O

--------------------

quote:

---

I find it amusing that all of these Hollywood weenies are yammering about peace in the media. Especially the women! Gee, let's throw our support behind the guys that stone women to death in stadiums for being immoral! How are they gonna treat YOU, Madonna, you pea brained wannabe actress? To them, you are the Whore of Babylon, and you would die. Horribly.

---

Yea, I feel like boycotting hollywood because I'm sick and tired of listening to these ultra-rich actors spewing trash about No Blood for Oil at peace rallys and then driving off in their 100 grand gas guzzling luxury cars to film another bloodfest summer blockbuster with their mediocre acting abilities.

Watching germany shake hands with france in front of flashing cameras asking us to give saddam more time to comply pisses me off when I remember my grandfather spending 3/4's of his life with only one arm because he lost the other one in france. Makes me wonder if 50 years from now millions of dead americans might just be a chapter in some kid's history book and the kid sitting beside him might have a grandfather with a missing arm.

I also get pissed off when I think about my 10 yr old daughter and what's in store for her in this brave new fucked up world of plasmas screens and high definition towers of useless information.

quote:

---

When the martyr dies a martyr's death, he attains the height of bliss. As a professional psychiatrist, I say that the height of bliss comes with the end of the countdown: ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. And then, you press the button to blow yourself up. When the martyr reaches 'one,' and then 'boom,' he explodes, and senses himself flying, because he knows for certain that he is not dead It is a transition to another, more beautiful world, because he knows very well that within seconds he will see the light of the Creator. He will be at the closest possible point to Allah. None in the [Western] world sacrifices his life for his homeland. If his homeland is drowning, he is the first to jump ship. In our culture it is different."

"[In the Western world], they have lost the ability to understand the situation. According to my professional assessment, they have lost their faculties. They do not understand what is happening. They see [the suicide bombers] as a strange breed of people. As far as they are concerned, life is sex, love, and money. So they tell you: 'It's someone committing suicide, a drug addict, someone in despair.' This is a mistake! Someone committing suicide hates life and considers it a burden. They want to impose the term 'suicide' on them, but they are not suicides [rather, 'those who sacrifice their souls']"

"The message to Israel is that we will not cease. It is very important to convey this message. The child who threw a stone in 1993 today wraps himself in an explosive belt. Some Israeli politicians take this into account, and say to themselves, 'This war will never end'. As long as there is even a single Palestinian left, the war will not end. What is happening now indicates one thing: Israel will not exist forever. We as Arabs must know that this war will not end. The conflict will continue. This is not a conflict over land alone. This war will not end, and anyone who deludes himself that there will be peace must understand that Israel did not come to this region to love the Arabs or to normalize relations with them. Anyone who thinks that peace will come, either now or in the future, has limited historical vision. Either we will exist or we will not exist. Either the Israelis or the Palestinians - there is no third option."

"There are no Israeli civilians. They are all plunderers. History teaches this. I am completely convinced that the psychological effect [of the attacks] on the Israeli plunderer is [the realization] that his existence is temporary. They have become completely convinced that their existence in this region is temporary. Remove the Apache [helicopter] from the equation, leave them one-on-one with the Palestinian people with the only weapon [for both sides] being dynamite. Then you will see all the Israelis leave, because among them there is not even one man willing to don a belt of dynamite

"On the strategic level, there must be a pan-Arab plan in order to reach our goal. The goal of all of us is to liberate Palestine from the Israeli aggressors. To use words that some people no longer like to use today: 'We will throw Israel into the sea.' This phrase, by the way, is the truth. Either they will throw us into the sea, or we will throw them into the sea. There is no middle ground. Coexistence is total nonsense."

"The real means of dealing with Israel directly is those who blow themselves up. According to what I see in the battle arena, there is no [other means] except for the pure, noble Palestinian bodies. This is the only Arab weapon there is, and anyone who says otherwise is a conspirator. I regret having to use these terms, but Arab politicians and journalists who condemn this fedaai movement are trying to impose such ideas on us to appease the West. The Palestinian body is the only means [of warfare] in this battle."

---

-Dr. 'Adel Sadeq, chairman of the Arab Psychiatrists Association and head of the Department of Psychiatry at 'Ein Shams University in Cairo.

Who, btw, also once stated, "Bush Is Stupid; Perpetrating a Suicide/Martyrdom Attack is Life's Most Beautiful Moment; We'll Throw Israel Into the Sea"

O

--------------------

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

--------------------

Granted, the Al Aqsa mosque (The Dome of the Rock) is still on a hill in Jerusalem, covering Al Setiyaah, the foundation stone of the world, according to the Muslim faith. It is STILL in the hands of Muslims, and has been for years. Granted, the mosque sits on the original site of the Temple of Solomon, and is one of the holier sites for the Hebrew faith, but that doesn't mean that the Israelis have kicked the Muslims off the Temple Mount, now does it?

Bunch of lying, historical revisionist bastards...

O

--------------------

Hussien has made a career of what could best be considered as questionable moves. Like invading (and plundering) his next door neighbor (Kuwait). Like getting into a protracted conflict with another (Iran). Approaching genocide in his own country (Kurds).

If he's got some nukes and some BIO / Chem bombs, you think he won't use 'em on us or somebody someday ??? Even if we play nice with him. You're a fucking dreamer, dude. Trend analysis says he'll use 'em.

I'd rather deal with his sick ass NOW than wait for him to build some more ...

Or am I just some "warmonger" ?

--------------------

Anyone who preaches for peaceful removal of saddam is probably the kind of kid that gave his lunch money to the school bully to keep from getting his ass kicked, yet he usually still got his ass kicked sooner or later. I see where their thinking is coming from, but in the end I don't see how it will solve anything. WTC happened almost two years before the college kids and movie stars started picking up peace placards and waving them frantically. Saddam praised the WTC attacks the day after it happened.

--------------------

The scary part is that are president is using this 3rd grade school yard logic to solve this problem.

A problem BTW, that doesn't exist.

How you confuse 9 sand niggers from 911 (which I agree, let eradicate them all) with the sand nigger from Iraq, is politics to me.

<BGSOUND src="http://www.oftm.com/download/2sexy2.wav">

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
Anyone who preaches for peaceful removal of saddam is probably the kind of kid that gave his lunch money to the school bully to keep from getting his ass kicked, yet he usually still got his ass kicked sooner or later.

---

And, I have to agree. It's hard to agree in front of Cy's arrogance and Jondster's and O's and Cy's buddy-buddy backpatting, like the strutting boys at school thinking they're the be-all end-all, and the fact that I agree with all the anti-war posts.

But as I see, it all comes down to this. Saddam's building "weapons of mass destruction" (TM). And with Saddam's history, if he is allowed to go on as he is, defying UN laws, building his weapons, what's to stop him, 5 years from now, from deciding that he's going to declare war, again, on his neighbours, and from there, to turn his sights further? And here's another point you strutting know-it-all cockhens didn't point out. Maybe because it doesn't matter to you, and why should it? You are so far removed from it. But there are people in Iraq that are suffering terribly under Saddam's repression and twisting of UN sanctions. They will go on suffering if no one interferes.

I have to believe, that the American and the English government (Let's not forget that Tony Blair, a left winger, has been Bush's staunchest supporter in this) are doing this for the good of the people, and not for money, or oil, or whatever.

--------------------

Actually it does.

"How you confuse 9 sand niggers from 911 (which I agree, let eradicate them all) with the sand nigger from Iraq, is politics to me."

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
"LOL... It boils down to a school yard metephor?"

Actually it does.

"How you confuse 9 sand niggers from 911 (which I agree, let eradicate them all) with the sand nigger from Iraq, is politics to me."

You're ignorant.

---

Ouch...

Chances are if I have front row seats, so will you since you're about 300 miles from me, dumbass.

I'm not a "warmonger"

Broch-type mentalities love using the term "warmonger" because they have no other words to offer.

Your use of the term "sand nigger" to imply we are rednecks associated with the use of such words just goes to show how hypocritical your type is. You're a PC bitch who probably has never even set foot outside of the US.

Ever been to the middle east, broch?

Nevermind

--------------------

So, as you can see, I'm on the fence. I want action taken but I can definitely appreciate why there are people up in arms, opposing such action. Let me order what I believe to be the possible options in my preferred order:
(1) world peace - pipe dream, never gonna happen but it is still what I wish could exist
(2) strike first, don't wait until the next attack. Attacks have happened before, the signs are they will happen again, let's not get caught with our pants down.
(3) wait until the next terrorist attack and flatten the perps. If no attack comes, cool.

Results:
(1) no deaths
(2) only the terrorists suffer (along with all the innocents of course)
(3) a bunch of {insert nationality here} citizens die as well as the terrorists (along with the innocents of course).

OK, so maybe I'm not as quite on the fence as I thought I was. I'm not as gung ho about a conflict as others may be but I accept that in all liklihood, in the interests of self preservation, it's for the best.

One thing that always sticks in my mind is you can never be sure about the flow of information, you never can be sure what is the truth and what's propoganda. Other governments do it, yours/ours is capable too. Ever since the Iran/Iraq affair I've been aware of the troubles and unrest in the Middle East, I naively thought back in those days we would be better off without the lot of them. Who knows, it may just happen......

[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: Max ]

--------------------

As for the war, I'll say straight out that I'm opposed to it for a number of reasons, some selfish, some more altruistic, and that I believe there are always ways around war.

I do think the war has a little bit to do with oil, a bit to do with prestige, and a lot to do with safety. Like Wolfie, I have to believe in the overall goodness of humanity and I sincerely believe that the coalition (so far) knows something we don't. I don't have a lot of faith in George Bush, but I have more faith in John Howard (Australia's Prime Minister) and I sincerely believe that he is doing what he thinks is best for Australia.

As for Saddamn Hussein, I think the guy should be shot. In many cases one country shouldn't interfere with another country's affairs, but come on, the guy just isn't nice. We all know the atrocities he's committed, we hardly have to go into that, and we all know that he's proved countless times in the past that he can't be trusted, so why trust him now? In that respect I think he should be removed from power, but I am worried about backlash from other Middle Eastern countries.

Now, how exactly has that changed since then? People will freak out just the same.

--------------------

Do they hate us ? If so, why ? And if they, well, I give up.

--------------------

As for believing that attacking Iark is for a greater cause and not a question of oil, I really doubt that.

Seeing that Bush had a lot of company related to oil and all his friends/relations/people that put him in power work in the oil industries, I can't think that there is no other reason than that. For me, the idea that Saddam is dangerous and must be watch out for is strange. Why do it now compare to 20 years ago? 5 years ago? 2 years ago? The fact is yes Saddam is a madmen but he didn't attack any country since the gulf war.

I don't believe that the excuses Bush are making are for the "good" of humanity.

At the moment, in Canada, the price of gaz has gone up and broken a new record. I'm pretty sure that the day the Bush administration will start attacking Irak, the price will go down. On the first day of war with Irak, check out the price of gaz, I'm pretty sure the price will go down.

It's an information war more than anything else. To control the emotions of the people to make them think what the leaders want. That's all it's about.

--------------------

DGhost

quote:

---

Maybe because it doesn't matter to you, and why should it? You are so far removed from it.

---

how the fuck can a lot of you guys have lived through vietnam and not see the truth in this statement?

we lost nam, didn't we? which is basically the same as having not done anything, anyway...waste of lives. and for what? the 'communist threat'? oh god, whoa is me, some backwater country took up an evil political system, it's doomed to take over the world. didn't happen.

Oil definitely has something to do with this but I cannot say how much, I'm just convinced it is playing a part. There is no oil in Afghanistan but then again, they did hijack 4 planes and kill thousands of Americans so I think that was the motive there.

The more I think about it the more I believe that we have to wait until something happens. The old "do not fire until fired upon" addage. That does not mean I want innocent civilians to have to die before something happens. I do not want that to happen and I would not be happy if that were to happen. I keep thinking along the lines, if we invade Iraq because of the possible threat, maybe we should bomb Germany too just in case they start killing Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals et al again. They did it once before. Another thing that runs through my mind is who gets to decide which countries can have weapons of mass destruction and who doesn't? Why is it OK for the US/UK to own so many missiles and have conducted as many tests as they have in the past? I'm not arguing with the fact, I'm curious to know who makes up the rules. Wouldn't it be better if nobody had weapons of mass destruction? That is too idealistic so I guess the next best thing is to make sure WE have those weapons but not those that we fear. I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination, I'm glad I'm on the side with the biggest balls. Don't forget that people like me, people from the UK, had to deal with terrorism for a loooooooooong time with the IRA and all of their bullshit bombings and killings. I guess the British government could have just nuked the Irish Republic but that would have caused some problems.

So many things to consider, let's just hope it all works out.

[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: Max ]

--------------------

Notice anything other than the UFOs? All evil dictators give themselves away by their inner need to express themselves with the upright arm thingy. Our president has not yet displayed this arm reflex. Infact he is downright humble. Until then he has 100% of my support on the war effort.

As for the economy and expansion of govermental powers well that's another issue all together. By taking away our freedoms and giving the law deeper access to our asses the next president (or one many years from now) could become an evil arm lifter. We would then have no way of stopping him. Do you think France and Germany would come to our aid? With their current attitude they would bend over to take it up the a-hole.

Dictator's Penis ==>(*) <- France & Germany

quote:

---

Infact he is downright humble.

---

if by humble you mean 'dumber than a bag of socks.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Broch:
People act like they really give a fuck..

But that is the basis for american ideology, so you've made a good start. Way to go colonial citizens of America.

I guess if doesn't smell, look, taste, fuck, dress, drive, live, pray or think like you, then well... kill it.

Remember you flag waving brown eyed/haired colonist, the other blue eyed/blond hairs are accepting you today, but watch out for tomorrow.

---

Ever play the noun switching game? You take one absolutely, evastatingly, asininely stupid and boorish statement and replace a few words in a paraphrasement to make an even dumber one to highlight a fallacy in thought so blatantly obvious that it's literally funny in the complete idiocy of the restated remark. So, with that, here is a true gem. I'm simply paraphrasing without replacing anything:

"I hate Americans. They make racist generalizations."

If I really wanted to drive the point home, I would have replaced "Americans" with "niggers" and completely reconjugated the second sentence to "They are racists."

Really, I've got nothing against anyone. If you've ever actually MET any Americans, you would know that is the rule rather than the exception. I literally don't give two shits about where you are from. I don't care who you pray to and I don't care about your private life, beliefs, traits, ideas, geneology or ANYTHING. There are two things that determine relationships within the republic:

1) can you extend the same courtesy?
2) can you defend any gaffes? (IOW, are you strong enough economically, physically, mentally, etc. to get away with your pressing indignities?)

So, pretty much, back up your bullshit or hop right back on that horse you rode in on and don't stop until you're past the horizon.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by jondster:
Hey Wolfie, I read your thing there 3 times now. Where is it you're coming from ?

Nevermind

---

Trying to figure if that was supposed to be some lame insult or just a useless post. If on the one hand that was a lame insult I could think of many many replies, none of them with a bad word in it. If, on the other hand, it was a useless post I have no idea what to say to it. Who the hell says something, then says "nevermind" and posts it anyway? Or it could be something else altogether, I dunno. Also exactly what do you mean where is it I'm coming from?

All I'm saying here is, yes, there is a definite argument for war, for all the right reasons, not the other silly ones you guys have been throwing out.

And don't get me started on Bush and oil. I'm still fuming about drilling the Arctic reserve. To be perfectly honest, the whole world can consume a lot less oil than they are currently doing. To start straying off-topic, let's not forget that oil is, after all, only a fossil fuel, an unrenewable limited resource.

Cars in Brazil have been running off alcohol from sugar cane plantations for years. Electric and fuel-cell cars are actual modern technologies. Don't ask me why most of the world are still using dirty energy fossil fuel unrenewable petroleum.

I guess what I'm saying is, governments probably know this, well, except maybe for Bush with all his hunger for oil (must be the Texan homeground?) and they know that they don't actually need Iraqi oil.

quote:

---

As for Saddamn Hussein, I think the guy should be shot.

---

I think this is the only line that everyone here can agree with.

quote:

---

For me, the idea that Saddam is dangerous and must be watch out for is strange. Why do it now compare to 20 years ago? 5 years ago? 2 years ago? The fact is yes Saddam is a madmen but he didn't attack any country since the gulf war.

---

What's different is the whole Wweapons of mass destruction" business. (WTF is up with that name? It sounds so lame)

quote:

---

fighting for the sake of humanitarianism is bullshit. if i was middle-eastern, i sure would appreciate having americans come over and shoot at me and drop bombs near my shanty for the sake of a futile half-assed war.

---

Ever lived on food rations that weren't enough to even keep your kids from being hungry?

Looks like I've been arguing with people on both sides. Maybe I'll set up a side of my own.

--------------------

I may be wrong about that, they might find a nuclear warhead under his bed tomorrow for all I know, but I don't think it'll happen.

The more I think about it, I think the only weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will be the ones used by the US/UK/Australian coalition.

quote:

---

I'm still fuming about drilling the Arctic reserve.

---

if they'd let us drill in alaska we wouldn't even have to mess with the middle east. but god no, the hippies think the carribou might run into the big pipe and get hurt.

quote:

---

Electric and fuel-cell cars are actual modern technologies.

---

i'll drive a car with a fuel cell one day. it'll be in the trunk and hold about ten gallons of 110 octane leaded gas.

quote:

---

Iraq's oil exports are now running at about $24 billion a year. There is more than $16 billion a year available for food, medical supplies and other humanitarian relief programmes, and yet some of it is being held back by Iraqi bureaucracy, preventing the Iraqi people from receiving the support which we in the international community, and Britain especially, want to give them. Saddam City contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals and 625 homes. We understand it also has a safari park with deer and elephants. These animals reportedly graze on lush vegetation grown with the latest irrigation systems, whilst of course many of Saddam’s own people are denied access to proper water and sanitation. The resort is equipped with the latest communications systems, including television stations, satellite TV and other equipment not available to ordinary Iraqis. Preferential telephone rates are a part of the deal. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars and demonstrates that Saddam is only interested in looking after his own clique rather than his people.

Equally devastating, I think, is the massive bills that are being run up for luxury imports and I detail here the cigarettes and alcohol which are going in all the time across various frontier posts to Iraq. In the last 6 months, and these figures incidentally have been provided through the United Nations Security Council, Saddam Hussein has imported over 300 million cigarettes, 38,000 bottles of whisky per month, 230,000 cans or 115,000 litres of beer per month, over 120,000 cans or 40,000 litres of vodka per month and almost 19,000 bottles of wine a month. This is decadence on a truly obscene scale and contrasts again with the misery which so many of the Iraqi citizens are suffering. It is also evidence of Saddam playing politics with the suffering, spending illegal oil revenues through smuggling on luxuries rather than food and medicine for the Iraqi people. And I think it is very important that we all understand that despite the existence of sanctions, which Britain wants to see suspended through Resolution 1284, there is billions and billions of dollars of food, medical aid and other humanitarian relief available to the Iraqi people, but instead of concentrating on improving that, Saddam Hussein is feeding his own clique with the luxuries that I have detailed here.

---

Khidhir Hamza is an American-trained nuclear physicist who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting to the West in 1994. In this interview, conducted in October 2001, Hamza discusses the possibility that Iraq may develop a nuclear weapon in the near future, and whether Saddam has connections to Osama bin Laden and the Sept. 11 terrorists.

quote:

---

Saddam believes that security starts abroad. Always he thinks that way. Think outside. ... If somebody is endangering you, go after him one way or the other. And Saddam is vengeful. Remember, he tried to kill former President Bush even after he left office. It's his nature. And, I think, it's an impression he wants to leave, "Don't do me a bad turn; I never forget it."

I think Saddam's given up on lifting the sanctions. The U.S. will never lift the sanctions on Iraq, no matter what the French say or the Russians. ...

So the best policy for him, knowing him and the way he operates, is to attack. He cannot get the type of loyalty that people will blow themselves up for him. This is not the type of regime he runs. ...

But ... a guy like bin Laden would be an excellent complement to the operation he wants. They supply him with the foot soldiers ready to blow themselves up. He could train those foot soldiers, support them with his operations, ongoing, including the arm of the military industry, which is very sophisticated, and know-how for acquiring technology, knowing where to go and where to get things. And his intelligence operatives, which can do very tight operations, extremely tight. ...

What is the nuclear capability, at this point, of Iraq?

I believe Iraq now has fully functional design, and complete manufacturing capability for the parts, or parts of the nuclear equipment. The only thing Iraq [needs to acquire] is the nuclear core. ... German intelligence, which I believe made a very good assessment ... is [that] Iraq should be able to acquire this part by 2005, and have three nuclear weapons. It might not be three, though; it might be one or two.

[When] I left Iraq, Iraq had the design for a [nuclear] device, not a weapon. They had not hardened the design and miniaturized it enough to make it a weapon -- a hardy enough weapon for transport, say, a missile. But there was a lot of work going into hardening this design. Meaning making it able to withstand a trip.

Useful on a missile?

Useful on a missile. That was a target. The design we had even then could withstand an airplane trip. ... So the whole effort was directed to hardening and miniaturizing.

You think they have one or two now?

No.

You think they're growing, or have the possibility within the next couple of years ...

Yes. ...

... Of actually building this?

Yes.

How successful or unsuccessful was the United Nations in eradicating the nuclear and the biological threat that Iraq presents here?

The United Nations inspectors had a very misguided opinion about what is disarmament. ... They thought if you have something, I take it away from you, and you are disarmed. Despite the knowledge you have, the expertise you gained through the years, your contacts that could repurchase parts for you and put the thing back together. They discounted all this.

For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts that Iraq could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example, the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine.

"Given"? I thought they were found.

A little bit found, but not explosives. Iraq claimed that these were destroyed in the war. Other parts were given, or were found and given to inspectors. Not everything the inspectors found, by the way, was given to them. They might find something and it disappears on them. And that happened several times.

Anyway, suppose even they were given? The expertise is there. Iraq kept a very essential part of the program. The computer-controlled lathe machines and machining device ... these are critical in making the high-technology part.

In biology, what do you need in biology? Aside from some equipment, you need to import mostly fermenters, dryers and stuff like that. All these could be re-manufactured in Iraq. And this is what the inspectors took away.

You don't need a high-grade growth media to do biological agents. What you need is a growth media, and a growth media can be done in Iraq. It wouldn't be the high-grade Western standard or your standard growth media. The germs that grow wouldn't be up to standards here, but they would be workable. ...

Why the special interest in biological weapons?

Biological are much less easily detectable than any other. You could have a plastic bag of anthrax in your pocket and take it, if it is well sealed, or doubly sealed, and take it anywhere without being detected.

Chemical is harder. There are always traces of chemicals, which would be a give-away. Nuclear, you have the radiation problem. And I don't believe radiological weapons are effective anyway; we tried them. They don't create the terror that biological weapons can create. ..

Did you ever sit with Saddam Hussein talking about the goals of the program?

No. He made a point of not doing that. ...

Did you talk to him at all? Did you meet with him?

Yes, we met, and talked, but not the goals.

Did he talk about the United States?

He talks all the time about the United States -- the United States did this, United States did that, United States with Israel. He talks all the time. ...

Did he talk about intentions of what Iraq should do, as far as the United States? Or did he talk about the irritation with the inability to strike back at the United States?

That would be out of character. Saddam doesn't declare his intentions that way. ... He would not do that openly. ... You know it from his associates; you know it from the orders you get it; you know it from what's going on actually. You don't know it on the declared policies. These are covert operations. They are designed to be that way. Not much is talked about, and it's actually dangerous to do so.

And the intentions?

Intentions [to] keep the U.S. busy, try to get it out of Iraq's backyard -- Gulf states and such -- get it out of Iraq's affairs, create a danger to the U.S., one way or the other. ...

[Does Saddam believe the U.S. wants to get rid of him?]

I don't think Saddam knows you want to get rid of him. I don't think Saddam believes you want to get rid of him.

Why?

Nothing is done together. There's no support for any movement that actually wants to topple Saddam. But Saddam knows you want to contain him. This, he is convinced. We keep him weak, but keep him in power. ...

And the assumption is that the United States will not want to get rid of him because...?

Because several factors. First, Iran. Even if relations look normal now with Iran, Iran is a danger to the Gulf states. An Islamic republic is not a vision the U.S. wants to be spread in the region. And the only real, actual, and proven definitely force against Iran -- beyond any doubt -- is Saddam. There is no other proven force that can understand Iran. So Saddam is convinced, and I believe many in the Iraqi opposition also are convinced, and they say it, that U.S. don't want to remove him, actually, but they don't want him to terrorize the region. They don't want him to have too much power over the region -- yes.

SHOULD WE TAKE HIM OUT?

But there's a debate now in Washington very strongly held in the Defense Department and elsewhere, that Iraq has to go, that this war against terrorism will not be won unless one targets Iraq and Saddam Hussein. What is your take on that debate and its reality?

That's a very complex situation developing now. What you have now is ten years of no credibility to any U.S. policy to remove Saddam, despite the statements made on all levels by U.S. politicians. So any support for the Iraqi opposition in the region, serious support, eroded during all those years.

Nobody wants to go into ... being in opposition, to go openly against Saddam and support whatever is going to topple him, and in the end, [be] left like the Iraqi opposition was left in the north and the Kurds were left -- to deal with Saddam on their own. Why would they? Because the U.S. is now proven in the region to be unreliable. ...

In your opinion, what is the threat that Saddam Hussein poses at this point? Is it necessary to remove him from power? And if the United States loses this opportunity to go after him, what does the future hold?

You are having for the first time nuclear weapons coming -- not now -- in the future, near future probably. Even if it is not 2005, 2010 would be for sure. The estimate now -- 2005 Iraq will be nuclear. Say, 2010. We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the biological probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists are there, and he has oil money, to a degree, not as much as before. So what you are getting is a highly weaponized state with a huge terror organ -- the government itself is a terror organ, and several organizations that could be satellites to it, including Al Qaeda. ...

A nuclear bomb would turn Saddam into a huge figure in the region. Islamic fundamentalists and many of the Arab nationalists feel humiliated throughout this century -- the loss of Palestine, the occupation of Arab land by the West, the humiliation of the region throughout the century; they'll be vindicated with Saddam. Here is a man who can stand up to the West, who made it, who has it, who can do it. He will be a huge figure in the region.

And the Arab "street," which we used to think is not very important ... September 11 is telling us, now, is very important, because 14 out of the 19 killer hijackers, 13 or 14, are Saudis, which are basically U.S. allies. So the Saudi street is not stable, is not happy, neither with the government nor with the alliance. So what we are ending with us a breeding ground of groups that would work outside the alliance structure and could support whichever extremist regime they think is attractive to them.

So you seem to be saying that there's no choice.

There is no choice. Absolutely no choice to removing Saddam. No alternative. Saddam has to be removed. Otherwise, what you'll have is the region going down the drain, eventually, with all kinds of extremist groups, possible skirmishes, small wars, all kinds of actions.

When did this dawn on you? You were in the position of providing him what he needed to become this horror that you're now defining. When did this dawn on you? How did you think about it when you were still in Iraq?

The danger became clear in the crash program in 1990, [link to unscom interview] when we were asked to make one nuclear weapon out of the French fuel. It makes no sense. We made a device, actually, minus the core, and we sat down and did calculations. We have one to two kilograms, and we needed eighteen, extracted to make the bomb. And we would have had a small -- probably two-to-four kiloton explosion at the time. ... But the idea was [that] he wanted it on a missile, and he was mad at us for not making it small enough. ...

Now, we are talking about destroying Iraq and a madman who is taking everybody with him if he goes: a self-centered megalomaniac who is thinking only of himself. If he goes, nothing should remain after. That kind of thing we couldn't deal with -- I couldn't personally deal with -- so I started from then to start easing my way out and getting out of the country. ...

What do we, the United States, not understand about this man and his capabilities?

That he is vengeful, that he never forgets an enemy. That he will go to extreme measures to get back at whoever [he thinks has done him wrong.] That he's very devious, and that he is underestimated. You see, his loss and humiliation in the Gulf War made everybody interested in Saddam. He fumbled. That war he lost so badly. He had no control over his army. He has no control over most of the country. The Kurds left, and they're still out. The Shiites all left. They rebelled, and there was no control over that. He fumbled badly in that war.

And so everybody looked down at Saddam as finished, as a bungler, as a guy who couldn't get his act together. And that's, I think, an impression, probably left in the mind of some Western leaders, probably in the U.S., too -- thinking that the guy is not up to the caliber that he can go against the U.S, [that ...] he is too busy with his own internal problems, with the sanctions put on him. He could be too weak to act, to come back out.

But that's not true, as far as you're concerned.

That's not true.

How so?

This is not his make-up. He doesn't work that way. Saddam is very vengeful, and Saddam believes in getting back and attacking. ...

... You know the capabilities of Iraq. If all of a sudden we find ourselves at war with Iraq, what should we expect?

I don't think there will be serious danger, frankly. Of course, things have to change. If you want to protect yourself against bin Laden and Iraq and this, then you have to incorporate a large intelligence capability in that area -- incorporate the Arabs and Muslims, like the British did, now. There's a huge community of Arabs and Muslims within their intelligence structure. ... They incorporated the Iraqi expatriate community into their intelligence network. And they knew exactly who is going in and who is going out. They have a continual stream of intelligence about Iraq and what it's doing. ...They don't want the danger coming from Iraq to affect them internally. ... If [your capabilities] are augmented in that direction, I doubt if Iraq could do much damage to the U.S., much damage. ...

So what do you assume is going to happen? What is your best guess? Now that you've been in the United States, you've seen how things work; you see the pressure being built [towards going after him].

I don't think anything will happen. ... I think the minimum will be done. And I don't think an overt action of a larger scale required to get rid of him will be adopted, for many reasons. The end result will be [to] do nothing. ... This has been the U.S. policy for the last ten years, and it will be now. ...

If the United States for whatever reason decides that its war on terrorism should not include Saddam Hussein, his long-term goals, does he still feel that this war started ten years ago, supposedly finished ten years ago, is ongoing, whether we go at him or not? Is this war for Saddam Hussein continuing?

Yes, it will be continuing to him as long as you keep on him the sanctions. Limit him and how much weapons he can make. Limit his military capability. Limit his ability to domineer the region. Limit his movements. Limit his power. You are his enemies. It makes no different whether they go after him or not. Not going after him will relieve him from trying to defend himself, but it would not get him out of the box he is in. Because he believe if he stays weak, he's dead. So he'll fight you one way or the other -- through terrorism, all kinds of weaponry he has. ...

---

Generally when I insult someone, it's pretty apparent.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
Ever been to the middle east, broch?

It's a little different type stroll down the streets of Haifa than it is philly, trust me. And I dont want the US to be like that(which it is slowly evolving towards) and your little peace pipe is not working nor will it ever work as long as saddam controls Iraq.

---