0.232

[scav]

No, none of that was important at all
It was a different world then, with different motivations, some of which you stated. But end the end none of it matters. That was then, this is now.

Narrow-minded opinion.
Read some history.. This issue isn't a new one.
Everything is historical connected. It goes back as far as the post-war era. If you don't see that then I'm sorry for you..

Just because Hans sugarcoats the report doesn't change the facts he also presents.

...and his intentions by "sugarcoating" would be.. ? Makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
When the head chief of the inspectors says he needs more time - who the hell are you (you = spokesman for war) to deny him that?
You have already set your mind for war just like your President so therefore you reads his reports the same way as Satan reads the Bible.

The reports from Blix is more consider an excuse to go to war, not a reason obviously..
Blix still has opinions about Iraqs co-operation but he feels that it can be solved with diplomacy.
Listen to him for Christ sake!

It is unwise for modern democracies to go to war without the broad support of their populations. The US, above all, should know that. The effect on troop morale of popular opposition to war in Vietnam was debilitating.
That world opinion is so divided should not be a cue for the US government to chastise those who disagree with it. It should be a warning that the case for war has not yet been made.

This goes for US (and in some point Iraq as well)
We don’t face soldiers with guns like the children of the Intifada. We don’t even face soldiers with water cannons and tear gas like the people in Cairo. But one day we might. These big imperialist countries can absorb a certain amount of opposition because they are not threatened, their regime is not threatened. And regime survival is the biggest imperative for any regime, whether in America, Britain, or Baghdad. As long as their regime is not threatened they can absorb a certain amount of opposition, but when the confrontation or the opposition becomes particularly acute and dangerous for them, they move to a different level…

Seriously, I have no sympathy for a group of people who want someone else's land and use violence to try to get it, while turning down a very generous offer of some land of their own for free.

You insinuated examples - I now a few too...
Fares Uday, a 14 year-old Palestinian boy, stood in front of an Israeli tank and attacked it with his hands. And when they killed him, his brother and his neighbors came in his place.

You don't have a clue about the proportion in this war. Israel is using super tanks and weapons of mass destructions against the Palestinian people who in the other hands has nothing to stand up with accept "terror attacks".
Israel has done this for many years and US choose to close their eyes so I'm not a bit surprised that the Palestinians is desperate.
Who has the right for Israel - well that’s a complex issue and goes back thousands of years. Whether its the Jewish, Arabs, Egypt, Turkey or the Palestinian people (who has never gotten any acknowledgement as a people) is a matter of debate. Nerveless it's reprehensible by US to unbalanced support one state. This conflict needs to be solved with diplomacy and by UN and US should NOT support Israel with further weapons.

[RandyRB]

The US has given Billions that's right Billions with a "B" to Palastine.

What have they done with the money?

Build schools and write books about how to hate and kill the infadels. Bought guns and plastic explosives. They have food coming from the US every week. Our kindness is taken for weakness.

The leader that they want has pocketed alot of the money.

53 years ago the Arabs attacked Israel. Israel kicked there a_ _ es. In war ground taken over, can be kept. So they took the high ground so that they would have the upper hand and a stratigic spot to keep stability in there region. (Even though the US has not done this.) The Palastines, Iran, Iraq, etc. will never get along with Israel or the US. My tax dollars have been pumped into this area of the world for a long time. It is time to stop. As far as Israel, they need to fight on there terms start blowing up there people, all the time. Israel has been putting up with this for 50 plus years. If it was me I would nuke the bas_ards. That would put the fear of Alla in the hearts of the Muslems. Maybe even think twice about the 52 virgins that await them in heaven. (I have not seen 52 virgins in my life, so where in the he_l are they coming from. HA HA.) Israel has given in to them so many times to be stabbed in the back. The only thing they understand is death. I myself would give it to them on a massive scale.

The palastine people need to stop looking back and look ahead with peace to better themselves. If not they will always be a poor peoples.

It is there own fault. They started it along time ago. Hopefully Israel grows some balls and stops worrying about the rest of the world and just kicks there as_es. The US keeps Israel on a leash so not to really wipe them out. Which we need to stop doing because we have not been putting up with the terrorist for 50 years, they have.

As for the US. Iraq has helped Binladen in the past. If Iraq could set off a Nuke in the US he would. So he needs to be disarmed at any cost.

Sanctions againsy Iraq only hurts the people of Iraq. Places like France, Germany, Russia will sell them or trade them things that they are not suppose to have. I believe when Iraq is set free of Sadam Insane we will find a lot of stuff that the French, Germany and Russia have been doing that they don't want any one to know about. Possibly Nukes, could that be it? We will see soon enough.

This issue will be over in a few months. You peace mongers will be living in a safer world because the US finially decided to act to keep it's people safe.

[[KUN.NL]mepmuff]

And when they take that offer, do they get the right to stuff the natives in increasingly smaller pieces of land, while tearing down their houses to build their own settlements?

[scav]

In the 1940s, the United Nations was formed by the victors in World War II. They decided (due to bad conscience and other consequences) that a new Jewish state Israel was needed. But this decision goes way back. In fact World Zionistic Organisation did 1916 have an understanding with the GBR war cabinet that made clear path for Belfour-declaration. In this declaration GBR promised the Zionists to deliver Palestine as a compensation for the Jewish of Americas pressure on their government to make US participate in World War 1 on the same side as GBR.

However it took until 1948 before the state Israel were proclaimed.
The ground was first planned to be divided into a Jewish Israeli and a Palestinian state. However the contemplated Palestinian ground were immediately Occupied by first Jordan, then Israel.

The problem by giving the Jewish people their own state was that the land and buildings was already used by the Palestinians. So what to do about that?
The Zionists simply drove 700.000 people out of their homes.
A sadistic horrible example is the Deir Yassin-massacre.
One characteristic thing of that action is that they cut pregnant women’s stomach wide open and watched them die..
Then they used that as an example to scare the hell out of the rest of the population making them leave their homes, factories etc.

There are a lot of examples of Israeli massacres even after the foundation of Israel. Please look these up for confirmation:
Sharafat, Kibya, Kafr Qara, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sabra, Shatila, Oyon Qara, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Ibrahimi Mosque and Jabalia.
Palestinians organized themselves in resistance movements were PLO became the strongest.
The conflict was started..

In the "6-day war" 1967 Israel came out victorious and also occupied lands outside their assigned borders.
These territories is still in their command..

Since 1988 PLO has accepted a two-state solution but there are still a lot of people that disagree with that.
Both Israelis and Palestinians.
That’s what this conflict is all about and that explains these terrorist actions. These actions are counterproductive for the Palestinians sake but indeed an act of desperations. Do you consider that weird - I don't.
I'm just sorry this conflict keeps escalating

The US has given Billions that's right Billions with a "B" to Palestine.

I'd like to see your sources for that statement...
US has put Billions with a "B" to Israel though.

Bush has declared that he can't stop this conflict. I'd like to get an explanation how the hell he can interpose a veto against UN:s suggestion to place UN observers in Israel?
In my opinion that clearly tells US support to Sharon and his ability to keep develop chemical/nuclear weapons..

[yilard]

I have recently read the book The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. It was published in 1988 (I guess...) even before the fall of Soviet Union and eastern political block, but author managed to summarize the events that lead to fall of great empires since 1500 that can be extrapolated to the future. And what is more important he pointed to manifests of forthcoming fall.

I recommend everyone to read it (I've read it in one breadth, it's much more interesting than history schoolbooks). What I have noticed is that the manifests all falling empires is the same (including Chinese empire, British Empire, Third Reich, Soviet union-this happend AFTER the book was published, but also match the pattern). That's searching for (usually nonexisting) enemies and quick economic downturn caused by increased spending of war machinery and insufficient capitalization of civil production- hell, we are just witnesses of this process.

And another note, I have read somewhere (these are just speculations, I guess, but anyway interesting) that U.S. need to cut the cost of oil by a half to retain 0% GDP growth in the near future. And to cut it even more to achieve positive growth. Maybe this is the answer.

Please don't give me names, just read that book and then write

[volkris]

Narrow-minded opinion.
Read some history.. This issue isn't a new one.
Everything is historical connected. It goes back as far as the post-war era. If you don't see that then I'm sorry for you..

The current state of the world is what has to be dealt with. The past can only be used as a learning tool; it would be wrong to directly apply past decisions to current ones, as you are doing. In the end the past has to be looked at, learned from, and then moved on from. The lessons remain, though, and those, along with directly connected facts, are what the current decisions are made from.

Just because Hans sugarcoats the report doesn't change the facts he also presents.

...and his intentions by "sugarcoating" would be.. ? Makes absolutely no sense what so ever.[/quote]

It doesn't matter at all what his intentions would be. He could have switched to decaf that morning, for all it matters. He did, though, announcing that once again Iraq has failed to live up to its deal and then rushing to mention that it has made some baby steps towards possibly maybe considering discussing real cooperation. Even that announcement, though, included that they were still not even cooperating.

When the head chief of the inspectors says he needs more time - who the hell are you (you = spokesman for war) to deny him that?

If you see a marathon runner with a broken leg do you have to ask the runner if he will make it? If Hans doesn't read the facts he himself presents, then he really needs to be replaced.

Blix still has opinions about Iraqs co-operation but he feels that it can be solved with diplomacy.

But it's a done deal! No amount of future cooperation from Iraq can mean that they didn't do what had to be done to trigger the consequences. No amount of diplomacy can settle that they've already flipped off the UN.

It is unwise for modern democracies to go to war without the broad support of their populations. The US, above all, should know that. The effect on troop morale of popular opposition to war in Vietnam was debilitating.

The last I saw, the US did have pretty broad support for war in scientific polling. That there aren't many pro war ralleys doesn't mean most people don't support the war.

Fares Uday, a 14 year-old Palestinian boy, stood in front of an Israeli tank and attacked it with his hands. And when they killed him, his brother and his neighbors came in his place.

Sorry, isolated examples don't move me at all. In the big picture they mean nothing.

I'm sure for every Palestinian example you could give there is an Israeli example out there that's just as bad. In the end both of these groups have acted very poorly and I feel nothing but frustration at both of them. However, I don't think the Palestinians are justified just because the world makes them feel kicked around.

My understanding of the history is very different from what you say, though, so if I get a chance I will have to try to do some unbiased research, if such exists.

[scav]

It doesn't matter at all what his intentions would be.

My point is that he has absolutely no reason to "sugar-coat" any report.
He is completely neutral in the war issue.
He has a mission and his intention is to give the picture of reality.
But you seem to interpret the facts a lot more accurate than him - right?

..He did, though, announcing that once again Iraq has failed to live up to its deal and then rushing to mention that it has made some baby steps towards possibly maybe considering discussing real cooperation

You don't see it yourself, do you ?
Every statement of yours "baby steps", "it's a done deal" and so on proves your arrogance.

I don't need to prove your lack of knowledge anymore, you're taking care of that yourself.

[volkris]

My point is that he has absolutely no reason to "sugar-coat" any report.
He is completely neutral in the war issue.
He has a mission and his intention is to give the picture of reality.
But you seem to interpret the facts a lot more accurate than him - right?

Well ok, here's a couple of possibilities:
The longer he's over there inspecting, the longer he gets to get up in front of the world and deliver his reports. If the inspections stop he's gone. He's dragging them out for prestige.

He enjoys inspecting and if the inspections stop he wouldn't be able to do his favorite job anymore.

He has a crack supplier there in Baghdad, if he was pulled out he'd be cut off.

He's not really as neutral on the issue as you believe. He's actually anti-war and willing to drag it out forever.

He's on Saddam's payrool, extending the inspections so Saddam has more time to prepare his weapons.

He likes ordering Iraqis around.

I could go on and on.... there may be no way for us to know WHY he's sugarcoating his reports, but he definately is. There's no way to deny that his reports mention a failure on Iraq's part and then stretch to put the best spin possible on the current conditions.

You don't see it yourself, do you ?
Every statement of yours "baby steps", "it's a done deal" and so on proves your arrogance.

I have never had a problem with accusations of arrogance.
What would you call Saddam's slow motions towards cooperation? Even when Hans is giving his reports they say that Saddam is still not cooperating fully, only that he has moved very slightly towards cooperation. His full cooperation should have been immediate and with each report it's still not there.

And it is a done deal. Saddam was uncooperative when ordered to cooperate. Nothing he can do now can change his past behaviors.

I don't need to prove your lack of knowledge anymore, you're taking care of that yourself.

No, you really do...
Arrogance, not a problem, but lack of knowledge you really need to put much more effort into proving.

[scav]

No need for me to deny your Hans-accusations.
Its just plain fantasy and made-ups.
(and I know you know I know that but there might be other that makes wrong conclusions)

What the hell are you basing this "Sugarcoating" accusations?
He simply says that Iraq is cooperating a LOT better but still need to improve in some matters.

"Wery slightly..." - bullshit.
You are factually wrong when you reproduce his reports and that makes your credibility decrease.

This is what he said: (translated from Swedish)
-Iraq has more or less co-operated according to agreement and the inspectors have been given
access to president-palace as well as private buildings.
But there are still things Iraq hasn't given further details about and that’s the demobilization-plan
for chemical weapons and the need for private conversations with scientist without supervision of the Iraq authorities.

But overall he is fairly pleased with the co-operation and feels that remaining issues can be solved by diplomacy.

[volkris]

Just wanted to mention that today Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, went to Baghdad on what he reffered to as a final, "Last chance mission to convince Saddam" to disarm. That's today in 1998....

And yet here's the UN considering passing another resultion giving him another "last chance". I believe it will be the eighteenth formal stated "last chance" offered to the dictator.

In this period of time various Iraqi defectors have said that Saddam has made large strides in his weapons programs, a statement that other intelligence confirms.

When is it going to end?

[OLDoMiNiON]

When bush is backed by the UN!

i for one don't wanna get a nuke up my ass because Bush decided he could do it on his own! (..and i'm from England! but since we are allies, they'll target us both..)

[scav]

I agree that a lot of pressure needs to set on Saddam and he needs to disarm.
But the main-issue is in fact not whether he has these weapons or not.
Many experts and former inspectors says that it's impossible that he would have
these weapons in any large amount due to more than a decade of UN sanctions.
The ability to develope has been strictly limited.
A great majority of these weapons are most likely "leftovers" from the past (1980-1991). So let us assume that he has this:
The issue is if he would use them or not.
Yes he has been using them in the past (with US approval) in Iran and against the Kurdish people in the North of Iraq but does that make him a present threat against US and rest of the world now?
Isn't it so that North Korea is in fact a much more present threat due to fact that they aggressively says they are developing Nukes.
Or Israel and Ariel Sharon for that matters..

And UN can't never ever sanction a war to overthrow a dictator. That is not how UN works. If that would be their business then China is a big issue of human rights violation too..

This is a really complex issue and I do hope that Saddam would be pushed to where he belongs - in hell!
But it's not the right moment to storm Iraq with a huge war now. The people of Iraq is already suffering big-time. Amnesty international and other humanitarian organisations warns that a war now will reach catastrophic proportions that the world has never seen before.

A war now isn't right in my opinion, exactly everything else should be tried before and everything hasn't been tried yet.

And I just have to say that Bush:s declaration that he is ready to use nuclear if he needs to scares the hell out of me. That is a threat against the entire world because decisions like that could get serios consequences.
The Cuba-crise and Hiroshima/Nagasaki shouldn't be forgotten!

[mo]

I think nukes are a little overkill.
All we need is one sniper with some good inside information.

[volkris]

It is wrong to assume that the only weapons in Iraq today are leftovers from before. For every expert that you site saying so I'm sure I could find one saying otherwise. In the end Iraq's black market activities are well known, including explicit attempted deals to procure fissionable material. Just because the UN had it under sanctions doesn't mean weapon development stopped. In fact, if you believe the words of defected Iraqui scientists, it escalated. There's simply plenty of evidence to support this, including Saddam's own releases.

But none of that even matters, really. Whether or not they have weapons is even more undeterminable while Saddam refuses to cooperate.

So what else has yet to be tried? I keep hearing people say that there are untried options, but in ten years of working I find that hard to believe. It shouldn't take extra coersion to get this guy to cooperate after war is threatened.

Comparing Bush's stance on nukes in Iraq to the situaiton in Cuba is just plain stupid. Strategic and tactical weapons have entirely different reprocussions.

Comparing Iraq to N. Korea is also stupid. The situations could hardly be more different. N. Korea's announcement of nukes show an entirely different motivation than Iraq's lipservice denying the same.

Cut the nonsense.

[volkris]

Oh, I almost forgot.
If you need a short term feel good humanitarian reason to go in now instead of later, the longer we wait before the attack, the more difficult the war will be, killing and hurting even more people, and the longer the current regime has to continue its brutality against its own people.

Fight now, save lives in war and save civilians from Saddam. Wait and the people will pay the price.

Heck, many analysts advise that if the international community would get over its US bashing (I didn't see one protest protesting Saddam, doesn't mean they didn't happen but they weren't well publicised), Saddam wouldn't feel so supported and would probably step down into exile. The PEACE protestors are dragging this out and leading to war. According to those analysts...

[volkris]

Last thing, on the topic of Iraq not being able to get weapon materials while under UN guard:

News reports this week have been really pressing into the issue of evidence where France, Germany, and Russia have continued to illegally sell weapon materials to Iraq throughout the sanction period. It is simply true that these countries sold a lot of stuff to Iraq during the '80s, but there is mounting evidence that the transactions continued through the 90s.

Many are calling it interesting that these countries that are standing in he way of attack are ones that might be implicated by what is discovered once the Iraqi records are discovered. After all, more time to "inspect" also means more time to shread papers...

[RandyRB]

The US has given Billions that's right Billions with a "B" to Palestine.

I'd like to see your sources for that statement...
US has put Billions with a "B" to Israel though.

Bush has declared that he can't stop this conflict. I'd like to get an explanation how the hell he can interpose a veto against UN:s suggestion to place UN observers in Israel?
In my opinion that clearly tells US support to Sharon and his ability to keep develop chemical/nuclear weapons..

This is a fact look it up. The US has been giving my Tax money to these people for a long time way to long. Yes we have given to Israel also and that should stop to. The Israels have made a desert a great place to live and have farm land as far as you can see. The palastine people need to move on. If not they will live like they are now for ever, unless the Jews kill them all off.

The land was given to the Jews by Britan, they owned the land. The Jews have built houses for the Palastiens that Arafat would not let them live in. They have built many settlements for the palastiene people. How come there are so many palastienes that live in Israel and are making a good life for there selves and family.

It is time to move on. They live in the 18th century and always will along with Ala.

I could care less about either but I would never send my 13 year old son or daughter in to Israel with a bomb straped to there body. These people are not desperate they are crazy. People since the biggining of time have died for their religion. They were all crazy. They are brain washed as children. One side will illiminate the other sooner or later. I just hate to see children doing what the coward Palastine adults will not do.

[scav]

well I'll try to keep it short this time.
Example of alternatives.
Let's place a lot more weapon-inspectors in Iraq and in the mean while push Iraq a LOT harder to follow human rights.
This will decrease Iraqs possibilities for a functional weaponprogram.

In fact, let the inspectors have 100 years and it still wouldn't cost as much as a war. Money isn't of course the issue so I'll have to come up with some other benefit of that.. hm... well, we might spare 50.000-4.000.000 lives depends of the outcome of the war.

or

We allow a war and get Saddam killed. Possible outcome - 1 Saddam and 50.000-4.000.000 Iraqi and a country in ruins with a great possibilty of internal wars and instability in the entire middle-east.
History prooves that it's extremely difficault to bomb a regime away.
The country has been controlled by dictators for a LONG time and suddenly introduce democracy isn't easy - thats for sure. (even how stupid it may seem)

[RandyRB]

well I'll try to keep it short this time.
Example of alternatives.
Let's place a lot more weapon-inspectors in Iraq and in the mean while push Iraq a LOT harder to follow human rights.
This will decrease Iraqs possibilities for a functional weaponprogram.

They will never find anything they don't want to be found.

Peace has never been negotiated with a piece of paper, never. Peace is a result of war, as sad as it is it is the truth.

[scav]

They will never find anything they don't want to be found

Doesn't matter, it'll still prevent a war and keep him short..

Peace has never been negotiated with a piece of paper, never. Peace is a result of war, as sad as it is it is the truth.

Yeah - Cuba-crice would have had a solvation much more interesting if they solved it by to your statement...

...and the results from Gulf, Vietnam, Israel, Ireland, Nicaragua (international court of HAAG condemned US..), Libya etc etc really prooves that war makes peace.

[scav]

Sorry fellows, feel a urgent need to rephrase

Doesn't matter, it'll still prevent a war and keep him short..

Should have typed:
Doesn't matter, it'll hopefully prevent a war and keep him shorter..

[volkris]

Let's place a lot more weapon-inspectors in Iraq and in the mean while push Iraq a LOT harder to follow human rights.
This will decrease Iraqs possibilities for a functional weaponprogram.

It won't at all....
There is really no reason to believe that the inspectors have slowed weapons development by any significant amount, and no reason to believe they would without an inspector for every square foot of Iraqi soil.

Money isn't of course the issue so I'll have to come up with some other benefit of that.. hm... well, we might spare 50.000-4.000.000 lives depends of the outcome of the war.

And in the meantime the possible Iraqi weapons development programs have progressed so that they can take out an extra 5,000,000 lives AND Saddam has been able to continue with his normal rate of killing his own people. PLUS the normal number of lives that would have been taken out in the first place. So you what, at least double the number of lives lost?

[KLesK]

[Splicer]

From the looks of that picture saddam will play the role of jabba the hut

[volkris]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 21,00.html

Weapons inspectors today are saying that Iraq is even backing down on the recent appearant moves towards compliance.

In fact, UN officials are saying exactly what I've been saying here: all of the "anti-war" protestors do nothing but encourage Saddam to refuse to cooperate, maintaining the feeling that the world is on his side. The fact that there were no highly publicized "anti-war" protests criticizing Iraq only adds to this feeling.[/url]

[scav]

Saddam have had these weapons a LONG time.
His ability to develop is less than before (can't argue with that).
Iraqs echonomy and military potentials are at on the verge of ruin.
- and NOW he's a immidiate threat to US? - it's absurd!

It's against United States constitution, United Nations regulations and every other international rights to use aggressive warfare.
Thats why Bush tries to picture Iraq as a threat to avoid that issue..
This threat is just simple propaganda to justify a war - don't you understand that?

But I once again agree that a Iraq without Saddam is a better Iraq and that he should be dethroned and prosecuted in
the Haag tribunal for crime against humanity just like Milosevic.
(I bet if they catch Saddam - Bush won't let Haag handle the trial..)

However if a war comes, US will become even hotter target for muslim fundamentalists... consider that.

[JamminJerry]

This political statement you felt necessary to incorporate into the latest version will do more harm to your userbase than good. It may make some users smile and they'll keep using it and also make some angry and they will uninstall and not use it. So in the long run you'll be losing users because of the need to force your mis-informed knowledge of world politics into a file sharing software program. way to go Arne
If I wanted your political opinion I could read it here instead of having it forced onto me by a file sharing program. Uninstall worked nicely(wow, you actually did something that relates to file sharing and not politics). Give me a 'war' edition and maybe I'll 'upgrade' to it.
FORMER DC++ user.....back to nmdc

[TasMan]

I think it's rather funny that people refuse to use DC++ because of the ad....would you refuse to watch, say CNN, because they had an advertisement saying "stop the war"?

DC++ is a great program, and if you won't use it because of the author's opinion, to me that's childish....assuming that it isn't plastered all over the program (it's just an ad that lasts 3 secs on my computer)

And one more thing. Even if DC++ lost HALF of it's users because of this, it would still be the most used client on the dc network. I don't think arne has anything to worry about at the moment.

This political statement you felt necessary to incorporate into the latest version will do more harm to your userbase than good.
...
Give me a 'war' edition and maybe I'll 'upgrade' to it.

It's the same thing, just the other side of the coin. If arne changes it now, he loses the peace crowd and the war crowd. Only the people who don't care about it, which I think has some measure of intelligence at least, will remain.

[JamminJerry]

Actually I'm not going to go back to nmdc, I just reverted to .231. If CNN made the ad saying stop the war,yes I would stop watching CNN as a news source. Or at least I would know how their bias runs. If the ad was made by someone else and played on CNN I wouldn't necessarily not watch CNN anymore. I wouldn't want them censoring an advertiser due to a differing philosophy. I don't watch a news station for their opinion of the news...I want the reporting of the news.
I don't run DC++ for the latest viewpoint from the programmer concerning an issue totally unrelated to the program.
Would I stop watching CNN if they started talking about fishing EVERY time I turned it on? Yes....
Who knows, the controversy of this all could actually increase the userbase.

[Waywardwishes]

Years of HUMILATION of the Palestinian people generates these actions.
The Palestinien people are desperate and I understand them!

Oh boo hoo.
A guy on the street looked at me the wrong way the other day, so I shot him. But it's ok because he hurt my feelings.

Seriously, I have no sympathy for a group of people who want someone else's land and use violence to try to get it, while turning down a very generous offer of some land of their own for free.

clap clap for easily the most naive comment of the thread.
the palestinians do not want someone elses land, and they did not get palestine for free you need to read at least one book or encyclopedia article or ANYTHING on this subject b4 u should comment, the palestinians were the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the land, Proto-canaanites, later jewish people were given palestine by a pharoah (one of the ramses) as war tribute, (then later they were enslaved) Israelites have no more valid claim to that land than do the palestinians, and show me a single speck of land that people live on where it was not won by war... ignoramus! given for free (SNORT!) lamer.

[AlleyKat]

Isn't it really time for the UN to inspect the US? I mean, in the interest of all, of course - the Anthrax that the Americans yells so loudly about it's "possible" Saddam has - isn't it a fact that the after-sept. 11th mail terror Anthrax originated in Arizona? And has that place been attacked, bombed and executed for its lack of security? And could we please get a statement from the American president that no more biological weapons of this or similar types exist in the US?

[scav]

I really think everybody should watch the movie
Bowling for Columbine
no matter what your opinion on war against Iraq is.

The movie is kind of a documentary about the current situation in America and its' politics regarding weapon problems and solutions to threats.
It clearly shows the outcome of fucked up politics and common arrogance.

The movie is out in the open among the sharing-community so get a filesharing prog and download it
(that was irony for the ones who refuses to use this anti-war release of dc++)

I deaply recommend it.

[elpocho]

I think that the americans should bomb everyone else so they can be left alone on their own perfect world, Uppss. sorry they are already doing it, what? they have been doing it since when? Since the civil war? wow, what an ignorant I am. Well then, iguess it's a matter of time until they finish the job they started in the 18th century. Yes, I think that they should finish their job and bomb everyone else so that they can be left alone on their own perfect world.