March 09, 2005

Giuliana Sgrena's Lies, Inconsistencies, and Treason

Giuliana Sgrena's version of events leading up to the death of Italian secret service agent Nicola Calipari are inconsistent and just don't add up when compared with the physical evidence. But Sgrena's crimes are far worse than the minor infraction of being a propagandist with a political axe to grind against the US. Giuliana Sgrena is a traitor to the Italian people. While Italian troops were in a shooting war with Iraqi insurgents, Sgrena worked to bolster the spirits of those attempting to kill her fellow citizens. An Italian Tokyo Rose, Sgena used the tools of her trade to undermine the morale of Italian soldiers and bolster the spirits of the terrorist forces they were fighting.

Was Giuliana Sgrena a neutral observer reporting both sides of the conflict or was she actively working to undermine Italian efforts in Iraq?

Here is Sgrena in her own words on the plane taking her to Iraq courtesy of a translation by Zacht EI:

Be careful not to get kidnapped,' I told the female Italian journalist sitting next to me in the small plane that was headed for Baghdad. 'Oh no,' she said. 'That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us....

'The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind,' the three women behind me had told me, for Sgrena travelled to Iraq with two Italian colleagues who hated the Americans as well...

'You don't understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists,' they said. The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear.

Sgrena admits being an enemy of America. How can one be the enemy of America in a war in which Italy and America are on the same side and yet remain loyal to Italy?

Wouldn't it have been treasonous for an American to work for the German conquest of Russia during WWII? Would such a traitor be able to claim, "Hey, I'm not against America's war with Germany. I just hope Germany defeats Russia." Further, Sgrena accuses her countries allied nation of war-crimes. If you read the insurgents version of why they fight against us it is because they believe the kind of propaganda produced by Sgrena and her left-wing media allies. The insurgents believe the coalition is intentionally killing civilians, raping Muslim women, torturing children, using napalm, and even nuclear weapons.

If these things were true, then the people of Iraq would have a moral obligation to fight. Of course, bad things to happen in war--but nothing like what is described by Sgrena and her jihadi allies comes close to the reality of Iraq on the ground.

Here is Sgrena describing the US assault on Fallujah:

The massacre in Falluja continues .
By massacre, Sgrena means the US invasion of the city, not the massacre of innocent civilians by terrorists. However, what were Sgrena's friends doing in Fallujah before the US Marines arrived?

Here is an image taken by US Marines as part of a slide-show documenting war-crimes in Fallujah.

Sgrena continues to repeat her allegations about war-crimes in Fallujah here:

«We buried them, but we could not identify them because they were charred from the napalm bombs used by the Americans». People from Saqlawiya village, near Falluja, told al Jazeera television, based in Qatar, that they helped bury 73 bodies of women and children completely charred, all in the same grave. The sad story of common graves, which started at Saddam’s times, is not yet finished. Nobody could confirm if napalm bombs have been used in Falluja, but other bodies found last year after the fierce battle at Baghdad airport were also completely charred and some thought of nuclear bombs.
Wait, Sgrena knowingly repeats unverifiable accusations that the US has used napalm on civilians and even nuclear weapons? Those types of accusations are not just lousy or even bias reporting, they are calls to arms.

This type of propaganda is exactly the type that Goebbels would produce to rouse the German people to war. Czech 'attrocities' against Germans in the Sudetenland or Polish 'massacres' against Deutchvolk in Danzig.

The nature of her journalism is such that those fighting her Italian compatriots must have been pleased. In fact, they were. From al Jazeera:

"She has very good contacts in Baghdad, including with the ulamas" [meaning the clerical leaders of the resistance]
Another of Sgrena's rallying calls for the resistance:
Fallujah is dying under the criminally indifferent gaze not only of the United States, but also of the Iraqi government, or at least the interim Prime Minister Allawi...
If Italy is in Iraq to support America's criminal indifference, then doesn't that make Italy an accomplice in these criminal acts? The innevetable conclusion to Sgrena's chain of thought is that Italy is culpable in war-crimes and any insurgent is justified in taking up arms against Italian troops.

In this paragraph Sgrena portrays those fighting in Fallujah as simple resistance fighters. It is the US that is portrayed as a terrorist force. More than that, the so-called resistance is cast in a romantically heroic light:

A fire rain crashed over Falluja as soon as the curfew entered into force, at 6 p.m., sunset, after the Iftar breaks the Ramadan fast. At the same time, from the minaret of the mosque, the voice of the Imam tried to rise over the noise of the bombs to incite the mujahidin to the battle, which for Falluja will surely be the hardest since the beginning of the invasion....

The excuse of terrorists [meaning the US Marines] is the pretext to destroy the symbol of resistance [meaning Fallujah].

But who, really, were these brave 'resistance fighters' as Giuliana Sgrena would have you believe they were? If the image above was not enough, here are some accounts of what was found in that city, Sgrena's 'symbol of resistance'.

USA Today:

Iraqi troops have found "hostage slaughterhouses" in Fallujah where foreign captives were held and killed, the commander of Iraqi forces in the city said Wednesday.

Troops found CDs and documents of people taken captive in houses in the northern part of Fallujah, Maj. Gen. Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassem Mohan told reporters.

From SMH Australia:
US troops have found three Iraqi hostages in the basement of houses in Falluja, handcuffed and starving, a marine officer said.

"We have found Iraqi hostages in basements, handcuffed by their hands and ankles, starving, thirsty and tortured," said marine Major P.J. Batty, adding that three hostages in total had been found.

But all of this could be attributed to the fact that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the head of what was then known as Tawhid and Jihad but now known as al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was based in Fallujah. But Sgrena's friends in Fallujah's Shura Council included Omar Hadid. From the Boston Globe:
Hadid, an electrician who lived with his mother....Of the two, Hadid, thought to be in his early 30s, appears to have been the more influential, even though al-Janabi, in his 50s, headed the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which set up Islamic courts that meted out Islamic punishments, executed suspected spies and enforced a strict Islamic lifestyle.
The Shura Council, which ruled Fallujah after the US was forced to withdraw, put posters up around the city which "listed religious infractions, such as women not covering their heads or men selling music, which would be met with death. "

And from the San Jose Mercury News, another leader of Sgrena's resistance fighters in Fallujah:

Sheik Zafir al-Ubaidi. A prominent Fallujah cleric, he provided religious guidance to the insurgents' council and issued religious edicts that were enforced with public floggings and, some Fallujah residents said, executions without trial.
And while the resistance was busy executing any one they thought looked too 'Western', (for instance, note this woman who's body was found in Fallujah after its liberation from the jihadis. She had been beheaded, most likely because she had dyed her hair blonde), Sgrena international sympathy to their plight by claiming the residents of Fallujah were being massacred by the US!

What may be most disgusting about her propaganda is the fact that her stories helped bolster the claims of the jihadis that large numbers of women were being held in Iraqi prisons and abused by the Coalition. It was on these claims that fellow Italian peace-nicks Simona Pari and Simona Torretta were held and that Briton Margaret Hassan was murdered by her terrorist captors.

You will recall that one of their central demands was that "all women prisoners in Iraq be freed". Abu Musab al Zarqawi issued the same demand for the release of Kenneth Bigley and Jack Hensley. Hassan was first dressed up to resemble a prisoner in Abu Ghraib and then shot in the head. For Bigley and Hensley, the same garb was put on them before they were beheaded. The symbolism of their murder was clear.

Here is Sgrena's interview with a woman alleging Coalition abuse:

Once the Americans were in the apartment, they began to ransack the place, and then they arrested me....

On the way there they pointed out to me a man in a jellaba with a bag over his head, tied to a tree. It was my son. I recognised him by his trousers. They dragged him over to where I was and took the bag off his head. He had been horribly tortured, with deep cuts to his head. Then they said to him, 'Say goodbye to your mother.' After that, they put the bag back on his head and tied to him to a post again....

Then they turned up with the photos of my children. When I saw them, I began to weep, but they just yelled at me, "where's all that strength that Saddam gave you?" Then, throwing the photos on the ground, they shouted, "Say goodbye to your children. You'll not be seeing them for thirty years."....

Then they loaded me into a van, spread me out on the floor so nobody would see me, and drove me to the airport. There I was led into a big room where there was a doctor who wanted me to undress. I refused, saying that I was a Muslim and therefore couldn't do what he asked. Then he threatened to cut the clothes off me. I asked him if I could at least keep my underwear on and he agreed to that. In the end, however, he only checked my wrists....

There were times when they didn't give me any water or food at all. Then, from the neighbouring cells I could hear the screams of the men who were being tortured, sounds of weeping and screaming that were recorded and played back all night long full-blast...

[Sgrena asks] Did you know of cases of rape?

[Answer] 'Yes, but I'm not going to go into that. In our society, it's something you don't talk about.'

[Sgrena asks] And what about children, how were they treated?

[Answer] 'We heard them screaming. [The chiltren] were tortured too. Mostly dogs were set on them.'

Imagine yourself an Iraqi civilian with limited contact with the Coalition. Your only contact is with troops as they patrol the streets or as you pass checkpoint. Now imagine that this is the type of media you are exposed to on a day to day basis. You believe it. Your imam asks you to join the mujahadin and fight the Zionist-Crusader forces that are in your country to rape your women and torture your children. What do you do?

Of course the anser is obvious. You join the mujahadin to kill the Coalition forces. But not just Americans--Italians, Poles, Britons. They are all the men responsible for using nuclear weapons, dropping napalm on civilians, torturing children, and humiliating Muslim women.

Giuliana Sgrena is responsible for her part of the lies which directly led to the deaths of coalition forces, Iraqi civilians, and western hostages.

Her propaganda and treason should make us pause in believing the lies she continues to spout against the United States. The inconsistencies of her testimony regarding the tragic death of Nicola Calipari and how they just don't add up from what is known is documented here.

As she today accuses the US of attempted assassination, we should remember that this is not the first time she has made such ludicrious statements. From an article she wrote for Die Ziet during the initial liberation of Baghdad:

What we believed was impossible has happened. The Americans have not spared even the mythic Hotel Al-Rashid [where reporters were staying]. It was only scratched. Was that a mistake? Or was it supposed to be a message?
Sgrena, it seems, actually believes her own rhetoric when she claims that 'The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind'.

Like the Nazi propagandist Goebbels before her who believed that behind all of mankinds ills stood a Jew, Sgrena believes that the world is threatened by a vast American conspiracy aimed at oppressing the world. Like Goebbels, Sgrena is not just a 'journalist', she is a propagandist for the enemy. Unlike Goebbels, though, who took his own life before facing the justice of Nuremburg, Sgrena returns to the land she betrayed a martyr and a hero. Let us hope the world community realizes the depths of her character before it is too late.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:01 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 2189 words, total size 15 kb.

1 Segrena, like many others is a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. She is a reporter for a communist antiwar newspaper in Italy, which I might add is a current viable political party in Italy. You may call her outspoken and wrong in her assertions, but to blame her of treason for voicing her opinion to her target audience is ignorant and it is that sort of attitude that is chipping away at our civil liberties today.

Posted by: GAmBoozer at March 09, 2005 01:50 PM (heS+8)

2 A) Er, which civil-liberties exactly are you talking about? B) Last time I checked we were in a shooting-war. In war there are enemies. Those that support the enemy through propaganda are also the enemy. C) I am not a diplomat. I will leave it to diplomats to smile, nod, and lie so as not to offend the sensibilities ofothers.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 09, 2005 02:04 PM (JQjhA)

3 Sorry to have to point this out, but you got your question wrong: "Wouldn't it have been treasonous to work for the German conquest of Russia during WWII? " It should be "Help the Russian conquest of Germany." From:http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/hy350italyattack.htm "When Mussolini learned of Barbarossa, he immediately dispatched on his own initiative an Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia—CSIR—of three divisions totaling some 60,000 troops to the southern sector of the Eastern Front. In July 1941, the CSIR was redesignated as the Italian 8th Army and was joined by additional units including the newly arrived Alpini Army Corps consisting of three Alpini Divisions. The 8th Army now had 250,000 troops. Mussolini's motive was not to aid his ally but, rather, to place Italy in a position to earn an enhanced share of the spoils of an Axis-occupied Soviet Union. In contributing militarily to its demise, Mussolini's only concern was that the expeditionary army would arrive in Russia in time to join the fighting." I agree, she's a Left-Leaning Wingbat

Posted by: Scott_T at March 09, 2005 02:44 PM (QI18a)

4 Ah, isn't she a reporter? I thought they were supposed to report the actual truth and not portray their 'opinion' as the truth. I could be wrong though, we have certainly seen alot of this happening with our own reporters.

Posted by: Brass at March 09, 2005 02:50 PM (6TLEO)

5 Scott, I've tried to clarify that line.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 09, 2005 02:52 PM (JQjhA)

6 you guys saying all of this proves that maybe there was a hit on her. may be her propaganda hit a sour spot somewhere (rusty)

Posted by: YOU dnt knw me at March 09, 2005 03:21 PM (22t5y)

7 MOONBAT ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 09, 2005 03:24 PM (JQjhA)

8 Dr. Rusty, I think this war is a big mistake that wasn't thought out very well. No reason that anyone can give for being there holds up for me. The elections are great, but please, this was not a reason for going that we were given before we went. Show me where Dubya made this a reason for the war back in 2003. You can't - there's nothing but statements about WMD and Al Qaeda. Eliminating evil dictators? (Family Feud buzzer sound). Not going to work for me, either. We've ignored too many others, and even supported enough of them for strategic and economic reasons that I just can't buy it. When did we have this dramatic change of heart? And don't give me any crap about how it's better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than here in the US. That only makes sense if you believe that these illiterate teens that we're peppering in the streets of Baghdad are from the same cut as the college-educated, highly-trained guys that they sent to flight school in Florida. Ultimately, I care deeply for our country, and I truly believe that invading Iraq has made us less safe. (Please debate me on this part if you wish, Dr. Rusty, I respect your reasoning, and you were civil with me a few weeks ago when I came here and behaved like a snot-nose.) So, TO FINALLY GET TO MY POINT, if I were to publish articles about how I believe the war to be wrong, does it make me a traitor? If I were a citizen of the tiny country of Vanuatu, and my leaders decided to go to war with the United States, would I be unpatriotic to point out some flaws in the plan? If I were a Romanian during WWII, witnessing negative effects of the Russian invasion by my German allies, would I be a traitor to point it out back home? I guess you'll want to say that Sgrena was lying, that she focuses on occurrences in the war that are negative to us and ignores things that put the enemy in a bad light. Still, I suspect that you find people like me traitors, too, and that, I admit, is my real question here.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 09, 2005 03:24 PM (9+bUG)

9 It's an interesting question. The time to oppose a war is before the shooting begins. In a democracy, when war is declared through democratically elected officials, then it seems that the time to oppose ends after the vote. However, it seems to me that there is a big difference between you saying "All war is bad. Here is what war looks like at in this particular context. Please oppose this war." and saying "My country is involved in the worst war-crimes imaginable. The enemies of my country are justified in killing my compatriots." I tend to compare the actions of journalists and citizens in the Iraq war to journalists and citizens in WWII. In that war, had one of our journalists made such accusations we would have thrown them in jail. And yes, we would have had the nads to call them a traitor. The Tokyo Rose comparison is apt, I think, in this context. If we can ask our young men to die, then surely there is no problem in asking our journalists to bite there tongue. "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged."--Abraham Lincolm

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 09, 2005 03:45 PM (JQjhA)

10 Anyone seen a detailed report on the Calipari autopsy? Any mention of the caliber of the single bullet to his temple? Any tests for powder burns performed?

Posted by: goy at March 09, 2005 03:49 PM (HcsCs)

11 The elections are great, but please, this was not a reason for going that we were given before we went. Show me where Dubya made this a reason for the war back in 2003. You can't - there's nothing but statements about WMD and Al Qaeda.I sincerely suggest that before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you spend 5 minutes doing searches to verify your claims. What do you think "regime change" means? This goes back to the very beginning of 2002 when Lieberman suggested it. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of Bush and Company expressly stating Saddam didn't likely currently have WMD, including, well, the State of the Union address.I guess you'll want to say that Sgrena was lyingSeen her car?

Posted by: Aaron at March 09, 2005 03:52 PM (QBLLY)

12 I'd like to address a couple of Dr. Dr.'s points: Show me where Dubya made this a reason for the war back in 2003. You can't - there's nothing but statements about WMD and Al Qaeda. You're dead wrong. Please at least bother to read the transcript from the 2003 State of the Union Address in which President Bush specifically mentions the liberation of the Iraqi people as one of our goals: And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. ... And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. Eliminating evil dictators? (Family Feud buzzer sound). Not going to work for me, either. We've ignored too many others, and even supported enough of them for strategic and economic reasons that I just can't buy it. This is a False Dilemma. Your argument is that either we should pursue the same course of action with every dictator in every situation, or we should not deal with them at all. Let's get back to the World War II analogy. Josef Stalin was one of the most evil, brutal dictators in the history of humanity. Yet during the war, we had an alliance with him against Hitler. In the meantime, we completely ignored/tolerated Franco in Spain. Are you saying we were wrong to fight the Nazis because we didn't pursue the same course against Franco and Stalin? I highly doubt you would argue for that. Ultimately, I care deeply for our country, and I truly believe that invading Iraq has made us less safe. You're free and welcome to believe that, but if you're going to convince me of that belief, you'd damned well better be ready with some empirical evidence. Put up or shut up, buttercup. When did we have this dramatic change of heart? 9-11-01 And don't give me any crap about how it's better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than here in the US. That only makes sense if you believe that these illiterate teens that we're peppering in the streets of Baghdad are from the same cut as the college-educated, highly-trained guys that they sent to flight school in Florida. No, but the LEADERS of those illiterate teens ARE the same leaders that sent the hijackers. And suddenly they find their hands very full. So, TO FINALLY GET TO MY POINT, And to simultaneously miss Rusty's point. He wasn't talking about merely disagreeing with your government's position. She openly proclaims herself an enemy of the United States. Italy is the U.S.'s ally. To be an enemy of a country (in this case the US) in war is, by proxy, to be an enemy of its allies (Italy in this case). To be an enemy of your own country is, by definition, treason.

Posted by: Brian B at March 09, 2005 04:04 PM (CouWh)

13 Bravisimo!!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 09, 2005 04:10 PM (JQjhA)

14 "In a democracy, when war is declared through democratically elected officials, then it seems that the time to oppose ends after the vote." I must have missed that declaration. Even if I did miss it, I refuse to believe that I still don't have a voice afterwards. I see your distinction between opposing the war and supporting the deaths of my own countrymen, but then you didn't stop right there. Journalism in the past missed plenty of things that most of us would find to be inexcusable behavior today, simply out of the blind loyalty you support. Most of human history is a sad repetition of the bulk of humanity being led blindly with no debate into suffering by the powerful few. We are coming to a time in history when several societies are breaking from that mold. Does this make them weaker and more prone to destruction from the outside? Would we have done things like Hiroshima, Indian massacres, supporting brutal Latin American dictators, pick fights with Spain, and Mexico, etc? Would we have survived without doint those things? I don't know - but I hope that at some point, this world becomes a place where a civilization can survive by always being the good guy. I'm not just being a dreamer - technology is going to get to the point where the remaining conflicts in this world can kill us all. If you ever have the time, please read "Grief and Mourning for the Night", by Mark Twain. I believe that you'll find him to be a complete traitor.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 09, 2005 04:37 PM (9+bUG)

15 Hmmm... checking out the helmet on the Jawa, I have to wonder if he was chosen as a logo simply because he looks like a German WW11 soldier.

Posted by: Ellen at March 09, 2005 04:39 PM (u0U0f)

16 .... Still waiting for any respone from Dr. Dr. to me....

Posted by: Brian B at March 09, 2005 04:52 PM (CouWh)

17 Rusty, Civil liberties, I am speaking about the incessant character assassination and prosecution that occurs whenever someone has something objective to say about the real issues in this war, namely the torturing and killing of civilians, the constant shifting rationale for war, the loss of our troops lives, the war-profiteering by corporations. This behavior has curtailed civil liberties because mass media and TV personalities have purposely avoided the subject for fear of reprisal. This has something to do with that “freedom of speech” crap you learned about in junior high. You guys seem to be WW2 buffs, there is an amazing article by Thomas Hartmann called “When Democracy Failed -2005” that draws some interesting parallels of that era to now. It will be able to express my point better than I can. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm I challenge you war supporters to read it. Remember, that an enlightened person is someone who is capable of welcoming new ideas without stiff and rigid reaction. And don’t worry about me, you wont see me again, I stumbled upon this site by accident and I will forget I ever wasted my time on it. Have a nice life. To not go out with a quote is inappropriate: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Propaganda Minister Goebbels

Posted by: GAmBooZer at March 09, 2005 05:18 PM (heS+8)

18 What I find most interesting about the armed conflict we're so happily throwing ourselves into over there is one thing: No one from Saddam's regime ever got to sign a surrender document!

Posted by: Collin Baber at March 09, 2005 05:55 PM (FV4oJ)

19 Remember, that an enlightened person is someone who is capable of welcoming new ideas without stiff and rigid reaction. And donÂ’t worry about me, you wont see me again, I stumbled upon this site by accident and I will forget I ever wasted my time on it. Have a nice life. Such sublime irony.

Posted by: Brian B at March 09, 2005 06:30 PM (CouWh)

20 What I find most interesting about the armed conflict we're so happily throwing ourselves into over there is one thing: No one from Saddam's regime ever got to sign a surrender document! Wow, THAT'S relevant!

Posted by: Brian B at March 09, 2005 06:36 PM (CouWh)

21 Few things more hilarious that to claim to be making "objective" comments and then cite common dreams. Well, almost nothing more hilarious. And Gamboozer, your claim of suppression of free speech is ludicrous.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 09, 2005 08:27 PM (xauGB)

22 If the real issues of this war are killing innocent people and the loss of our troops then aren't all wars immoral, and shouldn't we disband our army? But wait, what if the bad guys don't follow suit? The choices are always soo easy if you ignore the consequences.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at March 09, 2005 09:59 PM (3DOby)

23 brianB that was awsome, I noticed none of the symps for the tyrants and criminals we are fighting now, have tried to take apart even one of your well reasoned points. good job.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 10:54 PM (vB5JO)

24 I noticed none of the symps for the tyrants and criminals we are fighting now, have tried to take apart even one of your well reasoned points. Well, I'm no symp for tyrants and criminals, but I'll see what I can do. Your argument is that either we should pursue the same course of action with every dictator in every situation, That may be Dr. whatever's argument, but that is not the general argument. The general argument is that there are many dictators in the world that are more dangerous to the U.S. than Saddam was at the time. Disagree if you will, but it is not the false dilemma. You're free and welcome to believe that, but if you're going to convince me of that belief, you'd damned well better be ready with some empirical evidence. Put up or shut up, buttercup. It's tought to come up with hard data concerning terrorist groups, but you could listen to the CIA. No, but the LEADERS of those illiterate teens ARE the same leaders that sent the hijackers. And suddenly they find their hands very full. You seem to think of terrorists as some sort of state military operation. Occupy the leaders and you solve/delay the problem. Sorry, terrorists don't work that way. A leader in Iraq means nothing to an independent cell here in the states. She openly proclaims herself an enemy of the United States. Italy is the U.S.'s ally. To be an enemy of a country (in this case the US) in war is, by proxy, to be an enemy of its allies (Italy in this case). To be an enemy of your own country is, by definition, treason. Well, we're painting with a pretty broad brush here. I would be interested to find out the numbers of vocally anti-U.S. citizens of countries which are our allies. Traitors everywhere! Go get 'em Brian.

Posted by: mantis at March 10, 2005 06:06 AM (zmcHh)

25 Aaron - You said:" I sincerely suggest that before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you spend 5 minutes doing searches to verify your claims. What do you think "regime change" means? This goes back to the very beginning of 2002 when Lieberman suggested it. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of Bush and Company expressly stating Saddam didn't likely currently have WMD, including, well, the State of the Union address." Regime change was brought up before the invasion, this is true - so what? You're mixing up the reason and the method. Regime change is not why we went to Iraq; rather, it was the means to stop Iraq from further supporting terrorism. So, maybe to make it easier for you to understand, let me rephrase myself: "The elections are great, but please, this was not a reason for REGIME CHANGE that we were given before we went." Also, you seem to be muddling the timeline a bit. Bush and Co., didnÂ’t give up on the WMD claims until after we were in Iraq for a few months. As for this part: "'I guess you'll want to say that Sgrena was lying' 'Seen her car? Posted by: Aaron at March 9, 2005 03:52 PM'" That swooshing noise when you read my sentence was my point going over your head. Here's a hint - I'm not a Sgrena supporter.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 08:25 AM (9+bUG)

26 Brian, Sorry about taking so long to respond - but I have to go home from work at some point. Your statement: "You're dead wrong. Please at least bother to read the transcript from the 2003 State of the Union Address in which President Bush specifically mentions the liberation of the Iraqi people as one of our goals: And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. .. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom." My response: Sure, it was in the speech - but Bush could easily have made the same speech about any number of places in the world - and he didn't. The difference with Iraq and Afghanistan to the American people is that we were supposed to be going there to protect ourselves. And in the case of Iraq, our reasons flew apart like ashes in the wind. "This is a False Dilemma. Your argument is that either we should pursue the same course of action with every dictator in every situation, or we should not deal with them at all." Nope - my argument is specifically that we need good reasons to act differently with one odious dictatorship versus another. And in this case, our reasoning sucked. "You're free and welcome to believe that, but if you're going to convince me of that belief, you'd damned well better be ready with some empirical evidence. Put up or shut up, buttercup." I'm not trying to convince you of anything - just explaining my position. If my goal of going to right-wing blogs was to try and convert you guys I might as well be trying to stop the tide from coming in. Rather, I like to pay attention to what others think. Try it - it's much more challenging for your head than spending all your time preaching to the choir. Plus, don't call me buttercup, nancy-boy. "'When did we have this dramatic change of heart?' '9-11-01'" No - the change that happened after 9-11 was that we became willing to change regimes in countries that we felt were a threat to us - not that we decided to change regimes for the good of foreign citizens alone. My whole point, which you guys seems to be missing, is that the point of going to Iraq was supposed to be to protect us, not them. And now that it looks like it didn't help us at all, we're stressing secondary objectives in order to still claim victory. So, ONE LAST TIME - If there were no WMD, and there was no Al Qaeda (before we invaded, that is), then WHAT WAS THE FREAKIN' POINT? "No, but the LEADERS of those illiterate teens ARE the same leaders that sent the hijackers. And suddenly they find their hands very full." Even if they have their hands very full on a second front, guess what? So do we. "'So, TO FINALLY GET TO MY POINT,' 'And to simultaneously miss Rusty's point. He wasn't talking about merely disagreeing with your government's position. She openly proclaims herself an enemy of the United States. Italy is the U.S.'s ally. To be an enemy of a country (in this case the US) in war is, by proxy, to be an enemy of its allies (Italy in this case). To be an enemy of your own country is, by definition, treason.'" Yeah, and I conceded to Rusty, when he re-stressed that for me, that he has a valid point. Thanks so far to the both of you for a good discussion.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 08:51 AM (9+bUG)

27 Mantis, Just read your post - bingo, buddy. Brian, I came back to this statement of yours: "No, but the LEADERS of those illiterate teens ARE the same leaders that sent the hijackers." Well, maybe now, but that wasn't true before we invaded Iraq. Rumcrook, Yeah, I'm a Saddam sympathizer because I hate the war - excellent demonstration of your brainpower.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 09:15 AM (9+bUG)

28 “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” — Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels

Posted by: paul at March 10, 2005 10:24 AM (8U5to)

29 Sgrena didn't lie? It's congenitally impossible for a Communist NOT to lie, given that their ideology is necessarily triumpant "by any means necessary." Everything they say is couched redirected by ideology and, "Their Triuth." If a Communist told me, "I have to go pee," I would doubt and question the actuality, sincerity, and necessity.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at March 10, 2005 11:44 AM (sE9R7)

30 Who are you replying too?

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 12:02 PM (9+bUG)

31 Dr. I understand many of your points and I think they make perfect sense. I have never argued that the failure of the U.S to establish that it had credible evidence before going into Iraq should be overlooked, even with the successes of Iraq. However, note that I have never cared about W.M.D, and have been following the practices of regimes like the Baathists for quite some time. And I don't care WHY the U.S has had a "change of heart," I only care that it is about damn time that democratic nations around the world come together and begin to dismantle the filthy bastards who they once supported (and I certainly don't deny that the U.S is guilty of this in several countries). Just remember, do the majority of Iraqis care about where the WMD is? No, they don't. And so while there needs to be deeper investigations into how and why the U.S went on the evidence it did, this should in NO way disrupt the efforts in Iraq. The Iraqis need help now, and a lot of it. That's why anyone who seriously thinks the Coalition should just leave immediately is a fucking MORON (sorry for the expletive but there is no other way to describe these people). It's 2005. The U.S has made many mistakes with its support of regimes and their leaders who they, coincidentally, now consider enemies. It's time to correct those mistakes. There shouldn't be a nation in this world that doesn't function on a fundamentally democratic basis. There is no reason for them not to. I'm tired of hearing "leave them be" or "let them work out their own problems," or "don't interfere with their society." What a cop out and a pathetic excuse for an excuse. Since when did existence on this Earth turn into every man for himself? No industrialized country on this planet has so many domestic problems that it can't lend support to pressure and initiate changes in other parts of the world. And they are NEEDED. From N. Korea to Sudan to Saudi Arabia and beyond. But, of course, there are so many people that just can't get over their bitterness that America is at the forefront of this movement. And while they had NO complaints about what Hussein was doing to his people since the 70s, when America goes in there suddenly they're guilty of human rights violations. Where were human rights groups when he was in power? And while Hussein is building palaces made of gold, it's again America blamed for the deaths of Iraqis because of sanctions????? Sometimes it really makes me wonder whether these people are telling the truth when they say they're "glad the regime is out." I really wonder.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 10, 2005 03:24 PM (xM3Dg)

32 As wonderful as it would be for my country to go around liberating everyone, we can't. In all honesty, most Americans would not support doing this unless they were told ahead of time that it was for the good of the USA. Now, as far as leaving Iraq - you are completely right - we can't leave now, we can't leave tomorrow, we can't leave any time soon, and those who are on my side who think that we can, well, they're just flat-out wrong. That doesn't stop me from being pissed about it. Now, as for it being time to correct the mistakes that we've made in the past concerning foreign policy, I think that you're being far too optimistic. I would love it if my country acted in the world only as a force of good, but the sad fact is that the only countries that we're going help are going to be the ones that are either perceived to be a threat to us, or those that are of strategic or economic importance. If you were holding your breath, waiting for us to clean up sub-saharan Africa, for instance, you better inhale now. I imagine you are referring to me when you say you doubt the honesty of opponents of the war who say they're glad Saddam is out. Well, I'll be honest - I'll be really happy about it years from now if we've stayed on in Iraq long enough to make sure that they're not ruled by something equally as bad as the Baathists, AND if it hasn't costs thousands of American lives at the hands of the legions of new recruits Islamic militant groups are getting out of our actions. Until then, I'll smile a little when they line Saddam against a wall and obliterate his heart with several hurtling pieces of hot lead, but that's about it.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 04:01 PM (9+bUG)

33 What I find most interesting is that the country is occupied, yet should anyone from the Green Zone take a walk outside down Haifa Street, they get jumped. A trip to the airport can end six feet under. Best of all, we've set up the world's best real-life terrorist training camp, paying billions to draw in thousands of new students and churning out battle-hardened graduates. We're training them over there so we can fight them here later.. Screamin' Sgrena is the least of the worries.

Posted by: Collin Baber at March 10, 2005 11:38 PM (XUJDn)

34 Why are we calling this a war? This is not a war. We are not fighting against Iraq. Seems to me that the war has been over a long time ago.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 12:18 AM (CBNGy)

35 WMD again. Over and over. I don't know if Saddam had WMD or not. I do believe that if we hadn't invaded sooner or later he would have it. I do know that fighting the war against Islamic terrorists over there is better than over here.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 12:25 AM (CBNGy)

36 This just out. So, I have to ask, who's the liar now? What happened to the checkpoint? Sgrena said it wasn't a checkpoint but a patrol that came upon them, and she was telling the truth. Why did the military wait till the story died down a bit before they suddenly change their tune? They knew then, obviously, how could they not know who was shooting at her? She WAS past eh checkpoints!!! BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - U.S. troops who mistakenly killed an Italian intelligence agent last week on the road to Baghdad's international airport were part of extra security provided by the U.S. Army to protect U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, a U.S. official said Thursday. Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari was killed Friday when U.S. troops opened fire on a car carrying him and Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who had just been freed from insurgents. ``The mobile patrol was there to enhance security because Ambassador Negroponte was expected through,'' U.S. Embassy spokesman Robert Callahan said, confirming reports in Italian media. The newspaper La Repubblica reported Wednesday that the checkpoint had been ``set up to protect the passage of Ambassador Negroponte.''

Posted by: Ellen at March 11, 2005 12:57 AM (zWggn)

37 ELLEN: You be one sick bitch. Quit smoking that shit.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 02:51 AM (CBNGy)

38 greyrooster, Concerning your comment: I do know that fighting the war against Islamic terrorists over there is better than over here. , I refer to my previous post: And don't give me any crap about how it's better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than here in the US. That only makes sense if you believe that these illiterate teens that we're peppering in the streets of Baghdad are from the same cut as the college-educated, highly-trained guys that they sent to flight school in Florida. The guys we're fighting in Iraq are NOT the same as those who were with Al Qaeda before we invaded. They're new recruits. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If you don't believe me that we've become their biggest recruitment tool, then believe Porter Goss, CIA (link provided by Mantis): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html Focus your brain power on this matter, it may become clear if you think long enough.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 11, 2005 07:01 AM (9+bUG)

39 .... Still waiting for any respone from Dr. Dr. to me.... .... Still waiting for any respone from Brian B. to me....

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 11, 2005 08:02 AM (9+bUG)

40 Dr.Dr. Al Queda has been getting new recruits every year for over a decade. Your comments are an incompetent attempt to criticize the Iraq policy. The terrorists in Iraq are being led by Al Queda operatives that we've been trying to get since before the invasion of Iraq. While we haven't found large amounts of WMD in Iraq, the operation is essentially a success on that point because now we know with a certainty we never had before. And there are plenty of advantages to the Iraq operation that you don't want to argue against. The technique of claiming that we only had two reasons to invade Iraq - WMD and Al Queda - isn't honest. Back on the actual topic, Sgrena is getting caught out changing her story again. Discussion here.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 11, 2005 09:19 AM (xauGB)

41 Robin Al Queda has been getting new recruits every year for over a decade. I imagine that it's been longer than a decade. So what? The point is that the recruitment has accelerated since Iraq. The terrorists in Iraq are being led by Al Queda operatives that we've been trying to get since before the invasion of Iraq. Yeah, a handful of Al Qaeda operatives are now in Iraq helping. Most aren't, and maybe one of two of them were there before we invaded. The point, which you missed, is that most of Al Qaeda's Iraq strength is new and did not exist before the Iraq invasion. Say what you will about this diverting their attention away from us, but Iraq is diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda. While we haven't found large amounts of WMD in Iraq, the operation is essentially a success on that point because now we know with a certainty we never had before. You call that a good reason? The waste of so many lives (and more are yet to be lost) just to prove a bad hunch wrong spells success? On top of which, the amount of egg on our face over not finding anything means that we'll have even less support from anyone when we want to go after a real threat to us. You may say that we don't need help from any Euro-cowards, but the fact is that our military believes itself overstretched and certainly not ready to take on a simultaneous mission of the same magnitude as Iraq. The technique of claiming that we only had two reasons to invade Iraq - WMD and Al Queda - isn't honest. It isn't? We're not supposed to be there to fight terrorism? Or are you saying that we're there fighting terrorism by spreading democracy? Yeah, I remember that as being the number one pitch line in 2002 (snicker). The reason that critics bray so loudly about WMD and Al Qaeda connections not existing is that they were the main reasons presented to us and the world to support invasion. Not that it's been proven wrong, our credibility is shot, and we're fighting a conflict that the people would never have supported without the WMD/Al Qaeda arguments.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 11, 2005 10:02 AM (9+bUG)

42 Hey, Dr. Dr., sorry for the delay, but I had the day off yesterday and was nowhere near a computer. to respond: Sure, it was in the speech - but Bush could easily have made the same speech about any number of places in the world - and he didn't. Way to avoid the point there. you made a specific claim that Bush never offered any reason before the war FOR the war except for WMD's, and I gave you empirical evidence that you were wrong.

Posted by: Brian B at March 11, 2005 10:52 AM (CouWh)

43 Hey, Brian, good to hear from you. I'll be disappearing for a week myself - much to the dismay of all the posters here, I'm sure. All right, let's say then that giving Iraqis freedom was the true reason that we went there. Why Iraq? Of all the places in this world that people are suffering in, why there? I submit to you that there is no way in Hell that we're going to go around toppling evil men just for the sake of rescuing people. I think you know that we're in Iraq because our leadership felt that this would be a blow against terrorism. The fight against terrorism was the reason fed to us the most, not that we were going to become humanitarians all of a sudden. Unfortunately, because the terrorism reason has evaporated, and because we haven't stepped into a place like the Sudan, for instance, it looks to the world that what's really driving us is a third reason: economics.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 11, 2005 11:17 AM (9+bUG)

44 Strange that DR, Dr mentions Hiroshima and Indian Massacres but doesn't been up Pearl Harbour or massacres of defenseless settlers. Pearl Harbour and Indian massacres were retaliations for being attacked first. Something the liberal anti-America set forever forgets.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 12:26 PM (CBNGy)

45 Didn't read again before hitting button. Waiting for faggot Jim to bring up misspelling.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 12:28 PM (CBNGy)

46 DR.Dr. I believe that anyone that intentionally degrades the moral of our soldiers has an effect on their ability to perform. Additionally, it encourages the enemy to continue. This is giving comfort to the enemy. The result is more deaths of US servicemen. To me this equals a traitor. As far as thinking and using brain power. Using brain power to over complicate the obvious is merely an excuse to further ones ideas no matter how ridiculous they are. Normally this is a product of liberal academia which has been handicapped by its love of argument for the sake of argument. Hiding in academia doesn't give one commen sense. Merely means one can't hack it in a competitive enviroment. I know many claiming to have brain power who have to take out a 5 year loan to buy a new car. If they were so intelligent they would be living the good life. Telling what one perceives to be the truth is not always the best way. Example: If we have a company of marines who's tanks couldn't hit the side of a barn, telling the enemy over the internet would be traitorous. To some, they would be just telling the truth. To me, they would be traitors. They would cause injury to our side. Sometimes having brain power means having the ability to shut up when doing damage to ones own team. That is if America is your team. I sometimes wonder. A good time to bring up certain things is when the battle is over. Then the battle of who is to blame can be fought. WINNING THE BATTLE WITH AS FEW LOSES AS POSSIBLE IS THE ONLY CONSIDERATION A PATRIOT WILL HAVE. Time to do a gut check. See if you have the brain power to look at the other side or just the brain power to make excuses and continue to harangue America and its policies. As for me. I will have plenty to say when this fiasco is over and our troops savely home. Until then, I will have the BRAIN POWER not to support the other side.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 01:25 PM (CBNGy)

47 Oh, forgot about previous post comment. That is exactly what it was. Your previous post. Nothing more. Doesn't mean it made any sense. Who says you are an authority on the matter. Just your opinion. We all have them. Who says yours is any more true than others? You? Refering to your previous post as having meaningful content is merely in your mind. Assuming that the majority of Americans would not have agreed to go to war without the WMD thing is just another assumption on your part. Assuming that we didn't see and understand what the present administration was doing all the time is another misassumption on your part. We knew all the time. That's why we re-elected him. Do you have the BRAIN POWER to understand that. You see most of us had the BRAIN POWER to see what was going to happen and why. I could see why the administation was shouting WMD and the neccessity of it. Are you telling me you didn't have the BRAIN POWER to see why. You need to use your BRAIN POWER and maybe if you think long enough you will be able to understand the big picture.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 01:42 PM (CBNGy)

48 DrDr. you seem to be changing your story while falsely claiming that the Bush administration changed its story. Don't think the irony escapes us. Your credibility died out long ago.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 11, 2005 02:22 PM (xauGB)

49 Dr. Dr., All right, let's say then that giving Iraqis freedom was the true reason that we went there. No, let's NOT say that, because that's not what I fucking said. The problem is your use of the definitive article the Again, let's review, since you seem to have the memory retention of a mosquito. You claimed that the only reason offered for the war by the administration BEFORE the war was WMD's. I offered you evidence that it was not the only reason. Was giving Iraqis freedom A reason for the war? Absolutely. Was it the reason? No, and I never said it was. Why Iraq? Of all the places in this world that people are suffering in, why there? Because there WERE plenty of other reasons to pick Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's review: 1. WMD's. I know, I know, he didn't have them. Or at the very least, we now can't prove he had as many as we thought he did. But did we know that? No. No one knew that. All the external evidence indicated he did. Based on what we knew, we thought he had them. The UN thought he had them. Russia, France, and England all thought he had them. Bill Clinton thought he had them. Hell, maybe even Saddam HIMSELF thought he had them. Hindsight is 20/20, and useless. 2. As part of the cease fire agreement after the first Gulf War, Hussein agreed to abide by UN resolutions regarding destroying his stockpile and showing that he had. For 11 years he failed to act in good faith, violating resolution after resolution. He failed to live up to his side of the cease fire, we had valid reason to resume hostilities. 3. Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism. Our current war is not and should not be just with Al Quaeda, but with all such terrorist groups. 4. For the entire inter-war period, our blustery rhetoric against Saddam, coupled with our failure to actually back it up qith effective action, was a major blow to US credibility in the eyes of our enemies, and gave them the courage to believe they could do anything they wanted to us and our reaction would be half-ass at best. It was this perception that led to 9-11. By finally putting up, The US dropped a pair, and suddenly when we tell someone that we're displeased with their actions, they know that truly is bad news for them. 5. Iraq's strategic location means that any success we have there will have repercussions throughout the greater region. As we have seen. Suddenly, fewer and fewer places are viewed by the Tangoes as safe bases of operation, fewer and fewer governments are willing to shelter them or even tolerate them for that matter. To sum up, we had several reasons and justifications for invading Iraq specifically. It would be difficult to name another totalitarian state where it would be more politically or diplomatically justifiable, or more strategically and practically acheivable, to do what we did in Iraq.

Posted by: Brian B at March 11, 2005 03:38 PM (CouWh)

50 Shit Brian thats what I was trying to say. Thanks. DR. Dr. Time for that gut check. As Bush says, you are either with us or against us. And just a hint. All that bullshit about we will lose is just that. Bullshit. We don't lose. There's something Brian left out. Notice that Israel is having nothing to do with this. I'm going to give you something to think about. (1). Does Israel have Nuclear weapons? You better believe it. (2). Would Israel go down without using them? Not a chance. Nothing for them to lose and no place to go. (3). If America abandons Israel will the Muslims gang up and attack them? You Bet. (4). Would Israel go all out to win a final and complete victory in defense of it's land, race and religion? Why not. They believe they are right. The God thing again. (5). If Israel used all their might would millions of muslims be killed? You better believe it. Israel doesn't march to the UN's drum. (6). Is it possible that our presense in the area could prevent this holocaust. You bet. In conclusion. The actions of America and it's allies may very well save the lives of millions of people who (the America hating liberals) say hate us. Is there another plausible scenario? What else could happen if we give up and pull out. Is anyone out there stupid enough to think Israel is going to pack up and go away? Israel and Islam is never going to sit down and get along unless democracy rules. Normal people need to decide on war. Not religious zealots. Religious zealots do not care about death. Only their preverted sense of religion. I kill you in the name of God who is all good and merciful. Bullshit. Both Israel and Islam should kiss America's ass for saving their asses. Then remember the immediate killings that would take place between the various religious factions the day after we left. And for this humanitarian effort. They hate us.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 10:07 PM (CBNGy)

51 A good time to bring up certain things is when the battle is over. Then the battle of who is to blame can be fought. Ok, but the War on Terra never ends, does it? So anyone who disagrees with our military actions should just shut up until all the terrorists are gone, right? Besides, with the countless numbers of your fellow Americans who have spoken out against the war, do you just live every day hating all the traitors in your midst, wishing they would all be tried and hanged?

Posted by: mantis at March 14, 2005 12:17 AM (zmcHh)

52 Or hanged and then tried. I'm not particular.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 14, 2005 07:49 AM (x+5JB)

53 A lot of American soldiers are killing for fun. They love war because they are on a steal/rape/kill power trip. Freedom, justice, and love are dead words to them and their leaders. They come from hell, and they lie like hell.

Posted by: Tina Malik at March 20, 2005 08:28 AM (M7kiy)

54 Your site is full of distortions. An EYESORE on the net. I didn't realize that there were people who could defend this sort of war. As far as I am concerned Sgrena was an Italian patriot. The Italian people were against that War. So Sgrena was working in the interests of the Italian people, which is not embodied up in the form of Berlusconi and his gang. Sgrena is a humanist, she was honoring HUMAN life in her articles. She was villifying war, which is Anti-Human. You don't seem to perceive that Iraquis are human beings, each one a miracle. Life, human life is precious. Every human being should be AGAINST WAR, against the mechanisms that take HUMAN LIFE. I am an American. And I am here to tell you that this WAR is wrong. It is being fought for the wrong reasons. It is making animals of the American people and you need to wake up and realize that. WAR if used in political manuevering, should be a LAST RESORT and not a first choice. Wake up. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. You are soiling your highest self, (if you have a higher self) by espousing the ignorant hateful things which you do. The worse is that you think that YOU can bring enlightenment to OTHERS. You need to look at what American is doing to Americans before you go around pretending that America can SAVE other people. Save them from what? They need to be saved from Nut Jobs like yourself. You seem to disagree with the way in which Iraq is run, its judicial system, its law enforcement system, its governemental structure. I bet you wish that all Iraqui's were Americans and looked and acted like people in your neighborhood. Maybe you would like to become president of Iraq and have all your friends and extended family (or thousands of your own clones) go over there and micromanage their country. However, this earth is very diverse. There are numerous ethnicities, societies, languages, governing styles, political structures, economic policies etc. Not everyone is a blonde blue-eyed control freak from Wisconsin. Might does not make right. Countries are like people, they grow at their own pace and are individuals. Iraq's development is none of your business. Should China eradicate us when they become more powerful than we are? Should one country be able to tell another country to "Hurry up and catch up to me, because I am SO much better then you are"? The "one world order, one type of human person only allowed" vision of yours is quite psychotic. We have to let other societies develop around the world. We need to mind our own business. We can not rule the earth. There is a God to do that for us (If you believe in God)

Posted by: Vani - An American at July 20, 2005 03:46 AM (sh2b9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
86kb generated in CPU 0.1564, elapsed 0.2257 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.2065 seconds, 293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.