Rocket2K, you made an honest oversight. No big deal. Now ask Treeman to quit trying to defame me with false quotes. See instructions below if you still can't find the article. By the way Robert Sheer I beieves writes opinion pieces for the Los Angleles Times, also. features Post-9/11 Resources Page NEW! Web Letters "Just Shut Them Down?" The Online Beat by John Nichols NEW! Column Left by Robert Scheer ************************************************************************************************************************************************************ Web-only Archive columnists Eric Alterman Alexander Cockburn Christoper Hitchens Katha Pollitt Patricia Williams Studs Terkel reflects on life and death. programs The Nation Associates Internship Program Adopt a Library Nation Books focus on Electoral Reform The State of Social Security The Pacifica Crisis The Global AIDS Pandemic Nation Nuclear Archive 1921 Tulsa Race Riot FTAA Protest Voices from Black History Daniel Singer, 1926-2000 special The Nation's Century What, Me President? Poster and T-Shirt Available! 11/16/2001 article | The Afghan Humanitarian Crisis by Matt Bivens - In pursuing the goal of smashing the Taliban, Washington has been remarkably cavalier about the short-term danger of mass starvation. (web only) 11/16/2001 BEAT | Targeting Terror by John Nichols - The SOA Watch protests in North Carolina this weekend will ask whether the US is training terrorists. (web only) 11/15/2001 editorial | Bush and the Butterflies by David Corn - You don't need a consortium to know which way the wind blew -- or to know that the man in the White House is there, legitimately or not, by Go to thenation.com. Then look in the left clumn. Click on Column Left by Robert Sheer. Here's another column from Robert Sheer from the LA Times where he criticized the Bush Administration back in May for giving millions to the Taliban. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban By Robert Scheer Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously. That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention. Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women? At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter. The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House. The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms." Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison. In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming. For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy. As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power. The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession. - - - Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist. Copyright © 2001 Robert Scheer ************from Robert Sheer.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL COLUMN • LOCAL L.A. • SCHEER BYTES BOOKS • WELFARE WATCH • BIOGRAPHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if it's made up, then all credibility is gone. And how can the U.S.'s policy towards Hawaii be bullying, they ARE part of the U.S.! But where are all of these countries crying about the U.S. "bullying" policies when we're saving and protecting their ass every time they're in trouble. Whether it's World Wars, terrorists, or needing money, and humanitarian services, the same countries that are complaining that the U.S. is "evil" are the same ones with their hands out asking for help, or hiding in a corner when the U.S. is out there fighting wars. I get tired of listening to people complain about how evil the U.S. is, and conveniently ignoring the help they always give people, even in wars they help people afterwards. People can go on and on about the U.S.'s "bullying" tactics, I'm sure we can go on and on even longer about the good that the U.S. has done.
Let me get this straight glynch, for the last month or so you have been RIPPING the U.S. for NOT helping Afghanistan and their people and the Taliban complaining that people were starving and what we're doing is worse then what Osama bin Laden did because the U.S. would be killing 7.5 million people and children, now you just dug up an article ripping the U.S. for allegedly giving financial help to Afghanistan!? So the U.S. is evil for not helping, but when they do help they're evil to!? Make up your mind. You're in such a hurry to dig up anything negative about the U.S. that you're contradicting yourself.
Holy cow, I can't believe no one posted this yet, but the "nuclear secrets" that were found were from a parody first published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. For those who aren't in the know, this is a scienctific humor magazine which is more or less regularly published with parody about science. An offshoot of this "journal" was called the Annals of Improbable Research and features such articles as "The Aerodynamics of Potato Chips" (in which various potata chips were shot through a wind tunnel) and "The Abliity of Woodchucks to Chuck Cellulose Fibers" (pretty much what it sounds like). I actually have a collection of the Best of AIR. Anyway, read the arcticle at for more details. Also, read the article here for more info. The full text of the "secrets" held by the terrorists can be seen here. Yes, I'm scared. I'm very very scared.
Rocks The US took Hawaii over by force some 50 yrs before becoming a state. No doubt, the US does a lot of things to help out other countries as well, the reconstruction of Europe coming first to my mind, and I'm sure there are many others instances. But don't believe the US is some sort of righteous bastion of goodwill and hope for the world. A lot of times its aid simply goes toward getting what it wants. And btw there is a difference between supplying humanitarian aid to PEOPLE and giving money to the TALIBAN. I thought after all this time that distinction would be pretty clear.
glynch: Que??? False Quote? If I want to quote you, glynch, "The evil US is killing children and waving its nukes at other countries in an attempt to bully them into slavery!!!" is just your entire message in a nutshell. I didn't think that was that hard to get... I have said it before and I'll say it again: every single post you have made on this subject has been critical of the US. We feed Afghans? The US is bad. We free Afghans? The US is bad. We ponder securing potentially hostile nukes? The US is bad. No matter what the US does, in your eyes it's the bad guy. I have to wonder why you consider the US to be the bad guy. Again - and answer me this time - why do you want the US to lose this war? And don't tell me that you don't want us to lose this war, every single post you have made is anti-American. Every suggestion you've made (particularly to cease the bombing) would result in us losing the war. I have asked several times whether you're an idiot or have other motives, and I have come to the conclusion that while you are likely 'reality-challenged', you are not an idiot. You simply want us to lose this war. Why? And glynch - go check out Gallup.com and see what the rest of America thinks. But bring a friend, because you might start feeling lonely when you see how many people actually agree with your positions. You keep implying that you've turned the whole BBS against me (like it was ever "with" me in the first place) and that is somewhat comical, but you really ought to understand how much of a minority your ideas represent. It's pretty funny, actually... Prempeh: Is the Marshall Plan really the only good thing you can think of that the US has ever done? Think a little harder... I am aware that the US has not been a perfect angel, but no one on this planet ever has. No one. But we have been much better than most. And some of the "wrongs" you listed are a bit odd. So, would you propose that we just "free" Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and of course give back the SW US to Mexico (including Tx)? East Timor? That was a peacekeeping operation, and you can blame the Aussies for anything bad that went down there since there were no American peacekeepers (or, maybe blame the Indonesians - what a concept!). South Korea is free of Communism thanks to 50,000+ dead Americans, and you dishonor them by implying that they gave their lives for a 'bullying' action. And BTW the US is the largest - by far - supplier of humanitarian aid worldwide (including Afghanistan). If our leaders would have taken glynch's advice there would be lots of well-fed Taliban running around Kabul right now, and there would still be several million innocent people sitting in refugee camps with no food and none on the way. Now there are no well-fed Taliban anymore, and everyone is going to eat - that is the way it should be. Oh, and they can go home to their villages, too. The US is doing everything but paying for the taxi-ride home... Are you a communist, too? Just curious.
don't forget those appaches and f-16s that israel uses to bomb villages... or those billions of dollars egypt now gets to keep those dissenting opinions out of view. or those 40 some million dollars the taliban themselves got a couple of years ago.
Actually, Japan has surpassed the US in terms of humanitarian relief and foreign aid. Perhaps if you include private organizations, the US would still be #1, but I am uncertain of the private organiztion rankings. Incidentally, I agree with glynch probably 70% of the time. And I'm certainly leftist, but I don't think much of what I argue is beyond mainstream dialogue.
haven: I meant private US organizations as well - you are correct that they are a large part of US humanitarian operations. Which are far more than anyone else... Leftist? Yes, you're pretty far off to the left, but even you appear to leave glynch hanging on some of his more ridiculous ideas. You support this action (correct me if I'm wrong), while glynch leads his little 8% to 14% anti-war minority into obscurity... Although you don't support going after other nations (meaning Iraq) when we're done with Afghanistan, do you? Yes, that's outside the mainstraim - a large majority supports it. I can't wait to see what glynch brings us when we start operations in Iraq. Probably a dozen or so articles on how the evil US is killing innocent Iraqi children...
A key fact that is misrepresented over and over again on this board is that the US is generous with foreign aid. In fact it is among the lowest or even the lowest per capita in foreign aid of all the industrial countries. Two sources that I came up with on google. I'm sure there are better sources. NATION Foreign aid in millions of $ U.S. 1994 Foreign aid as % GNP 1994 Foreign aid per capita of the donor country Canada $2,250 0.43 $82 U.S.A. $9,927 0.15 $38 Japan $13,239 0.29 $94 France $8,466 0.64 $279 United kingdom $3,197 0.31 $52 Germany $6,818 0.34 $166 Netherlands $2,517 0.76 $162 Sweden $1,819 0.96 $201 http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~vengroff/DE0.html Another source is the Pakistani newpaper Dawn Foreign Affairs News Keywords: DECREASE IN FORIEGN AID Source: DAWN Published: 01 July 2000 Author: Jim Lobe WASHINGTON: Already at a 50-year low, US foreign aid stands to fall even further next year if bills currently making their way through Congress are enacted into law. As in the past, much of the decline will hit the world's poorest countries hardest. Proposals by President Bill Clinton to fund substantial debt reduction for the world's poorest and most heavily indebted countries have been rebuffed, while contributions to multilateral agencies which provide concessional loans and grants are also being cut. In addition, the Republican-led Congress appears determined to limit US contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations (PKOs), by withholding money for specific PKOS, almost all of them in sub-Saharan Africa. "This looks to be another truly dismal year on the foreign-aid front," sighed one congressional aide who noted that total US foreign aid per capita has been the lowest among all western industrialised countries for several years now. http://infomanage.com/for_aid01.htm
C'mon, glynch, answer my questions. Why are you constantly bashing the US? Why do you want us to lose this war?
Treeman: I support current operations. As to expanding operations... that would depend on the level of data that we receive that implicates the nations in question. My minimum threshold for intervention is probably higher than yours, but I think it's overly simplistic to think in terms of "yes" or "no" to such questions. Obviously, if we found a transcript that included Saddam instructing Mohammed Atta in the art of hijacking while drinking daquiris, I think everyone and their hampster is going to want to take out Iraq. On the other hand, if the best we have is a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Atta in Prague, then I think the situation is more ambiguous. Incidentally, if we're speaking in terms of being "mainstream," then I hardly think you're smack dab in the middle, either. I don't mind people who aren't main-stream, of course. Although I really hate it when radicals tout the importance of majority rule and label dissenters as crazy deviants, when they personally are extremist on many other issues. I'm not implicating you here, actually... arguing with you is mostly quite enjoyable... but a lot of people everywhere do this. Drives me nuts . BTW, I have a much lower threshold for "small minority." 10-14%, imo, is a significant minority. In the US, we're not inclined to think in those terms since we live in a two party system... but in a proportionial rep system, such is substantial. My lower boundary for a significant minority would probably be around 5%.
Ok, I don't want the US to lose the war. Never have. I must admit it has never occurred to me that we could lose the war militarily against such light weights. The poorest country perhaps in the world and a couple of hundred of fanatical terrorists. Did you think the Taliban and Al Qaeda might actually wip us militarily? I still believe that we are in danger of losing the non-military aspects of the war on terrorism. Our foreign policy toward the Middle East, concerning democracy human rights, oil and Israel just sucks. Fortunately Colin Powell, who you have trashed,and the military and political leaders who have actual experience have not pursued the counterproductive militaristic one sided tact you have pushed over and over. As I said before I believe that the threat of these folks is vastly overrated. Can they blow up a plane or two? A building or two? Sure, but this is not world war III. The military industrial complex types wants to portray it this way to increase their profits. The peace dividend and the budget surplus enraged them. As I've said from the beginning arrest the terrorists/criminals . It is moral to kill them if they resist. Try them in a an international court if they are captured. The just war theroy that I believe in requires careful calculation of the good to be accomplished versus the harm done. A one month break to ship in food would not have efected the military outcome. We could never have lost. Engage in a moral cost/benefit analysis. Don't invade all sorts of other countries. Little if anything was accomplished by our Wars in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq. Millions of people died in these affairs. This is the first "war', if you see it that way, that I have supported in my life time. My support is very limted. You don't seem to understand the concept of limited on support for the war. At this time I would not feel comfortable going to a demonstration against this war so far. By the grace of God, the Taliban and Al Qaeda cracked before winter totally set in. Perhaps we can save the hundreds of thousands that otherwise wouldn have died in the "collateral starvation" that would have resulted. We didn't act like this was a major concern imho. Just a week or two ago Rumsfield was talking of the war continuing throughout the winter in the spring and we were ignoring pleas for real big-time food aid. One of the reasons why it seems I am always bashing the US on this board is because some of you still believe in santa claus, the Easter Bunny and the US is always the greatest, the purest, the most generous, the freest the bravest etc. country possible. Just ain't so. Being an insane homer for the Rockets, which is a pasttime, I like. Completely blind jingoistic patriotism since it touches on life and death and quality of life issues for me, my wife my son and the people in the world and also the US leaves me cold and worried. Perhaps I feel differently than some of you since I lived for several years as a teenager in a poor thirld world country where my parents engaged in humanitarian work. I myself have had jobs working with the impoversished for much of my life. I have seen many people unecessarily suffering and in needless pain physically and mentally due to the cruel social polcies of this country. With extreme leftists, and I've known some, I would come out as defending the US. Overall the US is a fairly good country, I love it and am fond of it because it is where I my parent and grand parents were born and I have lived over 90% of my life.. The US treats about 75% of the population in the country very well, among the 20 or so best countries in the world. The other 25%, many of whom I have worked with in my life, are treated much worse than any country in Western Europe or Austrailia or NZ. There is no excuse for this as we are a rich country. I am very upset for the way this country for the way it treats these people. Our treatment of many people in other parts of the world is very unjust. Is it worse than the Taliban? Of Soviet Russia? the Nazis? Of course not, but so what? Our militarism, arms for profit sales to virtually every country in the world, our overthrowing of demcocracies if they antagonize US business interests, our disregard for the UN, for international clean air, land mine, court of international criminal justice are immoral imho. Is it worse than most of the Western European countries, Austrialia and NZ? I believe so. I believe that these are the countries we should compare ourselves, to. Sorry if the above drives you wild with a patriotic rage to insult me.
glynch, In this thread: <A HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23725&perpage=30&pagenumber=2">The Professor on Academic Freedom</A> you wrote: "<i> ....By the way, I haven't investigated it yet, but doesn't that Dawn newpaper seem pretty anti-taliban?..... </i> Now you cite <i>Dawn</i> in this thread. <b>Thanks for validating one of my sources. </b> Don't worry, I monitor your posts to catch oversights like that. Mango
You got me on that one Mango. I thought of that when I posted it, but I wanted more than that one unattributed table for suport. I'm still not sure what the paper is all about. I've seen it referred to as Pakistan's leading English paper. Why don't you try to refute my facts on US foreign aid? I found the figures tough seaching to find on the internet, though I have often seen such writers as Molly Ivins refer to our stingy foreign aid.
glynch, The Foreign Aid discussion isn't why I am in this thread. Here is something that hints at the US building a case to take action against Iraq. <i>U.S. accuses Iraq, of violating germ arms ban GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- The United States on Monday accused Iraq, North Korea and possibly Iran of violating an international treaty banning weapons of germ warfare and said Syria might also be able to produce biological weapons. U.S. Under-Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said that Iraq had "developed, produced and stockpiled biological warfare agents and weapons" despite having signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). "We are also quite concerned about Iran, which the United States believes probably has produced and weaponised BW (biological weapons) agents in violation of the Convention," he told a Convention review conference here. The conference aims to evaluate progress in agreeing steps to tighten the 30-year-old ban, a move given new impetus by the recent anthrax attacks in the United States that followed the September 11 mass killings by suicide plane hijackers in New York and Washington. Earlier this year the United States rejected as "unworkable" a proposed new protocol for the treaty which should have made it easier to check if member states were abiding by it. Although the United States was heavily criticised for blocking the protocol, the result of more than five years of negotiations, Bolton said the plan would have done nothing to deter states bent on arming themselves with weapons of germ warfare. "Countries that joined the BWC and then ignored their commitments and certain non-state actors would never have been hampered by the protocol," Bolton said. Washington has tabled a number of alternative proposals for tightening the Convention, including a call to member states to pass laws imposing severe penalties on anybody involved in activities violating the treaty as well as making it easy for those accused in another country to be extradited. Bolton told the opening session of the three-week conference that Washington believed North Korea had developed and produced and may have weaponised germ warfare agents, while Syria could be capable of producing small quantities and Sudan had displayed interest in doing so. Neither Syria nor Sudan has signed the treaty. </i> <p> Mango
Is that your boy Wolfowitz?. Never heard of the guy till he became the big hawk promoter of the biggest widest war posible and opponent of the ex general Powell. Big deal. Every country in the world that build virtually any arms they can. That is why some of us have always been for arms control. Not any better reason to invade Iraq than Iran as mentioned, probably China, Russia, Pakistan, India and other big boys we dont' want to mess with. Nothing much has changed on this front for many years. Why haven't we been invading half the countries in the world over this issue? Not a guy I like on most issues, but here's Pat Buchanan's take on the war you guys want with Iraq and otherr countries. Why the War Party may fail -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Nov. 13 was a good day for America and a great day for George W. Bush. Kabul fell, the Taliban were suddenly on the run, and the president's men and U.S. armed forces seemed to have engineered a brilliant victory without the loss of a single American in combat. A surge of national confidence sent the Dow soaring, and the NASDAQ rose 3 percent. Bush's next poll should find him near the 90 percent approval rating in which his father basked after Desert Storm. For Bush, it has been a good war that has firmly rooted his presidency in the hearts and minds of Americans. His role has been one any leader would have relished. When terrorists smashed those airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Americans – from the Hollywood Left to the Old Right – united in rage and resolve to avenge the massacres. All Bush had to do was say, "Let's roll." Now comes the hard part. Bush must soon post the goals for phase two of the War on Terror, a decision that could split apart his unified country or shatter his war coalition. For America's foreign policy elites are not united on phase two. As in the great battle between FDR and the America First of 1940-41, they are already separating into a War Party and a Peace Party. The choice Bush must make: Does phase two mean an attack on Iraq and the destruction of Saddam Hussein? Or does phase two mean a diplomatic initiative to honor Bush's commitment to our Arab allies to midwife a Mideast peace and the birth of a new nation called Palestine? Will the president lead the War Party in a military campaign to destroy Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah? Or will he, after his victory in the Hindu Kush, lead the Peace Party? That is the question of the hour. The War Party has already begun to pound the drums. The first ragged foot soldier of the Northern Alliance had not stumbled into Kabul before the "On-to-Baghdad!" boys were back waving the bloody shirt. Not a day passes that some hawkish journalist does not discover a new link between Saddam and the suicide pilots, or between Iraq and the anthrax, though the Bush administration repeatedly denies it. Who leads the War Party? Thus far, leadership is confined to the chattering classes – radio and TV talking heads, think-tank scribblers, editorialists at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard, National Review and The New Republic, and columnists on the op-ed pages of the Washington and New York papers. But the War Party yet lacks for a powerful political leader. Look for John McCain to fill the void. In their now famous open letter, William Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jean Kirkpatrick and 38 other ex-Republican officials and foreign-policy scholars warned Bush that if he failed to attack Iraq, he faced court-martial for surrender in the War on Terror. "You must finish the job your father failed to finish," Bush is daily instructed. Given the clamor for a wider war from within his own camp of media allies, and the scourging he will receive if he fails to take the war to Baghdad, why is Bush holding back? First, Colin Powell does not want a wider war. Second, Bush has been put on notice that no NATO ally, not even Tony Blair, will support a new war on Iraq. Europe wants a new American peace initiative. Nor will any major Arab ally support us. The Saudis have already declared their bases off-limits to the United States for a second Desert Storm. Third, where the president's father had unanimous Security Council support for the first Gulf War, the son would face a Chinese, Russian and perhaps French veto, and U.N. condemnation. Fourth, while Saddam is far weaker than he was before he ran afoul of Gen. Schwarzkopf, so are we. Since 1991, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have been cut in half. If we are to march up the road to Baghdad, this time it will take more than six months to build up the necessary forces in the Gulf. And, unlike Afghanistan, there will be no Northern Alliance to do the fighting. All the ground troops will be Americans. For these reasons, and because his father still believes he was right not to march on Baghdad, the son will probably not invade – and the War Party will probably not prevail, unless hard evidence is found of Saddam's involvement in Sept. 11. But if Bush spurns the War Party, will he lead the Peace Party, collar Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat, and be the godfather of a new Palestinian state? Or is that Mission Impossible? Bush should enjoy his triumph. Difficult days lie ahead. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25354
glynch, I had some of the same reservations that the article you quoted has. <A HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22088 ">Taking over Afghanistan</A> There are enough little details floating around the 'Net that hint at this coming. Why should I deny the possibility of that scenario when there is enough data suggesting that its possible? Iraq thinks that it is a credible threat and has taken some defensive measures since 9-11. Don't worry, I am finding links in the Middle East relevant to Iraq that you can try to disparage just like you attempted to do to my Pakistani and Indian links during the Afghanistan situation. Mango
