"Chemical Ali" seems to have been seen his last. Chemical Ali as he had supposedly gassed the Kurds .....

"Winston Churchill" had gassed the Kurds when they refused to pay taxes and this is what he (Chemical Winston ... if the use qualifies to be nick named) had to say then

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes (to) spread a lively terror." He went on, "We cannot acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any available weapons to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier", adding that chemical weapons are merely "the application of Western science to modern warfare".

And Last but not the least.... Rumsfeld (who has been for many years was head of one of the largest pharmaceutical firms in the US) has long campaigned against the ratification of treaties that ban the use of chemical weapons. It appears he may already have some luck, as President Bush has authorised the use of riot control agents such as pepper spray and CS gas in Iraq.

Rumsfeld told a committee on foreign relations that signing up to conventions banning the usage of such "strategic" weapons would "impose a costly and complex regulatory burden on US industry".

It shows that as a politician he (Chemical Donald) thinks about nothing for people, humanity and civilisation, but rather is still looking after the interests of Capitalists and Corporations.

You are lost in a dreamworld. I'd almost call it "fanaticizm" which is how "terrorism" starts, unfortunately.

I think you need to note the significant differences between pepper spray (used by most police forces across the world) and putting mustard gas or anthrax inside a warhead.

Oh well, it's impossible to educate the uneducated.

Moscow Hostage crisis had seen the use of the same stuff and despite the best medical attention ppl had died. I am sure these things are not being carried in H'sacks by the trrops. its going to be used thru means which would spell a larger extent of danger.

Terrorism does not start with what u say. It all started as a consequence of Organzied Acts Of violence all funded by Multi Nationals. A question of thriving on the Blood of others.

And BTW Paul.... If mustard Gas is used by Churchill and Orange by US it's fine right... and if anyone talks against it he is a fanatic. Well a lunatic would only see some sense in what u concluded about how Terrorists are born???

The world has the picture of a U.S. president making life-and-death decisions with schoolboy declarations, such as "Fuck Saddam." and nothing can be more hysterical and fanatic than that.....

Sure it does. If it was down to "organized acts of violence" as you put it, then there'd be a heck of a lot more terrorism. I'm afraid it's down to fanatics who take things too far either because of mental instability or bizarre religious beliefs.


Did I say it was fine?


No certainly not...someone who makes three threads about the same topic is though =)


That looks like a statement so no need for question marks at the end =)

Just as Bush proclaimed about himself....much in the same way bin laden was seen in those TV footages during the Afghan war.


Well i would not want to put a reply in Chemical Donald's Style (when he was asked to comment on No Evidence Of WMD ...during the AgitProp stage)


It takes time to blow the lid off. The moment the expansion fanaticism goes beyond tolerance then what the Oppressors calls terrorists/ terrorism is often turned into a fight for self liberation and that is the time when forces however big fail to crush a civilization....Zulu's were being slyed with modern rifles but what has happened finally?

I'm sure a lot of thought went into your use of the nickname "Chemical Donald" but it's a very strange comparison to make. I'm not aware that Donald Rumsfeld has ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. It's sort of like comparing Bart Simpson with Freddie Kruger.

Oh well, I guess that's the kind of logic you possess =)

I saw a CBC report last night that addressed the UN, and the severe weakening that it will undoubtedly face as a result of the actions of the US government over the past few months. It interviewed someone who was very high up in the US government (I don't remember who it was now), but his point of view was that the world doesn't need the UN - the US way of doing things is great, and the US will protect "freedom" (as long as it's US-defined freedom) all over the world.

The interviewer then asked: "What about the two-thirds of the world that does not agree with and does not want to follow the US values?"

The response was: "We'll have to work to bring everyone around to the American way."

Although I somewhat support the removal of Saddam, it scares me to think that someone with such an arrogant, self-centred point of view - someone naive enough to think not only that the world wants to, but that the world should want to be little Americans - is in a position of substantial power in a country as powerful as the US.

What is more than a little ironic about the whole situation is that the US is simply repeating the British stance of the 18th and 19th centuries - that the whole world should want to be just like Britain. America's war of independance was to get away from that exact point of view. At that time, Britain had by far the most powerful military in the world; now the Americans do, and they go down the same road. America is the new bully in the international schoolyard, and September 11th just gave the US a little bit more reason to show the world how great America really is.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

In Donald's Terms

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

So the comparison was definitely not as absurd and out of place as perceived

Probably Rumsfeld and co are preparing a blue print for second use of Nuclear Weapons or preparing a stage of disposing of Huge WMD Pile up in a real world scenario (to effectively test the effectiveness). When they would near the stage of losing a war they would blatantly use WMD just to get that "Apparent Victory"

(Rumsfeld is a disciple of Winston Churchill who had gassed the Kurds long back just because they refused to pay taxes).


If this person was Bush I am sure he would have said **** the world like he said for Saddam.

Madeleine Albright when asked a few years ago on US television whether the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions was a price worth paying replied “Yes I believe it was a price worth paying”.

This is what is Terrorism in a civilized world order...

And The Real Axis Of Evil is Rumsfeld-Chenny-Wolfowitz and surprisingly Rumsfeld even used his closeness to Saddam Hussain as a political strength in trying to convince people of his Presidential aspirations in 1988. How two faced people get in politics....

It wasn't Bush, or Rumsfield, but someone closely connected to Rumsfield, I believe. One of the high up members of the ten-year old dispose-Saddam plan.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

No, they are your anti-american terms applied to Rumsfeld

If they wanted to use WMD's they would have done it in Iraq. Let's hope if there are some huge blasts that you are close by...maybe it will knock some sense into you.

No thats not. In fact that "Anti American" Paranoia is one of Rumsfeld's doctrine which he has been living and prophesizing fervently in order to bring back the British Days of Slavery but under "American Banner" albeit with British assistance. Hmmm Bush is trying to learn few rope tricks from Blair but right at the crucial moment Bush would ditch Blair for sure (Thats American style of expressing gratitude .... Use it and Then Throw it ... they have done it so many times .... and their alter ego would prompt them to do again)

They (Americans) have already used it in my region when they did thru gas leak in a City which is barely few hours drive from my present location and the Culprit (Anderson) is being shamelessly protected by America.

As for use in Iraq.... never be so sure..... that pepper gas stuff is just a cover under which it will be used and then (as usual) the Chemical Donald would say that some Baath Extremists has used it and see we said that they have WMD and we have proved it to the world.....

Based on *factual* evidence (not jaded subjectivity), the Iraqi's are a great deal more likely to use WMD and also are a great deal more likely to lie about certain events. For starters the Iraqi Information Minister was exposed as a complete liar based on all the interviews he gave in comparison with the actual events that could be seen live on tv. The US CenCom were able to provide photographic evidence to prove their claims of targetted strikes and chemical discoveries - the Iraqi Information Minister was all talk.

I'm sure in your little world though you'd love to be able to conjur up some more stories to use against the US.

The American Lies have been published a great deal right from Aluminium tubes to forged uranium shipment documents, doctoring the transcripts by powell to convince security council etcetra etcetra.
And Peter Arnet once again who did not speak the "American Comforting Language" was this time kicked out from msnbc I suppose. So if the Conjurer is happy then it's all fine if not then it's the same old "Anti American" doctrine that is put up. Blix who was the weapons inspector said in an interview that Saddam's willingness to cooperate with the Inspection lead to this war as America was desparate to strike and in Iraq lay Bush's Alderaan

If it's a conscious decision to bring back the colonial days back then i cannot blame you for such a thinking.....and i am sure that it would be "Hitlerish" type of a dream...

He who demands truth of others should be prepared to offer truth in return.

Last I heard, "WMD" does not include gas, but is mostly limited to nuclear weapons. The US has not yet fought a war with someone who has nuclear capabilities - the "Coalition of the Willing" has not found any in Iraq, nor have they ever offered any proof to even convincingly suggest that nuclear weapons exist in Iraq. The question to ask is what happens next - the US has already indicated that its next two targets are Iran and North Korea - probably in that order. Both of those countries are known to have nuclear capabilities far beyond what Iraq had. What is going to happen if the US goes to war with North Korea? North Korea gets a chance to actually use their bombs against someone?

The problem comes down to this. What happened on 9/11 was meant to send a message to America - not to the west, but to America: bugger off. We don't want you messing around in international affairs that don't concern you. So what does America do? It does just that. It launches a major offensive "against terrorism" by attacking old enemies of the United States - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are old unfinished business for the US. These attacks, as we all know, are not widely popular - in fact, most developed, western countries have substantially more resentment against the US than they did before. And if allies of the US - such as France, Germany, and Canada - have growing resentment towards the US, what about the 80% of the world who does NOT live in developed countries? Their resentment towards the United States has probably grown ten times as much. So the US not only blatantly ignored this message, it in fact has pursued action that will probably make the situation worse.

That said, I don't think terrorist groups should dictate the policies of governments - but neither do I think the root causes of those terrorist groups should be ignored by governments. What provoked the attacks? Primarily the USA's past foreign policies. What will provoke future terrorist attacks? Most likely the USA's current foreign policies.

So my biggest question in all this - what is the current war all about? Does it really have anything to do with preventing terrorism? If so, I can tell you that for the US to commit itself to a more cooperative, less controlling foreign policy - a foreign policy concerned primarly with helping others rather than benefitting the United States - would be a far better way to reduce terrorism than the current plan. Thus the only conclusion I can make is that the war with Iraq - good or evil - is simply a continuation of the war started more than a decade ago, and that terrorism was just an excuse to continue it.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

While On North Korea...US got the nuclear reactors for them. The two reactors were supplied by ABB and at that time the Now Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was on Board of ABB.... and he had got that business for ABB....


It has never fought a war after Vietnam? One definitely can't have a 'Dog Fights' between F-16 and Camels....so US or the coalition is pretty selective about chosing targets so that they do not face the humiliation of being defeated unless they use WMD themselves...

And anyway in language of Bush this is some sort of American Jihaad a Holy War being fought by Bush Administration on instructions from God

The scary thing is that he could probably say that publicly and 80% of Americans would believe him.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

I think your record player must be stuck...

Probably much in the same way as Bush's justification of American Jihaad is stuck on 911.

It's all a part of the so called "Democratic & Civilised America" that it proclaims to be. For ppl who do not believe or try to reason out there is this '**** off' from Bush and Co.

Nope, WMD includes biological and chemical. Pretty stupid mistake for the terrorists to make, now they are being squashed. They are definitely not better off now :) Yes, the US has economic and political interests, strategic interests in ME stability and access to oil...as does every other country in the world practically. They aren't not pulling out because of these wannabes. It wasn't popular to stop Hitler either in 1938. So what's your point? Churchill called WW2 the "Unnecessary War" because it could have been stopped easily had popular opinon supported it earlier rather than dwell in isolationism. Popular opinion is fickle and shouldn't be the basis for foreign policy. Seldom do the vast majority of people in a country have any clue about the actual facts of what is really going on, particularly in undeveloped countries. So in other words you are saying that people are blowing themselves up for Allah, killing as many civilians as possible because they are desparate due to the fault of the United States. Huh? Most of these people are not desparate. ie. UBL is not a poor man, there is plenty of oil revenue in the ME to support a good standard of living. Suicide bombings in the ME are a result of a suicidal religious fanatic death cult. And it will be coming to an end soon one way or another because the US isn' t going to sit around watching it spread like other clueless countries who sit on the sidelines and complain, devoid of any leadership or original ideas. There wouldn't even be a Kuwait if the US had not led the forces to kic Saddam out. He would be on Saudi's doorstep close to controlling a majority of the oil. Sorry, revisionism about US foreign policy is prett weak. I think we are seeing a renewed effort to spread democracy and human rights throughout the Middle East. It's starting with Iraq. Who wants some next? Let's put these religious zealots, fascists and monarchs out of business. Is France, Germany and Russia going to help..or are they going to be whining about their lost military deals and oil contracts. Seems a bit hypocritical.

WMD include chemical/biological/nuclear. A WMD is a weapon that "mass destructs" (it does what it says on the tin).


There was never any question of that anyway, it was chemical/biological that were being searched for. Although recently a high level of radio-activity was found at one site.


Not to my knowledge.


I think the US are aware of that =)


"International" - dictionary definition:
Existing, involving, or carried out between two or more nations.


Rightly so. The hatred towards America already exists. They can either do sweet FA and have more terrorist attack them or they can take some initiative and wipe them out. Sure, in the short term there may be issues but if the coalition succeeds I expect we will see bucket loads of hypocrites who suddenly think America is wonderful for standing up for themselves, and the global community.


"Most"...does that include the 45 coalition countries


Ahh I see, so you are suggesting that governments should heed the advice of terrorsits...yeah good idea.


The job was not done in removing Saddam in Gulf War Part 1 so sure, it is a continuation.

>>> .... to America: bugger off. We don't want you messing around in international affairs that don't concern you.<<<

What, so we should just sit around, and let unstable countries build up their arson of WMD? I dont think so!

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!