>"I don't believe I have been wrong about the war at all. I
>still think it's a disaster waiting to happen"
>
>Waiting to happen. Ok, Sure. What happened to the millions
>of refugees and hundreds of thousands of deaths that you and
>our pride and joy, the Hollywood elite, predicted. How about
>how the ordinary Iraqis would fight us tooth and nail.
>Didn't count on them having the brains to put down their
>weapons and decide to live in freedom, did you.

Right, I forgot I was talking to an American so I will have to be precise in my iteration, as there seems to be no scope or understanding for anything that is not directly spelled out in bite size chunks for you people.

When I say it is a disaaster waiting to happen, I am not referring to deaths incurred during the war, I am referring to the what mismanagement of the current situation will bring about in the future, most worryingly, the potential for another hardline Islamic state to form out of the ashes of Iraq, the percieved damage to the body of Islam(the Ummah) felt by moslems all around the world and how that influnces Islamic anger, the irreversable damge to the relationship betweenthe Islamic world and the west, the increased threat of terrorism this war caused, the persistant uncertainty it entails and the acephalous planning of the "re-building" program.
The case for war was never proved, and remains unproven as yet. What we have is a very unstable country with an uncertain future, occupied by force by the largest superpower in the world in contravention of international law. And I don't think that's a good thing.

Now, when is that invasion of the Congo happening, or Nigeria, or Myamar. There are people out there that make Saddam Hussein look like a pussy and are indulging in mass slaughter as I write. They have just as many links to Osama Bin Laden as Hussein did, probably just as many WMD and they are hot to trot. Can't wait to see it on CNN.


By the way, that was sarcasm, in case you missed it. As to the rest of your post, I've heard it all before on CNN and it sounded like total propaganda bullshit then too. Proof. Show me the proof. Otherwise, fuck you, asswipe, as you so eloquently put it.

Anyone can shout but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be heard, nor say anything worth hearing.




From a recent article by John Pilger.
The corruption of journalism is most vivid back in the commentary booth, far from the dust and death. "Yes, too many died in the war," wrote Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer. "Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short. The death toll has been nothing like as high as had been widely feared. Thousands have died in the war, millions have died at the hands of Saddam."

Mark his logic, for it is at the heart of what is dispensed day after day, night after night. The clear implication is that it is all right to have killed thousands of people in the invasion of their homeland, because "millions" died at the hands of their dictator. The lazy language, the idle dismissal of human life - each life part of so many other lives - is striking. Saddam Hussein killed a great many people, but "millions"? - the league of Stalin and Hitler? David Edwards of MediaLens asked Amnesty International about this. Amnesty produced a catalogue of Saddam's killings that amounted mostly to hundreds every year, not millions. It is an appalling record that does not require the exaggeration of state-inspired propaganda - propaganda whose aim, in Rawnsley's case, is to protect Tony Blair from the grave charges of which many people all over the world believe he is guilty.

There is, for example, not a single mention by Rawnsley of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a direct result of the 12-year, medieval siege of Iraq conducted by America and backed by Britain - and enthusiastically by Blair. Professor Joy Gordon in Connecticut has spent three years studying this embargo as a weapon of social destruction. A preview of her voluminous, shocking work appeared in Harper's Magazine. She describes "a legitimised act of mass slaughter".

The protectors of Blair regard the entirely predictable crushing of a third-world minnow by the world's superpower as a "vindication". The great Israeli journalist and internationalist Uri Avnery wrote recently about this corruption of intellect and morality. "Let's pose the question in the most provocative manner," he wrote on 18 April. "What would have happened if Adolf Hitler had triumphed in World War Two? Would this have turned his war into a just one? Let's assume that Hitler would have indicted his enemies at the Nuremberg war crimes court: Churchill for the terrible air raid on Dresden, Truman for dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Stalin for murdering millions in the Gulag camps. Would the historians have regarded this as a just war? A war that ends with the victory of the aggressor is worse than a war that ends with their defeat. It is more destructive, both morally and physically."