Pukko

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 12 May 2003,20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ 10 May 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and latsly but not least - gives reason to implement a "1984" society - the power hungry's wettest dream...<span id='postcolor'> where? Â in Germany? http://www.ananova.com/news....unlucky That's funny. I see government protests on cars all the time in the U.S.<span id='postcolor'> That sucks big time, maybe its more of situation based interpretion by the police than a more widespread policy/phenomenon though... As for the USA under TBA; have you heard of the Patriot Act and its sequel - dont you think there will be space for Patriot Act 27 with some more terrorism in the USA in the closest decades? Have you heard of americans losing jobs and positions for being unpartiotic or saying the 'wrong' thing? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,12:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ 09 May 2003,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw, you Americans! Does mainstream US media at all report of the more and more destabilized situation in Afganistan?<span id='postcolor'> Not really. All we hear is that things are slowly getting better.<span id='postcolor'> well.. we are working on standing up a united afghani army as we speak.<span id='postcolor'> A united warlord army that will continue fight each other once they have driven out the western forces? Â No, seriously, if there is any chance of success with that (an Afgan army answering to a democratic Afgan government) I wish them all luck.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ 10 May 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PitViper- First, im glad you injected some topical material into this thread (seemed to be going downhill) but that  weekly standard article, whilst interesting as an alternative viewpoint is a little on the silly side. It refutes many of the (supposed) claims made by the major news agencies whilst offering scant amounts of actual new evidence. One of its main contentions seems to be that  news agencies are now reporting much more bad news than good news! What has the world come to! [snip] Bush may be dumb, the administration is not. There is no evil plot/hidden conspiracy , there are a set of policies strongly influenced by a Project. The Project for a New American Century. This seems to be the prime source of many of the post spt.11 Bush administration foreign and defense policies. It also seems to be the ideological and intellectual foundation of the 'Bush Doctrine'.<span id='postcolor'> Guess what I found on the Mein Kampf II™ website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-050503.htm </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In many ways it seems to be all about preserving the status quo or an idealised version of the status quo for America in as much as is possible by eliminating threats to 'stability' and 'order'. By cementing 'what is' in terms of current American power,influence or conditions favourable to America TBA may be blocking off 'what could be' for the future both bad and good.<span id='postcolor'> Very good point... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Just amazingly short sighted, and totally ignoring the possibilities for 'blowback'.  It's this lack of  foresight that brought about guys like Osama Bin Ladin.  How many new terrorists will this current administration spawn?<span id='postcolor'> Unfortionally I think TBA really wants some terrorists to be around. Its good for business, so to say  . An external enemy to unite the Americans, plenty of reason to start wars anywhere by claiming terrorist contacts, and latsly but not least - gives reason to implement a "1984" society - the power hungry's wettest dream... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ 09 May 2003,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ 09 May 2003,14<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What TBA are actually doing is a classic. If you want to pull something off, do it in broad daylight in plain view of the public and most people expect it to be legite. Otherwise you wouldnt be doing it in public. Thats how many succesful robberies and break-ins have been carried out. So just because its obvious doesnt mean its OK.<span id='postcolor'> Its very likely in big parts so. Part of it is also the fashinating (and scary) phenomenon that I have noticed, that there only takes a few symbolic things to make it all look like its 'purely on the good side'. One concrete (but maybe poor) example is for example the Israel/Palestine conflict, where the discourse surrounding  modern tanks etc. in Israeli raids makes it easy to think 'well, they are using modern hightech equipment - they have to be the good'.<span id='postcolor'> I got a better example more in line with Longinius: To park a stolen policecar outside the shop/house robbed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ 09 May 2003,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw, you Americans! Does mainstream US media at all report of the more and more destabilized situation in Afganistan?<span id='postcolor'> Not really. All we hear is that things are slowly getting better.<span id='postcolor'> Thanks! Its not really reported here in Sweden either to any larger extent, or rather not at all in SVT:s (state television) tv news - which I 'monitor' when I can - anyway, even if more and more articles about it are around at their website (I have started using it as my primary news source; mostly because it gives a quick and easy overview of news, and it probably is also decently unbiased): http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=1805 Lately there has been some general (that I also have heared around here in the forum at times) articles about it there, and yesterday for example there was an article about UN mineclearers cancelling their efforts until further. So, I dont exactly have first hand information about it , but it undoubtly seems like the tides are turning, or maybe its just a matter of perspective (that only Kabul is at least decently safe, and much of the rest is warlord-chaos), maybe things really do are getting to the better, even if I doubt it. Maybe its balancing and has just begin to fall in one direction... I just wanted to know if the current problems are taken up at all in US media. How about mainstream media in the rest of the world? anyone?

Hello again Was probably a month since I last posted here, and I would just like to 'whine' a little again. When I enter this thread I once again feel this energy drain, as if the rethorics surrounding the current US foregin policies was a black hole. In this forum I first experienced it when the war on terror broke out on October 7 2001 in Afganistan (many of my post are from (9/11 to 10/7 2001) - I could not read or participate in the discussions anymore for some months. Since then I participated/read the discussions in periods, and got a real enery/hope boost around 15:th of January this year when Germany, France and Russia voiced their opposition. But from the start of the Iraqi Freedom war, and especially after 4/9 2003, it seems darker than ever. I get so depressed when 'knowing' how hopeless the situation (TBA:s forigin policies) is, and that there are no arguments/rethorics in the world that affects a 'knight in shiny armour with good selfconfidence' - that I rather avoid being exposed of it too much... Maybe there will be som hope again soon though, lets hope for the record, I mostly try to avoid digging myself too deep into details, but rather post more abstract, conclusive stuff (partly to clear my mind, and also because I personally feel its more creative), so I'll most certainly be back around here in this wonderful community, hopefully without reason to whine more though... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ 09 May 2003,14<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What TBA are actually doing is a classic. If you want to pull something off, do it in broad daylight in plain view of the public and most people expect it to be legite. Otherwise you wouldnt be doing it in public. Thats how many succesful robberies and break-ins have been carried out. So just because its obvious doesnt mean its OK.<span id='postcolor'> Its very likely in big parts so. Part of it is also the fashinating (and scary) phenomenon that I have noticed, that there only takes a few symbolic things to make it all look like its 'purely on the good side'. One concrete (but maybe poor) example is for example the Israel/Palestine conflict, where the discourse surrounding  modern tanks etc. in Israeli raids makes it easy to think 'well, they are using modern hightech equipment - they have to be the good'. Another side of TBA unashamed approach may be that they are also pushing the limits, to see how far they can go. Unfortionally, I recon they can go just as far as they want in any direction at present - they got all opposition 'eliminated' or in a terror grip. btw, you Americans! Does mainstream US media at all report of the more and more destabilized situation in Afganistan?

Many good posts around here at usual, but I do not take the time and energy to follow it in detail at present however. I would just like to congratulate all Americans who supported a war for the great success that showed up yesterday! Almost no matter what happens from now on, the symbolic value of the happenings of April 9 2003 will be refered to as justification for this war and, in part, the coming ones. Now that TBA have got this HUGE momentum up there is no question that more wars will come (and Bush probably gets another period). Congratulations for being part of such a successful nation, and that you are proved right that war was one solution to Iraq - because any problems after this point will be an aftermath to a successful war. Congratulations to all Iraqis for having a potential better future! And I am sorry for everyone who are sceptical about TBA wars on terrorism and evil nations - the rethorics in discussions with a 'knight in shiny armour, with good self-confidece'  are not easy to deal with; one are bound to loose I'm afraid. There is nothing stopping TBA from doing what ever it wants now..... The UN and opposing nations are eliminated from hindering future wars, preemptive attacks are justified. And I'm quite sure everything will look good in the closest years - but then the setback comes  I am not confident that TBA are able to think any further than their noses reach. Therefore, in a preemtive attack, I say: Thank you Bush administration for ruining much of what could be good in the world during the closest decades. btw, I saw you mentioned neocolonialism some pages back, as far as I have understood its about a form of colonisation that do not work through traditional occupation, but rather through more abstract, but strong, influence (not only economical). And about the political discussion on this page - remember that we live in a postindustrial world, and its very hard to predict which system will prove to be the best in a radically changing society. I am however quite sure that Europe will make it better in the closest decades (or at least the next-closest decades) than the USA - if USA does not manage to implement (force the world into) a real strong pax americana order that is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Mar. 23 2003,01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont know whether its just me going a little bit crazy, and I dont know if its entirely morally correct of me to say this, but I think im actually going to miss saddam. No, im not going to miss the fact that he is a murderous tyrant, but at least for me hes always been around since I was born. Jolly saddam, dodgy moustache, toothy smile and an old rifle in his hand. It just seems strange after all of this, even on the first day of the strikes, that this jolly man could perhaps appear on our TV screens no more.<span id='postcolor'> And this is an good example of how easy it is to grow found of a conflict I belive. I use to argue that one of the hardest things with the Israel/Palestine conflict is that that conflict is so important in it self that (whoa, how can one put in 4 thats's that close? <!--emo& ) the mideast people may fear for what would be there instead, once the enemy is 'gone' - "whats gonna keep us together then?". Similar thinking is also important when considering US political culture I believe. Political culture is also a decent concept when discussing 'US political agenda between governments'. The Carter administration was probably quite different than the current Bush administration indeed (honestly, I dont know much about Carter though), but in what is the differance to be found? I think that TBA very well proves that US 'political culture' is not static, since some radical changes (for the worse) have been **noticed** (lol) by most of the world. Check the 'arrogant empire' thread around here for a good article about it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Albert - I hadnt heard about that radio incident, though it is rather worrying, especially considering that the Americans want to help the Iraqi civilians and make things good for them(or at least that is what is implied) So whats worse, good intentions that are ultimately wrong, or just bad intentions?<span id='postcolor'> Sounds like classical colonisation problems - aka 'Euro centrism' (yes, USA is also an offer of Euro centrism). Since I partly hopes that US foregin policies are gonna 'eat some shit' from this and coming conflicts (to force a policy cahnge), I'm actually with quite good hope at the moment - since many, many things that has happened in the last year shows that TBA do not think very far - or indeed at all in some cases. So its still quite likely that it will harm itself more than the "big world, outside Washington where I live". And the funniest thing I have heard tonight: A Danish woman's saying about the Danish primeminister Rasmusen today (after Denmark has decided to send 1 submarine, 1 frigate + 150 soldiers to Iraq): "The primeminister is very flattered by recieving phonecalls from the president of the United states" - said in broad Danish which makes it sound hilarious to a Swede at least

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ROR @ Mar. 22 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam has been in active search of weapons of mass destruction. How you can not draw a conclusion that iraq could supply al qaeda or any other group with weapons of mass destruction is daft, down right obtuse. The guy who was in charge of the iraqi nuclear weapons development program said that inspectors would never find nuclear materials ( That was supplied by the french). Â They have been trying to disarm iraq for 12 years, how f.ucking long to you want it to go on. We are not going to wait for some nuclear , biological, or chemical weapon to be released in the U.S. before we react. There does not have to be any links between iraq and al qaeda, iraq COULD supply al qaeda. As long as this is a possibillity we will prevent it.<span id='postcolor'> While we are speculating (or indeed venting paranoid views), I got a much more likely scenario: The Bush administration will ruin everything good that the USA one was, and could be. btw. I'm afraid the USA will loose the media war this time. Just look at the reported casualties from last nights massive bombings: 3 dead! The Iraqis are probably trying to look trustworthy, only to start reporting very nasty things when it suits them. And unfortionally I belive that Bush has already passed Saddam with a new lowscore on the international liar barometer... Probably 90% of his statements when adressing the nation and the world on the moday were outright lies Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 22 2003,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 22 2003,18:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I heared a report some days ago about the potato chips salesment in the USA is going up big time now. Maybe snacks will join tape and gasmasks as articles in short supply... Â <span id='postcolor'> kinda goes both ways. ppl might be watching war on TV and eating snacks, or they are watching video rentals to escape grim reality and eat potato cheaps.... <span id='postcolor'> Indeed. btw. have anyone heared anything more about that Iranian oil raffinery that was hit by a missile last night?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 22 2003,17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (//relic// @ Mar. 22 2003,09:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This media war, with footage depicting destruction, maiming and killing is a sad commentary on the perverse and disgusting nature of western society that a war becomes nothing more than entertainment for the masses.<span id='postcolor'> replace "western media" with "world media" and it still stands <span id='postcolor'> It may be measured by the sales figures of classical 'entertainment snacks' in different nations/regions during the war. I heared a report some days ago about the potato chips salesment in the USA is going up big time now. Maybe snacks will join tape and gasmasks as articles in short supply... Â But as I said earlier, I also with sadness remember my own behaviour during the last Gulf war.

One only need one quote in the matter of TBA desperately wanting a war with Iraq (and the evil French becoming a scapegoat) - the in TBA ever present (even if not spoken out more than once, its everpresent in TBA´s general approach to the rest of the world): "Either you are with us, or you are against us"

Reagarding US precision bombs/missiles: According to Swedish tv news (repeated all night, but I have not found a link to it) an IRANIAN oilwell 50 km east of Bastra has been hit by 'allied' missile, wounding 2 persons. The Iranian government have protested against this 'violation of Iranian airspace'... Â AND Swedish tabliodpaper Aftonbladet had an article today (their source is indeed the newsagency AP) about Iraqi soldiers being promised huge anounts of money for every allied soldier/unit being killed/ destroyed: One killed allied soldier: $ 14 000 One captured allied soldier: $28 000 One downed allied aircraft: $ 55 000 One downed allied chopper: $ 28 000 Preventing a missile from reaching its target: $ 5000 source: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,279790,00.html Money talks aye? Remember the former Al Queida sodier who turned over that '911 mastermind' the other day, recieving $ 27 million? Maybe this is what Saddam has saved all money for the last decade. If its true, the allied might be in hte deep shit, without many more whole divisions surrendering. And I agree with Chirac all the way, and to say it with the (approximate) words of Swedish foregin minister Anna Lindh earlier tonight: "The problem in the security council was not France, but rather the USA and UK"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 20 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its always nice to have a scapegoat when things go wrong(the French made it easier for Blair to accuse them of being unreasonable by saying beforehand they would veto a resolution) , but i think after the meeting in Brussels including Blair and Chirac there will be somewhat less of that talk in London if not Washington. There has already been some criticism of scapegoating of the French by some Members of Parliament(UK) and now that the war is underway i think the UK government will try to focus on the war and leave the diplomatic failures behind them.<span id='postcolor'> It was actually quite pathetic (as it is most of the time indeed) when the swedish parliament had a debatte over the Iraq war 12 hours ago too. 3 of the rightwing block parties just seemed to copy Bush & Blair arguments without believing at all in what they talked about. Scapegoating France + the security council in general and praising the war (without too many casualties ofcourse). I wonder if they really succeded in satisfying their voters at all by taking that pro-US approach, which seemed to be their cynical approach in the matter.. If one of them would be in charge of Sweden now, we too would be a 'insignificant ******' part of the US 'coalition'. In fraggit´s article they even fail to mention the über-significant ally Denmark that has sent both a submarine and a corvette to fry Saddam. They probably aim on catching Saddam when he is trying to escape by swimming to Pakistan Â

Ok, whooa. The calm after the storm....  I'm sorry for my 'entertainment ranting' about the war news storm.. I just feel, partly torn apart, and partly just sad over the fact that its so easy to just settle down for the coming weeks in a 'war entertainment coma' - just to wake up after it, feeling empty and depressed when 'its all over'. We have probably all been down that road, and remembering myself during GW1 - I try to avoid that happening again. Its one thing to fall into such a mental stadium during the wordcup for example - but starting to drift that way in yet another war just makes me sad. Its just a fact that war today is in big parts entertainment  ******** I heard on swedish tv a correspondant in washinton telling that now Hans Blix has joined France in the scapegoat-club in US media... When Swedish primeminister Göran Persson was asked what he thought about that (after he talked just about Blix in an interview from the EU topmeeting today in Brusells) he said something like: "Its sad to see how that kind of extreme rightwing opinions flow in US media today, but it will probably turn for the better  again". What have you heard about scapegoats for the current war? Can one interpret the need for a scapegoat as that the support for the war is really not as good as reported in the US and UK?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shrike @ Mar. 20 2003,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 20 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But rather trying to dicern the bigger perspective of this 'pax americana' era. Really depressing it is indeed Look at this site (and especially read the 2:nd document on the Publications/reports page "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ) while waiting for more tasty reports: http://www.newamericancentury.org<span id='postcolor'> Don't be sad Pukko if replies to this will be rare. I tried to point that out several pages ago already but it was widely ignored...I hope your voice - being an old-schooler and a more frequent poster - will find a more ample echo.<span id='postcolor'> Yup, And I would like to repost what I wrote an hour ago, since I recon the majority of posts here now will not be read in full anymore in this high 'post flow' - so maybe this one: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I would appreciate if we could have 2 threads about Iraq now: One with entertaining war details - like this thread is turning in to now. And another, maybe "The pax americana thread" (observe its not an offensive name - but used by the republicans themselves) - where we could discuss surrounding international developments. What do you say about it moderators? Its really pointless to visit this thread if one do not only want to discuss/read details about the very present war. Any longer, not directly action focused, posts will be pointless here now... Maybe change this thread´s title to 'pax americana', and allow a new 'action tread' ? <span id='postcolor'> Any comments moderators? Yo, denoir!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 20 2003,16:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am still confused that one man gets what he wants while the whole world protests against it. It's a crazy world we live in...<span id='postcolor'> And the "scapegoat of the rest of the world" - France - is the EVIL  Only 2 nations in the world has a majority that is pro war, USA and Israel... I'm trying hard to not 'masturbate too much about the details' in this war (it is indeed hard to avoid the entertaining aspect of a 'live' war - but I sadly remember when I was 16 yrs old during GW1 and was really entertained... ). But rather trying to dicern the bigger perspective of this 'pax americana' era. Really depressing it is indeed Look at this site (and especially read the 2:nd document on the Publications/reports page "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ) while waiting for more tasty reports: http://www.newamericancentury.org I would appreciate if we could have 2 threads about Iraq now: One with entertaining war details - like this thread is turning in to now. And another, maybe "The pax americana thread" (observe its not an offensive name - but used by the republicans themselves) - where we could discuss surrounding international developments. What do you say about it moderators? Its really pointless to visit this thread if one do not only want to discuss/read details about the very present war. Any longer, not directly action focused, posts will be pointless here now... Maybe change this thread´s title to 'pax americana', and allow a new 'action tread' ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 15 2003,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the entire thing started to get realy confusing for me. ...turkey could get 26 billion and the key to burn down the last resorts of the free kurds, AND THEY DECIDE AGAINST IT? ...why is there such a huge gap between peoples wishes and the actual deeds of their leaders ? Why does neither Aznar nor Blair pay so little attention to the opinion of their voters? Aznar decides against the opinion of 90% of his population and Blair provoked the largest demonstration in England SINCE 30 YEARS. Why does the powerfull Collin Powell suddenly turn out to be such an incompetent politician...showing pictures to the security council that 10 days later are publicily announced as null and void by Mr. Hans Blix? Blair? Not better! Why does Mr.Blair present a Secret-Service report on Iraq to the parliament claiming it would reveal the production of weapons of mass destruction? And why does this report turn out to be the report that an ordinary university student wrote 10 YEARS ago based on INTERNET-RESEARCH....? what the hell? Why does it have to be now that PEOPLE IN THE UN COUNCIL applaused to the speech of the foreign Ministre of France (Mr. de Villepin). The UN council had only applaused once so far in its ENTIRE history..and that was after the speech of Nelson MAndela. Why does it have to be now that the entire Arab nations during February conference vote against war.?..with 100% majority..for the first time in its history. Why is the reaction to a speech with the words..."now the UN will show its real value to the world" that even the most undecided countries take side and decide against war. How can a professional politician like Jack Straw be so unconcentrated and state that "in the 21st century wars might be morally justifiable"... didnt he think before speaking? .... hell after so much failure they should press for the final secret weapon and reveal the secret information they got about weapons of mass destructions. But I assume they also take snakes and scorpions into consideration.. and yes then I would agree....Iraq has lethal biliogical weapons.<span id='postcolor'> Good post Albert! Have you developed some poetical interests as of late too? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Television 1 eller 2?<span id='postcolor'> It was in tv2, about 17 minutes long interview. I think you will be able to download a video of it at http://www.svt.se/agenda/ soon though. He said stuff like: "there are different national interests in my job, but thats not my problem" (about trusting different sources, organisations, governments, both Iraq and USA) "One can not just take these sources with a grain of salt, rather with a barrel of salt" Ah, those were not very precise, nad I cant remember more right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 15 2003,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">quite funny...i remember one of the last things i wrote on this forum nearly a year ago, it was a comment about "Bush's plans on starting a war on Iraq by forcing new weapons-inspections on Iraq and then, after inspectors failure or Saddams refusal, attack Iraq. i remember that very clearly and i never was suprised that USA still wants to start a war even if the inspections are actually working and saddam is cooperating. from the start USA wanted this war, not to remove wmd's. we can easily call bush a "liar" when he says that he wants a "peacefull solution" or that he "prays for peace". im against this war, but i dont expect anything to stop it, it already started the day bush cheated his way to precidency, i just hope that it will be very bloody war, a war that will kill millions of civilians and soldiers, i hope it will be so damn bloody that americans never again lets a president as bush into power again, i hope this war will be so cruel that americans self get chocked over it, i hope that somehow americans will get to see what war really is and what it does....things as precision bombs, smart bombs or what ever are still just bombs, bombs that kill and destroy anything they land upon when dropped, or if unlucky, later when Iraqi people gets blown up ten years after the war when stumbling on bombs that never exploded... im so tired of the constantly warmongering USA, not one year passes without America at war, not even one month...if the US is only involved in small wars then they are threatening to start larger wars somewhere else....so believe me, i HOPE that this war will be so savage that it will end future wars waged by USA. according to the UN, the only wars that are legal are "defensive wars" or "war to stop a threat to the world-peace" saddam's Iraq justifies none of those reasons to be used... and i hope Bush chokes on his "freedom fries"!! (i know...strong words, but im a little bit mental still, and tired)<span id='postcolor'> Real nice to see you back again Pete! As I think I always did, I agree with you here too. Even if I cant claim to hope that millions will die 'in it self' (in this and coming wars/conflicts), but in this context they (or even in some perverse twist of the conflict - me) might have to pay that ultimate price for the US political culture to change... I posted my thoughts about possible developments/my hopes some time ago in the 6:th post on this page (yes, now its a 'tripple linking' to older posts ): http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=3570 And as you can see there, I really, really fear what would come if USA goes in without UN approval, and 'succeeds' - then I believe its more likely with WW3 coming soon than that its not.......... Â btw you Swedes out there, Hans Blix will participate in "Agenda" just now on SVT. Not that I believe that he will say much, but have to watch it.

LOL Â The obvious French reply to US insults: Insult 1 Insult 2 Insult 3 Intermission Insult 4 Insult 5 Sorry, I pretent to have too much time on my hands again - should really prepare myself for that seminar tomorrow..... Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 13 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Mar. 11 2003,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris? Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese? Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is. Jules: Then what do they call it? Vincent: They call it a "Royale" with cheese. Jules: A "Royale" with cheese! What do they call a Big Mac? Vincent: A Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it "le Big-Mac". Jules: "Le Big-Mac"! Ha ha ha ha! What do they call a Whopper? Vincent: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King. <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> Man, i love that movie...<span id='postcolor'> Hey there you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Â We all remember how Belgium was evil and opposed a NATO buildup i Turkey some weeks ago, and the foregin minister made a statement that USA had to attack Iraq because they could not catch Usama bin Laden. What is USA gonna do to insult Belgium then? Rename Belgian Blue to "Bellicose Blue" at their farms?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite the speculation that a resolution may never be tabled, Britain has nonetheless been proposing amendments to its draft motion, which it hopes will make it more palatable to Security Council members. .........The six new tests of disarmament include demands for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to make a public statement admitting he has weapons of mass destruction ....... <span id='postcolor'> Now - how silly is that? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2845665.stm<span id='postcolor'> Actually I'm quite sure that the real demand was for Saddam to make that public statement on live TV (I'm almost 100% that message was told on SVT news last night) too.... sounds almost as stupid as "freedom fries" to me whoa, time for bed Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe I love that! Actually, Saddam would fit in very well since all people up there has a moustache - and pretty big ones too! I'm sure you noticed that when you were up there? And they are all mad - possibly not as mad as he - but close!<span id='postcolor'> Of course! And you know what? Usama bin Laden use to hang around there with his friends George W. Bush & co too  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a joke we have here in the south about people from TrÅ™ndelag (or hell for that matter). I don't know if you are familiar with the term "rĺnete" or "harry" (the swedish term might be "raggare" ) but in order to be just that you must own a very old Volvo - preferably an Amazon. Anyway, if you venture up there and happen to be a "southerner" you will risk being beaten up and consequently bear the mark of Volvo on your forehead - a result of those fellas slamming your skull into the hood of a Volvo! <span id='postcolor'> Bush and bin Laden was actually the leaders (sharing the dictatorship) of TrÅ™ndelags most feared "raggers" - The Hells Angels. Indeed they got one hotrod Amazon each, and they were real heavy duty I tell you!   They played Twisted Sisters on max volume on their Volvo-original stereos, and everyone not headbanging when they passed got forced to do some head banging into their flame-painted hoods  They were really the reason I could not stand it anymore and had to quit, you norwegians are way too hardcore for me Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None in this forum or elsewhere loves Saddam, and most wish he would go to hell - and stay there!<span id='postcolor'> Ah, my good Norwegian friend, so you are preparing a safe haven for Saddam in Hell are you now? I actually lived right nextdoor to Hell when I worked (and moved in with my stuff into a room in the hangar) at a chopper company at Trondheim (Vćrnes) Airport in Norway Here is the map, should you like going to Hell: Here's a picture from Hell station (to use when going to Hell by train instead of by plane): And here's a link to Hell Hotel (its quite busy, be sure to make you reservations in good time): Hell hotels - Find cheap prices & discount hotels in Hell

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 04 2003,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a matter of fact my pic has much more relevance than yours  <span id='postcolor'> Even though it's talking about Afghanistan and not Iraq?  <span id='postcolor'> Yep! It has been one of my favvo pics since late 2001 Its still as relevant in Iraq, even if its not as obvoius what it is that 'America strikes back' at - hell, who cares anyway? Its all about war baby!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 02 2003,15:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it an opportunity that any country would take?  Yes.  That's part of the game of politics.  If anything this is a tame example of espionage. And those of you getting up in a fluff, I wouldn't start pointing fingers as many of your vaunted governments use the same methods of the U.S.  Much like an arms race, you have to do a certain amount to stay relevent.  France, Germany, England, Isreal, Australia, China, and Russia all invest large amounts of money in their intelligence agencies.<span id='postcolor'> What is interesting in this discussion (Othis quote is only one of several similar) is that everyone seems to agree that the USA has great national interests in a war against Iraq - in this case by manipulating the security council with the help of intelligence spying, that for some reason is 'obvious' when one deal with an organisation like the UN. It does not matter much whether the pm is actually genuine or not in this case. What USA:s national interests really are in a war with Iraq is certainly not as easy as 'its all about oil', if one take in considerations as the war-industry, Israeli lobby and many other parts, it may have more substance though. Personally I believe that a major factor is the need for the USA to unite against an external enemy (moreover an American national addiction, since there always have been external enemies around - would the USA survive without one? ). An example of why this is relevant is one of the main messages in a American produced documentary (The faces of the enemy (late 80's) - about how nations produced stereotyped images of their enemies in the 20:th century, and the effects of that) that I saw at my University the other day: "Its so easy to live when one are at war". Our entire 'human world' is nothing but categorisations - that is our languages. Just make an external group into a evil category (stereotyping), and productivity, health and happyness increases big time. It is proved to work with both for organisations and nations. If one can get it by going to war with an 'low-risk enemy' like Iraq (is in it self), that is as easy to beat as crushing an ant - why not? Its the governments damn responsibility to make the nation prosper, right? Not to mention: It will create 'terrorist-enemies' for generations to come, talk about a good deal! One may argue that all this would only be about taking focus of current national problems, but this is much more than just that...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 03 2003,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol, I like this one: <span id='postcolor'> I'll counter with this one As a matter of fact my pic has much more relevance than yours   There are no way to compare present day Iraq to Mordor or even Nazi Germany (both highly industrialised major powers that no one could beat alone). While the only flaw in my pic is that USA is only a 'virtual empire', as I use to call it