The price tag for rebuilding Iraq.

[povertystruck]

I see the U.S. has done a fine job in Afghanistan, one can ony expect the same quality in Iraq. The war was for WMD and terrorism. Some say the war was for oil, I say oil is needed to fuel the vehicles used in searching for WMD. Some may that the museum in Baghdad was worth protecting, a handful of soldiers could make the difference in securing oil fields, which secure an oil source for the search of WMD. So what is more important, the musem that holds artifacts from the cradle of civillization or a fuel source to find these WMD?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
BOWFINGER: Wow, that was a rather long diatribe, barely intelligible but I think was able to get the jist of your complaints with my argument, every single one of which has been answered or addressed adequately in other posts by me in this thread. Hell most of your complaints aren't even original, as BOBDN has already used them.

I suggest you go back to the beginning and read my posts to see how I developed the argument and provided the logical and evidenciary support for it. Then if you are still in the dark, come back and ask a question that - dare I say - is at least somewhat a new criticism. Alrighty then?

Your intellectual laziness will not be my loss.

Sorry, I've been through the whole thread a couple of times and must respectfully disagree. You made quite grandiose claims for your "rationale". While you have repeatedly asserted that you addressed our questions, I can't see that you actually did -- anywhere. About the only thing you documented was Iraq's efforts to curry favor with other countries (which I do not dispute). For everything else, you make claims but don't support them.

Let me make this a little simpler. I raised two specific issues with your "rationale":

1. Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent, and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion? Yes, I understand you claim this is true. Please document this claim with evidence.
2. Please explain why the majority of U.N. members opposed the invasion, given that they understand these issues just as well as the U.S. Don't try to blame it on France and Russia's economic ties to Iraq. Countries without those ties were equally opposed.

Finally, for the third time, you stated that the Bush administration never tried to tie the Iraqi invasion to terrorism and 9/11. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about this claim? This is important to your credibility.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Bowfinger, I have a suggestion for both of us.

We keep telling the truth. They can keep defending their version of events. Sooner or later the truth will become apparent.

Agreed. I am confident future history books will vindicate us. The tides of time are our friend.

Re. "capisce", no I don't know Italian. Its correct spelling is just something I picked up somewhere along the way. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Bowfinger, I have a suggestion for both of us.

We keep telling the truth. They can keep defending their version of events. Sooner or later the truth will become apparent.

truth is subjective. didn't obiwan teach you that?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Bowfinger, I have a suggestion for both of us.

We keep telling the truth. They can keep defending their version of events. Sooner or later the truth will become apparent.

truth is subjective. didn't obiwan teach you that?

No, obiwan taught me truth is universal.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Bowfinger, I have a suggestion for both of us.

We keep telling the truth. They can keep defending their version of events. Sooner or later the truth will become apparent.

truth is subjective. didn't obiwan teach you that?

No, obiwan taught me truth is universal.

no, darth vader killed your father. and darth vader is your father. because the truth is subjective

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter
BOWFINGER: Wow, that was a rather long diatribe, barely intelligible but I think was able to get the jist of your complaints with my argument, every single one of which has been answered or addressed adequately in other posts by me in this thread. Hell most of your complaints aren't even original, as BOBDN has already used them.

I suggest you go back to the beginning and read my posts to see how I developed the argument and provided the logical and evidenciary support for it. Then if you are still in the dark, come back and ask a question that - dare I say - is at least somewhat a new criticism. Alrighty then?

Your intellectual laziness will not be my loss.

Sorry, I've been through the whole thread a couple of times and must respectfully disagree. You made quite grandiose claims for your "rationale". While you have repeatedly asserted that you addressed our questions, I can't see that you actually did -- anywhere. About the only thing you documented was Iraq's efforts to curry favor with other countries (which I do not dispute). For everything else, you make claims but don't support them.

Let me make this a little simpler. I raised two specific issues with your "rationale":

1. Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent, and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion? Yes, I understand you claim this is true. Please document this claim with evidence.
2. Please explain why the majority of U.N. members opposed the invasion, given that they understand these issues just as well as the U.S. Don't try to blame it on France and Russia's economic ties to Iraq. Countries without those ties were equally opposed.

Finally, for the third time, you stated that the Bush administration never tried to tie the Iraqi invasion to terrorism and 9/11. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about this claim? This is important to your credibility.

Speaking of crickets chirping . . .

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter
BOWFINGER: Wow, that was a rather long diatribe, barely intelligible but I think was able to get the jist of your complaints with my argument, every single one of which has been answered or addressed adequately in other posts by me in this thread. Hell most of your complaints aren't even original, as BOBDN has already used them.

I suggest you go back to the beginning and read my posts to see how I developed the argument and provided the logical and evidenciary support for it. Then if you are still in the dark, come back and ask a question that - dare I say - is at least somewhat a new criticism. Alrighty then?

Your intellectual laziness will not be my loss.

Sorry, I've been through the whole thread a couple of times and must respectfully disagree. You made quite grandiose claims for your "rationale". While you have repeatedly asserted that you addressed our questions, I can't see that you actually did -- anywhere. About the only thing you documented was Iraq's efforts to curry favor with other countries (which I do not dispute). For everything else, you make claims but don't support them.

Let me make this a little simpler. I raised two specific issues with your "rationale":

1. Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent, and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion? Yes, I understand you claim this is true. Please document this claim with evidence.
2. Please explain why the majority of U.N. members opposed the invasion, given that they understand these issues just as well as the U.S. Don't try to blame it on France and Russia's economic ties to Iraq. Countries without those ties were equally opposed.

Finally, for the third time, you stated that the Bush administration never tried to tie the Iraqi invasion to terrorism and 9/11. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about this claim? This is important to your credibility.

Speaking of crickets chirping . . .

I read the Sunday papers today. I was surprised by the tone of the news. It seems as though our "free press" has bought the Bush party line hook, line and sinker. No mention of Bush's insistence on unnecessarily invading Iraq as the root cause for all of this. Instead they report as though this mess just happened by itself and now the world just has to clean it up.

Ridiculous.

I read one article in the Sunday Star Ledger titled "Fund to rebuild Iraq falls short" but mysteriously I can't find a link to it at the Star Ledger's site, or at the by line - KRT News Service. So I'll type the whole story here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund to rebuild Iraq falls short
By Ken Delanian
KRT News Service

BAGHDAD - A shortage of money is hampering the US.-led effort to rebuild Iraq, and American taxpayers may end up footing a much larger bill than they expect, according to members of Congress and top U.S. officials in Baghdad.

As they plan for next year's budget, American officials in Iraq are worried that they won't have enough money to restore enough basic services to get the country's economy growing again. That may be true even if Congress grants President Bush's request, expected in the next few weeks, for $2 billion to $3 billion on top of the $3.5 billion U.S. taxpayers already are spending this year.

Those figures are only for reconstruction, and don't include the $1 billion a week Washington is spending on the military occupation.

Next year's reconstruction budget "has inadequate funds for security, electrical, water, sewage, irrigation, housing, education, health, agriculture," says and internal document of the Caolition Provision Authority in Baghdad, obtained by Knight Ridder.

The dismal financial picture - and mounting American casualties - are among the factors leading the Bush administration to consider an expanded United Nations role in Iraq, even if that means giving other countries a greater say in Iraq's future.

The lack of security, steady electricity and clean water is universally considered the biggest impediment to progress in Iraq. While senior military officials say that adding more U.S. troops won't make the streets safer, few dispute that spending more on security - on police training and equipment, for example, or on guards for oil and water pepelines - would help. More money also would mean the electrical and water systems would be repaired faster.

Coalition officials are spending money on all those things, but not as much as they'd like. Terrorism and crime have scared off private investors, even in the potentially lucrative oil sector, which appears to be one aim of anti-American forces in Iraq.

"If I had more money, thses are the things I would spend it on," said a senior coalition finance official in Baghdad, pointing to a list of electrical, water and sweage projects. "If you don't have electricity, then how can small businesses stand up because they can't guarantee a product?" The official asked not to be identified.

Contrary to what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate committee at the start of the war, the reconstruction of Iraq won't be financed almost completely by Iraqi oil revenue.

Because of looting and continued sabotage, Iraq isn't exorting nearly as much oil as had been expected this year, contributing to the deficit in the current $8 billion spending plan. Administraion officials projected oil revenue to be $3.45 billion this year, but it'll be closer to $2.2 billion, documents show.

To make it through the current year, officials are using a patchwork of funds that include United Nations aid, assets seized from Swiss bank accounts and the hundreds of millions of dollars in cash that soldiers found in Ba'ath Party safe houses.

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion," Iraq's U.S. administrator, L. Paul Bremer, said at a recent news conference.

"We will finance that ... by drawing down on several of the capital accounts we have. But it does leave us with a substantial problem in the next year - as we have to make thses major infrastructure investments - about where we're going to get the capital."

Bremer said the amount of money needed to repair Iraq's elelctical grid, water system and other infrastructure needs was "staggering."

"The U.N. estimates that in the next four years, we should spend $16 billion on water alone - just trying to fix the water," he said. "My engineering experts estimate that we need to spend some $13 billion in the next four to five years on power, (and) the first $2 billion or so has to go to fix the current demand. And you can go through all of the sectors of public services and other areas and come up with very large numbers."

The total tab, Bremer has estimated, could reach $100 billion. Other experts predict it will be many times that.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush. Congressional and White House officials have said such a request is in the works.

Bremer is counting on major commitments from internationnaldonors, sho will meet at a conference in Madrid in October.

But even if the conference produces big pledges, officials in Baghdad don't expect to see that money for at least a year. And some countries have expressed reluctance about financing a reconstruction effort that the United States mainly controls.

Although oil output has been disappointing, coalition officials in Baghdad are counting on oil sales to fund the bulk of the next year's budget. They expect about $12.2 billion in oil revenue next year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. Right. Next year the oil will flow and pay for everything. Just like Wolfowitz said it would this year.

What a f***ing mess. And ALL THE FAULT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE NEO-CON MANIACS WHO ARE LEADING THIS IDIOT AROUND BY THE NOSE. IMO.

I also place blame on the Americans who supported Bush and Co. on this invasion. It was and is based on lies and all you folks who allowed Bush to lie to you, to sell you a bill of goods, will be paying for it now and for years, decades to come.

Unfortunately those of us who opposed this madness will have to pay right along with you. Thanks. We'll try to repay you for this in 2004. Maybe you'll all come to your senses by then and help us out. :|

 

[ElFenix]

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

 

[judasmachine]

And the human cost is?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Good. Then you pay for it out of your pocket, because I resent Bush stealing it from mine. (Or, more accuarately, stealing it from my children since they're the ones who will likely repay his deficits.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Oh yeah, you accidently skipped this line:

The total tab, Bremer has estimated, could reach $100 billion. Other experts predict it will be many times that.

Is that "chump change" too?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Oh yeah, you accidently skipped this line:

The total tab, Bremer has estimated, could reach $100 billion. Other experts predict it will be many times that.

Is that "chump change" too?

I'm constantly amazed by the excuses people will make for Bush seeing as none of this was necessary. But calling these figures "chump change" doesn't even qualify as an excuse. That's just complete partisan nonsense, plain and simple.

Add to this the fact that our ever rising federal budget deficit, now estimated at between $450 and $500 BILLION, doesn't include the money being poured into Iraq.

Is that chump change too? I seem to remember the entire Republican party decrying the federal deficit, left by the Reagan/Bush administrations, as a burden on future generations that would destroy America.

President Clinton took care of the deficit. Now that we have another cut and spend Republican in the White House, as well as Republican control of the House and Senate, they're trying to tell us deficits don't matter anymore.

What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. I would add IMO but this isn't an opinion. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Good. Then you pay for it out of your pocket, because I resent Bush stealing it from mine. (Or, more accuarately, stealing it from my children since they're the ones who will likely repay his deficits.)

OK, I'll pay for the war - I got no qualms doing it. You pay for the social programs I don't want to pay for - starting with the failed Social Security scheme(read -SCAM). OK?

You don't think this WAR is necessary and is a colossal waste of money - and I think SS is unnecessary(in it's current bastardized state) and think it is an even bigger waste of money.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Iraq is the Tar Baby that George Bush punched. Now we are all stuck in the tar. Please oh please UN, don't throw us in the Briar Patch. Please oh please don't make us admit we made a mistake. Please oh please don't humiliate us by making us accept that.

 

[povertystruck]

Its not about admitting to a misatke, its about distributing responsibility.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Good. Then you pay for it out of your pocket, because I resent Bush stealing it from mine. (Or, more accuarately, stealing it from my children since they're the ones who will likely repay his deficits.)

OK, I'll pay for the war - I got no qualms doing it. You pay for the social programs I don't want to pay for - starting with the failed Social Security scheme(read -SCAM). OK?

You don't think this WAR is necessary and is a colossal waste of money - and I think SS is unnecessary(in it's current bastardized state) and think it is an even bigger waste of money.

CkG

CkG

I'll agree to those terms on one condition. Every working American invested thousand of dollars in SS that we could have used for our retirement. I managed to save a nest egg over and above SS. But I believe in a free market society investors should get a return on their hard earned money.

You folks who support the war in Iraq pay for the war in Iraq.

The folks that support SS will pay for SS.

But I want my investment returned. The US government took the money from me on the promise it would be there to help in my retirement. They can send a check for the amount I and my employers have sent them over the years and I'll gladly keep paying for SS until I retire.

I think it's only fair, and I'm sure any fiscal conservative, moderate or liberal will agree, that investors get a return on their investment even if it only amounts to the return of their funds.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iraq is the Tar Baby that George Bush punched. Now we are all stuck in the tar. Please oh please UN, don't throw us in the Briar Patch. Please oh please don't make us admit we made a mistake. Please oh please don't humiliate us by making us accept that.

And in return we'll "consider" "letting" you help us clean up this mess. What arrogance.

I say throw Bush in the briar patch. Tarred and briared. Let him clean up the mess himself.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Good. Then you pay for it out of your pocket, because I resent Bush stealing it from mine. (Or, more accuarately, stealing it from my children since they're the ones who will likely repay his deficits.)

OK, I'll pay for the war - I got no qualms doing it. You pay for the social programs I don't want to pay for - starting with the failed Social Security scheme(read -SCAM). OK?

You don't think this WAR is necessary and is a colossal waste of money - and I think SS is unnecessary(in it's current bastardized state) and think it is an even bigger waste of money.

CkG

CkG

I'll agree to those terms on one condition. Every working American invested thousand of dollars in SS that we could have used for our retirement. I managed to save a nest egg over and above SS. But I believe in a free market society investors should get a return on their hard earned money.

You folks who support the war in Iraq pay for the war in Iraq.

The folks that support SS will pay for SS.

But I want my investment returned. The US government took the money from me on the promise it would be there to help in my retirement. They can send a check for the amount I and my employers have sent them over the years and I'll gladly keep paying for SS until I retire.

I think it's only fair, and I'm sure any fiscal conservative, moderate or liberal will agree, that investors get a return on their investment even if it only amounts to the return of their funds.

Well, the "old people" now created it - did they not? Why should I pay for their scam which I don't like?
Investors loose sometimes When you invest in a scam - most likely you won't see a return on it - hence "SCAM" SS is a scam and I wish to not be a part of it anymore. We won't get our money back now or in the future precisely because the investment was a scam. You fix and pay for SS which I want no part of - I'll fix and pay for the war which you want no part of. Agreed?

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Good. Then you pay for it out of your pocket, because I resent Bush stealing it from mine. (Or, more accuarately, stealing it from my children since they're the ones who will likely repay his deficits.)

OK, I'll pay for the war - I got no qualms doing it. You pay for the social programs I don't want to pay for - starting with the failed Social Security scheme(read -SCAM). OK?

You don't think this WAR is necessary and is a colossal waste of money - and I think SS is unnecessary(in it's current bastardized state) and think it is an even bigger waste of money.

CkG

CkG

I'll agree to those terms on one condition. Every working American invested thousand of dollars in SS that we could have used for our retirement. I managed to save a nest egg over and above SS. But I believe in a free market society investors should get a return on their hard earned money.

You folks who support the war in Iraq pay for the war in Iraq.

The folks that support SS will pay for SS.

But I want my investment returned. The US government took the money from me on the promise it would be there to help in my retirement. They can send a check for the amount I and my employers have sent them over the years and I'll gladly keep paying for SS until I retire.

I think it's only fair, and I'm sure any fiscal conservative, moderate or liberal will agree, that investors get a return on their investment even if it only amounts to the return of their funds.

Well, the "old people" now created it - did they not? Why should I pay for their scam which I don't like?
Investors loose sometimes When you invest in a scam - most likely you won't see a return on it - hence "SCAM" SS is a scam and I wish to not be a part of it anymore. We won't get our money back now or in the future precisely because the investment was a scam. You fix and pay for SS which I want no part of - I'll fix and pay for the war which you want no part of. Agreed?

CkG

Ahh, but we didn't CHOOSE to invest in SS. We were forced to. And, IMO, SS isn't a scam.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can always take CkG's things by force if needed. Thanks! I have the ability, therefore I suppose I am morally olbiged to use it ala GWB. Thanks again!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"We are going to run a very substantial cash deficit this year, a cash deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion,"

chump change.

It apears that a significant chunk of that money will come from Amreican taxpayers, who will have spent as much as $6.5 billion on rebuilding Iraq by the end of next year if Congress approves a second request from President Bush.

again, chump change

Good. Then you pay for it out of your pocket, because I resent Bush stealing it from mine. (Or, more accuarately, stealing it from my children since they're the ones who will likely repay his deficits.)

OK, I'll pay for the war - I got no qualms doing it. You pay for the social programs I don't want to pay for - starting with the failed Social Security scheme(read -SCAM). OK?

You don't think this WAR is necessary and is a colossal waste of money - and I think SS is unnecessary(in it's current bastardized state) and think it is an even bigger waste of money.

CkG

CkG

I'll agree to those terms on one condition. Every working American invested thousand of dollars in SS that we could have used for our retirement. I managed to save a nest egg over and above SS. But I believe in a free market society investors should get a return on their hard earned money.

You folks who support the war in Iraq pay for the war in Iraq.

The folks that support SS will pay for SS.

But I want my investment returned. The US government took the money from me on the promise it would be there to help in my retirement. They can send a check for the amount I and my employers have sent them over the years and I'll gladly keep paying for SS until I retire.

I think it's only fair, and I'm sure any fiscal conservative, moderate or liberal will agree, that investors get a return on their investment even if it only amounts to the return of their funds.

Well, the "old people" now created it - did they not? Why should I pay for their scam which I don't like?
Investors loose sometimes When you invest in a scam - most likely you won't see a return on it - hence "SCAM" SS is a scam and I wish to not be a part of it anymore. We won't get our money back now or in the future precisely because the investment was a scam. You fix and pay for SS which I want no part of - I'll fix and pay for the war which you want no part of. Agreed?

CkG

Ahh, but we didn't CHOOSE to invest in SS. We were forced to. And, IMO, SS isn't a scam.

I didn't CHOOSE to invest in the WAR. I was forced to and IMO, the WAR was neccessary so I'll gladly pay for it. I suggest you gladly pay for SS if you feel it is neccessary.

Oh, and yes - SS is a scam.

CkG

 

[povertystruck]

Certainly the war was justified. Saddam is so sneaky that the U.S. cannot find the WMD. The WMD was of such high quality that they were smuggled out of the country, thats why the U.S. can't find any in Iraq.

Only a small number of iraqis, are attacking U.S. troops, the attacks will end soon, for sure. How can a price be put on Iraq, it was CLEARLY the biggest threat to the U.S.A., and how can you put a price on satisfaction that americans must have gained for liberation of iraqis.

 

[tcsenter]

Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent, and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion? Yes, I understand you claim this is true. Please document this claim with evidence.

Bowfinger takes issue with my claim that the 'suffering of Iraqi children due to UN sanctions' was hardening opposition and fueling hatred for the United States and Britain among Muslim populations, enthusiastically assisted by all US-haters alike (be they radical Islamic Clerics or M.I.T. Linguists). Questioning its validity, Bowfinger wants "proof".

Now to someone who has been following World Affairs, particularly issues surrounding International Terrorism, this is akin to taking issue with the statement that the earth is round, questioning its validity, and wanting proof. Next I suppose Bowfinger is going to question the validity and demand proof that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and US military presence in Saudi Arabia has been fueling hatred for the West? Perhaps Bowfinger's shocking ignorance of World Affairs prevents him from even knowing why we have a military presence in Saudi Arabia and the relevance it has to the Iraq issue?

In what cave would someone have to be living for the past five or six years to be so terribly ignorant of World Affairs? What the hell have they been doing with their time? And if they were that uninformed, shouldn't they refrain from venturing into a discussion about which they apparently know so little?

Whatever, here I go again, the sucker that I am, having to spend my valuable time and energies proving to the obscenely ignorant that the earth is round....

Bowfinger, you'll forgive me if I fall well short of meeting your burden of 'documenting my claim with evidence (i.e. link or other verifiable source)'. I'm only going to toss you a few bones, selected excerpts from only a scant few sources. I'll also highlight the important parts for your benefit (cuz I'm helpful like that), and with a lot of help from God Almighty Himself, maybe you'll get a clue.


"Explaining Arab Anger", BBC News (September 2001):

Although there are many other issues, Washington's enabling alliance with Israel may be the biggest element in the Arab and Muslim anger, hatred and despair which are focused on America.

Other aspects of the impact of America's massive global power on the region also add in to the bitterness felt by many ordinary people...include:

- While Gulf Arabs might have applauded the US-led war against Iraq, the subsequent sanctions regime has punished the Iraqi people while Saddam continues to build palaces. There is a widespread feeling that the Americans have never been serious about unseating Saddam.

------------------

"Saddam winning propaganda war", BBC News (March 2000):

The United Nations Secretary-General has warned that the international community is in danger of losing the propaganda war with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein over who is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

------------------

"Why does U.S. loathe Iraq so much?" by Linda McQuaig

Discussion of the so-called "root causes" of terrorism is still pretty much off-limits, risking the charge of being unsympathetic to 9/11 victims. Instead, we're encouraged to keep our gaze fixed on the evil that lurks in parts of the world where people wear those odd, loose-fitting garments. U.S. brutality abroad is the elephant in the room from which we're supposed to politely divert our gaze.

So, for instance, anyone who's turned on a TV in the last year knows about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Less well known is the death of some 1.5 million Iraqis - including, according to the U.N., 500,000 children - caused by the economic sanctions which Washington strong-armed the U.N. Security Council to adopt and maintain since 1991.

These sorts of details are well-known in the Middle East, where claims of U.S. benevolence and respect for human rights have long been treated with skepticism. Watching their children die as a result of American actions, Iraqis might well ask: Why do they hate us so?

-------------------

"Twin fireballs turn up heat on Arab talks", The Guardian-UK (March 2001):

Palestine has almost always been the raison d'être of Arab summitry and it will again head the agenda when the leaders of 22 Arab states convene here tomorrow. Iraq is on the agenda too. President Saddam Hussein will not be there, but he will cast a baleful and divisive shadow on the event.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one hand, Iraq and the Gulf on the other, constitute the two great zones of Middle East crisis. "There is a clear and present danger", the former US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, warned recently, "that the most dangerous situation in the world today - the Middle East and Iraq - could metastasise into a single fireball."

-------------------

"US puts squeeze on Israel amid fears over propaganda battle", The Guardian-UK (October 2001):

The US is to make a determined effort to force Israel to enter into peace negotiations with the Palestinians, fearing that the west is in danger of losing the propaganda war with Osama bin Laden.

In an attempt to address one of the main Muslim grievances, President, George Bush will use all the financial and political muscle at his disposal to push the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table.

Bin Laden electrified parts of the Muslim world within hours of the first bombs landing on Afghanistan by releasing a video in which he tried to polarise the conflict between the west and Islam, focusing especially on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

A senior aide to Mr Blair conceded that the broadcast had found a receptive audience in the Middle East.

[My note: what are the other two 'main grievances' Bin Laden cited?]

--------------------

"To Prevent Terrorism, U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change", Alternet.com (September 2001):

In the Middle East, there is much hatred for our government's support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. We are also seen as the major force behind various corrupt, dictatorial Arab governments, such as the feudal monarchy of Saudi Arabia. And the U.S.-led sanctions and bombing in Iraq have also aroused deep resentments.

---------------------

"Scenes from Iraq", Anthony Arnove:

The sanctions have affected the poor, the elderly, the sick, the young, and even the once relatively well-off middle class. But they have not hurt the rich, those with foreign business connections or profiting off the black market created by the embargo, or those in power. In fact, they have strengthened the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party by weakening the population, further militarizing the state, and creating a nationalist rally effect among people angry at the U.S. government and its allies for the impact of the 1991 Gulf War, the ongoing bombing of Iraq, and the sanctions.

But many are speaking up about the human rights tragedy in Iraq, joining a growing international chorus against the sanctions.

In late March 2000, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan admitted, "We are in danger of losing the argument or propaganda war - if we haven?t lost it already - about who is responsible for this situation, President Saddam Hussein or the United Nations." Annan added, "We are accused of causing suffering to an entire population."

--------------------

"U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam", Foreign Policy in Focus (September 2001):

Another factor fueling radical Islamic movements has been the perceived U.S. culpability in the deaths of Muslim civilians. From Washington's initial failure to respond to the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Muslims to the sanctions against Iraq to the support of Israeli repression against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, U.S. foreign policy has laid itself open to this accusation.

--------------------

"Reaping the whirlwind: Terrorism in the US" By George Galloway:

The vast majority of those attending were non-violent religious people, well mindful of the total Islamic injunction against the targeting of civilians in times of conflict. But many were brimful of bitterness at the US role in the world, especially its responsibility for the slaughter of the innocents in Iraq - more than a million dead, most of them children - through sanctions and almost constant bombardment, along with the diplomatic financial and military blank cheque drawn on the US government and in the hands of Ariel Sharon.

-------------------

"The Roots of Rage", Newsweek (October 2001):

Elsewhere, they look at American policy in the region as cynically geared to US oil interests, supporting thugs and tyrants without any hesitation. Finally, the bombing and isolation of Iraq have become fodder for daily attacks on the United States. While many in the Arab world do not like Saddam Hussein, they believe that the United States has chosen a particularly inhuman method of fighting him - a method that is starving an entire nation.

---------------------

"Why do they hate us?" by Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor (September 2001):

Rather, they say, a mood of resentment toward America and its behavior around the world has become so commonplace in their countries that it was bound to breed hostility, and even hatred.

And the buttons that Mr. bin Laden pushes in his statements and interviews - the injustice done to the Palestinians, the cruelty of continued sanctions against Iraq, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the repressive and corrupt nature of US-backed Gulf governments - win a good deal of popular sympathy.

--------------------

"Roots of Rage", Time Magazine:

America's detractors complain that the U.S. is impervious not only to Arab rights but also to Arab suffering. If the Palestinians are Exhibit A, the Iraqis are Exhibit B. While most Arabs detest Saddam for his own brand of brutality and arrogance, they don't understand why the U.S. continues to insist, 10 years after the Iraqis were forced out of Kuwait, on worldwide sanctions that are devastating the Iraqi people. According to the U.N., some 5,000 Iraqi children die every month of malnutrition and disease because of the sanctions.

---------------------

Interview with Michael Doran, Assistant Professor of Near East Studies. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, January 14, 2002, Vol. 91, No. 13:

Since the attacks on Sept. 11, many people have said that U.S. foreign policy has contributed to the despair of the Arab world. Would these attacks still have occurred if there were no settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip? If there were no U.S. sanctions on Iraq? If the U.S. had no military presence in Saudi Arabia?

In a sense, you are asking the question, "What are the primary sources of the anti-Americanism that Al Qaeda is tapping into?" This is the most hotly debated issue in Middle Eastern studies today. My guess is that most academic experts on the region would answer that the three issues you mention are in fact the heart of the matter.

----------------------

"Why the U.S. is losing the propaganda war" By Eric Boehlert, Salon Magazine (October 2001):

While the Wall Street Journal labeled bin Laden's Sunday taped message as "rambling," and MSNBC's Brian Williams dismissed it as "blowhard rhetoric," the communication went over in much of the Middle East as a coherent list of firmly held grievances against the United States; its strong support of Israel in its battle with Palestinians, its continued sanctions against Iraq and its military presence in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia.


-----------------------

"Suspicious minds" By Eric Boehlert, Salon Magazine (October 2001):

Similar concerns were raised 10 years ago during the Gulf War. Skeptics suggested an Islamic backlash at home could mushroom and threaten the stability of moderate Arab regimes that chose to cooperate with America. Instead, the coalition held together and the war itself proved to be a brief one.

But events since Operation Desert Storm have only hardened Arab distrust of the United States. Among the growing list of grievances, Toensing points to continued sanctions against the people of Iraq. Many Muslims, he says, blame widespread Iraqi malnutrition on the sanctions.

-----------------------

"It's called genocide", Al-Ahram Weekly Issue No. 489 (July 2000):

Dennis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, says the word "genocide" best describes the situation in Iraq 10 years after the United Nations imposed economic sanctions following the country's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. "In fact, the UN Security Council is sustaining sanctions that are killing about 7,000 Iraqi children each month and they know that. That is intentional; that is genocide."

At a two-hour seminar at the Egyptian Press Syndicate, Halliday, who resigned in 1998 in protest against the sanctions, said that before they were imposed the biggest problem for healthcare services in Iraq was overweight children. "Today, the average weight of newborns is two-and-a-half kilos, an indication of famine."

--------------------

"Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", Statement of the World Islamic Front (fatwa):

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

------------ end scant documentation proving the earth is round-----------

Having dispensed with that business, why would anyone who clearly demonstrates such grotesque ignorance of the entire Middle East issue as BOWFINGER nonetheless pretend as though they are competent to make an informed judgement about US policy? Amazing!

I will answer your other question when I get the time to prove that the earth revolves around the sun.

And the next time you attempt to carry this discussion into another thread, I make you this promise: After I am through completely humiliating you here, I will created a new thread in every forum entitled "Bowfinger's total humiliation at the hands of tcsenter" with the aim of attracting an additional 10,000 AT Forum members to witness the spectacle of your obscene ignorance and humiliation who otherwise wouldn't have been following along. Bet on it.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent, and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion? Yes, I understand you claim this is true. Please document this claim with evidence.

Bowfinger takes issue with my claim that the 'suffering of Iraqi children due to UN sanctions' was hardening opposition and fueling hatred for the United States and Britain among Muslim populations, enthusiastically assisted by all US-haters alike (be they radical Islamic Clerics or M.I.T. Linguists). Questioning its validity, Bowfinger wants "proof".

Now to someone who has been following World Affairs, particularly issues surrounding International Terrorism, this is akin to taking issue with the statement that the earth is round, questioning its validity, and wanting proof. Next I suppose Bowfinger is going to question the validity and demand proof that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and US military presence in Saudi Arabia has been fueling hatred for the West? Perhaps Bowfinger's shocking ignorance of World Affairs prevents him from even knowing why we have a military presence in Saudi Arabia and the relevance it has to the Iraq issue?

In what cave would someone have to be living for the past five or six years to be so terribly ignorant of World Affairs? What the hell have they been doing with their time? And if they were that uninformed, shouldn't they refrain from venturing into a discussion about which they apparently know so little?

Whatever, here I go again, the sucker that I am, having to spend my valuable time and energies proving to the obscenely ignorant that the earth is round....

Bowfinger, you'll forgive me if I fall well short of meeting your burden of 'documenting my claim with evidence (i.e. link or other verifiable source)'. I'm only going to toss you a few bones, selected excerpts from only a scant few sources. I'll also highlight the important parts for your benefit (cuz I'm helpful like that), and with a lot of help from God Almighty Himself, maybe you'll get a clue.


"Explaining Arab Anger", BBC News (September 2001):

Although there are many other issues, Washington's enabling alliance with Israel may be the biggest element in the Arab and Muslim anger, hatred and despair which are focused on America.

Other aspects of the impact of America's massive global power on the region also add in to the bitterness felt by many ordinary people...include:

- While Gulf Arabs might have applauded the US-led war against Iraq, the subsequent sanctions regime has punished the Iraqi people while Saddam continues to build palaces. There is a widespread feeling that the Americans have never been serious about unseating Saddam.

------------------

"Saddam winning propaganda war", BBC News (March 2000):

The United Nations Secretary-General has warned that the international community is in danger of losing the propaganda war with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein over who is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

------------------

"Why does U.S. loathe Iraq so much?" by Linda McQuaig

Discussion of the so-called "root causes" of terrorism is still pretty much off-limits, risking the charge of being unsympathetic to 9/11 victims. Instead, we're encouraged to keep our gaze fixed on the evil that lurks in parts of the world where people wear those odd, loose-fitting garments. U.S. brutality abroad is the elephant in the room from which we're supposed to politely divert our gaze.

So, for instance, anyone who's turned on a TV in the last year knows about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Less well known is the death of some 1.5 million Iraqis - including, according to the U.N., 500,000 children - caused by the economic sanctions which Washington strong-armed the U.N. Security Council to adopt and maintain since 1991.

These sorts of details are well-known in the Middle East, where claims of U.S. benevolence and respect for human rights have long been treated with skepticism. Watching their children die as a result of American actions, Iraqis might well ask: Why do they hate us so?

-------------------

"Twin fireballs turn up heat on Arab talks", The Guardian-UK (March 2001):

Palestine has almost always been the raison d'être of Arab summitry and it will again head the agenda when the leaders of 22 Arab states convene here tomorrow. Iraq is on the agenda too. President Saddam Hussein will not be there, but he will cast a baleful and divisive shadow on the event.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one hand, Iraq and the Gulf on the other, constitute the two great zones of Middle East crisis. "There is a clear and present danger", the former US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, warned recently, "that the most dangerous situation in the world today - the Middle East and Iraq - could metastasise into a single fireball."

-------------------

"US puts squeeze on Israel amid fears over propaganda battle", The Guardian-UK (October 2001):

The US is to make a determined effort to force Israel to enter into peace negotiations with the Palestinians, fearing that the west is in danger of losing the propaganda war with Osama bin Laden.

In an attempt to address one of the main Muslim grievances, President, George Bush will use all the financial and political muscle at his disposal to push the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table.

Bin Laden electrified parts of the Muslim world within hours of the first bombs landing on Afghanistan by releasing a video in which he tried to polarise the conflict between the west and Islam, focusing especially on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

A senior aide to Mr Blair conceded that the broadcast had found a receptive audience in the Middle East.

[My note: what are the other two 'main grievances' Bin Laden cited?]

--------------------

"To Prevent Terrorism, U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change", Alternet.com (September 2001):

In the Middle East, there is much hatred for our government's support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. We are also seen as the major force behind various corrupt, dictatorial Arab governments, such as the feudal monarchy of Saudi Arabia. And the U.S.-led sanctions and bombing in Iraq have also aroused deep resentments.

---------------------

"Scenes from Iraq", Anthony Arnove:

The sanctions have affected the poor, the elderly, the sick, the young, and even the once relatively well-off middle class. But they have not hurt the rich, those with foreign business connections or profiting off the black market created by the embargo, or those in power. In fact, they have strengthened the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party by weakening the population, further militarizing the state, and creating a nationalist rally effect among people angry at the U.S. government and its allies for the impact of the 1991 Gulf War, the ongoing bombing of Iraq, and the sanctions.

But many are speaking up about the human rights tragedy in Iraq, joining a growing international chorus against the sanctions.

In late March 2000, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan admitted, "We are in danger of losing the argument or propaganda war - if we haven?t lost it already - about who is responsible for this situation, President Saddam Hussein or the United Nations." Annan added, "We are accused of causing suffering to an entire population."

--------------------

"U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam", Foreign Policy in Focus (September 2001):

Another factor fueling radical Islamic movements has been the perceived U.S. culpability in the deaths of Muslim civilians. From Washington's initial failure to respond to the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Muslims to the sanctions against Iraq to the support of Israeli repression against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, U.S. foreign policy has laid itself open to this accusation.

--------------------

"Reaping the whirlwind: Terrorism in the US" By George Galloway:

The vast majority of those attending were non-violent religious people, well mindful of the total Islamic injunction against the targeting of civilians in times of conflict. But many were brimful of bitterness at the US role in the world, especially its responsibility for the slaughter of the innocents in Iraq - more than a million dead, most of them children - through sanctions and almost constant bombardment, along with the diplomatic financial and military blank cheque drawn on the US government and in the hands of Ariel Sharon.

-------------------

"The Roots of Rage", Newsweek (October 2001):

Elsewhere, they look at American policy in the region as cynically geared to US oil interests, supporting thugs and tyrants without any hesitation. Finally, the bombing and isolation of Iraq have become fodder for daily attacks on the United States. While many in the Arab world do not like Saddam Hussein, they believe that the United States has chosen a particularly inhuman method of fighting him - a method that is starving an entire nation.

---------------------

"Why do they hate us?" by Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor (September 2001):

Rather, they say, a mood of resentment toward America and its behavior around the world has become so commonplace in their countries that it was bound to breed hostility, and even hatred.

And the buttons that Mr. bin Laden pushes in his statements and interviews - the injustice done to the Palestinians, the cruelty of continued sanctions against Iraq, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the repressive and corrupt nature of US-backed Gulf governments - win a good deal of popular sympathy.

--------------------

"Roots of Rage", Time Magazine:

America's detractors complain that the U.S. is impervious not only to Arab rights but also to Arab suffering. If the Palestinians are Exhibit A, the Iraqis are Exhibit B. While most Arabs detest Saddam for his own brand of brutality and arrogance, they don't understand why the U.S. continues to insist, 10 years after the Iraqis were forced out of Kuwait, on worldwide sanctions that are devastating the Iraqi people. According to the U.N., some 5,000 Iraqi children die every month of malnutrition and disease because of the sanctions.

---------------------

Interview with Michael Doran, Assistant Professor of Near East Studies. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, January 14, 2002, Vol. 91, No. 13:

Since the attacks on Sept. 11, many people have said that U.S. foreign policy has contributed to the despair of the Arab world. Would these attacks still have occurred if there were no settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip? If there were no U.S. sanctions on Iraq? If the U.S. had no military presence in Saudi Arabia?

In a sense, you are asking the question, "What are the primary sources of the anti-Americanism that Al Qaeda is tapping into?" This is the most hotly debated issue in Middle Eastern studies today. My guess is that most academic experts on the region would answer that the three issues you mention are in fact the heart of the matter.

----------------------

"Why the U.S. is losing the propaganda war" By Eric Boehlert, Salon Magazine (October 2001):

While the Wall Street Journal labeled bin Laden's Sunday taped message as "rambling," and MSNBC's Brian Williams dismissed it as "blowhard rhetoric," the communication went over in much of the Middle East as a coherent list of firmly held grievances against the United States; its strong support of Israel in its battle with Palestinians, its continued sanctions against Iraq and its military presence in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia.


-----------------------

"Suspicious minds" By Eric Boehlert, Salon Magazine (October 2001):

Similar concerns were raised 10 years ago during the Gulf War. Skeptics suggested an Islamic backlash at home could mushroom and threaten the stability of moderate Arab regimes that chose to cooperate with America. Instead, the coalition held together and the war itself proved to be a brief one.

But events since Operation Desert Storm have only hardened Arab distrust of the United States. Among the growing list of grievances, Toensing points to continued sanctions against the people of Iraq. Many Muslims, he says, blame widespread Iraqi malnutrition on the sanctions.

-----------------------

"It's called genocide", Al-Ahram Weekly Issue No. 489 (July 2000):

Dennis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, says the word "genocide" best describes the situation in Iraq 10 years after the United Nations imposed economic sanctions following the country's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. "In fact, the UN Security Council is sustaining sanctions that are killing about 7,000 Iraqi children each month and they know that. That is intentional; that is genocide."

At a two-hour seminar at the Egyptian Press Syndicate, Halliday, who resigned in 1998 in protest against the sanctions, said that before they were imposed the biggest problem for healthcare services in Iraq was overweight children. "Today, the average weight of newborns is two-and-a-half kilos, an indication of famine."

--------------------

"Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", Statement of the World Islamic Front (fatwa):

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

------------ end scant documentation proving the earth is round-----------

Having dispensed with that business, why would anyone who clearly demonstrates such grotesque ignorance of the entire Middle East issue as BOWFINGER nonetheless pretend as though they are competent to make an informed judgement about US policy? Amazing!

I will answer your other question when I get the time to prove that the earth revolves around the sun.

And the next time you attempt to carry this discussion into another thread, I make you this promise: After I am through completely humiliating you here, I will created a new thread in every forum entitled "Bowfinger's total humiliation at the hands of tcsenter" with the aim of attracting an additional 10,000 AT Forum members to witness the spectacle of your obscene ignorance and humiliation who otherwise wouldn't have been following along. Bet on it.

So what does any of that have to do with the price tag for rebuilding Iraq?

And why should members be interested in hearing how you plan to spam the forums? Spamming the forums is against forum rules.

IMO the 10,000 AT forum members don't want to witness the spectacle of you spamming the AT forums.