Kurt:
It seems that you have VERY bad sources of information or want to confuse readers. I don't know about other countries, but in the theree ones that had the Azores meeting, USA, Great Britain and Spain, it is now well known that:
-In Britain, there is a process on, where it has been uncovered that the Blair Government included false informations (the 45' Saddam response with ABQ weapons), and exagerated greatly the magnitude of the threat, to encourage people's feelings for war. That's why Blair's popularity has reached a low, in spite of his many positive actions in the other areas of actuaction.
-Spanish government recently affirmed (after being chased by press and PSOE) that they obtain that information from
supposed UN files!!! In fact it's obvious that the UN did
NOT any report regarding the Saddam military attack/response capability but on his having
possibilities to acquire/develop nukes or other mass killing weapons. And the resutl were not concluyent thanks to Bush's war starting before they ended. Plus, Blix was very doubtful as he has said after he has retired and was free to talk. It happens that he had reasons to doubt, more time would have result in seeing that the country was mass weapons free, and Bush plans to enrich oilo companies would be over.
- In the USA, CIA has declared that they felt very under pressure by the frequent visits of (I think it was) Mr. Rumsfeld, asking wether they had found by then
the evidence he wanted was "found". Hence, the
"creativity" of the information, among others, of the
false information that Saddam had bought Uranium in Africa.
So, it seems that, form the 3 ones I know, who are the impulsors of the war, 3 were wrong
(or lied to their people to support war). Syria and Lebannon are NOT satellites of Saddam, and DID NOT have to follow Saddam hosting those weapons. May I remind you what happened with the remains of the Iraki air force in the 1st gulf war? They send them to Iran to preserve them from destruction in american hands,
but Iran stayed them and jailed the pilots. SO, what's the sense of Saddam sending weapons to others?(who, by the way, feeled very tense with his formerly agressive neighbour).
What no
objective observer can deny is that
more than one hundred thousand + invading soldiers, the CIA, MI5 and others couldn't find a PROOF supporting the supposed Al-quaida/Saddam connection. In fact,
Saddam's regime is well known for being laicist, for which he had a lot of problems with islamic factions, but which was the only way that a country with two main muslim factions, who consider the other heretic: sunni an shii, can be ruled.
Thank you for not considering me
of your ilk , but a different one. As for the 'Eurabia' name, I will not make any comments, our History and past political actions speak for us. The fact that we don't follow US government warmongers, does not tear us apart from West, only pushes the USA to the
Far West , and Bush's politics resemble a lot the Hitler's invading policies. Imperialism.
As for the TotalFinaElf matter, I don't know if that Canadian guy is who you say he is, but I'll swallow it. However, what are you condemning? Trade relations?
Because to many of us, when we lost markets abroad, we were told that it was because the USA were more competitive. Now we send better offers, get a deal through the markets laws, and then
the USA sends their troopers, kills some tenths of thousands and states a new puppet government and the agreements are over. Good bussiness, no?
Sounds like dirty tricks. But these dirty tricks include killing irakis
AND american soldiers for some corporations to earn more.
About the USA in the UN: DO YOU think YOUR country
and those that at that moment are allied with it are always the TRUTHHOLDERS? I Don't think so. The USA has a lot more power in the UN that the deserved, starting by having a
permanent member in the Executive Council, plus a Veto, just like the other 4, Which is unfair in both cases, AND also has political, economical and militar power to bully most of the rest most of the other times,
and that's exactly what they do. So, don't complain and cry because
once you were not winning, because the UN are not meant to be subsidiary to the USA, but an organization that's is
above the country because of the political decision of
all the signatary countries
(including the USA). As for staying together and forcing Saddam out of IRAK, you are making political-fiction, in your dreams
anything can happen, but what we know is that Saddam was not a menace and that the country has been destroyed, and that's a fact.
If you knew
some politics, you'd know that islamo-fascist is an imposible word, as much as islamo-jew, because fascists hated and despiced Arabs (remember Berlusconi, so close to Bushs plans, he is praising Mussolini these days, and saying M. sent jews "on holidays to a cam" only
).
The fact that, in Europe, we tend to consider countries able to self-govern and that Bush-Blair-Aznar don't, doesn't make us Arabs at all. Europe's position has always been trying to mediate between Israelis and palestinians to abide UN resolutions regarding Israel, for example, whereas the USA has always supported Israel while they violated them repetidly.
By the way, Israel was not invaded by any country for violating so many UN resolutions, being a Terrorist State (assesinating its own citizens of palestinian origin), without a trial or anything, ..., and for so many blatant crimes. Even being it so, the EU haven't been against that
bloody regime either. Only long-lasting peace preservation was important as a goal. A goal now almost impossible thanks to US annual gifts in cash to Israel, and in making it a nuclear power, unstable and bloody as its behaviour is.
Let´s invade israel! As bloody as Irak, But this time, they
truthfully have nukes! Wasn't this the reason for the war? Clearing ruthless bloody regimes with nukes and the like?
Europeans countries are not policial states, such as what the USA is becoming right now, with people (some their own citizens) in jail for months without a trial, that's why terrorists are freer, just as the rest of us. But we also suffer terrorism (some islamic) in our territory, and we fight it with as many weapons we have.
Unfortunately we haven't yet the mind-reading device needed to guess that some groups of five people scattered along Europe were planning to do
the usual terrorist action consisting on smashing some planes on skyscrappers. If we had known that, we would have done something about that.
But, again, don't try to move the discussion to other matter, for, again, no relation has been found
at all between Al-Quaida and Irak.
As for the Two Hamas: There are not two Hamases. There is Hamas, which is a terrorist group (Have the Israelis left another way? They don't have an army and can't have it, and if they had, they wouldn't have the USA tech they have got and the nukes), and there are a number of humanitary organizations and ONG's most of which are independent and care of population welfare in those super-poor countries that have been unfairly been pursued economically, politically and judicially by the USA, and the EU countries as far as the fear for the USA impulsed them to.
I don't have thirst for american blood, but I firmly believe that, unless this war is very costly to America in lifes and/or money, we will have more and more innocent countries invaded, ruined, contamined (with uramium loaded projectiles), people (including "soldiers") assesinated defenceless by american bombers, children born dead or handicapped by exposition to american weapons radiation, and so on. Remember, after Irak, Bush was about to invade Jordan, accusing them of hosting Saddam and the rest, of the hosting weapons lie, and of border attacks.
The americans are the only ones who can stop the America war machine, that's why they have to learn again the lesson of life cost, which is only one hundreth of the ones they have caused, and the recession menace that the cost of this nonsense war is bringing upon their country, not to support any warmonger anymore.