october 27 peace rally -- chicago edition!

[ccgraphics20]

There are so many people like you, who feel this is an unnecessary war, a war built on lies, for oil, or a number of other off the wall accusations. Have you done any research on Hussein, his ties to terror and with terrorist?

[nolocontendre2007]

by my count you have about 25 posts

here, overnight. good work. none

of that justifies STAYING in iraq.

and saddam is now dead.

so -- can we go home?

i think so.

p e a c e

[ccgraphics20]

Saddam Hussein, the man also called "The Butcher of Baghdad", owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention.

[nolocontendre2007]

and his SUPPLIERS?

his warehouses were stocked

by US, and US-backed, arms-dealers.

word.

[ccgraphics20]

Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. He aided and abetted terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal Organization, Ansar al-Islam, Arab Liberation Front, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Mujahedine-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Palestine Liberation Front.

[ccgraphics20]

Saddam Hussein's government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government's underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

[ccgraphics20]

In addition to funds, Saddam Hussein's government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists. One of the terrorists who was given aid from Hussein was Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the hijacking of an the "Achille Lauro", an Italian cruise ship.

[ccgraphics20]

400 passengers were held hostage for 44 hours. One of the jewish passengers, Leon Klinghoffer, was confined to a wheelchair, shot, then rolled off the ship into the Mediterranean.

[ccgraphics20]

The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport.

[ccgraphics20]

Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living. After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein's guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003.

[nolocontendre2007]

and saddam's SUPPLIERS?

his warehouses were stocked

by US, and US-backed, arms-dealers.

t r u e.

[ccgraphics20]

Abbas' Baghdad sojourn was not an isolated incident. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed Hussein's hospitality. Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002, and Nidal's Beirut office said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities."

[ccgraphics20]

Nidal ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries.

[ccgraphics20]

Hussein harbored terrorists (many with al-Qaeda links) responsible for international mayhem and even the incidental deaths of Americans.... Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin. This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack.

[ccgraphics20]

President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

[ccgraphics20]

Hussein's general store for terrorists included medical care, too. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran al al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, found his way to Baathist Baghdad for medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs.

[ccgraphics20]

Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of Lawrence Foley.

[ccgraphics20]

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills.

[ccgraphics20]

Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak, granted an interview to the PBS television program "Frontline" on October 14, 2001. Khodada said in the interview, "This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world."

[ccgraphics20]

He added: "Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations." He continued: "We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane."

[ccgraphics20]

Does that sound familiar?

[ccgraphics20]

So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers.

[ccgraphics20]

Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That's one clear link to al-Qaeda.

[ccgraphics20]

Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia.

[ccgraphics20]

On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur's airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash.

[ccgraphics20]

Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.

[ccgraphics20]

Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and "Operation Bojinka," al-Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific.

[ccgraphics20]

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Wall Street Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.

[ccgraphics20]

Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001.

[ccgraphics20]

Czech intelligence found Al-Ani's appointment calendar in Iraq's Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein's defeat. Al-Ani's diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with "Hamburg student." Maybe, in a massive coincidence, Al-Ani dined with a young scholar and chatted about Hegel and Nietzsche.

[ccgraphics20]

Or perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta to discuss more practical matters. The Czech government sticks to their contention that they did observe this Iraqi diplomat meeting with Mohamed Atta just five months before 9-11.

[ccgraphics20]

As Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek explained in a letter to Philadelphia attorney James Beasley, Jr.:  "In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status."

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 The truth is, we haven't been attacked since 2001... and it's not because they haven't tried. Bush HAS made America safer. He hasn't finished the job. He hasn't even come close. But he has made us safer. Bringing our troops home is letting the terrorists win in Iraq, which will embolden them.

[nolocontendre2007]

i was in london, in the tubes

on the day this statement was

rendered false. either the UK

is part of "we" in your mind,

or not. decide. and declare.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 In 1998, on an ABC televised interview, bin Laden called the American troops "paper tigers" because Clinton pulled our troops out of Somalia after a few of our soldiers were killed and dragged through the streets. If we pull our troops out of Iraq, we not only will be letting the terrorists win, but we will be proving bin Laden correct.

[nolocontendre2007]

now THIS is silly. we should

go find him, if we can. if we

CAN'T, he is no more "correct"

than he was in 1998 or 2001 or

2003. if you are willing to spend

half-a-trillion dollars, and sacri-

fice 4,500 soldiers for one guy,

then we have very little left to

talk about. even if we get him, as

your rant proves -- another will rise.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 The WTC was first attacked in '93. Clinton didn't take the war to terrorists. That gave the terrorists the courage and opportunity to plan and execute the attack on 9-11. Thank you Bill Clinton.

[nolocontendre2007]

this, too, is false. the first

WTC bomber was caught, tried, and

scheduled to go to jail on the

morning of 9.11.01. some say

it was his case that led to 9/11.

so how does THAT, perhaps open

to debate, scenario fit within

your rhetoric?

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Not only will pulling our troops out of Iraq embolden the enemy, let them win the war, it will make Iraq a safe haven for terrorists and give them a place to plan their next attacks on other muslim countries (Al Qaeda has attacked several muslim countries), Europe, Spain or America.

[nolocontendre2007]

you never did explain why london

was attacked twice during 2005,

and madrid -- how is your theory

consistent with those facts?

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Pulling out of Iraq is doing exactly what the terrorists want. Why do you think they are fighting us there? Doing what the terrorists want is appeasing the terrorists. If you look back in history, Neville Chamberlain made one of the biggest blunders in history. He ignored the warning from Winston Churchill and Chamberlain tried to give Hitler what he wanted.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Appeasing tyrants is the surest path to war. Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler in Munich using his nicest words. He, like the Meccans, caved in to the madman's demands. The Brits gave the Nazis Czechoslovakia. The deadliest war in human history was the result.

[nolocontendre2007]

forgive me, but chamberlain was

not at war -- we are. we've done

our part for god and country. time

to come home. saddam is dead.

[ccgraphics20]

To watch these peaceniks is funny. They are so blind by their ingorance, they cannot see what a bunch of idiots they really are. People around the world are preaching "Death to America" and committing genocide on millions of innocent people. Bush is fighting those hate America and has taken Hussein (who filled mass graves with the innocent), but these liberal idiots want to impeach Bush!

[nolocontendre2007]

cheney (and bush) are torturing prisoners.

as far back as teddy rooselvelt's presidency,

we court-martialed soldiers for water-boarding.

that makes it a high crime. impeachment is

the contemplated constitutional remedy.

i simply wish someone would give cheney

[or bush] a blow-job, so you'd finally support

impeaching them both. crazy world, eh?

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 You mean Bush and Cheny are actually going to Guantanamo and making men stand on boxes in their underwear? That's terrible. Cutting the heads off prisoners is nothing compared to what our president is doing!

[nolocontendre2007]

interesting point you make, there, cc graphics20 -- but perhaps, not the one you intend.

when we waterboard prisoners, or worse, slash their genitals, or kill them, what is the collateral damage?

that is, what standing have we to complain when our troops are tortured or killed when captured,

in violation of international law?

none.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 If Iran takes control of Iraq, they will take control of all of Iraqi oil. Iran wants the oil of Iraq which will give them great power. Iranian-backed militia groups have already taken control of much of Southern Iraq. They are laying the groundwork for an Islamic fundamentalist government.

[nolocontendre2007]

r-i-i-i-ght. but you've missed my central -- if sarcastically-put -- point: it is NOT "our" oil, in the first place.  the natural re- sources under their sand belong to them. not us. full-stop. i am heartened to see we agree that this war is now far more about oil-supplies, than iraqi freedom and democracy, though. p e a c e

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 You are correct. The oil in Iraq IS NOT our oil, and it should stay there. That is one of the reasons it is important we stay there.

The assassination of Bhutto, who was fighting for Democracy, shows the danger of democracy to terrorism. Democracy will hurt and weaken terrorism. That is why they are fighting it in Iraq and killed Bhutto. If we are to defeat terrorism, we need to keep fighting for democracy in the middle east.

[nolocontendre2007]

if we stay or if we go,

it is only the iraqis who

can create, or kill, their

own nascent democracy.

we should go. the iraqi

parliment, duly-elected, has

asked us to depart. we should

honor that DEMOCRATIC expression

of the iraqi peoples' will.

p e a c e

[ccgraphics20]

144 of the 275 Iraqi parliament signed a legislative petition calling for the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal, NOT for us to leave immediately. One important thing to consider is that it was Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, who sponsored the petition. It is a nonbinding petition. The separation in Iraq that is causing problems is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraq state together and the separatists backed by the U.S. and Britain.

[nolocontendre2007]

last time i checked 144 was more

than a majority of 275.

as to immediate v. staggered withdrawal,

it is heartening to see you favor a prompt

withdrawal. so do i. more on that above.

so much for your "winnable" war, eh?

crazy world.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Actually, I don't favor an immediate withdrawal. Yes, I don't want our troops to be there forever. But but I don't want to leave Iraq as a state that doesn't have the strength to fight off the radicals.

[nolocontendre2007]

odd -- 'tis too late for that

goal now -- this is vietnam, all

over again -- our troops died for. . .

w h a t?

[ccgraphics20]

Withdrawing U.S. forces would allow the Middle East to be taken over by extremist forces and put the security of the United States in jeopardy. If the radicals and extremists drove us out of the Middle East, the region would dramatically be transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world. Either the forces of extremism and terrorism succeed or the forces of freedom succeed.

[nolocontendre2007]

please explain why the US would be

in any GREATER jeopardy than, when,

say north korea has nukes. nukes that

can reach san francisco. now, use small

words & short sentences. i am dense.

[you are simply regurgitating talking

points sent to you, by the RNC.]

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Just thought you'd like to know that Iraqis in Baghdad are celebrating 2008 New Year. Yep, the first realy party in 7 years. Fireworks and all.

So much for you're "we're losing this war".

[nolocontendre2007]

so -- we are winnning when

the iraqis can throw a new

year's eve party?! nearly

hald a trillion dollars,

nearly 4,000 troops dead,

tens of thousands of troops

wounded -- and all for a party?!

[nolocontendre2007]

i note that you've simply

dodged answering the "rationale"

for the war question, again.

explain your domino theory. oops,

you can't. it is a failed theory.

[ccgraphics20]

If the United States leaves, the central government in Iraq will collapse, and the beneficiaries will be Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda, the three major terrorist actors in the world today. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state. The goals of our troops is simple: victory in Iraq. Our troops will come home when their victory has been reached.

[nolocontendre2007]

so you do intend to "build

a nation, with a rifle-butt".

sad. it has never worked.

and it won't now. ask nixon.

oops. he's dead.

[nolocontendre2007]

so -- ask anyone who was

in vietnam -- ask them whether

it is possible to build a nation

in the way you -- and they -- once

had suggested.

again, put it in small words.

dense i am.

[ccgraphics20]

Victory in Iraq is defined as: Iraq fighting terrorists, providing their own security, having a fully constitutional government in place, being able to achieve their economic potential, and become a full partner in the global war on terror.

[nolocontendre2007]

so, you want permanent bases

in iraq? it is an odd coincidence

that the oil is in iraq. you are

unwilling to establish permanent

u.s. presences to protect the people

of korea, darfur or perhaps ten other

places. oddly coincidental, no?

[ccgraphics20]

Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists to plan attacks against America and our allies. The Middle East reformers would never again be able to trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region.

[nolocontendre2007]

this sounds eeriely like the

red-scare-domino-theory -- de-

finitively discredited after

vietnam. please explain how

your theory differs from the

discredited domino-spread

theory -- again, use small words,

and short sentences. i am dense.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Do you remember who help oust the Shah? Yep... the same president who put the Ayatollah in power. The president with peanuts for brains, CARTER!

[nolocontendre2007]

wait -- in the 12 years of reagan

and bush 41, neither of them did

anything, either. so you've agreed

with my central point:

my point was that no "reformer" in the

middle east should trust us -- except

the ruling reformers of israel -- they

are the only ones to whom we seem to

consistently keep our word.

[nolocontendre2007]

and again, this simply high- lights your inability to defend the "rationale" for this war: the domino theory is debunked. we are there to grab oil. no other explanation fits these facts. else, we'd be in korea and darfur, right now, as well -- as you so help- fully pointed-out, below. regime change comes home in 2008 -- by VOTE! p e a c e

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 The rationale of this war:

Read the book: "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror". I have read and own that book. There is so much that many on the left choose to ignore and will never admit. Pay attention to chapters 12 through 15.

[nolocontendre2007]

"Miniter: Basically, Iraq is Vietnam in reverse. Vietnam began with a small but growing insurgency and ended with tanks and division-strength infantry assaults on our forces. In Iraq, we destroyed the tanks and vanquished the army in a few weeks. The insurgency in Iraq is estimated today at 20,000 men. . ." -- NRO interview

[nolocontendre2007]

so Miniter's -- and your -- assertion is

that iraq is not vietnam because we are

winning in iraq. yet we need $4 BILLION

new funds JUST SOLELY to fight insurgents

in iraq for 2008 -- according to state dept. & condi rice. . .

he's simply wrong.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 For some reason, you anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American people don't get it. We haven't been attacked since 9-11 and it's not because the terrorists haven't tried. It's because Bush has made America safer and has taken the war to terrorists. Clinton failed to treat attacks on America as acts of war, even after the first attack on the WTC in '93 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

[nolocontendre2007]

actually, "we" were attacked. i was

on a subway -- a "tube" -- in london,

on the morning of the second attacks.

madrid, as well. how are we safer?

[nolocontendre2007]

you cannot seriously be suggesting

that Clinton should have attacked

Iraq in response to Oklahoma City?!

that was a fundamental christian, white,

home-grown terrorist attack, by an ex-

US military man. get your rhetoric straight, dude.

[nolocontendre2007]

the iraqi insurgents are

not vanquished -- miniter

is delusional.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Iraq is not Vietnam because when we pulled our troops out of Vietnam, the war (with us) was over. IF we pull out of Iraq, we will be fighting the war here in our country because they will follow us home.

[nolocontendre2007]

this part of your argument is silly.

either bush HAS made the US safer, thus

they won't be able to follow us home,

or he hasn't. the truth is he hasn't,

but they won't be able to follow us home.

that IS the discredited-domino theory, updated.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Chamberlain bragged that he "brought peace in our time". Chamberlain was wrong. Appeasing tyrants is the surest path to war. Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler in Munich using his nicest words. He, like the Meccans, caved in to the madman's demands. The Brits gave the Nazis Czechoslovakia. The deadliest war in human history was the result.

[nolocontendre2007]

your analogy to chamerlain

isn't even close -- we ARE

at war -- the question is

whether it is time for peace.

chamberlain was as blind as you.

[nolocontendre2007]

as to reformers not trusting us -- what

about the thirty years after we allowed

the shah of iran to be toppled, and did

effectively NOTHING in iran to help re-

formers so a radical islam state would

not ensue?? they will never trust us.

and based on this cheney-record, they shouldn't.

[ccgraphics20]

The nationalists favor a unified Iraq with a strong central government. For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though (in the case of Baghdad residents), they expect the security situation to deteriorate in the short term as a result.

[nolocontendre2007]

why are we talking about this? we've lost the war, there, we are losing the peace, too. we've made an already-bad [saddam] situation. . . w o r s e. now it is all over, except for the shouting related to sorting, and fig- uring out, how to minimize the number of additional casualties our troops suffer. that is all we are talking about -- when to get 'em home. so much for "shock and awe", eh?

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Oooh. You're repeating the same embarrassing statment made by Harry Reid. He was embarrassed because of the success of Petraeus and the surge. This is a winnable war. It will take time, but it is a winnable war. And we ARE NOT LOSING!

[nolocontendre2007]

no, i am simply making a realistic assessment -- if you disagree, please define "win." only three of the 18 benchmarks we set for ourselves have, from any reliable source of information, been acheived. the war is lost. harry reid knows it. as do most realists -- the question is whether we will ALSO lose the "peace" -- if all you have is a hammer, everything soon looks like a nail. that is our current problem. we hammer everything.

[nolocontendre2007]

that is cheney's defining

signature -- he has only

one mode of operation:

he is always in "go f*ck

yourself" mode. not only is

it boring -- it is ineffectual.

he is legendary for acquiring power;

equally legendary for squandering huge

leads garnered from such power.

just like iraq.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 I agree that this war has a great deal to do with oil. But it's not so we can take it. Imagine what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. Just like Cambodia turned into the killing fields when we left Vietnam, the same will happen in Iraq. Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents to kill Americans and Iraqis who are fighting for democracy.

[nolocontendre2007]

so your argument is that we must stay, since we've messed their world up so badly? and it is simply a fortunate coincidence that we'll control their oil in the process?? that strains credulity. we will see a vietnam like end, here, because bush and cheney refused to learn the lesson that piece of military history taught the rest of us. but that is no reason to keep killing OUR troops -- the troops should not die for cheney and bush's vain pride and ignorance.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Hate to tell you this, but WE aren't killing our troops. We are fighting Islamic radicals. They are killing our troops and responsible for the bombing of mosques and sending in suicide bombers into public meeting places in Iraq (even the coliseum when they were celebrating the soccor victory over Africa). We are there fighting for their protection... and they are now helping us!

[nolocontendre2007]

if our troops aren't there,

they cannot be killed, there.

clear?

cheney has left them twisting

in the wind, in a sectarian- and

civil-war shredded phlanx of warring

tribes. shame on him. history will

say so.

p e a c e

[ccgraphics20]

he separatists in Iraq oppose setting a timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, preferring the addition of more American troops to secure their regime. They favor privatizing Iraq's oil and gas and decentralizing petroleum operations and revenue distribution.

[nolocontendre2007]

this is an oversimplification. there are too many sects, too many factions, to many tribal alliances -- most con- flicting with one another -- to support such sweeping generalizations. do yourself a favor -- stop trying to "nation-build" with the butt of a rifle. we need to bow out. diplomacy, from afar, is all that remains. and it won't acheive much, for at least ten years, imo. p e a c e

[ccgraphics20]

If these liberal idiots REALLY wanted peace, they would go and do their stupid peach marches in countries that actually START wars. They would protest people who preach the for the killing and deaths of people, not for the impeachment of a president who is fighting terrorists.

[nolocontendre2007]

we went to iraq -- we attacked them.

so the protest belongs here.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Hussein filled hundreds of mass graves, he had torture and rape rooms, he killed over 12,000 people in a 4 day period using chemical weapons, he harbored terrorists, he had a terrorist training camp in Iraq BEFORE 9-11. If you want to protest that, then shut up about Darfur and Rwanda (which Clinton stood, watched, and did nothing!).

[nolocontendre2007]

ccgraphics20 -- and who placed saddam

firmly in power in iraq? that's right!

the u.s. of a. -- he was a good puppet

for a while, then he went rogue, and tried

to kill 43's father -- 41. so 43 used the

excuse of 9-11, and he ongoing brutality

of the iraqi regime to justify attacking

him, preemptively.

[nolocontendre2007]

but you make an excellent point

about darfur and rwanda and north

korea. why didn't the u.s.a. step

in -- and why don't we, now? why?

because "our oil" is not under "their sand."

that's why. don't kid yourself. this

is all about the bush-oil-oligopoly.

why aren't we hunting bin laden? because

he no longer sits on oil. simple.

[ccgraphics20]

nolocontendre2007 Controlling oil means exercising leverage over those who depend on it and over the world economy as a whole. And it is impossible to project military power globally without abundant supplies of oil. Iran doesn't have a strong military. Achmadenijad has stated his goals. If Iran takes control of the oil in Iraq, it won't be long before they become Hitler and Germany with nukes.

[nolocontendre2007]

now we are down to the nub of

why this war is plainly immoral.

and you've simply admitted it above.

your own stated goal is "military might";

not "making democratic rights". so, it seems,

you should be marching with me -- unless you,

like hitler, believe that "might" is its own end-goal -- self-sufficient.

[mittenola]

It`s great to see so many people there and all over the country speaking out. Not one second of coverage of any of the rally s on our mainstream media news wonder why? They don`t want us to wake up and smell the coffee.

[clearlykels88]

I was also there.

amazing day.

great video.

[PeaceProfit]

(((( Critical*Mass ))))

- Nov. 2nd - 2008 -

[nolocontendre2007]

cool -- will be there.

[nolocontendre2007]

thanks -- it was truly energizing, no?

been doin' it since before we declared

thsi war -- and for the first time, it

feels like the momentum of the "middle"

in america is shifting. the middle no

longer trusts cheney and bush with their

freedoms, or their security. . .

p e a c a

-- nolo

[zachkomes]

I was there! Great video! :)