Ah, peace...

"What began as a largely peaceful rally turned violent when several hundred protesters broke away, hurling gasoline bombs at police and smashing storefronts. They also set fire to a bank and threw rocks at the British Embassy." -- www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2571776,00.html

yup, that'll show'em. You can bet those greek police, merchants, and bank owners will think twice before they try and invade Iraq...

omg!!! 41 hours.... that had to be some kind of record...

Everyone's just taking a break before the raid on Syria starts. Sun is shining, weather is good, etcetera.

yup.

pretty sunny over here.

any predections on Syria? 10 months from now? It has to fit in bush's schedule. Re-election schedule that is.

Nah, the US isn't gonna do anything to Syria. Too expensive, if nothing else.

When Syria claims to want a Middle East free from WMD, what they are really saying is that Israel needs to get rid of their arsenal of such. That is the 'balance' excuse many arab states have for seeking WMD. Without them, Israel could be overrun by the sheer weight of their neighbors, though.

If Israel gets fed up with rocket attacks from Lebanon, or if Hezbollah uses a weapon that is nastier than normal, there is a very real possibility that they will strike back at Damascus. When that happens everyone will need to take sides, I'm afraid.

I'm pretty much leaving the question of Israel's legitimacy up to social evolution. I don't like how it was created, and why, but the fact is, they *do* exist, and nothing short of horror is gonna change that. If Israel is attacked with WMD, then they would probably react in a way that would leave a serious mark on history. I have no idea what might happen then.

It really would be nice if Big Daddy USA took the toys of Israel that can poke eyes out.
Surely known, actual WMDs are more a threat than 'imagined' ones.

Bloody double standards.....gotta be 'political'....hahaha...

Ah, Jafo, but are the Israeli WMD's a potential threat to US interests? That's what's it's supposed to be about, isn't it? Besides Israel hasn't actually ever publicly admitted to being a nuke power, has it? So perhaps these are baseless allegations since nothing has been proven. Perhaps the UN's Security Council should meet and put Hans Blix on the case to reassure us all that he can find no evidence of WMD.

Although the French have WMD come to think of it....... Hmnn....

Oh....trust me...I'd love for the Froggies to lose theirs....Australia has been subject to fall-out thanks to their nuking the Pacific...the little toads should let them go bang in their own backyard, not ours.
AND I, personally have been irradiated by the Pommies while we are at it. Mildura was down-wind of their testing...but as a five year old I was just told to play inside the fibro house, not outside.

I personally don't like my own experiences with WMDs....one of those lucky ones who must live with it, the REALITY, not the 'threat'.

When my second [Tasmanian] head grows back I'll know who to blame...

The US used to test A bombs in Nevada. I recall that. Fortunately for Californians the winds blow west to east, mostly. They did above ground tests before going to below ground testing (assuring us all it was quite safe of course.) Folks to the east of the Nevada test sites weren't quite as lucky as those to the west in terms of health issues.

Oh and also, France blew up that Greenpeace ship that was being a nuisance to them. Wasn't it over their testing in the Pacific? I'd have to look it up to refresh my memory, but I do recall that the French gov't actually admitted it after a while.

Yes, those are not nice toys. And it's not comforting to know that there are so many of them available.

I never understood the gain of doing underwater tests. To see the water go boom? Does the radiation some how 'disappear' underwater?

And on top of that there are bombs today that are literally 100 times more powerful than 40 years ago. Why? To defend against aliens? Meteors? Surely if a bomb like that went off on the ground it would cause half the planet to be dark for many days of dust and dirt.

The purpose of that is?? And the purpose of having 200 of them is??

Since Isreal seems to always get brought up... mostly by power hungry Arab leaders who need a scape goat... how will this whole thing work out? everytime I look at the map, I wonder how or who in the world drawn those lines? It is almost like they just slapped the place down and washed there hands of it.

Then there is that 'expantion' thing. I don't know of many counties that are 'expanding' at the rate Isreal is. I'll have to do more research on that one. If your expanding you have to be expanding into someone elses territory. I wonder who's??

And why is this all so hard to figure out?

"M.A.D." ..... mutually assured destruction ....
The Israelis and nukes?
Nah!!!
Then again, where did the Indian 'assistance' originate?
Tel Aviv!
And Pakistan?
Whisper it .... Capitol Hill.

Before 'WMD', there was 'MAD'.
That's what it's all about...

Yes, Froggie frogmen sank the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand because it was annoying their irradiation of sea-life in the pacific. A photographer was murdered in that sinking....the Froggies were caught with their pantalons down...merde hit the fan and a HUGE, very pretty naked female bum on a poster was put up in Melbourne with the model giving Chirac a one-finger salute...

But....it was in fact an act of war perpetrated by the French Secret Service....but in reality, SFA resulted....

that must have been one large finger Jafo.

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=510&version=1&template_id=273&parent_id=258

My favorite quote is:

"There is no pretence that international law supports such a war and little claim that the brutality of the Iraqi regime creates a foundation for humanitarian intervention"

Isn't if funny how with 70%-80% of the world supposedly opposed to the war in Iraq, not one single military heavyweight made an physical overture to stop it? China, France, Germany, or Russia couldn't have sent a few ships into the Gulf to make a statement? Iraq wouldn't have allowed any help to repel the infadel invaders? Do you think the US would have attacked "allies" protecting Iraq when we wouldn't even fly over Turkey without permission? Hardly.

The new world order, "If you are too cowardly or impotent to take action, harrass the opposition with lawsuits" Now with the International Criminal Court, they have a kangaroo court to validate themselves. They'll stand there and watch the "horrors", so they can take you to court for what they could have as easily prevented.

**

Not that they'll bring charges about the war in Iraq. They are far too corrupt and maeliable to make such a decision, and they are too entwined with beaurocracy to get anything done anyway. Heck, a good case of the sniffles and you might never go to court. You can bet, though, you'll hear that flaccid little gavel whacked everytime someone wants to make a political *cough* economic *cough* point.

Why do they keep referencing 1441? Have they forgotten the cease fire resolution in '91 was contingent on a number of conditions Iraq agreed to and then did not honor? Arguably that provided a basis for a resumption of hostilities. It wasn't because they couldn't that they didn't take action then. Clinton made some noises about resuming hostilities against Iraq after the inspectors were kicked out in '98 and bombed Baghdad IIRC but the political winds at home at that time were not in his favor so he backed off.

Why wasn't Saddam charged and tried for war crimes after his invasion of Kuwait? Wasn't that a violation of the Geneva Convention too?

Meanwhile it looks like the UN's Human Rights Commission is on the job: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030418/wl_oneworld/11815_1050682250
It held back from criticizing Russia's actions in Chechnya or human rights violations in Zimbabwe.

"Why wasn't Saddam charged and tried for war crimes after his invasion of Kuwait?"

excellent question. You'd think Bush and Blair would have to wait in line behind the Hussein family for war crimes in Iraq. Sadly, it isn't about war crimes...

"War Crimes"?
Baker ... ever heard of William Calley(?).... and why did the US refuse to sign the International Convention covering War Crimes recently?
As for the UN, it's finished.
Too many lobby groups and self interest ... aside from being run by people out off touch with the Real World.
UN Intervention certainly helped the people in the nation formerly known as 'Jugoslavia'! >
Built on the foundations of the League of Nations (who managed do do SFA about the invasion and use of gas in Ethiopia by Mussolini, as well as making impotent noises re the so-called Spanish Civil War!)the UN was scuppered from day one ... except where the US wanted 'endorsement' for a 'Police Action'!

I really like the idea of the UN. I think it is important in many ways. It provides a place to speak and a forum of words for many countries. Action usually isn't what the UN is about unless it is a peace action. The UN will never sanction a war unless it is one the volume of WWII and the Axis Powers. I think the UN will easily prevent that, and even stop terrorism to a degree, but that is all it can do.


Back on the subject of how wars and billions of dollars are spent on it while people strarve or why money is spent on other countries instead of here:

I will always feel that in America, a person has a beter chance of health care, proper hospital treatment and latest technologies than anywhere else on this planet. People who suffer here have more of a likely hood to get help. People in other countries go through generations of nothing. people dieing because of the lack of vitamian C. Scarred for life even though a simple sergery could have fixed it.

Yes bakerstreet, most American have no idea what it is like to be poor. Really poor, in a poor nieghborhood, lack of education, chances, economy, jobs... washing yourself at a public bathroom.


So lets keep all the money and wealth here. Lets solve all our problems and then help other countries.


If there is any poor helpless people in America, it is because 1% of Americans have 80% of the money. So what they hire most of the people in America? That is not good enough. There is no reason for there to be a billionaire and most of the money going to himself to buy 10 yatchs. Of but wait, those yatch have employees. those yatchs have to be biult. Give me a break!!

That same money could have helped someone get something real like education, food, or housing. Maybe some of your employees need a raise. You can still be super rich and buy 5 boats and never use them. 20 cars that just sit in the yard. Just give back. Forget 10% tythe. How about 50%?? Lets see, 50% of 1,000,000,000 is 500,000,000.

Lots of money to role around in.

Official JTB R.A.N.T.

oh and just because you oppose the war doesn't mean you want your country to send soldiers to stop the US/UK/AU from invading. I think many of those 70 to 80 percent would agree that would only make things worst.

Their destain will have to be enough; but in a world of wolrdwide terrorism that destain can be quite a fowmittable force.

oh and just because you oppose the war doesn't mean you want your country to send soldiers to stop the US/UK/AU from invading. I think many of those 70 to 80 percent would agree that would only make things worst.

Their destain will have to be enough; but in a world of wolrdwide terrorism that destain can be quite a fomittable force.

joe: My first job in security was for SeaRay in Tennessee. They employed several hundred people putting together ~$100,000 yachts. Also, most of their parts were made by subcontractors elsewhere; the resin, the engines, the upholstery, steering wheels, etc. Somewhere, people also built the steady flow of equipment they wore out while making the yachts.

Thousands of people got paid, very well, to build each boat... even the guy who helped guard the place If there is a place that resembles 'third world America' Appalachia is it. It is easy to say "Give me a break", but I know of a small town in east tennessee that would have to come up with a few hundred 15+ dollar-an-hour jobs if people started donating their yacht money to charity.

Should the rich just donate the 15 dollars an hour to all of them so they can sit around and do nothing? I would love to see the number of people around the world that are employed manufacturing luxury items. Your only choices with the rich are to prevent them from making money, take it away from them, or let them spend it. You can bet if option #1 or #2 was undertaken, the money would *not* find it's way to the the people of East Tennessee...

**

Wombat: i think we opposed it for the reasons I stated in #1692. If the definition of 'war crime' can be anything, then it can be twisted into a political tool.

There are plenty of standing leaders around the world responsible for thousands or millions of deaths, but they won't take the political flack for trying to punish them. I'd like to see them wander into Cambodia or China to serve a summons...

The Palestinians and Israelis are gonna beat each other about the head with it, and revisionist historians are going to use it to try and rewrite history. Can you say "reparations"? They may convict a few wealthy, has-been dictators who are too old to know they are in court, or punitively fine a few governments who's war criminals have been dead for 100 years, but in all they won't do much but debate the definition of 'crime'.

It is like any other political court. It will make news, create a bit of outrage, and spend the rest of its time being a tool for INjustice.