Make your own free website on

Email me!

View Guestbook
Sign Guestbook

My news clippings

get this gear!

Visits since Feb 26, 2003:

Last updated Apr 12, 2003
(Go home human shields!lol)
(NY Post humor)
3/19 (New doctrine)


"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they ever made a difference in the world;
the Marines dont have that problem"
R. Reagan

America brings freedom and joy to the world yet again! Watch foxnews, msnbc (forget about cnn... see below why) Unbelievable sights...
Watch it, enjoy it and NEVER FORGET!
I never did since the same happened in Communist Romania! Hence my hatred of tyrants everywhere!

The original article in a paper the name of which I wont mention ...:)

I DO NOT read NYtimes and DO NOT watch CNN or even get close to the hated BBC... The only balanced reports you will find in , , , ... can watch FOX news, maybe MSNBC... Nothing else! 

Thank our troops(10 mil signed already)    Support our troops    Adopt a soldier!

New! Best Troops support Music Video clip! Must see! Dial-up    Broadband-other site
New! VIDEO:Who are those peaceniks? Must see! San Francisco   New York Broadband    Check out my WEASELS ESSAY!

"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day," said Yusuf Abed Kazim, a Baghdad imam who pounded Saddam statue's pedestal with a sledgehammer. "Only now will I start living. That Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a criminal."

"GO HOME HUMAN SHIELDS, you US wankers!" proclaimed a banner carried by 2 Iraqis in Baghdad...(Thanks so much for the pic...)

"Now my son can have a chance in life," said Bushra Abed, pointing to her 2-year-old son, Ibrahim as they watched the statue come down in central Baghdad.

"Oh, the Iraqi people are happy now," said Flaih, 49, a former Iraqi army officer who arrived in New Hampshire with his wife and two sons 2 years ago. "It's the happiest moment in my life. It's my liberation day."

"It's beautiful," said Derweesh, 32, a Cleveland surgeon whose family left Iraq when he was 9 years old. "I cried tears of joy."

OP. Iraqi Freedom nearing victory! - Faster than I expected and all those losers predicted! Joy and exhultation on the streets of Baghdad (reminds me of the collapse of Communism in eastern Europe - was such a rush for millions including myself!).
The Arab world again cannot grasp the facts- same as when Israel was victorious in the past...they call for pan-arab fight! Empty words of bravery, lies, deceit and false pride is the rule in those Moslem countries. Lighten up retards! We're living in the 21st century not in a AliBaba's times!

For the sake of the millions already butchered by Saddam and those yet to be ...

Learn more. about the Butcher who modeled himself after Stalin. At over 1 million victims he is about 40 mil behind his hero, give or take a few million people...
Saddam exterminated Iraqis ranging from close friends and allies to kurds and shiites, clinging ruthlessly to power. He butchered neighbors in Iran and Kuweit and used chemical weapons indiscriminately on civilians and military.. This guy pays some 25 thousand dollars to each family of Palestinian suicide bombers and leaves his own people in rags! Do you have any doubts about what he would do with A-bombs? I don't, and I wouldnt take any chances in finding out...

The animation above is for the mobs of zombies in the streets that claim Bush is more of a menace to the world than this BUTCHER!  Hope you feel good about it!

So typical of Arabs (it ain't inborn, but rather taught in those moslem backward dictatorships)....

Lies, deceit and treachery:
"In one incident, Iraqi troops raised a white flag of surrender - only to attack their approaching captors with artillery fire. In another, he said, a group of "civilians" made motions to surrender and then opened fire when American marines came forward."
They use hospitals and schools for military purposes
They deny having chemical weapons however thousands of chemical protection military suits were found fully equipped with nerve gas antidotes. Ever wondered why?
They use women and children as human shields
They execute POW's 
They shoot Iraqi soldiers that try to defect in a most atrocious way : they dress in American uniforms. If any Iraqis surrender to them they shoot them!

They keep Iraqi soldiers at gunpoint and threaten to shoot their families in order to coerce them to fight!

They hanged a woman for waving to coalition planes!
These are subhuman beasts that thrive in tyrannies (I've seen that in Communism before).
Israel has been battling similar monsters with little backing from the West.
Boycott France!. The French loosers :). READ my opinion on  the UN, the European Weasels and the anti-war demonstrators :)

Time to bomb Saddam - hilarious cartoon!

The 1936 pre WW-II Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain and ALL OVER THE WORLD because it appeared to have prevented a war with Nazi Germany.

Now the peacenik weasels do it AGAIN! CHECK OUT MY ESSAY!


VIDEO: Crazed Iraqi preacher draws sword to butcher Jews & Americans! (need Win player 9 codecs)1Mb
Same vid clip, smaller, (500 k)

Original version of same clip, Real Audio format(250k) Please note this was going on weeks before the war started

The transcript runs as follows :

The victory is close with Allah's will! (8sec)
To the ones that I won't mention their names: (12)sec
The Americans, and their President,
and The british and their supporters (16sec)
The Zionist, the stepsons of the US! (20sec)
Alah Akbar! Muhammad's Nation! (27sec)
Even the rock would say: There is a Jew behind me! (32sec)
Come and behead him!(35sec)
(draws sword and waves menacingly) And we will behead him! By Allah! We will behead him! (41sec)
Oh Jews! Alah Akbar! >Jihad (holy war) for Allah! Victory to the believers!
Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! (the entire mosque gets excited)

AUDIO: Mohammed, an Iraqi refugee blasts peacenik zombie (Peace and Justice's spokesperson)

  Bob Gorrell - national/syndicated. CLICK ON CARTOON FOR MORE....

New! Link of the day: Democracies tend to be less aggressive than tyrannies. See also chapters on democides in the 20th century... Revolting and shocking!
Following the collapse of Communism, America needs to change it's cold war era doctrine. No more support of dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt just for the sake of Communism containment. We should engage world's democracies in active economic and diplomatic sanctions in order to collapse dictatorships in North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya! 
Tyrannies, dictatorships and despots not only bring grief to their own countries but also are more aggresive and war-oriented toward their neighbors as seen in the above link!

Several articles written during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Latest Articles: 

Getting Serious

By Pete du Pont
The Wall Street Journal
March 14, 2003

Protests against war in Iraq have been raging all across America and England as well as Continental Europe. Passionate peace protests are nothing new; we saw them in 1933 when the British Oxford Union declared it would "in no circumstances fight for its King and country," against the Vietnam War in the 1970s, and in 1983 against NATO's proposal to install Pershing missiles to defend Western Europe against Soviet Russia.

So the signs, slogans and emotions are familiar. And so are the questions we ought to be asking the peace protesters.

Peace is important, but is peace without freedom acceptable?

The Soviet Union was at peace between the two world wars and from 1945 until its collapse in 1989, and in those times managed to shoot, starve or kill in the gulag more than 20 million of its own people. In Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution, China killed and starved many millions more. Pol Pot in a Cambodia at peace killed two million Cambodians. Zimbabwe is at peace, but dictator Robert Mugabe is starving his subjects. North Korea is at peace, and enslaving and starving its people. Iraq is, likewise, oppressing its people.

To quote columnist Andrew Sullivan, "War is an awful thing. But it isn't the most awful thing." Enslaved peoples and peace without freedom are worse.

If you believe peace is paramount, which of the following wars would you not have fought:

? The Gulf War of 1991, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and terrorism?
? World War II against Nazi Germany?
? The American Revolutionary War?
? The Civil War?
? The Korean War?
? The war that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban?

And if at the height of the Berlin blockade in 1948 the Soviet army had attacked West Germany, Belgium and France, would you have opposed an American military response?

Why will appeasement succeed with Saddam Hussein when it has failed with so many other dictators?

In the 1930s, European powers pursued collective security through the League of Nations, which they thought preferable to war. But when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, the league did nothing. In 1938 Britain and France appeased Hitler by giving him most of Czechoslovakia, and Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich proclaiming to cheering crowds that Britain had achieved "peace for our time." Hitler had built a massive army and air force, but British policy was pacifist; the government assured its citizens that Hitler was a reasonable fellow and had given his word in Munich, so he wouldn't use his newly constructed, powerful military. The League of Nations failed, appeasement failed, and World War II followed.

Collective security through the United Nations failed in Bosnia in the 1990s. For three years the U.N. sent food and passed resolution after resolution while the Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslims. No air strikes were allowed against the Serbs since that would mean the U.N. "might be taking sides." Gen. Ratko Mladic then took 350 U.N. peacekeepers hostage and chained some to military targets to prevent attacks. NATO and the Clinton administration finally authorized air strikes in 1995, and the Bosnian terror ended in a few months. Appeasement failed while American-led military action succeeded. It ended ethic cleansing and freed people from systematic oppression and murder.

Appeasement is failing in Iraq too, where Saddam Hussein has defied 17 U.N. resolutions over 12 years. Iraq is remains in material breach of Resolution 1441, and its dictatorial leader has not been disarmed.

May the United States take action to prevent attacks--before they occur--on its territory or people?

Two months before Pearl Harbor FDR ordered the Navy to aggressively patrol the North Atlantic to defend against German submarines. He said: "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack." He was right; prevention of attacks is a sound idea.

If not America, who? If not now, when?

The UN has not disarmed Saddam. Will France? Belgium? Saudi Arabia? Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam possesses VX nerve agent and probably large quantities of smallpox and anthrax as well as the capability of making much more. He also has the missiles to use them against other nations. There is no question that Saddam would use these weapons. (Why else would he be holding onto them at risk of being removed from power by the United States?). He has used some of them before, in Iran and against other Iraqis. Saddam's leading enemy--the big target--is the United States of America. He won't attack France; he'll attack us. So the risk is ours, and the responsibility is ours.

The objectives of America's security policy are first, to protect America and Americans; second, to prevent terrorist attacks against other democratic nations. Ending state sponsorship of terrorism--by Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea--goes a long way to meeting the first and second objectives. America's security objectives also call for changing the failed political culture of the Arab region.

People in these nations hate America because they envy us. Their societies have failed while democratic capitalism has succeeded. Such societies have failed in the Middle East because of a restrictive religion, the lack of education, the subjugation of their population (especially women), socialist economies and government control over of information. In their rage, subjugated people strike back at Americans and Jews, who have done much better than they have. Have we not the right to protect ourselves against such attacks--and also to address the tyranny that is their root cause?

Finally, Abraham Lincoln said there was no middle ground between freedom and slavery. Can there be a middle ground between freedom and terrorism?

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis . His column appears once a month.


Hehe, funniest ever.... NY POST March 16, 2003
Who wouldn't get pumped for peace if Keanu showed up at a rally in fantastic new sunglasses?

March 16, 2003
-- The people have spoken. We don't want war. No one wants war. President Bush says he doesn't want war. Saddam Hussein says he doesn't want war. That guy who runs France, by definition, doesn't want war. After all, war, like pestilence, is one of those things most people can usually agree on - they don't want it.

What do people want? Usually, one of those sweet, flat-screen plasma TVs that you can hang on the wall like, well, art. Even people who consider themselves a part of the peace movement want one of those new TVs. Everyone wants peace, which is why some people, instead of saying "goodbye" or "God is great!" say "peace."

So why is the peace movement so . . . what's the word . . . underperforming? Like AOL Time Warner. Why is it so lame - like the Knicks? The peace movement should be like Microsoft, or the Yankees. After all, it's got the better product - one everybody on earth agrees on. Right now, peace should be ahead in the standings and coasting into the playoffs.

Instead - well, have you tuned in to the peace movement? It's all Janeane Garofalo on "Crossfire" and people dressing up in costumes and wordy signs and too many layers of Goretex, and pretty much no extreme sports at all. That's not peace. That's a bad time. A bad time that might well end in war, which is a really, really bad time.

Let's begin, as all things do, with celebrities, who are genetically superior to most of us. But not Janeane Garofalo, who seems to have taken the celebrity lead in making the rounds of various political talk shows of late.

While clearly in the upper tiers among spunky comediennes with the ability to pronounce Peshawar (push?'w?r), she is not, relative to other celebrities at least, attractive, or rich - two things we Americans pretty much demand from our stars. Instead, she's vaguely irritating and terminally pale. She can't open a movie, let alone a peace movement.

What about Susan Sarandon, you say? A wonderful actress, a native New Yorker, not Barbra Streisand. Yes, but also a woman about whom the adjective "brassy" is often used. Here's the thing: When people call you "brassy," it means you annoy them. Example: Rebecca Romijn Stamos is "hot," Bea Arthur is "brassy." There's a reason they don't send "brassy" women to motivate the troops. To be fair, it might not be possible to have a movement of any kind without Susan Sarandon showing up - just like the guy who comes to every party, and after a while people just stop asking who invited him.

But why can't the movement cast some celebrities to give peace a second weekend, show that it has legs? We suggest Keanu Reeves. The new "Matrix" movies are coming out soon and you just know they're gonna kick ass. Who wouldn't get pumped for peace if Keanu showed up at a rally sporting some fantastic new sunglasses and told us he was going to overthrow our machine-generated overlords once and for all? Or he could just stand there, "act" vacant, and say, "I know kung fu."

Or what about Jennifer Connelly? She seems peaceful. And Sheryl Crow and Fred Durst - sort of.

The anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s were successful partly because they had great soundtracks. Who's playing for peace now? That'd be no one. Crow hasn't actually gone out and penned any protest songs, but she did take the truly inspirational step of donning a "peace strap" on her guitar. Sadly, the "N" was obscured by her long hair, which, it must be said, did look extremely healthy. So what we got was a wistful "o war."

Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst at least had the guts to make an anti-war statement on camera. He expressed the hope that we are all in "agreeance" that "this war should go away." "Agreeance," of course, is not actually a word, and it can be hard to influence policy, at least when speaking to an English-speaking audience, if you're not actually speaking English. More difficult still is getting people to take you seriously when your proposed policy is agreeing to agree it would be good if something just went bye-bye.

At the peace march in New York last month, most people were, it's true, at least using real words, but that also presented a problem. Much was written about the fact that the march brought out a new crowd - an upper-middle class, educated, thoughtful soccer mom crowd. That was nice, but it turns out it's possible to be too thoughtful. A lot of these people hadn't been to a march in a long time, if ever, and boy, did they have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. For instance, here are some words and phrases that should never appear on a protest sign:



"That being said"

"But, seriously"

"In conclusion"

"Webster defines [any word here] as"


There were also drum circles and people playing, yes, didjeridoos, those Aboriginal wind instruments that sound like someone dying and often cause that very same effect - a deadly, musical onomatopoeia. Simply put, there are more people out there who hate drum circles than hate war. It's just sheer numbers. Arguing the point is like taking issue with pi. Most people just can't reconcile being anti-war but pro-drum. If you put up a tent that's anti-war and anti-drum, they're in there. Anti-war, drum-neutral? Sure. Anti-war and pro-didjeridoo? No.

So we ask: Are you people serious about wanting peace or aren't you? You have to choose: didjeridoos, or affecting lasting change. Really. You can't have both. That's what happened at Gallipoli.

Then there were the people in costume - one paper ran a photo of a father and son dressed up as war victims. C'mon now - at this point doesn't everyone know that it's impossible to take adults dressed in costume seriously? They all come off looking like parents who haven't yet worked out non-awkward ways of bonding with their children. And peace rallies are not anyone's second shot at making the school play.

On the other extreme are those who don't dress up quite enough. Here we're mostly talking about the veteran anti-war types - the ones who started with Vietnam, moved on to nuclear disarmament rallies and probably would've protested the Revolutionary War had they had a chance. ("Ho ho, hey hey, how many redcoats did you kill today?")

Yes, rallies are long. Yes, they involve walking. But would it kill you to wear something other than the most comfortable clothes possible? If you want people to take you seriously on a serious issue, leave the sandals and smocks at home. And keep Velcro to a minimum. Think of it as a job interview. Business casual at the very least.

The peace movement could also adopt some practices that we know attract the masses. For instance: It could serve snacks, which people love. Better yet, why not take a tip from professional large-gatherings-of-people producers and team up with, say, Skyy Vodka, and throw a rally with some b-models and a free martini bar from 7-10 p.m.? Or tap the power of the reality-TV frenzy and get Lorenzo Lamas to come out onstage and do an "Are you hot, and also against the war?" bit. Lorenzo: "I'm going to need to see your ass and hear your feelings about Hans Blix."

Even better, the peace movement could adopt some Bush administration tactics and call a press conference to announce it had "secret intelligence" about peace, then offer a PowerPoint presentation that effortlessly integrated bullet points and live video. Because who doesn't love bullet points? They're just innately satisfying.

* Peace.

* Lack of death.

* More good things.

* Happiness.

* Concluding reiteration: Peace.

Then serve more snacks (which could be the last bullet point, but that's a judgment call).

Our last suggestion is one of the formidable weapons known to man. It was at the heart of the '60s movement - the thing that got the attention of the nation and galvanized us into finally ending the Vietnam war. That's right: sex. Specifically, the spread of the belief among women that sex is a political act, that the best way to get back at dad (that big square) is to fool around anonymously with as many guys as possible - now, that's a movement. We're not sure how those people in the '60s did it, but if that can somehow be revived, it will unleash a force no brassy celeb, wordy slogan - or even any profound moral or political truth - can ever hope to match.

The point is, we all want peace. But the sad truth is, we're not going to get it by just asking people to "give it a chance."

The marketplace for the public's attention is very crowded, and Mr. Lamas' entry doesn't make it any easier.

The peace movement needs to get it together.

That is all we are saying.

Au Revoir, Petite France
In one blow, Chirac shattered the U.N., NATO and the EU.

By Paul Johnson
The Wall Street Journal
March 22, 2003

LONDON--Last weekend's Azores summit foreshadowed a new era in geopolitics. It reminds us of the old wartime meetings between Roosevelt and Churchill in which the two leaders planned the next phase of the war against Hitler. As President Bush left the meeting assured of a French veto of the resolution, the world finally moved on from the stalemate of the previous two weeks at the U.N.

We shall see much more of this kind of diplomacy in the future, in which deals are struck on a bilateral or trilateral basis to suit the needs of the moment. Roosevelt and Churchill's meetings were often attended by one or more government heads, whose presence was deemed relevant to the subjects discussed.

At the heart of the new diplomacy will be, of course, what Charles De Gaulle then (and Jacques Chirac now) bitterly called "Les Anglo-Saxons"--America and Britain, whose common culture and attachments to freedom and democracy make them not just allies, but "family." Building on this sure foundation, the U.S., as the sole superpower, will make its arrangements with other states on an ad hoc basis rather than through international organizations.

We have to face the ugly fact: Internationalism--the principle of collective security and the attempt to regulate the world through representative bodies--has been dealt a vicious blow by Mr. Chirac's bid to present himself as a world statesman, whatever the cost to the world. France is a second-rate power militarily. But because of its geographic position at the center of Western Europe and its nominal possession of nuclear weapons, which ensures its permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, it wields considerable negative and destructive power. On this occasion, it has exercised such power to the full, and the consequences are likely to be permanent.

The first body Mr. Chirac has damaged, perhaps fatally, is the U.N. The old Security Council system will have to go: It is half a century old and no longer represents reality because three of the world's most important entities--Japan, Germany and India--have no permanent place on it. More important, however, the United States, whose support for the U.N. is essential to its continuance, has lost confidence in its usefulness in moments of real crisis, as the Azores summit showed. The Security Council will now be marginalized and important business will be transacted elsewhere. Indeed, it may prove difficult to keep the U.S. within the organization at all.

Mr. Chirac's heavy hand has also fallen on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. By trying to manipulate NATO against the U.S., its co-founder, principal member and chief supplier of firepower, France made a fundamental mistake. Both the U.N. and NATO were originally created precisely to keep the U.S. committed to collective security and the defense of Europe, and to avoid a U.S. return to isolationism. America's victory in the Cold War meant that there was no longer a case for keeping a large proportion of its armed forces in Western Europe.

It now makes much more sense, militarily and geographically, to base America's rapid-reaction force for the European theater in reliable Britain, and on this basis construct practical bilateral deals with all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, whose freedom and democracy depend on U.S. goodwill. In this new system, France will become irrelevant. We will see then what Germany will do. My guess is that it will come to its senses and scuttle quickly under the U.S. umbrella.

The third organization Mr. Chirac has damaged is the European Union. Although under French pressure the EU has been scrambling toward monetary and constitutional union, the Iraq crisis--which has split the EU into a dozen fragments--shows that it has made no progress at all toward a common foreign policy. The only country that joined the Franco-German axis is Belgium. Two of the five major members, Italy and Spain, sided with the U.K., as have most of the newcomers and aspirant members--thereby earning the East Europeans personal abuse from Mr. Chirac. This is the man who likes to be called "the first gentleman of Europe."

The crisis demonstrated plainly enough that the EU's armed forces do not exist and, on present showing, never will. Mr. Chirac could not hold off the Anglo-American option of force because he could not make a significant contribution. Anglo-American commanders have learned, from their experience in the Balkans, not to trust the French forces. So, having no "war card" to play, Mr. Chirac played the "peace card," the only one he possessed. As a result, a dozen or more EU members, or would-be members, are now rethinking their commitment to the EU. The U.K. is wondering, for instance, whether its future is with Continental Europe. Once again, for the British, the Channel has proved wider than the Atlantic.

Mr. Bush has a busy time ahead. Not only must he and Mr. Blair devise a workable post-war settlement for Iraq (and plan the next move against terrorist states like North Korea and Iran), but America has to construct a vision of a safe world which can get by without NATO and with a marginalized U.N. It is high time that America began the "agonizing reappraisal" that the former U.S. secretary of state John Foster Dulles once threatened.

In it, America must think hard whether it can offer a viable alternative to European states that no longer wish to commit themselves to a European Union dominated by a selfish and irresponsible France. Today, in 2003, I see no reason why this reappraisal should be agonizing. On the contrary, it is welcome and overdue, and can be constructive and exhilarating.

Mr. Johnson's latest book, "Napoleon," was published last year in the Penguin Lives series.

* Find this article at: