war on Iraq?

[moe.ron]

Ah, I was waiting for the flame war to start. But back to the topic and sub-topic at hand.

Hamas was funded and supported by the Israel government in the 80s to off-set the growing power of the PLO. I'll try to find the source as soon as possible. So it's the dog comming back to bite the master arses.

The problem with the current Israel-Palestine problem is the lack of leadership on both camp. Both leaders are of the old school of fighting. Arafat was a good revolutionary leader, and Sharon was a good war general. Neither know a single thing about state-building or peace negotiation. I just read a study about Hamas and its pattern of violance. It's violance goes hand in hand when a negotiated peace is gaining steam. So the fight in many way is against those that want peace (Sharon is not one of them, neither is Arafat), and those that would like to stay in power through haterd and violance (plenty of those on both side, don't kid yourself if you think only the Palestinian are perpetrating violance.)

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Arya
Ah, I was waiting for the flame war to start. But back to the topic and sub-topic at hand.

Hamas was funded and supported by the Israel government in the 80s to off-set the growing power of the PLO. I'll try to find the source as soon as possible. So it's the dog comming back to bite the master arses.

The problem with the current Israel-Palestine problem is the lack of leadership on both camp. Both leaders are of the old school of fighting. Arafat was a good revolutionary leader, and Sharon was a good war general. Neither know a single thing about state-building or peace negotiation. I just read a study about Hamas and its pattern of violance. It's violance goes hand in hand when a negotiated peace is gaining steam. So the fight in many way is against those that want peace (Sharon is not one of them, neither is Arafat), and those that would like to stay in power through haterd and violance (plenty of those on both side, don't kid yourself if you think only the Palestinian are perpetrating violance.)

Listen I have only responded in an ill manner towards one person. Read his posts. You know what he says is very different from what you and anyone else has said.

1. How exactly was Arafat a good revolutionary leader?

2. Your assumption that Sharon knows nothing about state-building or peace negotiations is wrong. Being a top general does not mean you can't be a good leader. Most Israeli leaders were generals. Sharon was involved with state building for a long time as part of the Knesset under Likud, Labor, and his own camp, Shlomzion (Peaceful Zionists). Sharon was an essential element of both the military campaign to quiet down hostile Egyptians in the Sinai as well as the negotiations team afterwards which returned the Sinai in full. It was Sharon that ordered the settlements in the Sinai evacuated and destroyed in the name of peace. It was Sharon that courted the Egyptians and did a massive amount of the negotiations to achieve peace. It was Sharon that upset the Likud by agreeing to a Palestinian state next to Israel.

3. The funding of Hamas by Israel is a claim that never gained much steam. Sources were never reliable and most people do not believe that theory. However, the PA was funded and supported through the Oslo Accords by Israel to make the Hamas problem go away.

Either way, this topic is about Iraq, no?

-Rudey

[ZetaAce]

Ladies and Gentleman,

Good discussion! However.....

If you have flames in your post, please take the opportunity NOW to edit them, so that they are flame free. I would hate to delete posts that are otherwise good posts just because of a few misplaced flames. I'm only giving you this opportunity because I don't have the time or energy at the moment to edit out just the flames. So, if you would like your post to stand please edit it yourself or I will be pulling out the fire extinguisher (deleting it) later.

Thanks & Carry On-
ZetaAce

[Rudey]

"Illegal weaponry" What makes the Palestinian weaponry any more illegal than the weapons that Israel has?

1. As per the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians were allocated only certain types of weaponry and only in a certain amount. They have more than twice that amount currently (and did before the second "intifada") and much of their weaponry is offensive rather than defensive.

What is your idea of a democratic government?
A pro Israeli government that is hand picked by Israel?

2. No my idea is not one that is hand picked by Israel. You will not see Israelis objecting to the new government in Afghanistan which is not pro-Israel but also is not a hostile nation that continuously makes threats against Israel.

Israel preaches democracy but at the same time they don't even want Arafat or Saddam to even be able to run for elected office. How is that a democracy?

3. Don't spread lies. It is Israel that pushed to have the PA cleaned up before elections and negotiations were held. It is Israel that pushed an international initiative to have the PA restructured and monitored so it does not ABUSE their own people. It was, however, the PA's response that Israel has no right to tell them to pursue a Democratic government. It was the PA that wanted to delay such changes, saying they will not pursue them until Israel moves back to undefendable borders. And it was the PA that responded to international pressure by initiating cosmetic changes that did not increase their trust among their people. And Saddam is a different case. This is a man that has massacred his own people to stop any form of opposition.

I think Israel is instigates half of the problems over there and they are not as democratic or Americanized as Rudey makes them out to be. Israel murders suspected criminals without trials. They blow up radio and TV stations simply because they are not pro Israel.

Israel liquidates high-level terrorists not to judge them for their past, but through a precise formula that assesses their danger and takes into account strong intelligence reports that state said terrorist will be commiting a large scale act of horror. You cannnot judge Israel for this as a crime as you do not deal with the same "ticking time-bomb" situation daily. It is however the Palestinians that execute Arabs after 1-hour "trials" for every crime including "collaboration". Other countries in the Middle East lack the most basic elements of human rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free elections, equality for women, freedom of religion, freedom of association. Why don't you question their actions, or is Israel the only nation you choose to scrutinize?

Your claim that Israel destroys radio and tv stations because they are not Pro-Israel is also a lie. There are many media outlets in Israel that continually attack the actions of the government on a daily basis. There are still just as many media outlets in the West Bank and Gaza that do the same and just as many mosques that broadcast their words through their loud speakers. Israel attacked PA property, not the media. It was however the PA that ordered all journalists be locked up in a hotel room during the massive celebrations after Sep. 11.

The fact is that Israel is NOT a perfect nation. I will never say it is. I will never say Israel is an innocent lamb that has been under attack by hungry wolves on a daily basis. I will never defend to you each and every action of Israel in the name of politics. However, give me ten minutes and I will list to you all the so called "modern" nations in the world and list the horrible things they've done, from France in Algeria to Russia in Chechnya. And the issue here is that Israel has the right to exist in full peace, nothing more and nothing less.

And perhaps this will be better written than my words above (Source: FLAME):
The Arabs of Israel
Are they a "persecuted minority?

The world is once again confronted with violence in Israel and its administered territories. On the pretext of one of Israel's ministers visiting the Temple Mount, the Palestinians erupted in bloody rioting, which has not yet ended and in which hundreds so far have died. Most distressing, Israeli Arabs, citizens of the country, have joined in the rioting and have suffered and caused many casualties.

What are the facts?

Israel is a Democratic Country. Israel is an open, pluralistic, and egalitarian society. Different religions, cultures, and social traditions co-exist. Protection of such diversity is embedded in Israel's traditions and confirmed by the government. About 20% of the population (over one million people) are non-Jews, most of them Arabs, and some Druze. Like all other Israeli citizens, they have full rights to vote and to hold elective office. Both Arabs and Druze hold seats in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Every Knesset, since the founding of the State in 1948, has had Arab and Druze members. All transactions in the Knesset are simultaneously translated into Arabic, and Arab members may address the Knesset in Arabic.

It is official policy of the Israeli government to foster the language, culture, and traditions of the Arab minority, in the educational system and in daily life. Arabic is an official language in Israel, together with Hebrew. Israel's Arabic press is the most vibrant and independent of any country in the region. There are more than 20 Arabic periodicals. They publish what they please, subject only to the same military censorship as Jewish publications. There are daily TV and radio programs in Arabic, Arabic is taught in Jewish secondary schools. Israeli universities are renowned centers of learning in the history and literature of the Arab Middle East.

Education and literacy of the Arab population in Israel is as high as and probably higher than in any Arab country. The literacy rate among Israeli Arabs is 95%, virtually the same as for Israeli Jews. There are close to 1,000 Arab educational institutions in Israel, with about 300,000 students -- more than 200 times as many as in 1948, when the State of Israel was created. Ninety percent of Arab children attend school, probably the highest ratio of any Arab population anywhere. Israeli universities and technical institutions are freely available to the Arabs. About 5,000 Arab students attend such schools.

Israeli Arabs Enjoy Full Equality in Law and in Fact. All religious communities in Israel enjoy the full protection of the State. Israeli Arabs -- Moslems, as well as many Christian denominations -- are free to exercise their faiths, to observe their own weekly day of rest and holidays and to administer their own internal affairs. Each community has its own religious councils and courts, and has full jurisdiction over religious affairs, including matters of personal status, such as marriage and divorce. The holy sites of all religions are administered by their own authorities and protected by the government

In contrast to the non-Israeli Arab world, Arab women in Israel enjoy the same status as men. Israeli law grants women equal rights, including the right to vote and to be elected to public office, prohibits polygamy, child marriage, and the barbarity of female sexual mutilation. It has thus vastly changed the status of women, to far above that of any country in the region. Israeli health standards are by far the highest in the Middle East. Israeli health institutions are freely open to all Arabs, on the same basis as they are to Jews.

There is, however, one difference between the "rights" of Arabs and Jews in Israel. Israeli and Druze men are required to do three years of military service and then serve one month every year until they are 50. Arabs are exempted from military duty and are not required to perform any compensating civilian service. Since the surrounding Arab states are the avowed enemies of Israel and dedicated to its destruction (there is "peace" with Egypt and Jordan), this exemption is granted by the Israeli government to its Arab citizens, so as to spare them conflicts of loyalty and conscience.

Contrary to propaganda and to what many believe, the Arabs in Israel are full-fledged citizens, enjoy every right, have the same status in law as Jewish Israelis, and can freely move all over the country without fear of being harassed, attacked, or killed. That's quite in contrast to the mortal dangers to which Jews are subjected when they venture into predominately Arab areas even within Israel proper. In summary, they enjoy the highest standards of living and liberty of any Arabs in the Middle East. In a recent poll, 70% of Israel's Arabs declared that they identified with and felt loyalty to the Palestinians, and not to the state of Israel. Significantly, however, the same percentage (70%) declared that they would much prefer to live in Israel than in any other country in the area. And who can blame them? Life is so much better for them, so much more prosperous than it would be any place else. It is instructive and sobering to compare the condition of the approximately one million Arabs in Israel with that of the pitiful remnants of Jewry in Arab countries. Jews have been living in Arab countries for almost 2,000 years. Under Arab dominance, they were always third-class citizens and subject to harassment and persecution. There were about 900,000 Jews in Arab countries in 1946 -- now there are fewer than 25,000. But there are now over one million Arabs in Israel, many more than after the exodus in 1948 -- a manifold increase. That alone would seem to prove that things can not be all that bad for Arabs in Israel.

-Rudey
--This was a discussion on Iraq.

Originally posted by Imus


Rudy

1.. "Illegal weaponry" What makes the Palestinian weaponry any more illegal than the weapons that Israel has?


2.. What is your idea of a democratic government?
A pro Israeli government that is hand picked by Israel?

Israel preaches democracy but at the same time they don't even want Arafat or Saddam to even be able to run for elected office. How is that a democracy?

I think Israel is instigates half of the problems over there and they are not as democratic or Americanized as Rudey makes them out to be. Israel murders suspected criminals without trials. They blow up radio and TV stations simply because they are not pro Israel.

[KSig RC]

As an aside to start, I was using the US economic link to Israel (before was a typo, anything intentional will be (sic)'ed, whoops) as illustrative of my opinion that whether or not someone supports a Jewish state in the area, it has to be seen that Israel existing certainly has economic benefits for the US, and any other view doesn't fly (IMO).

I have no problem with Israel as an entity - I look at it as a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the US, whereby both benefit in different ways. The US keeps a presence in the area, and Israel gets more support (not to mention F-14s).

Anyway . . . back to Iraq:

Any sort of formal declaration of war would be bizarre, to me - hard to justify a war against a nation which hasn't been aggressive toward you directly. W/out that, international law is pretty clear - and whether or not it is followed generally, there at least exists some sort of honor requirement to follow agreements we made.

Toppling Hussein is a great theory; however, diplomatic backlash could be a bitch (not that US foreign policy has ever really been deeply rooted in caring for others' opinions). I don't see it as the cure-all that Rudey does, as I have doubts about the long-term stability of any US-propped government installed (see: nearly every other time it's been done). However, your thought process makes sense to me, so I could see it going either way.

I think the concept of heightened US involvement in Iraq is more attractive than most of the potential outcomes - however, if what Rudey says about Iraq's nascent nuclear capabilities is correct (cite?), than there enters a higher level of necessity for somebody to do something. Whether that "somebody" in the cliche is the US government, well that's the argument - and I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit quite yet . . . so convince me I guess.

[Rudey]

I don't see an attack on Iraq as a cure for all the problems in the middle east. Sometimes, I believe the problems in the middle east to be too great for any one nation, including the US, to take on. In fact I consider the problems in the middle east something the UN will be unable to handle as well.

Change comes from the ground up. It is people that must rule themselves, and anyone who believes the political systems of most of the Muslim countries are not outdated, is only kidding themselves.

However, the threat exists from Iraq to not only attack US Interests (Israel mainly) but also the US itself. The Iranian missile technology is almost close to completion so that it can reach the US. Their Shehab missiles, based on N. Korea's No Dong rockets and China's Telemetry equipment has been becoming more and more potent with time. The Iraqis already have massive biological and chemical weapons and are well on their way to developing a full nuclear arsenal. For sources, you can visit Jane's Information Group (formerly Jane's Defence) at Janes.com.

It is not even questioned whether Saddam will use the weaponry. Time and time again, he has been brutal in the usage of such weapons.

The question then becomes, when do we attack? Do we play a waiting game? When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear arsenal, it was clearly proven that the waiting game wouldn't work. Iraq mobilized its forces into Kuwait a few years after and the only Arab leader to support Saddam was Arafat in his own little ploy.

And again, the dangers are there. The economy is not stable right now. No matter what anyone's 8th grade teacher taught them, war is not beneficial for the economy, specially since the only countries that would pay for this war would be the US and possibly Britain and Israel. The second risk is that the governments in the mid east are highly unstable and could become even weaker with American intervention. The Saudi government is weak and the Hashemites are a gamble in Jordan.

The diplomatic arena is not one in which the US has been lately concerned about. There are many reasons for this but mainly it's because the EU has no power diplomatically because of its desire to downgrade its military power (See Atlantic Monthly August Edition). China and Russia are there to make money but more importantly to expand their influence.

Kissinger recently published an article prior to meeting with state department officials stating that a war must not be rushed into unless full thought has been given to the aftermath. That is the truth, so the balancing game comes into play. When do we attack? Have we given enough thought to this? What do we do after? Do we install a Hashemite Prince in Iraq? How long will that last? Etc.

Jane's did address some of these issues in a recent article by saying:
"After Saddam is defeated: a confidential American projection of a new Middle East

If the Western media and armchair generals are to be believed, the impending war against Iraq will be disastrous. The world oil price will rise and financial markets will remain wobbly. The backlash against the US and its allies will be huge, perhaps toppling pro-Western monarchies and governments in the Gulf and Middle East.

This is the received wisdom of the critics. Foreign Report has had access to the thinking of advocates in the Bush administration about the US intervention in Iraq. Although the risks inherent in any war cannot be overlooked, the critics may exaggerate the dangers and underestimate the advantages for the entire Middle East should the operation go well.

At the outset, remember who the critics are. They are the people who predicted Armageddon in all recent conflicts. The critics claimed a decade ago that the war to remove Saddam from Kuwait would last 'for decades'; its most intensive phase lasted less than a month. They also said that 'huge numbers' of Western soldiers would be killed. In fact, hundreds died. They predicted that Saddam's Republican Guards would 'fight to the end'; in fact, they ran away.

Could the critics be wrong again?

Saddam Hussein is not Bin Laden. He is a classic dictator, dependent on the apparatus of a state, a disciplined security service and a small clan of his own people, the Takritis, who are despised by most ordinary Iraqis, not to speak of other Arabs in the Middle East. When his regime begins to collapse, he will be finished.

The West failed them

When Saddam was evicted from Kuwait and the people were less fearful, spontaneous rebellions against him started throughout Iraq. These failed because the West failed to give them any support; now, with the West eager to help when such rebellions start, they may well prove fatal for the Iraqi dictator.

True, the price of oil will go up, and political uncertainty will affect financial markets. But the US is now hugely expanding its strategic oil reserves, and Opec, with low world prices, can do little to block it. Moreover, Russia is being friendly because it wants to sell more oil to America.

True, the opposition in Iraq is divided and ineffective. But this was even more the case in Afghanistan, yet a government of sorts was put together very quickly, and it is still holding together. The conjuring trick can be repeated.

A new government will not deliver the 'full Monty' and will probably not be stable. But it will be infinitely better than the present regime. And US planners are much more attracted by the enormous boosts to the entire region that will take place should Saddam Hussein be removed from the scene."

For the full version of this article, visit http://www.janes.com/security/intern...814_1_n.shtml. Jane's is really expensive to have a subscription to, and I'm lucky to have one through my own source, but see if your school has a subscription. You'll love it.

-Rudey
--I'm not here to convince you, but only to present my views based on the facts that I know. If this is something you care to be informed on, I would recommend reading the Atlantic Monthly or the New Republic...not my words. And if you care to see domestic politics at work, check out Meet The Press on Tv.

Originally posted by KSig RC
As an aside to start, I was using the US economic link to Israel (before was a typo, anything intentional will be (sic)'ed, whoops) as illustrative of my opinion that whether or not someone supports a Jewish state in the area, it has to be seen that Israel existing certainly has economic benefits for the US, and any other view doesn't fly (IMO).

I have no problem with Israel as an entity - I look at it as a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the US, whereby both benefit in different ways. The US keeps a presence in the area, and Israel gets more support (not to mention F-14s).

Anyway . . . back to Iraq:

Any sort of formal declaration of war would be bizarre, to me - hard to justify a war against a nation which hasn't been aggressive toward you directly. W/out that, international law is pretty clear - and whether or not it is followed generally, there at least exists some sort of honor requirement to follow agreements we made.

Toppling Hussein is a great theory; however, diplomatic backlash could be a bitch (not that US foreign policy has ever really been deeply rooted in caring for others' opinions). I don't see it as the cure-all that Rudey does, as I have doubts about the long-term stability of any US-propped government installed (see: nearly every other time it's been done). However, your thought process makes sense to me, so I could see it going either way.

I think the concept of heightened US involvement in Iraq is more attractive than most of the potential outcomes - however, if what Rudey says about Iraq's nascent nuclear capabilities is correct (cite?), than there enters a higher level of necessity for somebody to do something. Whether that "somebody" in the cliche is the US government, well that's the argument - and I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit quite yet . . . so convince me I guess.

Thanks ZetaAce
I realize these are heated topics because people take strong oppinions to them. I love the responce it's gotten so far and I think it's awesome that GC supports a thread of this caliber, disturbing it may take away from the prestige.


Rudey, Where do you get on off on pickin' on other people? Calm down bro. I might send you a PM about this an' other political topics sometime (because obviously you have good sources), but I'll wait 'till you chill out a bit.


No, Attacking Iraq isn't a panacea for all of our mid-east problems. And I agree with Rudy Wholeheartedly that it is beyond us to resolve; I mean, it's been an ongoing battle for a long time (trying to resolve it outranks the futility of seaking peace in Yugoslavia, or in Ireland) But the war is one of the current options we are facing in taking out the terrorist threat from abroad. Granted: the threat of terrorism from abroad is only a small percentage of the terrorism we face in the US, and the US has nowhere near the highest rate of terrorism (Sri Lanka is #1 I believe). Still, I feel it is our right as citizens to not live in fear of terrorism from abraod and to know that there is something being done about it.

goodnight

[moe.ron]

Hendrix, if I'm not mistaken, i beileve Latin America has the highest terrorist activities in the world. I'm not sure bout that though. Don't quote me. Back to Iraq, I don't know if it's a good idea to believe these "opposition" forces. Sure they talk about democracy and all that. I don't know enough about these "opposition" to know what they are really about. After all, the Northern Alliance were as bad as the Taliban, but with enough spin doctor and the media making them out to be the next George Washingotn, they don't look so bad. Tell's you that when you listen to just the media, you don't know anything.

[Rudey]

I don't know how else to say this to you. You make horribly wrong statements that you try to pass off as facts. The very first post you made in this thread is full of wrong "facts" - lies if you actually knew that wasn't the case, but for you I will instead assume ignorance because you didn't know and chose not to know. I'm not attacking your "opinions" on anything but actually your presenting of these "opinions" as facts.

I want to point out where it is in each of your posts where you've made these errors but I don't have the time, or desire, to do that. My time right now is worth way more than that and it is not my job to come on and correct you. I simply have no idea why you post half of the things you said. This is not a flame but a questioning on your intentions.

You make this out to be a "heated topic" because of "strong opinions". You don't get that there was a rational discussion occuring and how your posts differed from mine or anyone else's and how your understanding of this discussion is wrong.

-Rudey
--Right now it's 3AM and I just had the most disgusting Taco Bell meal in my life after the most awful plane ride of my life.

Originally posted by hendrixski
Thanks ZetaAce
I realize these are heated topics because people take strong oppinions to them. I love the responce it's gotten so far and I think it's awesome that GC supports a thread of this caliber, disturbing it may take away from the prestige.


Rudey, Where do you get on off on pickin' on other people? Calm down bro. I might send you a PM about this an' other political topics sometime (because obviously you have good sources), but I'll wait 'till you chill out a bit.


No, Attacking Iraq isn't a panacea for all of our mid-east problems. And I agree with Rudy Wholeheartedly that it is beyond us to resolve; I mean, it's been an ongoing battle for a long time (trying to resolve it outranks the futility of seaking peace in Yugoslavia, or in Ireland) But the war is one of the current options we are facing in taking out the terrorist threat from abroad. Granted: the threat of terrorism from abroad is only a small percentage of the terrorism we face in the US, and the US has nowhere near the highest rate of terrorism (Sri Lanka is #1 I believe). Still, I feel it is our right as citizens to not live in fear of terrorism from abraod and to know that there is something being done about it.

goodnight

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Arya
Hendrix, if I'm not mistaken, i beileve Latin America has the highest terrorist activities in the world. I'm not sure bout that though. Don't quote me. Back to Iraq, I don't know if it's a good idea to believe these "opposition" forces. Sure they talk about democracy and all that. I don't know enough about these "opposition" to know what they are really about. After all, the Northern Alliance were as bad as the Taliban, but with enough spin doctor and the media making them out to be the next George Washingotn, they don't look so bad. Tell's you that when you listen to just the media, you don't know anything.

Why is the Northern Alliance as bad as the Taliban? By the way, the Loya Jirga encompasses the Northern Alliance into the government and is not simply the Norther Alliance. The Taliban was a govt...see the difference?

I want to argue with you on two levels. The first is your remark on the media. Your assumption is that there is some untainted form of media out there. I do not know you and I am not going to assume you're one of those anti-war/anti-golbalization/anti-everything's who reads the mailings off the user groups he joins and the editorials which pass for fact gathering on certain "grassroots" websites. However, all media has an inherent bias in it. I don't think you can make a point by telling people not to listen to the media - unless you can specifically tell me what it is that you do your learning from, how you're sure it's unbiased, etc.

Second, I would say that Afghanistan is much better off right now. Most people who disagree constantly talk about the Northern Alliance being just as brutal (mistaking that the Northern Alliance is not the new government). The fact is that the current situation is much less oppressive and allows for greater human rights (although not anywhere near perfect). The one significant problem in the new government is the corrupt factionalism which has even taken its toll on the US government through false intelligence which allows one group to use the US to attack another. This is similar in some aspects to the corruptness in Russia right now.

I do not have a solution for it and believe, perhaps, time will be the only solution to this as the country develops and the people become fairly represented in their government. But what I do know is that Afghanistan is better without the Taliban for the Afghanis themselves as well as for the international community.

Also, regardless of the cause, it is clearly shown that across the world terrorists are linked together from the IRA to the Palestinians to the rebels in Columbia. For example, it was the "Jackal" who wrote a nice little letter to the media on behalf of an Arab terrorist from his jail cell even though he had no connection to the region whatsoever.

-Rudey
--I'm so tired right now so if my post lacked clarity please allow me the opportunity to apologize in advance. I'm off to bed listening to the Roots and Bjork. Peace.

Arya
True objectivity is a rarety, especially in media. Example: chat forums, NPR (national public Radio), etc. I remember having covered this in English class in HS: a project where we evaluate news local news reports, and conclude that they often back a certain political stance.
I don't know who else to quote on terrorism except professor Cunningham who has written several books on the matter. You were right, I mixed the facts up a bit, the corrections (taken out of my notebooks) are as follows:
South Asia ranks #1 in the most LETHAL forms of terrorism
Latin America ranks #1 in the most FREQUENT amounts of Terrorism.
However we focus on the mid-east now in our media, mainly suicide bombings. However the largest number of suicide-bombings is in Sri Lanka.

That's right out of my notes, sorry about the earlier mix-up


PS I will edit my orriginal post by putting parenthesis next to cited facts about where I heard the info from.

[lionlove]

Well, the house of representitives passed by a vote of 296-133 this afternoon a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

It looks like war is now more inevitable than ever.

[Optimist Prime]

Bad Idea. If we go after Hussein he will release any wepons he does have. If he doesn't have what we think he does then we are the jackasses. We need to be discreet. War should be last solution. Diplomacy works wonders. Let France and Britain handle Iraq. Bush wants war because people said his father failed by not removing Saddam Husein. This is a war of personal pride not ideals. Do not confuse nationalism with patriotism or vengence with justice.

[moe.ron]

If he doesn't have wmd, I'm sure the CIA will plant something.

[Dionysus]

bump...a little lost here.

How is North Korea tying into this? Or, is it at all?