Feel the full force of our collective consumer wrath!

You can order cheese off the internet? Kewl.

it's a frog scam. think about who buys shit like that- you'd have to assume that a large portion of the cheese loving american popluation is pseudo-intellectuals and academics and others who have a perchant for peacenikism. obviously this frenchy is trying to boost sales by encouraging those people, who hate bush and love cheese, to buy more french cheese. specifically from his online shop. which looks quite nice.

Sneaky french bastard.I'll stick with my California cheddar.

Andy Rooney is a liar, in France they do not honk horns.

Will this idiotic foreign policy EVER end? http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html Not to mention this brilliantly-thought out idea.

Germany and france have both stated that they will not protect turkey. they have both said they do not care what iraq does to its own people. they will not support anything to remove saddam from power. They are useless, burdensome and treacherous. Wait till this is all over. You will see why france and germany are so against the ba'ath party being removed from power. And the house cleaning will not stop at Iraq. Nor should it.

I know it wont. If anything, thats one of the best reasons not to go. http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

speaking of Germany, it scares me that I have to rely on the conspiracy theory websites to actually document this shameful and sick propaganda.. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hitlerschildren.jpg

that is fucking hilarious.

You'll be happy to know that I'm not boycotting American websites. Twelve days till funky pants. Wohoo

IT really is fucking hilarious. It makes you wonder if anything about WWII made our grandparents say that.

http://www.derfcity.com/n/newtoon2.html this should be pretty useful

do you realize how you come off in that post trace? "house cleaning" ? wtf is that all about? while you view europe as a burden, be advised, they view the Bush administration as a threat to global security. you round up the facts of US military deployment (as in where, how often and how many), civilian deaths at the hands of the US military, the lies spouted by US "intelligence" and military organizations and the countless times the US gov't has meddled and downright interfered in foreign coups and you tell me Europe is not justified in being outraged and afraid of the US threat to global security. Europe is not a burden, they are an integral player of american culture and economy. You think you can just swap allies...say France for fucking Poland? Give me a break! How about Germany for.....oh hell, I dunno, Portugal? Since LA times requires a pass, ive pasted a story here, that you should read before you go spouting off Rumsfeldian rhetoric towards Europe. Rift With Europe Runs Deep U.S. views on war, guns, religion strain the alliance that has defined Western democracy. By Sebastian Rotella, Times Staff Writer PARIS -- Europeans think Americans are ignorant, bullying, greedy, trigger-happy barbarians. Americans think Europeans are snobbish, cowardly, bureaucratic, decadent, traitorous wimps. That, at least, might be the conclusion drawn by a visitor from another planet these days. The Iraq crisis has brought the relationship between the United States and Europe to new lows, unleashing ugly instincts and shrill voices on both sides U.S. congressmen and comedians have rediscovered the joys of French-bashing. Antiwar marchers in Spain last weekend declared that President Bush was worse than Hitler and that the United States kills for oil. It seems hard to believe that the United States and Europe are actually old friends and partners and that their alliance is at the heart of a Western culture based on personal liberty and political democracy. Optimists, including White House officials, predict that this spat between Europe and the United States will prove temporary -- like their disagreements over Vietnam, or NATO missile deployments during the Reagan era -- and is inevitable among democracies. But others wonder if the dispute over Iraq is a symptom of a schism that has deepened since the end of the Cold War. Some Europeans foresee a split with the United States, as increasingly hostile cultures disagree over fundamental values and issues: war, guns, the death penalty, the role of religion in everyday life. "The biblical references in politics, the division of the world between good and evil, these are things that we simply don't get," said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris think tank. "In a number of areas, it seems that we are no longer part of the same civilization. You have a fairly religious society on one hand and generally secular societies on the other operating with different references. What would unite us does not seem to be in the forefront." Similar sentiments could be heard on the streets during last weekend's huge antiwar marches in Europe. The chants and picket signs denounced the Bush administration with a venom that even outdid the longtime tradition of anti-American rhetoric here. Andrea, a 24-year-old activist among the million-plus marchers in Rome on Saturday, said he was protesting against the government in Washington, not the people of the United States. The demonstrator, who declined to provide his last name, followed that distinction with the opinion that the Sept. 11 attacks resulted from unjust U.S. policies. "The terrorist attacks that happened were due mainly to the American politics and not so much to a prejudicial anti-American sentiment," he said. "Certainly if you bomb kids, schools, bridges under the flag of justice and human rights, you have to expect some crazy person will respond." Such talk hints at trouble ahead for the "beautiful friendship" -- in the memorable words of Humphrey Bogart to Claude Rains at the end of "Casablanca" -- that bonded Americans and Europeans in the 1940s. Millions of Europeans expressed solidarity with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. But there were also voices declaring that the world's only superpower had been punished for its arrogance. In the days just after Sept. 11, 80% of the callers to one of France's top call-in radio shows declared that the attacks "were well done, it served the Americans right," said Christophe Hondelatte, the host of the show on the RTL network. Hondelatte said he decided not to broadcast the calls because he thought they were offensive and inappropriate. "It was incredible," he said. "It showed me how strong anti-Americanism is here." Even sympathetic Europeans, analyst Heisbourg said, might not grasp the trauma the World Trade Center carnage inflicted on the American psyche. "They don't understand what 9/11 meant for the U.S. -- a terrible shock that affects the whole world outlook of Americans," he said. Nonetheless, most protesters interviewed Saturday said they do not despise Americans, just their current leaders. And ideology plays a basic role in the transatlantic rift. Most Europeans, whether leaders or voters, are well to the political left of the Bush administration, especially on foreign policy. French President Jacques Chirac is a veteran center-rightist who was elected on a law-and-order platform, but France's independent approach to what it sees as U.S. domination of international affairs has propelled him to the forefront of the antiwar bloc at the United Nations. Antiwar feeling is among the strongest in Spain and Italy, which have center-right governments. Prime ministers Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy are popular and skillful politicians, but voters across the spectrum scorn them for backing Bush on Iraq. "The American and European people don't want war, but their leaders want to change the governments in Arab countries so they can get better access to oil," declared Ana Rosa Morales, a 35-year-old psychologist in Madrid. "This war will cause terrorist attacks, but the leaders who support Bush won't abandon him because of that. Bush is one thing, and the American people are another." Personality exacerbates the problem. Right or wrong, Bush has an image here as a reckless maverick whom Europeans find both mystifying and alarming. "The level of distrust, not simply among European public opinion, but at the leadership level, and the lack of confidence in the Washington team is simply abysmal," Heisbourg said. Guy Delranc, a retired insurance company publicist who joined the antiwar march in Paris, blamed U.S. leaders for fanning nationalism. "The American government is extremely arrogant," said Delranc, 57. "Some intellectuals think differently, but they don't have the same impact on opinion in the U.S. that the French intellectuals have in France. If you look at the U.S. press these last days, you'll see how they attacked the French. Not politically but in a vulgar and incredible way. Here in France, you don't see that in the newspapers." Delranc's comment does not appear to be completely true. Bush and his aides are preferred targets for the French press because many Europeans disagree with the administration's policies on issues ranging from the economy to gun control and abortion and see them as confirmation of common caricatures of America. Would there be less tension if a Democrat was in the White House? Perhaps on the surface. But analysts on both sides of the Atlantic say more powerful currents are eroding the foundation of the transatlantic alliance. Religion now tends to divide rather than unite the West, according to analysts. Europe has become more secular in recent years, including the southern part of the continent, where the Roman Catholic Church's influence on everything from marriage to education has declined. As a result, Europeans are uneasy with the prominent references to God in U.S. politics, let alone what they perceive as the crusader-like tone of the Bush administration. In a bitterly sarcastic article published in the Times of London last month, the novelist John le Carre declared that fundamentalist Christianity has pushed America into a period of "historical madness." Some European intellectuals reject the U.S.-gone-mad camp. Jean-Francois Revel, a curmudgeonly titan of French political thinkers, published a book last year titled "The Anti-American Obsession." His thesis: Anti-Americanism today expresses the revenge of a defeated, but still pervasive, European left that never forgave the United States for winning the Cold War and exposing what he calls its bankrupt ideology. Revel and others say Europeans are hypocritical because they still expect U.S. military might to save their bacon if they are ever threatened. Silvia Figini, a Spanish sociologist at the Madrid march last week, put it this way: "If there is a war in Iraq, the opinion that Europeans have of Americans will still be exactly as ambiguous as it is now, unfortunately: 'How terrible that they attacked -- what warmongers -- but it's a good thing that they are there for us.' "

"In a bitterly sarcastic article published in the Times of London last month, the novelist John le Carre declared that fundamentalist Christianity has pushed America into a period of "historical madness." " I tend to agree. Are there actually any "bible belts" in any other nation? In the US, the religious are a force and you'll find a hard time getting elected unless you declare some faith. In Canada, the Alliance party was set to take over from the Liberals, but Stockwell Day, a religious man, won the leadership. His religious beliefs ruined the party and cost them the election. There are religious areas but no Bible belt. Canadian versions of 700 Club, the Christian Coalition, etc, are mocked and have no influence. When I see Dubya on TV calling democracy "Gods gift to the world" with such religious zeal you have to be scared. This is the sort of thing Eric Hoffer warned us about. Democracy is "a bonne cereal", if you catch that reference, "but its not oatmeal!". Bringing God into this fucks everything up and it gives the impression of a holy war, something Bush promised the war on terrorism was NOT.

Jesus fucking christ. Thanks, you have only highlighted my point. All this talk was NILL in 1998. Clinton, without UN support, without NATO support, durring Lewinski's grand jury testimony, launched 450 cruise missiles into Iraq. Do you realize that that was more then what was used in the Gulf War? Where were the millions in the streets? Where were the protests? This is not about war. What is the stated difference this time? To remove a threat to not just the US, but a threat to the world, most certainly including his own citizens, from power. When clinton launched 450 cruise missiles, what was his stated purpose? To remove the threat of WMD. He even was the first, I beleive to use that term. This is about Bush. It is shameful that Carter and Clinton are running around to other countries saying what a bad job Bush is doing. Carter was an idiot and helped a worse person take over Iran, then started the wonderful deal with NK. Clinton had Bin Laden offered to him not once, but twice, but refused. He then finished the perfect deal with North Korea of giving them billions, plus Nuclear Material, if NK only promised not to use it for making weapons, then never started a monitor program to make sure NK is keeping their word.... Then he went and intentionally gave information to China that allowed them to get a Nuclear Missle actually up and in orbit for campaign contributions. None of this is conspiracy theory, None of this is rumours, all of it is fact, and all of it is history. All you have on Bush is rumours and conspiracy theories. Never ever before had a Former President of the United States ever spoke out against a sitting President. You know what Clinton's staff has been quoted as saying? "It's a shame this did not happen when Clinton was in office". Stop lying and stop kidding yourself. You hate Bush. You do not care what he says or does, you hate him. He started talking talking about Iraq 18 months ago. At that time you accused him of rushing to war. You said, Get another (16th) UN Resolution. He did. You said Get congress to debate it and pass a resolution. He did. You said get British backing. He did. You said go back and get another UN Resolution, he did. Now what? 2 Resolutions later, 18 really, and 18 months, you still accuse him of rushing to war. Your cartoons of Bush in a little cowboy hat and a plastic gun asking if we are there yet are getting really old. In the mean time, Saddam is still in power, still hiding his illegal weapon stash (I can promise you with 100% certainty that there are weapons and more then you will ever know), moving it all over Iraq and Iran, killing his citizens for not cheering for him, or holding his picture high in the air, kidnap and torture scientist's famililes to prevent them from saying anything wrong to the inspectors, and you still say Bush is the evil man. Admit you. You don't give a shit what happens, you just want Bush out of office.

"Where were the millions in the streets? Where were the protests?" There were protests, not millions, but they weren't exactly covered. The awareness was not there. Ken Starr walking out of his house every morning was. You have to pay attention. I guess the Republicans at the time felt the cum on the dress was a better weapon than the blood on Clintons hands. You can't go back and protest, but you can look at it now and say "enough". "This is not about war. What is the stated difference this time? To remove a threat to not just the US, but a threat to the world, most certainly including his own citizens, from power." No threat. "When clinton launched 450 cruise missiles, what was his stated purpose? To remove the threat of WMD. He even was the first, I beleive to use that term. " No, he was just wagging the dog. Liar and murderer. "This is about Bush." Well he's part of it. He's a liar and a murderer, just like Clinton. "Carter was an idiot and helped a worse person take over Iran, then started the wonderful deal with NK. Clinton had Bin Laden offered to him not once, but twice, but refused. He then finished the perfect deal with North Korea of giving them billions, plus Nuclear Material, if NK only promised not to use it for making weapons, then never started a monitor program to make sure NK is keeping their word...." Yes, and then theres Reagan and all the joy and laughter he spread through the region. Its not about one party or one person, trace. Its about the American government and its foreign policy not just in the last 2 years but for several decades. This unprovoked war is the tip of the iceberg, the last straw. Its not so simple. I imagine if you were from the outside looking in you'd see it for the bullshit it is. "None of this is conspiracy theory, None of this is rumours, all of it is fact, and all of it is history." Yep. I can see that. You however seem to be very focused on the deeds of one side yet so apologetic for the actions of the other. This doesn't make sense to me. "All you have on Bush is rumours and conspiracy theories. " Are you referring to the *FACT* plagiarized dossier that the mainstream media STILL have not covered? You don't find that something to fret over? The more things like this happen, the more credibility the 'rumors' have. You could quash the conspiracy theorists by having an honest debate in the press, but it isn't happening, so... "Never ever before had a Former President of the United States ever spoke out against a sitting President." so? "You hate Bush." thats true. "At that time you accused him of rushing to war. You said, Get another (16th) UN Resolution. He did." You're trying to tell me he really wanted their approval? "You said get British backing. He did." He has the backing of a few governments. But not their people. Its funny, because politically, Blair is toast. He's done. Howard? Toast. Every one of them is going to get theirs but maybe Bush will survive. "You said go back and get another UN Resolution, he did. Now what? 2 Resolutions later, 18 really, and 18 months, you still accuse him of rushing to war. " Time itself doesn't decide what is and what isn't a rush. Its the amount of thought and consideration. There has been none. "Your cartoons of Bush in a little cowboy hat and a plastic gun asking if we are there yet are getting really old. " I prefer the one of Blair blowing him, myself. "In the mean time, Saddam is still in power, still hiding his illegal weapon stash (I can promise you with 100% certainty that there are weapons and more then you will ever know)" Maybe there are. I actually don't care, because with aggressive inspections (something Bush is indirectly responsible for, they wouldnt have happened unless he was aggressive. He can be positively credited for that, even if it wasnt his desired action) they will never be a threat. And maybe not even if there weren't. I'm a little more concerned with Pakistan and Indias WMDs, N. Korea's WMDs, and about 13000 or so of the United States' - you know, the country thats actually being aggressive? That one. Tell me trace, when Powell made his case to the UN and all those sites turned out to not actually be weapons' sites (and no surveillance has proved anything was moved) and his dossier was clearly 100% proven to be out of date... well, if we can't find any weapon sites, what the hell are we going to bomb? "moving it all over Iraq and Iran, killing his citizens for not cheering for him, or holding his picture high in the air, kidnap and torture scientist's famililes to prevent them from saying anything wrong to the inspectors, and you still say Bush is the evil man." I don't believe one is more evil than the other. Saddam has proven he is evil. Bush is capable of finding a peaceful way but he isn't, and it isn't even listening to other ideas. Saying you have 'lost patience' is not an excuse. That is evil. The bottom line is the Bush method is unrealistic and willd further destabilize the region. A war will only create more terrorists. The threat to American lives will only exist if we proceed. Until then, the only threat to the world is its own way of life. A War on Obesity, Gluttony, Greed, and all the other bullshit doesn't win elections. "Admit you. You don't give a shit what happens, you just want Bush out of office." Despite all my cynicism, thats one giant leap into a steaming pile of horseshit. Whoever the fuck is in office. Its an office. Who cares.

Fuck France,Germany,Belgium,fuck Nato,stop giving them money and aid,fuck them,and remember these pussies when we saved their asses and this is how they do us? I don't need any stinking french cheese or wine,we can make that here,don't forget that till we got into it with with the Germans we called hot dogs frankfurthers or something close I am tanked.But the important thing is to fuck them,they need us more than we need them....don't ever forget that.Think about this,I feel a measure of what a country is worth is how many people are trying to get in and how many are leaving. I rest my case.

Oh I'd just like to mention that Iraq only produces about 5 to 6 percent of the worlds oil,I don't think that's up with all of this if it was all about oil.

actually thats 11 percent and within the next twenty years that will rise to 20 percent. get your facts straight. Members of the administration, both this one and previous ones have clearly stated that the Iraqi oil fields are 'vital' and that we must do whatever we can to have 'complete access' to them. I'm not saying this whole war is over oil like most of the protesters say, but its one reason. I find it questionable we write off other countries who are blocking the US as saying they are just looking out for their own economic interests yet claim ourselves that oil has no bearing at all in our decisions. You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe the US is that selfless. Not that I'm saying other nations' are. "I feel a measure of what a country is worth is how many people are trying to get in and how many are leaving." so what do you say to the thousands (literally, thousands) of Pakistanis who have fled the US to Canada since the immigration/registration was 'tweaked' a couple months ago? I suppose you don't care... they were probably terrorists, you think? "remember those pussies when we saved their asses" and blah blah blah... I bet you don't even know that without France's involvement in the Revolutionary War there would have never been a United States... its a two way street... if you're going to believe in that "previous generations deeds" ransom bullshit, you might as well hand over your land to some Native Americans and work for free for black people for the rest of your life. Its all well and good when its convenient for your selfish and emotionally exploited purpose, isn't it?

pffffff

trace, you are still blinded by partisianism. you can only counter our arguments with "But what about Clinton" Yes. Bush has become a pinnacle for much angst from many facets. Yes, a fraction of it is unjust, BUT most of it is deserved trace! He packed his cabinent with stalwart Reagan-era war hawks and oil execs. 9/11 didnt happen on Clinton's watch. Clinton didnt mass 100,000+ troops on Iraq's doorstep. Clinton didnt threaten war with or without UN support. He did a bunch of other shit i didnt like, but i dont have to time to rehash all that for you. Get over it. Get over Clinton. Its irrelvent. God damn. "You said get British backing." No. I said get UN approval trace. you know....i was going to go through your rant and shred it to pieces with its inaccuracies and such but it looks like Rowlf did a pretty good job. take note: its not about one party, one president, one administration but American policy on the whole. over the last few decades. the sooner you take your blinders off, turn off Rush and stop spewing that mundane retarded shit, the sooner you might have a more objective approach and the less youre chided for being a republican (you could insert democrate in this sentence too, id chide one, if we had a yellow-dog around here, but we dont), conservative-stooge, war-monger.

"U.S. congressmen and comedians have rediscovered the joys of French-bashing." What's this "rediscovered" nonsense?

"but it looks like Rowlf did a pretty good job." don't count on it ever happening again. There's already one patrick here, no need for another. :P - I prefer to lurk.

(clinton went to war without the support of the UN. c'mon patty, you can do better that this.)

what war? if you count lobbing cruise missles to Afgahnistan and Sudan, then yes, you're right, i opposed those actions then too. if you are referring to Kosovo, I will have to check on that because im uncertain of the UNs position on that. We at least had NATO support during that.

Rowlf, you will eat your No Threat statement. I can promise you that.

when when has Saddam threatened American sovereignty? When! Has he ever threatened to annex American soil? Threatened to kill Americans? Last i checked the monkeys are CNN we're still allowed to nose around. Where and how has Saddam threatened American? There is no proof Saddam has supplied weaponry to terrorist organizations. Nothing. No threat. NOTHING! There have been NO weapons discovered thus far. So you know, the guise of weapons and threats is weak. You don't justify a war just because America says there is a threat. Oh wait, Bush said in 99, according to you, he wanted to remove Saddam. Oh wait, Bush, 3 years before taking office had knowledge of weapons and threats. You so full of shit trace its beyond absurd.

"Are you referring to the *FACT* plagiarized dossier that the mainstream media STILL have not covered? You don't find that something to fret over? The more things like this happen, the more credibility the 'rumors' have. You could quash the conspiracy theorists by having an honest debate in the press, but it isn't happening, so..." I am VERY aware of that charge, I have heard A LOT about it because I do not listen to main stream media. I simply cannot believe that Powell would knowingly plagerize anything, he has more integrity and honor then any other man I have every had the priviledge of meeting. Someone had to have given it to him as a prepared speech... "Maybe there are. I actually don't care, because with aggressive inspections (something Bush is indirectly responsible for, they wouldnt have happened unless he was aggressive. He can be positively credited for that, even if it wasnt his desired action) they will never be a threat. And maybe not even if there weren't. I'm a little more concerned with Pakistan and Indias WMDs, N. Korea's WMDs, and about 13000 or so of the United States' - you know, the country thats actually being aggressive? That one. " You just invalidated anything else I will ever read from you. You are the one who has been fed total lies and bullshit for so long you don't know the difference. The United States has been aggressive at protecting herself and her alies, to include France and Germany. Her promise of freedom is still even today unmatched in the world. We are in Kuwait now, have been for 12 years. We do not own a drop of Kuwait's oil. We could have claimed Kuwait as US Territory at the end of the Gulf War if we wanted. You have done far worse then Patrick ever even has, and I can only hope you are not Patrick using another name. Patrick seems to be genuinely a fan of the United States. His views are different then mine, but his heart is in the right place. You sir, have revealed yourself to be an Anti-American, not an Anti-Bush.

Patrick, are you Rowlf?

i have no idea what the fuck you are talking about in that post trace, and obviously you dont either. i have told you, im not rowlf, rowlf is not me. the dossier is such a non issue.

'I simply cannot believe that Powell would knowingly plagerize anything, he has more integrity and honor then any other man I have every had the priviledge of meeting. Someone had to have given it to him as a prepared speech..." maybe you should go read his book about and pay note to the parts about attacking unilaterally without UN support. Powell is clearly not himself these days because he is contradicting himself philosophically left and right.

saddam tried to have bush daddy assassinated, patty. kosovo did not have UN backing. iraq will. if a second resolution is vetoed by france, france will lose its most important shred of political power when the UN security council falls apart.

so what. we've made attempts to assinate leaders before. i admit i was mixed about the war in Kosovo, still am. seems like selective enforcement to me. whatever. there is the good possibility a second UN resolution will be vetoed by more than just France. Russia and China might as well. Besides, a UN blessing does not = patty's unequivocable support for this war no matter how much we pay Russia or China,

so what? so you were wrong about saddam's lack of aggression. the resolution won't be vetoed by anyone. watch and learn.

didnt you also say Blix would come out and say they were in violation on the 14th nate...i mean bait? we'll see chuuuuuuumP

Blix did come out and say they they were in violation, monkeyboy. pay attention.

I have to admit that I have heard Blix in an interview talking about the many ways that they were in violation.

Hey Rowif,I've blown your cover,your ScoobyDoo.Thanks for reminding me about the french help during the America Revolution,we Americans learn this in grade school,but it's over 200 years later and what's your point?

we also helped them in their revolution. what is the point? Jacques Chirac is personally invested in the Ba'ath Party remaining in power. He has financial interest in Iraq's Nuclear Arms developments, and both France and Germany are absolutely positively in violation of UN Sanctions of arms trades with Iraq. Wait, you will see. Iraq is a threat to everyone, and because of it's leader, not because of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton or Bush Jr. They are a threat to us, to anyone in the Middle East, and to their own citizens. The United States is the only country on the planet that has the balls or capacity to stand up and knock this asshole out of power. Aggressive Inspections have failed. There are 3 ships at sea that have been there since November. They simply sail from Arabic port to Arabic Port, in constant radio silence. They refuse to identify themselves, cargo and destination. US and Britain do not want to intercept these ships because we know whats in the cargo hulls of these ships 40,000 tons of it. Each. What do you think would happen if we tried to stop these ships? They are doing this as part, not all, but part of their plans to hide the weapons that are in violation of the cease fire agreement they signed in 1991. This 3 ships are a smoking gun. They also pose a threat to the world. More resolutions and sanctions will make them go away, right?

oh yeah? let me drop some quotes from that speech. "More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations." "Mr. President, In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences." Unrelated to compliance, I love his comments on Powell's show and tell photos of those trucks: "This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection." "Mr. President, UNMOVIC is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind - the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programmes, which were prohibited in 1991 - the disarmament task - or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur. The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant - and not controversial. It will require monitoring, which is "ongoing", that is, open-ended until the Council decides otherwise." Note: "REQUIRE MONITORING", "OPEN-ENDED", "UNTIL THE COUNCIL DECIDES OTHERWISE" If you go and read his speech he makes no outright statement that Iraq is in violation. He compliments them in some realms on their cooperation and criticizes their lack of passive lack of cooperation in a couple of other realms. So, you know, take what you will from his speech. he specifically crafted it as such. There is no call to war in this speech bait. Blix doesnt want war, and he worded his speech in such a way as to leave the US no opportunity to say "thats it, they lost their chance, roll out the warm jets"

"They are a threat to us, to anyone in the Middle East, and to their own citizens. The United States is the only country on the planet that has the balls or capacity to stand up and knock this asshole out of power." They are a third world country trace with limited and archaic military capacity.Iraq's military capacity was decimated in the first war and has never recovered. give me a fucking break. they have threatened no one. They have not threatened their neighbors in 12 years. they are incapable of threatening anyone around them, muchless the US thousands of miles away. Im sorry trace, but what YOU say about a few ships in the Arabian sea is not all that convincing. Further, its not your job to convince us. There has not been a justification for war, there has not been a justification of the threat, there has not been any proof that Iraq has and continues to have a WMD program. All we are finding is old 150mm warheads capable of carrying gas. Most of the world is of this opinion. Most intellectuals are of this opinion. The world needs more evidence trace, and until they provide it, no war is justified. in fact, its criminal. you dont violate the UN, to enforce the UN. Talk about hypocrisy. Saying that everyone else is pussy not to stand up to them is just a dumb statement. You sound like a hick when you say cowboy rhetoric like that.

"Most of the world is of this opinion. Most intellectuals are of this opinion" that is liberal bullshit. most of the world wants saddam out of there. anti-bush, anti-war liberals don't have a monopoly on smarts. most reasonable people see the justification. those who don't tend to repeat the same garbage, but fail to provide an alternative solution to the issue. blix said they were in violation in the first report to the UN, dumbass.

i didnt say anything about wanting saddam in or out. i said most of the world does not agree that war is justified at this time. the UN is in agreement that war is not justified at this time and the millions of protestors this past weekend also. an alternative that i hear all the time is let the militant inspections continue. he is contained. he is no threat at this time. there is no provocation. stand down. i hear that alternative all the time man. im concerned most of the most up-to-date Blix report.

Heres your sign

ever take a logic class, p-dribbly? you cannot prove a negative. you cannot prove that they don't have something, you can only prove that they do have something. these inspections are logically flawed. they cannot work. that is no alternative. containment doesn't work. there is plenty of evidence of unlawful materials sneaking under the sanctions (ahem, france, ahem.) saddam plays a mean pr game. you're completely captured by it.

i fundamentally disagree that the inspections cannot work. i fundamentally disagree that he is a threat anymore than Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran. All nuclear powers run by dictatorships and tyrrants. I disagree with the urgency. Saddam can kiss my ass. Any PR of his is no concern of mine. There is no Constitutional basis for this war. There is no international legal basis for this war. Even if Saddam had a nuclear program I would not support a war. Paskistan is a great threat, that ALREADY has the god damn weapons and a potentially shakey government that is succeptable to extremist overthrow. North Korea ALREADY HAS or at least is a LOT CLOSER to the having the capability to harm the US than Iraq. Its threat assessment, priorities and legalities that push me to oppose this war. It has nothing to do with Saddam's PR. I don't believe a word he says, so scrap that idea.

"Even if Saddam had a nuclear program I would not support a war." Let me add "at this time" At this time I would not support a war to disarm him.

you know this vicious circle continues. but you know what the one constant is? threat. the US has yet to establish that Iraq poses any serious threat. Has Saddam said anythign about an unprovoked attack on US and US interests? No. Not that Ive heard. If you have heard otherwise, please, provide details. The fact that he has the weapons, historically is NO justification for war. Our selective enforcement makes no case what so ever. So while its apparent we disagree on many fundamentals, lets talk about threat. Where is his threat? The US has presented, shotty at best, info to link Iraq between any active terrorist organizations. There has never been any evidence to suggest the sharing of weapons. If anything, psychological analysis suggests just the opposite. There has been evidence to providing logistical aid, but so what, so has Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Thats not enough. He doesnt have the military capability to threaten anyone nearby, not with US military so close by. So where exactly is the threat? And when you answer 'What if..'s arent a basis for war.

"The United States is the only country on the planet that has the balls or capacity to stand up and knock this asshole out of power." Who the hell decided that USA is the planetary police? there is nothing i can do abt it, but why should the biggest bully get his way all the time? One day all the little kids are going to gang up on the big baddie. And i don't just mean Islamic nations or sects. what abt other western/christian/capitalist societies that get fed up with shotgun diplomacy and have their "alli" tell them what to do and when. COnsider this; HYPOTHETICALLY, Bush is right (abt WsMD, goes to war. BUT he finds out the hard way that he wasn't totally right, or overlooked something. Iraq has the Bomb (but they also have the Intercontinental capabilities). Full scale Nuclear attack, USA is the target, Iraq says 'we were pushed to far' 'go fuck yourselves' ten minutes later the world is less than an hour away from total anhialation. All beacuse two rich boys didn't like anyone telling them waht they can and can't do. Put your penises away, no-one cares whos is bigger, we just wanna play in the sun and live another day. REMEMBER i said hypothtically..... sometimes i wish our ancestors had never come out of the trees (or whichever euphemism makes your world spin)

"Where is his threat?" What are you waiting for Patrick, are you waiting for him to go on camera and actually verbally threaten us? I don't understand this. There is no threat? He is our enemy and there is a level of threat in that alone. It isn't like he is the US's buddy and pal and best friend. There is a level of threat in the fact that he hates US. I don't understand what it will take for you to think that there is a level of threat. I just don't get that. Is he going to have to bomb your neighborhood with biological weapons before you see a threat? Is he going to have to give you a written warning? Sometimes the ones who don't come out and say it, who hide it, are the ones we should most fear.

YES eri! I would like him to threaten us outright, threaten war without provocation. North Korea is doing it left and right. Are we going to war? no. Go take a lesson in world history and see what happens to nation-states that attack unprovoked! Look what happened to Hitler, The Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, The Crusades. "He is our enemy and there is a level of threat in that alone." Im sorry eri, you're really sweet in so many other ways, but this is 3rd grade approach. he is our enemy. so what. he is an enemy we made. we have lots of enemies but its no justification for war. cuba is our enemy and they re within 90 miles of our coast. is that justification for war? someone who is opposed to the US politically, culturally, religiously and is deemed by the state dept. as an "enemy" is no god damn reason to go and bomb them eri. give me a fucking break. im sorry but you're out of your element eri.

"he is our enemy. so what. he is an enemy we made. we have lots of enemies but its no justification for war." I didn't ask or say anything in regards to justification for war. I simply asked what you were looking for in the means of a threat. Two completely different things. I didn't ask what you concidered threat enough for war, but simply threat. Pay attention. "someone who is opposed to the US politically, culturally, religiously and is deemed by the state dept. as an "enemy" is no god damn reason to go and bomb them eri. give me a fucking break." I didn't say it was. I didn't even bring it up. You did. I asked a specific question, what would you concider a threat from Saddam. I did not say I was for bombing of any kind. I did not say I was automatically for attacking any enemy we have. I was simply pointing out that if they are our enemy then there is a certain amount of threat. The fact that you think that if I consider them a threat I would automatically bomb them is blatently naive on your part. I said nothing of the sort. I insinuated nothing of the sort. Stop jumping to conclusions about things that I haven't said. You're wrong in your thinking of my whole opinion of this whole thing. I simply wanted to know what you would concider a threat from him and that is it, all, nothing else. I didn't ask what you would concider a "war worthy" threat, but just a threat. I didn't say a thing about North Korea. I didn't bring it up, it had nothing to do with my specific question to you. I was just trying to understand something and you decided you knew my thoughts and feelings about something that I haven't even posted about on any of these threads, so keep your foolish assumptions to yourself and just answer the fucking question.

I wonder what Mark Thomas thinks of all this blather.

eri. the discussion is about war, and saddam as a threat and thus a pretext for war. this is the question i posed. any other context of "threat" made by you is either unclear or irrelavent. he probably thinks its all pointless, mindless, retarded jibber jabber, me being the main culprit.

anybody here have a real job?

Unclear or irrelevant. OK. I am simply trying to understand the way you are thinking. I didn't say anything about war. I am trying to pick apart your brain as you used to try to do with me when I actively participated on the political threads. There are many different kinds of threats. Here what I am trying to address would be the distinction between two. Example 1: An amount of threat that makes you worry. Not out of control, but still worrisome and can be handled without force or arms. Example 2: A threat so horrible it leads you to want immediate action. I am asking about Example 1, what would be necessary for you to acknowledge that kind of threat from Saddam and what does that mean to you. Not irrelevent concidering you are taking an anti-war approach, yet supporting sanctions, and saying that there is no threat whatsoever. This doesn't make sense to me and I am trying to understand it. If there was not threat, then why support sanctions? I am trying to pick your brain in relevance to what you are saying and what you stand for on this issue so that I might be able to understand you. You have done the same with me in the past and I didn't call you names and I answered your questions. I can't understand why you are refusing to answer mine now. I thought this was a debate on this issue and I don't see how I can possibly join into a debate if I don't understand not only what you say, but what you mean by what you say, what you think will help or not help, if I can't understand how you think. So please decide. Are you willing to have a conversation about what you are thinking about this possible "war" other than just "is it right or wrong" or are you willing to discuss what we think about the things behind the war or no war question itself so that we can understand each other rather than look at each other like idiots? All I am asking for is answers to questions so that I can understand whay you are saying and not just looking at it as stupidity that makes no sense. I am trying to make sense because I don't think that you are stupid, but sometimes I really don't get what you say and need to delve deeper if I want to understand. I am sure you have felt the same way when having conversations with others on here, that it makes no sense and seems stupid to you. Now I am asking questions so that I understand what you mean rather than just thinking "He's stupid and that makes no fucking sense". I am trying to understand you rather than judge you.

Now for something almost entirely unrelated: Sen. Robert Byrd as a Confederate!

no dave.

"I wonder what Mark Thomas thinks of all this blather. " mark thomas, hell. what would be really great would be a crossfire-type encounter between the watcher and joe (not millionaire). moderated by lucy phurre.

The only thing you will get if we go the way you want patrick is a biological attack. of course, I am willing to wager you would still blame bush saying he released it to further his war mongering causes.

there is no evidence to suggest he will use a biological weapon, if he even has them anymore, unprovoked against America.

So, and correct me if I'm wrong, no wait, theres no need to say that, you'll correct me anyway.... you guys want war? you think war will make things better? when the entire world is in a rain of ash, smoke, and biological weapons you'll be happy cause you made your point. Unfortunetly, you're not gonna be around to see it though... cause not only did you fuck up the countries you hate, but also the rest of the planet.

and you dont even care about my funky US pants

the kiwi has the floor.

"They are a third world country trace with limited and archaic military capacity.Iraq's military capacity was decimated in the first war and has never recovered. give me a fucking break." remember when they used to tell us about the "Elite Republican Guard", that there were 250,000 troops waiting in the desert? Remember how they made it seem that the Kuwaiti invasion came out of nowhere, when everyone saw it coming because they had been disputing borders India/Pakistan style for a long while? I don't care what side you are on so long as you question everything. If you accept this war based on faith in the government, you are foolish. History has proven that at wartime, dishonesty runs wild. Then 30 years later the government will admit the truth and noone pays attention. Northwoods Project, anyone? to J: Scooby Doo?

Elite Republican Guard...hmmmmm Those are the units that actually get weapons made in the last 50 years and get to wear those funny red berets. hmmmm NOW I know why the French are so up in arms.......the contract for the Republican Guard berets will go to shit if we destroy Iraq!!!!!!!

Now that you mention it, those Iraqi soldier-type sDO wear a lot of berets.... Then again, so do our guys, but only the ones who actually get shot at.

sem:"I wonder what Mark Thomas thinks of all this blather. " you dare call him down from the mountain? "...real job?" ^ i laughed dave. Oh god, did i laugh. Note: the opinions expressed by anyone sharing my IP address are those of the post-maker, and do not necessarily represent my own. or maybe they do, it's just that i'm too lazy to type that much. And i can't even spell "administration".

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons

Wisper: I'm not calling anyone down, i just had one of those sudden flashes when you realize that there's this guy who puts up this site and all these people are around flapping their right or left wings. All i know is that there are a LOT of feathers in the air.

"ordinary americans pretend that slap fights are intellectually stimulating"....Next, on "Sick, Sad World"!

Oops!

trace: "I simply cannot believe that Powell would knowingly plagerize anything, he has more integrity and honor then any other man I have every had the priviledge of meeting." Trace, are you saying you've met Colin Powell?

It's all about the Scooby,it's all about the doo. http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0221oilfield21.html Scarey

Maybe they were Hopis. (obscure reference only people from the 4 corners and anthropologists will probably get)

My aunt Judy, who runs a teddy bear shop down the street from the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, met Powell recently. Powell was in Ottawa for whatever reason, and stopped in the shop. His security henchmen or whatever you want to call them ordered everyone out the door so Powell could shop alone. My aunt let them do this, but she actually confronted him about certain foreign policies and immigration policies (she used to work immigration, and worked in Belgrade during most of the turmoil over there). They talked for about 20 minutes. She says he was very polite and left a tip of about 40 cents.

"...left a tip of about 40 cents." daaaaaamn thats like a nickle in US currency. Teddy Bear shop huh. Big market for that in Ottawa? Its baffling to me that the Senators are bankrupt but a teddy bear shop is in full swing, it seems.

I dunno, she left a high paying government job for it, and she's apparently doing better with this new thing... here's something you don't expect in a Texas newspaper: Defending the French. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/5222243.htm

speaking of teddy bears.... did y'all go out and buy duct tape yet?? see, 'duck and cover' has now been replaced by 'sheild and shelter'. i think you're going to need a bit more duct tape.

An eerie parallel to US foreign policy: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sun24.html

What a fucked up thing to happen. What was the point of mentioning that the people dying didn't say where from Britain or France they were from, anyways? Some guy runs me over, kills my sister, and puts me in critical condition, I am not about to give him my home fucking address so he can kill my cats and fish while I am in the hospital. That was just weird.

What's so wierd about that? It sounds like typical journalism to me. They don't have any information on the victims, so they are indicating what details the police who investigated (not the one who hit them) have told them.

fuck the french!

no. apparently "Run over the French" is the call of the day nate. keep up.

you know, i hear he coasted over the chicks- so wouldn't that be a french roll ? haha! i kill me! fuck the french!

Well, that one woman died, so I guess she's "french toast" Right back at ya! Hooray for being insensitive, our only comfort in these weird times! Well, that and a serving of really delicious french toast.

im still waiting for the mullet jokes to be born from the accident in RI.

holy shit, the footage they got of that fire is going to give me nightmares. That shot of 50 or so people all stuck pushing out of one door, screaming for help as they burn to death.... goddamn. of course, as the boy pointed out, it's not like there were any doctors, dignitaries, or rocket scientists in there...... HAH! fuck the mullets!