Last updated Apr 12, 2003 (Go home human shields!lol)
(NY Post humor) 3/19 (New doctrine)
THE COALITION (47 TOTAL): US UK ES IT AU BG PT HU CZ
DK PL KW AL HR EE LV LT MK RO SK SI MANY OTHERS
"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they ever made a
difference in the world; the Marines dont have that problem" R.
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!
"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
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
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
They deny having chemical weapons however
thousands of chemical protection military suits were found
fully equipped with nerve gas antidotes. Ever wondered
They use women and children as human
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
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.
WAR IS JUST WHEN IT SAVES THE LIVES
OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, IT SECURES WORLD PEACE, AND ELIMINATES
DESPOTS. THINK OF THE TORTURED UNFORTUNATE SOULES KILLED
CONTINUOUSLY BY HIS REGIME AND UNDERSTAND THAT EACH DAY THAT
PASSES ONLY CONTINUES THE KILLING. THIS IS THE PRICE OF YOUR
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)
Bob Gorrell -
national/syndicated. CLICK ON CARTOON FOR MORE....
New! Link of the day: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills Democracies
tend to be less aggressive than tyrannies. See also chapters
on democides in the 20th century... Revolting and
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
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
By Pete du
Pont The Wall Street Journal March 14,
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
So the signs, slogans and emotions are
familiar. And so are the questions we ought to be asking the
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
If you believe peace is paramount, which of
the following wars would you not have fought:
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
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
Why will appeasement succeed with Saddam
Hussein when it has failed with so many other
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.
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
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.
United States take action to prevent attacks--before they
occur--on its territory or people?
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,
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.
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?
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
KEANU REEVES: Who
wouldn't get pumped for peace if Keanu showed up at a
rally in fantastic new sunglasses?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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"
"Webster defines [any word here]
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
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
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.
* Lack of death.
* More good things.
* 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
That is all we are
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
Mr. Johnson's latest book,
"Napoleon," was published last year in the Penguin Lives
* Find this