"Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US." Says N Korea

[fwgx]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,889679,00.html

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.
Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."


:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

[Xerxes]

Every :blah: shows how spiteful and hateful you are of Western Society.

[Trigear]

let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor...

[Some1]

Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US

While accurate, North Korea has essentially signed its own death warrant with that statement...

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Every :blah: shows how spiteful and hateful you are of Western Society.

Maybe he's just laughing AT the statement, not because he likes it.

[fwgx]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Every :blah: shows how spiteful and hateful you are of Western Society. Nope just the policies and antics of the US and UK around the world. I also think this reason was given by the Germans when they invaded Poland and the US when they invade Iraq.

Excuse me whilst I start gut laughing again.

[binary hero]

something tells me Bush is gonna get his ass pooned. this would be withstandable IF WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE. it was gonna happen eventually, somebody would decide to fight back.

tri - good song, must find that album again :)

[zootm]

fantastic. someone had to say it.

[Twilightseer]

Question to all Americans :

If I have understood the situation properly, the USA wants to attack Iraq because they MAY have mass destruction weapons.
Now, we know that North Korea, which is a dictature as well, does have mass destruction weapons.
Question : why won't the USA attack North-Korea ?

[fwgx]

Why doesn't everyone attack the US and UK? They're the ones using the threat of nuclear weapons on people most seriously and aggressivly. We should bomb the fuck out of them!

[NetFury]

the majority of US citizens do not back Bush's stance on war, nor do they want to play big brother. i know, because i'm one of those citizens.

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Why doesn't everyone attack the US and UK? They're the ones using the threat of nuclear weapons on people most seriously and aggressivly. We should bomb the fuck out of them! :igor:

i saw no wink or anything of that nature, so..GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[ujay]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Every :blah: shows how spiteful and hateful you are of Western Society. Since when did American Society equal Western Society ?

Since when did spite and hate equal scorn and dirision ?

UJ

[zootm]

Originally posted by Twilightseer
Question : why won't the USA attack North-Korea ?
because the threat of them using their weapons is less, and they may not have the weapons. no wait - n. korea DO have weapons, and ARE threatening directly to use them.

buggered if i know seer. might be something to do with the fact that this war is just internal US politics, taken to the extreme.

[fwgx]

Originally posted by NetFury
i saw no wink or anything of that nature, so..GO FUCK YOURSELF. Am I wrong?

[zootm]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Am I wrong?
that's not the issue. the issue is that you called to bomb someone's country. it's something that you could understand people getting upset about.

the bottom line though, is that those crazy yanks just don't get sarcasm. :D

[anubis2003]

When have they threatened to use nuclear weapons as aggression? Both countries realize the consequences of nuclear warfare and would not be willing to take the high risks.

[zootm]

Originally posted by anubis2003
When have they threatened to use nuclear weapons as aggression? Both countries realize the consequences of nuclear warfare and would not be willing to take the high risks.
i think the threat of force, rather than of the use of nuclear weapons at all, is the key here though. the only option these countries have to strike against the US is weapons of mass destruction. whether or not it's right that they do it, they don't have another way. they can't just invade - they'd lose nearly instantly. if they got that far.

[anubis2003]

It's called negotiation and compliance. They have refused to do so, so we are threatening with force. If they continue to refuse then we will use force.

[fwgx]

There is nothing for N Korea to comply with, they pulled out of the Nuclear proliferation treaty, they no longer have to comply, just as the Us has done with a few treaties.

that's not the issue. the issue is that you called to bomb someone's country. it's something that you could understand people getting upset about.
Perhaps, but not when they're calling on using the same rule to invade another country I can't.

When have they threatened to use nuclear weapons as aggression?I'm making a huge assumption here but I assume you maen America & UK when you say 'they'. Because Mr Blair has completly refused to eliminate the use of such weapons, effectivly saying he is more than willing and able to use them.

[This Show Sucks]

i myself found it ironic that it was america who originally developed and used these weapons, and here they are trying to threaten anyone else who feels they want to use them... What about the millions that the americans killed!?

[will]

that is very funny :D
sexrex: i think it might be sarcastic humour

[m0e]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Why doesn't everyone attack the US and UK? They're the ones using the threat of nuclear weapons on people most seriously and aggressivly. We should bomb the fuck out of them!

Did I miss something here? Phily Baby, I thought you were English. If not, I profusely apologize in advance.

[fwgx]

I am, doesn't mean I agree with our government though.

[anubis2003]

I don't agree with US government either. Still wouldn't want countries sending nukes over here. I live within nuke range of the norfolk naval shipyard.

[SNYder]

Can't we all just get along? :D

[anubis2003]

Come on boys and girls, lets all hold hands and sing the "happy song". Happy happy joy joy. happy happy joy. happy happy happy happy...
Oh wait, that's ren and stimpy. They are the model's of good.

[John M]

see, i dont get it. we get tough on iraq, and north korea comes out and tries to get our attention. it's like saddam is trying to get kim jong il to take the heat off iraq by creating a distraction. what i especially dont understand is why north korea has refused diplomatic resulutions to any differences we may have. it's not like we havent tried.

anyhow, i'd like to see saddam out by independence day, kim jong il out by christmas, and castro out by valentine's day 04.

[incubus*chick]

Originally posted by Twilightseer
Question : why won't the USA attack North-Korea ?
Because North Korea has nothing Bush wants. Iraq has LOTS of oil. Oil = money, Bush = greedy. End of story.

[missyob]

Originally posted by Twilightseer
Question to all Americans :

If I have understood the situation properly, the USA wants to attack Iraq because they [B]MAY have mass destruction weapons.


Not to argue with you Twilightseer, but Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. They have biological weapons. Sadam killed tens of thousands of his OWN people testing them out. His own brother fled the country in fear of his life. If a man is going to kill his own people, do you think he would hesitate to kill others? I am not talking about just the usa here, but every country in the world including Iraq.


I am not a big favor of war........

My dad, the man I love the most in the world, left the other day and he may never come back.
My brother is leaving soon and may never come back.
My 2 uncles are leaving tomorrow and may never come back.
One of my uncles left today and may never come back.

I have alot to lose here. The lives of my family are at a high risk right now and it is very scarry to me. On the other hand people are not looking at the big picture here. Yes, lives may be lost, but they will be lost defending and protecting not only the United States of America but the world as well.

~ Missy

[anubis2003]

Very nice statement Missy.
Originally posted by incubus*chick
Because North Korea has nothing Bush wants. Iraq has LOTS of oil. Oil = money, Bush = greedy. End of story.


I am tired of hearing this. Going to war with Iraq may alienate several countries in the middle east further. These countries will reduce the amount of oil that they sell to the US if not eliminate it all together. After the war a new leader will be selected. Sure it is likely that the US will have a say in who is elected, but if this is the case then it will help all countries who have similar views as the person elected(much of europe is included in this as well).

You people are trying to make it seem like the US is invading this country in order to steal its oil. The reason we are attacking Iraq is because they have shown past history of hate towards the US and have not followed the guidelines set forth. North Korea has also done the same, but Iraq is currently a larger threat to the world as a whole. If you all want to go whoop up on korea, then why don't you go ahead. Do you have to have the US helping you, or can you actually do something on your own? The US isn't the only free country capable of initiating war. If you want something done do it yourself and don't piss and moan about someone else not doing it.

[incubus*chick]

Originally posted by anubis2003
The reason we are attacking Iraq is because they have shown past history of hate towards the US and have not followed the guidelines set forth.
What makes the US the almighty queen bitch? "Ooh! Lets 'accidentally' kill thousands of innocent civilians because some of the more powerful people in the country said some mean things about us! *moan* *whine* *cry*!"

The potential war on Iraq is pointless. Give me a goddamn better reason for an attack.

[anubis2003]

He poses a danger to his people and the world. He has shown that he is willing to use weapons of mass destruction(chemical weapons released on tens of thousands of his own people). You do not want someone willing to do this to his own people to have nuclear weapons. It is obvious that he has many things that he doesn't want us to see(he has unloaded several buildings only a couple days before being inspected) and has broken the conditions set forth by the US and other nations. If we don't attack him soon and swift, who knows what terror he will unleash.

[fwgx]

The evidence against Iraq is frankly laughable and barely plausable. Mr Powel could have said anything in the world the other day and people would have believed him. I also fail to see how a country that might have some chemical weapons is more of a threat than a country that has nuclear weapons. Without wanting to piss people off here, I'm going to laught my socks off if N Korea attack the US naval fleet off it's shores because it's defending itself. I can see no justification that isn't a mangle of lies, deciet and propoganda.

Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, "We still live in a dangerous world."

Thanks to you, you fucker!



What are you doing? Last week Kuwaitis had nothing but rocks!

They're arming the fucking world man. You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know during the Persian Gulf war those intelligence reports would come out:

"Iraq: incredible weapons - incredible weapons."

How do you know that?

"Uh, well... We looked at the receipts Haar."

"Ah but as soon as that cheque clears, we're going in."

"What time's the bank open? 8? We're going in at 9."

"We're going in for God and country and democracy and here's a foetus and he's a Hitler. Whatever you fucking need, let's go. Get motivated behind this, let's go!"

Ohoh looks like Mr. Major was on the hot seat there for a second too. Little Iraqgate, little rapscallion he is.



"Did we send, did I... did... I'll have to check Maggie's old calendar."



What's funny about this. Every one of your papers says that you guys sold Iraq

"machine tools"... which Iraq then converted into military equipment. I have news for you folks, a cannon is a machine tool. Your Orwellian language notwithstanding, it's a fucking machine, it's a tool.

Our papers in the States have the same thing. We sold Iraq "farming equipment" which Iraq then "converted". How do they do this?

"Simsalabim simsalabim aa salabim sim sim sim salabim."



Wow! It was a chicken coop, it's now a nuclear reactor!"

"This war's for Aladdin." Farming equipment which they converted into military, okay, you got me I'm curious, exactly what kind of farming equipment is this?

"Oh okay, well it's stuff for the farmers of Iraq."

Yeah?

What?

"Ooh okay, ar well ooh one of the things we gave them was for the little farmer, a new thing we came up with called er the er, flame-throwing rake."

"No it was for the farmer, see. He would rake the leaves and then just turn around

Boooo."

"But you know what the Iraqis did with that?"

There's no trees in Iraq, what are you sending them rakes for, you asshole?

"We could have done our research better perhaps yes."

What else did you sell 'em?

"Okay er one of the other things we gave 'em was a new thing... for the farmer."

"The, er, armoured tractor."

"No, see, farmers when they farm look over their shoulders at times and they won't see a tree and they'll hit it maybe and there'll be a wasps nest in the tree and the wasps will come in and sting 'em."

"So we put four inches of armour all over the tractor. And a turret to shoot pesticides

on the wasps."

"Yeah but you know what the Iraqis did with that?"

"Can't trust 'em."



I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries then we go and blow the shit out of em. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane... Throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet:



"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun".

"Mister, I don't want no trouble huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble mister."

"Pick up the gun."

Boom bom

"You all saw him. He had a gun."

[zootm]

Originally posted by missyob
My dad, the man I love the most in the world, left the other day and he may never come back.
My brother is leaving soon and may never come back.
My 2 uncles are leaving tomorrow and may never come back.
One of my uncles left today and may never come back.
not imagine that you have a similar amount to lose from the war, except you don't believe that the war has just cause, or is necessary.

welcome to my world.

[Trigear]

Originally posted by triGEAR
let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor...

;)

[incubus*chick]

asshole :P

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by incubus*chick
Because North Korea has nothing Bush wants. Iraq has LOTS of oil. Oil = money, Bush = greedy. End of story.

Your worldview is an excellent argument against democracy.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Your worldview is an excellent argument against democracy.
sounds a lot more like an argument against capitalism to me, X. the two aren't inextricable.

[incubus*chick]

Originally posted by zootm
sounds a lot more like an argument against capitalism to me, X. the two aren't inextricable.
Thanks zoot :)

[Xerxes]

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Hey, Winston Churchill said it, not me.

.... It's 2 AM, I would type out a lengthy response, but I'm not. Instead I will copy and paste what I would have typed, a brief explanation on the "oil" issue in this war that I wrote in the 'news' forum. I am justified in my decision because i'm sure nobody read it due it being in the lamentable readership of that forum.

---

Everyone seems to be talking Oil - this whole war according to some completely depends on oil - and usually these "some", in their simplistic worldview say that Bush is either trying to take the oil for himself, or he is being bribed to take it by evil oil interests.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/crudeoilprice4797c.gif

What is the real deal with oil? It is not for any of the pathetic reasons I have just described.

This war is motivated by several things, and oil is only one of them, it is not THE reason. You see, it is very important that the people who control Oil Supplies be somewhat responsible on the global stage. When oil suppliers are not, what it causes is economic shocks- and it is THIS that US policy is concerned about, and it is part of what the US refers to as 'protecting our interests'. It is really in the interests of the world as well, as when the cost of oil fluctuates wildly, it causes terrible reverberations throughout the entire world. Because then all world businesses depending on oil, that is, any business that requires transporatation and distribution of product (nearly all product based business), will be forced to assimilate the costs or go out of business. This in turn raises prices for everything across the board, along with higher prices at the pump. This taken together is catastrophic, especcially for the delicate economic state the world is in at the moment.

This is the real oil problem, and reducing the probability of this is only one advantage gained in destroying the current regime.

[zootm]

let's be careful here. the churchill quote indicates that the people will hate the government, no matter what they do. this is true.

to be honest, i'm not sure if the oil is as much a reason as people are complaining about. i'm sure that the WOMD issue isn't the main reason for the war though. it's a combination between the US wanting every country under its overall control, and wanting a war to boost the economy. saddam is an established villian, and will allow the govt. to do what they want as the public complain the rights and wrongs of a war that is essentially a diversionary tactic to get people spending, and to stop them from looking into the government's internal affairs, and inability to fight terrorism.

[fwgx]

It's not the price of oil this is about, more the control of the price and other oil producing countries.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by zootm
it's a combination between the US wanting every country under its overall control, and wanting a war to boost the economy.

Skillfully skirt my well written article will you? ;)

Stating that the US wants 'every country' under its overall control is a very paranoid view. Destroying rogue nations isn't creating new markets, its securing the ones that already exist.

Something rarely discussed these days was Saddam's original reason for invading and subjugating Kuwait- Direct Government Control of Oil! Yes the very behavior ascribed in the sad pop culture caricature of both Bushes is a realistic description of Mr. Hussein. After Kuwait snubbed Iraq in inter-OPEC cartel politics, Hussein began to draw plans for his self decribed Mother of all Wars.

When the US is protecting its seemingly nebulous 'national interests', a large one entailed in it, as I put in previous post, is the stability of world markets. This is not US control, this is the US using its leading world position to quell chaos and unpredictability. Even if the obvious directhumanitarian (http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp?0cv=CA01) factor is removed from any of this, securing markets is in the end a humanitarian gesture for the civilized world. Market shocks directly and indirectly cost jobs, they cost people's livings, and they lower the quality of living.

As far as the US economy, there is no urgent reason to 'boost' it. The GNP continues to grow faster than most industrialized countries. It is currently undergoing a low point in the decade business cycle, so there is unemployment that will hardly be addressed by war. The war boost stock shares to a degree- this is simply not a major factor. It is only percieved.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
It's not the price of oil this is about, more the control of the price

Yes very good! 'Control' of the price by stabilizing regions keeps world markets stable as well. At this rate you will be fighting at the Baghdad perimeter with me by the end of the week. :)

[fwgx]

Originally posted by Xerxes

Market shocks directly and indirectly cost jobs, they cost people's livings, and they lower the quality of living.




Wars cost thousands of lives, homes, livleyhoods and cause the spread of disease, starvation and general awfulness. What's your point? That your monitary prosperity is worth the lives of these people? I find that very sick indeed.

edit: So what gives you, the US, the right to control this? Answer: Nothing.

[Xerxes]

It will cause momentary ill and bring among other economic benefits denied to the people of Iraq by UN sanctions because of Saddamn, Foriegn investment. Not to mention freedom of thought.

The US controls this because it has the talent, resources, and war materia, and influence- i.e. the leading position in the world. For the inverse reason, Nigeria or Bangladesh do not control this because they have nothing.

[fwgx]

Wars cost thousands of lives, homes, livleyhoods and cause the spread of disease, starvation and general awfulness. What's your point? That your monitary prosperity is worth the lives of these people? I find that very sick indeed.

Skillfully skirt my well written article will you?
edit: I think the better solution is to lift sanctions on Iraq, keep the inspectors there to destroy any weapons that are found and keep monitoring them afterwards. No loss of life, monitary reform, a country able to rebuild itself.

[Xerxes]

lift the sanctions?

Why not build the Inspectors permanent desert villas while you are at it- that way when they die the next generation of inspectors can reside there as well.

Saddam has already caused the loss of 'thousands of lives, homes, livleyhoods ... the spread of disease, starvation and general awfulness' by not agreeing to the terms the UN set under it's original resolution. The US liberation will effectively end an enviroment where Saddam keeps College professors teaching at 60 dollars a month at gunpoint, where Saddam continues to divert dual use medical equipment from hospitals to Bio warfare labs.

[fwgx]

>>> Saddam continues to divert dual use medical equipment from hospitals to Bio warfare labs.

Can you prove that? Remember we want to go there because of the threat they pose, it is non of our business how they are run internally. The US and UK thinks that Iraq poses a real and present danger to the world and that's why we want to kill all these people. From what I have seen, heard and read I can see no evidence that Iraq is in any way a threat to the world.

[Xerxes]

Beyond the clear audio soundbytes regarding mobile bio labs on tracks afrom Colin Powell's damning disseration to the UN-

(AP Summary Excerpt)
A telephone call Powell said was between two Iraqi military officers was intercepted last Nov. 26, one day before the resumption of U.N. inspections. "We evacuated everything," one of the officers said. In another call, on Jan. 30, an officer was overheard saying, "We sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there."

In another call, one Iraqi commander instructs another to remove any reference to "nerve agents wherever it comes up."

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show Iraqi-front companies tried to buy machines that can be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, Powell said.


Richard Butler, australian chief UNSCOM weapons inspector 1992-1997 references several dual use aquisitions in his book "The Greatest Threat"- among them, colloidal silicon dioxide- a chemical base for germ agents, and several large Industrial pharaceutical mixing machines that dissapeared as soon as they entered the country.

I don't have the book on my shelf, as it was a library book. I would complile a list of the pieces of equipment listed if I had it in my posession.

And it is entirely the point of inspectors to know of their internal movings and usages of sensitive materials and equipment, that is the reason they are there!

[fwgx]

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00265.html

'Without Unscom you can't have lifting of sanctions [against Iraq], and
sanctions are the cornerstone of US policy to get rid of Saddam,'

During his six years as a weapons inspector, Mr Ritter was frequently
denounced by Baghdad as a US spy. But he said he was involved in an
internal Unscom investigation in 1997 which found that the CIA was using
the UN agency as a cover to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military.
'I just took the results to Charles Duelfer [Unscom's deputy chairman].
But I was instructed to stop pursuing this. I said I understood but I
wrote a formal memo about it for the record,' Mr Ritter said.
He confirmed press reports that the CIA had sent in agents in the guise of
engineers to plant monitoring devices on Unscom equipment.
'I warned Richard Butler repeatedly about the dangers of allowing Unscom
to be used,' he said. 'But he was unwise enough to align inspections with
US policy... Butler became instrumental in organising Unscom's demise.'

...he said Mr Butler collaborated
with the US national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to stage a
deliberately provocative Unscom visit to the Ba'ath party headquarters.
'The Iraqis allowed them [the inspectors] in with a four-man team. Then
they wanted to go back in with 12 inspectors and the Iraqis said no, and
it all blew up in the press,' he said. 'Iraq is no boy scout. But it
didn't do anything in December to justify Desert Fox.'
Mr Ritter said the event was orchestrated to establish a pretext for
military intervention and that Mr Butler exceeded his mandate by penning a
scathing indictment on Iraqi non-compliance rather than simply presenting
the facts.That'll be the 4 man team that had been agreed on many
many previous occasions was permitted to enter. This was just used as a
publicity stunt so the US could say "They're not cooperating. Lets Go In!"


Mr Ritter is even more scathing about economic sanctions, which he said
are causing the deaths of 5,000 Iraqi children per month. 'Saddam Hussein
is willing to parlay the suffering of his people for economic gain. And
we're a party to that,' he said.
In his book Mr Ritter wrote: 'The inherent inhumanity of economic
sanctions damages those who oppose [them]. As an American, I resent having
my national character stained this way.'

[missyob]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
>>> The US and UK thinks that Iraq poses a real and present danger to the world and that's why we want to kill all these people. From what I have seen, heard and read I can see no evidence that Iraq is in any way a threat to the world.

<The following is all just an opinion>

We dont want to kill "all these people". We are triing to protect not only the United States but the entire world as well. How can you say that Iraq is not in any way a threat to the world? Saddam has killed his own people. He has threatened his own scientists with death and the death of their families if they say anything that may hurt him, which I take as he has alot to hide. Do you think the killings will stop there? Should we <and we not meaning the us, but the world> sit by and wait for him to strike? Should we wait for another September 11 to happen? Do you wash your face to provent acne or do you just wait until you have a face full of pimples and scars? Yes, going to war will mean people will die, which saddens my heart greatly but if we wait until he does something terrible to other countries it could mean the death and destruction of so much more.

~ Missy

[zootm]

for those of you just joining us, the argument so far:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/11/18/tomo/story.jpg

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00265.html

That'll be the 4 man team that had been agreed on many
many previous occasions was permitted to enter. This was just used as a
publicity stunt so the US could say "They're not cooperating. Lets Go In!"

CIA Scam? I hardly think a team comprised of experts from throughout the world including Indonesia and Several European Countries would all fall in line under a CIA cloak and dagger operation.

Butler was very clear on their capabilities. The only times he was briefed by the CIA were things regarding images and movements. It has already been proven without a doubt that the Iraqis dodged inspections for years, the little CIA info they used was primarily to make surprise inspections. The US lent UNSCOM one U2 plane that was marked with UN insignia, and its existence was made known to Iraqi authorities.

All of this bizarre CIA conspiracy theory talk is really much more fitted for one of windudes' threads, really.

Mr. Ritter obviously is mentally unfit- Butler describes him as attempting to evade his orders several times and arguing about his orders constantly. Most recently, Mr. Ritter was soliciting 16 year old girls through the internet and asking to masturbate in front of them. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/54727p-51227c.html) I personally think Mr. Ritter is an unsavory, disturbed individual, and a media whore.

As far as the "4 member teams go", this was an argument over a provision that allowed for large teams to inspect gigantic, expansive weapons sites- it would take 4 members weeks to examine just one of these sites.

[ujay]

Originally posted by Xerxes
CIA Scam? ... All of this bizarre CIA conspiracy theory talk is really much more fitted for one of windudes' threads, really. Well it would be if the CIA hadn't been caught fabricating evidence and misdirecting the media so often before .

When are you going to understand that America has spent so much time trying to manipulate and manage information to it's own advantage that no one outside of the Shitehouse places any trust or credibility on anything that originates in America. They may go along with it if they see it's in their interest, but belive it, nah.

UJ

[zootm]

i get ujay's post, except for...
Originally posted by ujay
Shitehouse...that's up there with "M$"! i maintain that "nutscrape" is the only funny/true one.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by ujay
Well it would be if the CIA hadn't been caught fabricating evidence and misdirecting the media so often before .


Based solely on Butler's excellent book alone, why would he not implicate the CIA if UNSCOM was truly their fabrication?

Why would they choose Butler, a rather liberal Australian who has spent most of his life campaigning for Global Nuclear Disarmament to head their evil shadow program?