Comments for en-gb 30 Wed 08 Jul 2015 05:51:36 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at dennisjunior1 Justin:[Correction: Wrong state and wrong airport's men's rest-room]...--Dennis Junior-- Fri 26 Dec 2008 02:20:27 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 Justin:I think that anyone has a chance to talk to Osama Bin Laden, would be given a very secure history in the journalism world...Because, everyone, would hire the journalist--since they got the story...~Dennis Junior~ Fri 26 Dec 2008 02:18:22 GMT+1 jacksforge Well, the jacksfrog was actually a typo, but he seems to intentionally miswrite each poster's name. or maybe i'm not trained in secretarial skills. Tue 03 Jun 2008 15:03:06 GMT+1 pesca2008 At this time , Bin Laden is ahead thanks to the absurd Energy Policies in the EU and USA, we are sending in 2008 more than 1.5 trillion dollars to oil and gas producing countries, this is a staggering transfer of wealth , its bankruptcy and total lunacy, here is my message to the International Energy Agency, :Mr.Tanaka, executive-director IEA :The Energy solution is simple : a) install solar panels and turbines on every building on the planet, b) install solar panels and turbines on top of every parking lot ( as shade ) around the world, c) install solar cells ,concentrators and thermal tubes on the sides of every highway in the world, d) install E-85 ethanol pumps on every gas station ( from sugar cane and jathropa ,etc. and not corn) and also every gas station with electrical plug-ins , we got the solution, we just need the incompetent corrupt leaders of the world to do it, that's the only problem, our leaders ! and we don't have any really , and the ones we got are useless ! ...will you do it ? will you get them together and ask them to do it ?also, to cut down on consumption, we need every human with laptops and video-conference simple tools to work long distance,tele-work worldwide, with voice,video and data on IP, will you ask the leaders of the world to do something useful ? Next month, on the G-8 meeting , the top leaders of the world will get together again to achieve ..... nothing , brilliant ! Mon 02 Jun 2008 20:32:17 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart StephMar,Still waiting for any example of "throwing profanities at people". The Mods wouldn't allow it anyway. Mon 02 Jun 2008 18:09:46 GMT+1 jacksforge This post has been Removed Mon 02 Jun 2008 17:57:19 GMT+1 StephMar I can't understand your posts. They are incoherent, you aren't making any sense. Maybe it's luck of punctuation or maybe English is your second language, which is ok as long as you're careful but you're not. You seem to keep yelling, I imagine you being red in the face and beating the keyboard. Frankly I think you're either an angry teenager or have some unresolved anger issues. Either way I won't engage in any discussions any more, you don't exist. Mon 02 Jun 2008 17:38:50 GMT+1 jacksforge "why don't you use less of the world's resources along with the rest of the lefties so I can use more? Since you want someone to make a sacrifice, let's start with you. First I want you to get rid of your cars if you have them. Take the bus, walk, ride a bicycle. Next, if you eat meat, stop. Meat consumes a lot of energy to produce. Stick to a vegetarian diet, it's better for you anyway. Now this summer, do NOT operate any air conditioners, open a window. If you are still hot take a cold shower but don't use too much water. Now, next winter, turn the thermostats in your homes down to around 50 degrees F (10 C.) If you're cold, put on a sweater or three, move around, get under a few blankets. All of these will allow me to turn my heat up to 85 in the winter, my AC down to 60 in the summer, continue gorging myself on ribs and steaks, and zoom around in my fairly heavy overpowered AMERICAN car and the average will still go down. Now isn't that easy? What, you think I should make a sacrifice too? Well what about Chinese and Indian millionaires? When I see them cut, I'll consider it, not before."and this is your hero. Mon 02 Jun 2008 16:53:45 GMT+1 jacksforge It's actually StephMar. yea I know.but prefer strep.And the posts you refer to have links cited and dates and numbers. That's facts. I don't see anything in your posts. Show me MA11 links.And what pictures???? You did not read enough if you do not know to what pics i refer.I'm too old to sign up but my son is there fighting so we're doing our part. Some of my friends died in 9/11 so as you may understand "we're pretty upset about the whole thing". Ignorance is bliss. And I did not ask you to sign up just MA11 because AGAIN when I talk to my friend back from afganistan and mention MA11 thoughts(or lack) he says"Tell him to fight for his own oil. And recomends MA11 go down to the recruiting office.He is disgusted with "patriots"who talk war but don't sign up.And I am 100% with him.If you check all my posts you will see that I care more for your sons well being than MA11.And you offend more than Ed .If you want me to be polite then you should check better next time.Obviously you wear the same blinkers as MA11.So why don't you go to another blog? Mon 02 Jun 2008 16:39:59 GMT+1 StephMar Awww did I offend your friend? That's so sweet. There are alliances here, strong stand up for the weak.Well, name calling was in almost every post "like moron, idiot, prat, etc." I won't bother giving you numbers you can find them yourself...of course biases in these matters don't help the fairness of the issue. Well, the jacksfrog was actually a typo, but he seems to intentionally miswrite each poster's name. That's what's childish and disrespectful. But perhaps that's the overall environment here? Mon 02 Jun 2008 16:18:59 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Stephmar,"throwing profanities at people."Evidence? Examples?"and there is always name calling in each post...mostly rather childish.MAII:Perhaps it's best to ignore jacksfrog."Q.E.D. Mon 02 Jun 2008 15:39:46 GMT+1 StephMar It's actually StephMar.And the posts you refer to have links cited and dates and numbers. That's facts. I don't see anything in your posts. And what pictures????I'm too old to sign up but my son is there fighting so we're doing our part. Some of my friends died in 9/11 so as you may understand "we're pretty upset about the whole thing". Ignorance is bliss. Mon 02 Jun 2008 15:24:16 GMT+1 jacksforge 110, strepmaI'm quite comportable here,thank you ,nice you show concern.Backed by evidence again.Show me some.answer a me the FACTS in MA11 rants.Show me the facts in Bodo's rants.and i will show you my virtual pudding.where is the intelligence in your post here?Is it me that said fire bomb all of europe I do not care.? Where is this evidence you shout for me to produce, in your statement.I love that you ,sue, ma11,bodo and the kitten show so much distain for me.It shows that it works.Oh and why did you write.seems to me you do not even attampt to go near the topic,yourself.Join the arguement don't just slag people off.Oh and as to jacks frog.did you see the pictures,pretty cool eh,carved from yellow hot steel(not molton).And not possible in a cnc ,can only be made by a blacksmith.Oh and still MA11 When are you going to go fight for your oil tough talker.maybe you can sign up with Strepmar.most of MA11 opinion has been euro's should be wiped out and jacksforgeis a blacksmith and loves america. Show me the evidence. Mon 02 Jun 2008 15:08:14 GMT+1 newBodo I just saw some posts on WWII. I hope you guys realize that Soviets with all their flaws and Stalin's idiocy and crimes, won the WWII!?The critical battles on the Eastern front started in January 42 when German army was defeated under Moscow and officially is considered to be the defeat of operation Barbarossa. The battles Stalingrad in 42 and Kursk in 43 continued to carry heavy blows to Germans and signaled the retreat of German army when the 6th army surrendered at Stalingrad. Now two things have to be said: Russian winter was one factor (just like with Napoleon) and Stalin's vicious policies were no retreat was possible was another. But still it is not the Western front and allies that were decisive in the war it was way before that in Russia that tables have turned. The contribution of allies in France in Belgium is very important and the bravery and sacrifice cannot be overemphasized. It just gets me when some ignore the critical Soviet role in the war. Mon 02 Jun 2008 14:59:08 GMT+1 StephMar jacksforge:Perhaps you will feel more comfortable at some other blog. You keep getting all emotional and angry and throwing profanities at people. Obviously you don't know how to hold an adult intelligent debate. You should really stop bothering posting here. All you do is stir up conflict without any real contribution. Any opinion should be backed by facts or evidence, that's why blogs are interesting, they are meant to be informative and not just people rambling offences at others and disagreeing stubbornly. I read all those posts you referred to and they all have explanations of their opinions. Yours seem like you're just throwing out slogans, and there is always name calling in each post...mostly rather childish.MAII:Perhaps it's best to ignore jacksfrog. Mon 02 Jun 2008 14:30:55 GMT+1 bethpa I was wondering why the Bush administration went out of their way to alienate the french government when it made its war plans...and I think it might have been because the infrastructure for oil pipelines etc in Iraq were built to french specifications. if the french were involved they would naturally take over the oil production...By keeping the french out left open the oil to American companies...but this is a guess... Mon 02 Jun 2008 13:48:13 GMT+1 ronaine It was worth ploughing through some of the more wide-ranging posts on this thread to reach Peter's at 106. Thanks for the reasoned words...:) Mon 02 Jun 2008 13:26:24 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Peter,Very well and very clearly said! I second every word.Peace to alled Mon 02 Jun 2008 12:37:32 GMT+1 peterm99 re- 78 David CunardRegarding Saudi Arabia and OBL-Recall that most of the current borders and/or nations of the Middle East are artificial remnants of British, French, and Ottoman empire, rather than entities that make a lot of sense from an ethnic composition point of view. I expect that you're correct that, to OBL, the House of Saud is inseparable from Saudi Arabia. However, he talks of _Arabia_ as being occupied by the US, so I assume that he's including Kuwait, the Emirates, Dubai, etc., etc. in his fatwa. I also believe that his Saudi enmity is more pronounced because the House of Saud has failed to meet a much higher standard than other states as it is the official guardian of the most holy Muslim shrines, it been "collaborating" with the US the longest, and has, quite frankly, not handled Saudi Arabia's oil wealth in a manner that is most advantageous to the Muslim world, but has accommodated US/Western interests for decades, e.g., by increasing production when prices started to rise above the US comfort zone, in exchange for US guarantees of support for continued rule by the House of Saud. (I have no real evidence, but I suspect that some (small? large?) part of the oil price rises over the past few years is due to an attempt to demonstrate that Saud is not a complete US puppet.)You write that "all the US has is "influence" in the Middle East" (ignoring current situation in Iraq, for the moment). The US has consistently been welcomed to treat the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf as American lakes with its warships being provided port facilities, etc. Further, it had air bases in Saudi Arabia at the time of Sep 2001, had and currently still has a major strategic military depot in Qatar, I believe, as well as a military presence in Kuwait and other Arabian peninsular states. I also don't buy your implication of the "all" in that phrase. That influence is what has kept the Arabian states pretty much on the sidelines in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict- I expect that from the OBL point of view, the Arabian states, but most of all, the House of Saud, have betrayed that bigger Muslim cause in exchange for guarantees of being kept in power. US influence (in the form of billions of dollars over the years as well as support for the rulers) has also sidelined Egypt and Jordan in the Pal/Isr situation. Bottom line from his point of view is that the US presence has not only desecrated holy sites, but the US influence has precluded the Muslim Middle East from united opposition to Israeli occupation/oppression of Palestinians.Regarding OBL strategy- It makes perfect sense to me. Obviously, he had insufficient power to kick out the US by force. He could have tried to bring down the House of Saud and/or other rulers that were collaborating with the US. However, that would never have worked, since they are autocratic and can't be voted out of power by a terrorized populace, and, the US has as its policy to support their continuation in power and would have resisted violent overthrow attempts by US military assistance. He therefore had to get the US to want to disengage.Until Sep 2001, the US had paid no cost for its meddling in what he saw as purely ME affairs (except for relative pinpricks like the Khobar barracks, the embassies, etc. and for dollars). However, in comparison with the federal budget and GDP, the dollar cost was essentially invisible to the American people. In an earlier post I identified the purpose of terrorism. The intent of the 2001 attacks was to make the US populace realize that they had to pay a price for their government's "meddling" in the Middle East. He expected that they would come to the realization that the price (i.e., experiencing terrorism) was not worth it. You will remember that the US government immediately came out and pushed the "they did it because they hate our freedom and way of life" BS, the press did not have the courage to investigate real cause and effect in depth, and thus the American people, for the most part, have still not figured out why it really happened. You will also note that there are many who buy into this "fight to the death world war of completely incompatible civilizations" propaganda, even on this site.He was probably surprised at the Iraq attack, but quickly realized that killing Americans in Iraq and concurrently driving the US economy into ruin would, in the long run accomplish the same purpose. That's why Al Qaeda in Iraq became active not too long after our initial "victory" - to keep conflict active and costly. We still have to figure out a way to accommodate the currently estimated 1-3 trillion overall dollar cost of the Iraqi adventure thus far. Whatever policies the gov't pursues (inflation, raising taxes, selling off large chunks of economic assets to foreigners, etc.) to do this will make Americans realize that the US Middle East policies have a very high price tag, and will eventually hold the gov't to account for them. He's not worried about instant gratification, the long run is good enough for him; he's probably not too concerned if it doesn't happen in his lifetime.In any event, the longer our involvement in Iraq continues, and/or we expand the conflict to Iran and/or Syria, the better his strategy will work. In a perverse way, warmongers like McCain, Lieberman, and the Bush neocons are helping OBL in his long-term goals more than those who advocate a cessation of the Iraqi involvement. Mon 02 Jun 2008 07:32:52 GMT+1 jacksforge As toMA11"And why don't I leave to go fight in Iraq? Same reason you don't, I have to stay here and take care of my ferrets. Nobody but me understands them and it would be cruel to leave their fate to the hands of strangers." It is not me that says no to trying peace.It is not me that thinks there is no reason to alter behaviors and habits that destroy the enviroment and require OIL.I'm not the one who says burn more oil. One of my earlier comments(moderated)included this view of a friend of mine who built that hydro plant in AFGANISTAN.When i told him of your comments about Ed's life style of trying to help not hinder the enviroment. He said "tell him to go fight for his own oil." You want it go get it.I'm fine with all that coal here. as to BODO.that would be newbodo or have you been so busy trying to scream your a useless blacksmith that you have not seen that name,even though you responded to one comment from bodo. as to hating Bush they doand if they meet you they will probably hate you more(happy birthday).And as DC says it was the Brits that held out and faced bombing in WW2 and faced terrorist attacks from the IRA. bandstands blown up, shopping centres at christmas rush. Should we have bombed Dublin .No and we did not. Not what you can say for the USA and their response to 9/11. Not many brits can understand the over reaction of america. Sun 01 Jun 2008 19:43:22 GMT+1 jacksforge This post has been Removed Sun 01 Jun 2008 19:25:13 GMT+1 bethpa powermeerkatThat must be the Russia guided by Putin ..the former head of their KGB ( cold shudder)the Putin that Bush trusts...after looking into Putin's eyes...Russia is a nationalistic nation ..its people are still xenophobic..even as their population dwindles because of a low birth rate. They will lose unless they have more children. The Russains are destroying themselves.My point is that as long as there are these groups that are willing to kill because of nationalism, or race or religion we will continue to kill one another.WW II was not a clean war by any stretch of the imagination and glorifying what happened is only a way to continue to get people to enlist in the military. Human rights.and not Democracy is the philosophy that should be promoted world wide.I believe a military is necessary..its a dangerous world...but to think that a military victory will stop any group of terrorists is like using horses against tanks.This is a conflict of ideologies and war and killing will drive people to support their "side". Sun 01 Jun 2008 17:43:46 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Thank God such voluminous posts as Marcus' only consume 'virtual' ink.;-)ed Sun 01 Jun 2008 15:16:42 GMT+1 stupendousMadBadger MA2. First off I do know the original origins (if you'll excuse that) but it was you who brought 1939, not me. Secondly to lay all of the world's ills at the doorstep of europe is a bit rich. The USA never started a war with a neighbour? Next you'll be telling me it was for freedom and not for territory. Face it, the USA is no different to any other empire that has existed and if it doesn't crumble from within it will crumble from without. Sun 01 Jun 2008 14:20:09 GMT+1 KRITGuy In my opinion, Bin Laden died in the mountains years ago during the first wave of bombings.To date, the only alleged evidence of Bin Laden being alive is the testimony of agents who work for a president whose most important rationale for the war, is the public's belief that Bin Laden is alive.The bad guys too, have a need to have Bin Laden to be seen (or believed) to be alive.Thus, it is my contention that the need for him to be alive to justify so many actions by so many people, is going to go on so long as the need exists. Sun 01 Jun 2008 13:32:00 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII stupendousMadBadgerHope all you like. I am a Eurohater and an isolationist in the extreme. It's taken the better part of a lifetime for me to get here but between what I've read of history, my first hand observation living there, and watching what Europe does, how could I come to any other conclusion. Many of the world's ills can be laid right at the doorstep of Europe's sordid history which continues on to this very day. As always, Europeans look away from what their forefathers did, the consequences of what they do and say now, and what they are. America's involvement with Europe during the 20th century has brought it nothing but trouble. They say it feels so good when you stop hitting your head against a wall. IMO Europe is a hopless cause, one that America should give up on. For your information, the origins of WWII began at the end of WWI when the cruel vindictive treaty of Versailles reduced Germany to inevitable hopelessness and impovrishment. This was fertile ground for the demagogue Adolf Hitler to gain power. It was allowed to grow by British and French paralysis during the time leading up to the war when Germany re-armed and planned its revenge. (this is the same paralysis Europe wishes America to suffer in the face of threats from around the world like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and previously the USSR.) It was fueled by ethnic hatred of the most intense kind I observed first hand while living in France. And not only did the Europeans suffer a bloodbath, they learned nothing from it. If I use the word anyone would use to describe someone who does not learn from their mistakes, this posting would likely be deleted for breaking the house rules but you know what that word is. zzzzWhen you are in the middle of a war and you fire guns into the air at American aircraft, anyone with even the lowest of intelligence might surmise it could be taken for hostile ground fire and responded to. How would Americans know or suspect it was just celebratory? On the other hand, when a suicide bomber blows up a wedding in Israel, there is no doubt it was meant to terrorize people and that their attitude towards those responsible might be one of stopping them from doing it again no matter what it takes. You never brought that point up. Why? Because as far as I am concerned, antisemitism along with all other manner of racism is still alive and well all over Europe. I've seen it, remember. In fact I experienced there it myself.jacksforgeWhy would I suggest that someone should build a hydroelectric power plant in a place that is largely flat (obviously you know nothing about hydroelectric power) and has one of the largest proven reserves of oil in the world? What weed are you smoking? Stick to what you know, hammering lawn ornaments from molten iron. I repeat, the way you win wars is to find the enemy and kill him faster and more efficiently than he can find and kill you. Period. I know many of America's politicians have not learned that lesson. Sometimes I wonder if the military hasn't learned ti either. If Hillary Clinton had the killer instinct, she'd have blown Obama away nearly on day one with what she should have known and revealed about him. Sun 01 Jun 2008 13:15:05 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII jacksforge;"...Hiroshima...the city had been decimated by fire bombs already...."I know the schools in Britain are not very good but have you ever even opened up a history book and looked at what is inside? Or is that the kind of revisionist tripe they feed you? Certain Japanese cities were not bombed during the war including Hiroshima specifically because the Americans wanted to see what the effect of the atom bomb would be unconfused by earlier damage to it. No, Hiroshima had not been bombed at all prior to August 6, 1945. Wrong as usualy jacksforge."He wonders why Europeans reading this (and those not reading this) ....hate America."At last you admitted it, they do hate not Just President Bush, our fairly elected leader (at least the last time) they hate all of America. And I already know why, it is because America has destroyed every delusion, evey self illusion of Europe's importance and power in the world. While America has ascended to pre-eminence among all nations in history, Europe is in a state of terminal decline. The problems it is having with energy and trade now are just the beginning of the end. Watch for more to come. The damage to America will be insignificant by comparison. Wait until it hits Europe's agricultural and manufacturing sector. Wait until it has rolling power blackouts. Want to know what the future of Eurabia looks like? Look at Arabia. There's your model. And why don't I leave to go fight in Iraq? Same reason you don't, I have to stay here and take care of my ferrets. Nobody but me understands them and it would be cruel to leave their fate to the hands of strangers. Sun 01 Jun 2008 12:43:17 GMT+1 purpleDogzzz @91, re "Terrorism existed long before AQ. It's naive to believe that Bush created it. "Think about this, Fascism existed before Hitler, therefore it is naive to beleive that Hitler was a fascist....Just because terrorism has been a fundemental tactic of the oppressed since society was first created, does not mean that Bush's policies have not encouraged terrorism. When innocents, enjoying a wedding party for example, are blown to bits by a US pilot at 10,000 feet, I understand why the survivors would seek retribution. Especially when retribution is actively encouraged within that culture as a way to gain justice.When Al Queda did not exist in Iraq until the US invaded, then I think the blame for the massive amount of terrorism in Iraq can partly be laid at Bush's door. Especially when the reason for the invasion was a pack of lies. Sun 01 Jun 2008 12:26:09 GMT+1 stupendousMadBadger The origins of WW2 are when no one stood up to the nazis when they took parts of the Sudetenland. Anything after that was par for the course. MA2 claims that Britain was unwilling to fight the nazis and unready but Britain had been rearming for some years as the threat was seen. It seems that MA2 is a euro hater and isolationist. I do hope not. Sun 01 Jun 2008 11:51:43 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Andrea,"Terrorism existed long before AQ. It's naive to believe that Bush created it."Sounds a wee bit like Hillary. A few days ago, you were blaming it all on Wahhabis. Might I just say "Stern gang", "Irgun" or "King David Hotel"?As far as Iraq is concerned, it's actually fair to say Bush created terrorism there. Saddam tolerated no terrorists but his own - like Bush, in fact."Nevertheless, changes continue to take place in Iraq. Slowly, things are turning around."Talk about kool-ade! Sun 01 Jun 2008 11:45:07 GMT+1 powermeerkat "Anyone who has traveled to Russia has seen the monuments to WWII and would hear about the deprivation caused by the war upon all " [#84]Anyone who's travelled through Russia recently would know that there are plenty of Lenin's monuments there still, and that NEW monuments of Stalin are being erected (like the one in the Leningrad Oblast).And Stalin and consortes have managed to kill more Russians that Hitler did.BTW. WWII had started because of Soviet/Nazi cooperation (Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact) and a joint Russian/German attack on Poland.(Sept.1/Sept.17 1939) Sun 01 Jun 2008 08:19:35 GMT+1 jacksforge This post has been Removed Sun 01 Jun 2008 06:48:07 GMT+1 jacksforge 91. At 03:33 am on 01 Jun 2008, AndreainNY wrote:"We wouldn't have been able to put in a small hydropower unit if we hadn't first dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda and if the Iraqis themselves hadn't suffered from its brutality and turned against it. Terrorism existed long before AQ. It's naive to believe that Bush created it. Nevertheless, changes continue to take place in Iraq. Slowly, things are turning around. Too many people are stuck in the period before the war began, determined to re-write that period to fit their position. This has made it difficult for people to see the present day accurately."He was in afganistan where you are right he had to fight to get enough peace to deal.And sure terrorism is old.terrorism is the weapon of war for people that have no option of invasion or large scale military engagements. there is no possibility of invadeing for 6 years, taking 6 years to kill many thousand. These people get the one chance and so if they can they make it big.That is just sensible military strategy from some angles. Not that I think it too persuasive,having come from the UK where when a bomb went off in london we did not all scream "BOMB DUBLIN" . Taking your point that we all need to keep views current to the situation ,I will say that once this idiotic war was started I was not into withdrawal but actually agreed with McChip. we needed to flood the country with troops so reconstruction and the process of "winning hearts and minds" could start as quick as possible before people got bored and wondered what to do. That's where a UN mandate would have helped. It is Bush that decided to scale back in order to give the impression that it was over.That is where clinton said good job.That is when America lost this war.All things aside then there was a chance. Now 6 years later Ms Rice asked for the worlds help(oh MA2 did you hear that)for the technology to reconstruct Iraq. The technical skills , as if we did not already pay Halliburton billions to do that. but because we gave contracts to US companies(this is an american war) to rebuild ,the rest of the world said " this is your mess then you fix it. " The world got annoyed because we looked like selfish invaders out for oil and reconstruction contracts.Oh and that decision cost in many ways. No competitive bids. not always the most knowledgeable either.(hey GW you couldn't get them to bomb this place.its big ,will cost millions to rebuild and we can get the contract(if you get it,wink wink))i'm suspicious that may have been a conversation between GW dick andhis temporary replacement in Halli.) Sun 01 Jun 2008 03:59:34 GMT+1 AndreainNY We wouldn't have been able to put in a small hydropower unit if we hadn't first dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda and if the Iraqis themselves hadn't suffered from its brutality and turned against it. Terrorism existed long before AQ. It's naive to believe that Bush created it. Nevertheless, changes continue to take place in Iraq. Slowly, things are turning around. Too many people are stuck in the period before the war began, determined to re-write that period to fit their position. This has made it difficult for people to see the present day accurately. Sun 01 Jun 2008 02:33:46 GMT+1 jacksforge This post has been Removed Sun 01 Jun 2008 02:12:34 GMT+1 jacksforge You don't win wars by winning hearts and minds, you win by finding and killing the enemy first and most effectively. Strange someone I know with more experience of fighting AQ than you told me that putting in a small hydopower unit and a tap(faucet to some) made them really like america. And like I said before ,he suggested that if you want to talk so tough how come you ain't signing up. go on they might take you.Remember there is a free ticket to go kill your greatest enemy. And waterman to sound like me you have to insult him.. sorry. Sun 01 Jun 2008 01:44:30 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII zzzFunny thing about war, when you send troops to fight, some of them may get killed. Many times the only thing worse than going out to fight a war is not going out to fight it and waiting for it to come to your doorstep. Then its often too late. But one day this may change as the US becomes more adept at creating robot soldiers who will do the fighting for humans. This would keep Americans safe while putting only the enemy at risk. Meanwhile, we'll have to rely on brave men and women to protect our nation. That is how and why America even exists. I feel no more remorse for the dead civilians in Fallujah than the Brits felt for the civilian victims in the firebombing of Dresden. They were necessary casualties of war. I do not look upon "them" as being as valuable as "us." At least not to me. BTW, from my point of view, Europeans are also "them." Sat 31 May 2008 22:38:08 GMT+1 purpleDogzzz @ 57, You may need to read my post again. Not one death from an Al Queda bomb in Iraq would have been possible, without the lies of the Bush/Blair administrations and the willing complicity of the mainstream media in knowingly spreading those lies.Al Queda had NO presence in Iraq at all prior to the invasion. The destruction of Iraq and the civil war that has caused Iraqi to kill Iraqi in massive numbers, would NOT have happened without the illegal invasion.Additionally, take time to research what the Americans did to the city of Fallujeh. In that one city, American troops killed a lot more innocents than died in the attrocious attacks of 9/11.What happened in Fallujeh was collective punishment any way you look at it and was an attrocious war crime. the Marines declared the whole city a free-fire zone whilst thousands of civillians were still in the city. Hospitals and clinics were bombed by the Americans. The list of attrocities were as long as your arm. Just because the Iraqis are killing each other and the country is going up like a series of roman candles, does not mean that the US is somehow immune from the blame. After all it was the Americans that lied to find any excuse to set up and then light the touchpaper. The blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are on the hands of the American, british administrations and the media puppets. Justin Webb Included. Sat 31 May 2008 21:46:31 GMT+1 proles You don't have to imagine it, you can recall it from fact. The so-called "responsible" people of affairs did alot of talking to .bin=Laden not so long ago when he was a valued CIA 'assat'. In '79, Z.Brezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor was in the Khyber Pass for a photo op, calling all Mujahedeen to jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. All throughout the '80s during the reactionary Republican regime that followed Carter's conservative Democrats, Mr. bin-Laden and Co, continued in vogue (as did Saddam Hussein). Bonzo Reagan, even once compared them to America's revered Founding Fathers in '83. So maybe some of those wonderfully "responsible" people could have a reunion with their former comrade-in-arms, to reminisce fondly about the good-'ol days during the Cold War - or whatever else they may have in common. Sat 31 May 2008 20:38:11 GMT+1 proles This site is totally unsable. It's completely erratic and unworkable in posting comments. They almost never go through, it must be deliberate. Sat 31 May 2008 20:07:06 GMT+1 bethpa Anyone who has traveled to Russia has seen the monuments to WWII and would hear about the deprivation caused by the war upon all Russians...women ...children ..everyone was affected ...Without the second front in Europe I wonder what changes that would have made for American troops. The german military was divided by the two fronts...But the US can not show in the history books the importance of Russia in WWII because of the Communists and Stalin...Stalin... who was as much a mass murderer as Hitler and was also an ally of the USIt was because of the devastation of WWII in europe that the US was able to have an economic advantage after the war. Europe is no longer devastated by WWII and is now uniting to form an economic block with a united currency..the euro..and with fewer restictions to trade and travel across Europe. Sat 31 May 2008 19:35:11 GMT+1 proles Why does this website never work properly? Why do comments never go through? Why are there so many chronic problems with it? And no explanation from any help section? Or is it deliberate? Sat 31 May 2008 19:34:05 GMT+1 David Cunard #80 Ed; if you were surprised by the British take on who won the war, take a look at Russia's claim to the crushing defeat of Japan. That really is a different version of the end!BTW, belated thanks for the guide to making links - very handy indeed. Sat 31 May 2008 19:03:13 GMT+1 gunsandreligion As far as the American "influence",or "soft power" argument goes, I'm sure that the first thing that HRC would do (if she could win the nomination and election) would be to build some big-box stores in Baghdad and Tehran and stockthem full of Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash DVD's and CD's, blue jeans from Sri Lanka,and toys from China containing lead. Pretty soon all of the local merchantswould be wiped out, their health caresystem destroyed, and any job not requiringa higher education would be taken bymigrants from a low-wage country.So much for nation states with peskytribal politics and odious foreign policies! Sat 31 May 2008 18:54:42 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Davod,"Perversely, 9/11 triggered the invasion rather than being a response to western military presence. "Perversely indeed! Shrub and cronies wanted to go to Iraq for reasons having nothing whatever to do with 9/11. Despite repeated attempts to postulate a connection between Saddam and 911, none has been found, and there was no Al Quaeda activity or even presence in Iraq until WE blew it to pieces."how does one cancel "influence"?" By ceasing to grant unconditional support to an oppressive and repugnant regime and its defiance of international law..As to lend/lease, I believe some of the repayments were applied to the Marshall plan. I have to admit I was surprised on arrival in Britain to discover that y'all won the war, when I knew beyond a doubt that it was Mitchum, Wayne and Sinatra who had.Salaam, etc.edP.S. It's the Right Candidate, sir, as the RBC is putting the finishing touches to this very minute ;-) Sat 31 May 2008 18:24:41 GMT+1 watermanaquarius MAII" They [ europeans} do have a strong tendency to revise history "What an all encompassing statement.I know we Europeans have the misguided idea that World War 2 began September 3rd 1939, and we sat about twiddling our thumbs for 27 months waiting for a sign from above, when we should remember it only started December 7th 1941 after Pearl Harbour and the USAs' presence on the field. Sorry to sound like Jacksforge but a smattering of detail of our " revising " of history would be appreciated, not the list you gave of some recognised facts.History they say is only the story told by the winner. Seeing as we did win the WW2 thing together , not forgetting the rest of the allied forces, what part of history are we revising? Appears that you want to start an argument Sat 31 May 2008 18:04:13 GMT+1 David Cunard 61 petermm "I didn't interpret any "disable Saudi Arabia" that you mention, although I may have missed it in the skimming as well. All I got was the loathing of the House of Saud who he considers as traitors". Perhaps 'disable' was too strong, but it seems that since there is no love lost between the Saud family and BL, he feels that the nation and the king are inseparable, in the same way that that Louis XIV (allegedly) said the "L'etat c'est moi".With regard to ultimate goals though, the IRA wanted to rid Northern Ireland of British rule, but all the US has is "influence" in the Middle East, far more difficult to remove, except of course it and other nations currently have what is tantamount to an army of occupation in Iraq. Perversely, 9/11 triggered the invasion rather than being a response to western military presence. It's the lack of a clear, cohesive policy which seems to me is lacking, unless of course it's simply "America out" - but how does one cancel "influence"? It was easy to make the same demand of the British in the waning days of empire, since they had a physical presence, but not so when the there is none. To make his point, BL had the wrong objective; from a practical point of view, wouldn't it have made more sense to attack Saudi Arabia rather than purely American targets?#64 MAII - If the present situation is WW IV, when was WW III? I don't think anyone would agree that we are now in a World War, but rather a conflict or confrontation. Had you lived under in country which was directly involved a war, you might possibly understand the difference between what goes on now as opposed to what life was like in Europe from 1939 onwards, or if in Spain, rather earlier.#72 - For once I agree with the general thrust of your post, although it was no secret that Germany was rebuilding its military capability in defiance of the surrender terms of 1918. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we can't really know the motives which drove Chamberlain. Everyone misjudged Hitler; that was a time when a gentleman kept his word but, as Britain discovered, Adolf was no gentleman! Churchill recognised that and later had a friend in Roosevelt. Incidentally, Britain repaid ALL of her war debt to the USA, including interest, at the end of December 2006.In December of 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA, which in turn led to Congress recognising that a state of war existed between the three nations. Even the most revisionist of historians must acknowledge the enormous assistance from America, but so often Americans tend to say "they" won the war, when in truth it was a combined operation. I don't think there is any Briton alive who is not grateful for American help and, although from time-to-time there may be disagreements, most of the British embrace all things American - one only has to visit to see the proliferation of American goods, services and entertainment. The current interest in the (US) General Election is a good example, even if they favour the wrong candidate! Sat 31 May 2008 17:48:35 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII This post has been Removed Sat 31 May 2008 17:46:55 GMT+1 jacksforge As to war on terror working in Ireland and the rest of the scrivers scrip.where is his evidence. If I were to believe him over the policemanthat was there just because he says he was involved then I would be as big a fool as you .His use of the words wooly headed send up a flag that maybe he is a little hawkish and just maybe that hawkish people only see thing in terms of war(like GW). Sat 31 May 2008 17:06:47 GMT+1 jacksforge Al Qaeda has been badly damaged in Iraq. They Did not exist in Iraq until Saddam was removed.jacksforgeWell mar how about this. none of the so called "evidence" that you say others have provided exists. it is simply the ramblings of people writing in(much as I am doing) and if I were to be bothered to go search for the" evidence" to "back my facts " that would be easy But you believe others simply because they fabricate loads of crap to go on this site. Most Of the Opinions I have slagged off are not Facts. peer reviewed or in anyway scientific. Most have been attacks of no substance. "there was no explosion at chernobyl,it is physically impossible for an explosion....WHAT CRAP. and that is all that need to be said.but someone else wrote in how it was possible for a steam explosion to have happened.despite the very stern assurtions of the idiot that was supposedly backing up his story. If I say global warming is a reality and you say no then produce a page of Bull written by the oil industry . I am wrong?The UN and every scientific concensous is with me but I have to produce"evidence" for you?sercret did not provide credentials at all , just said"I can tell you, from a Northern Ireland Catholic Nationalist/Republican background that in fact"all that says is he/she lived there for a while,not even that in fact. that is why i asked him /her to clarify.I have met many americans that claim the same. Their great grandad came over from IrelandI will claim to have great authoratory on the subject because I am a southern Irish catholic who .......I'm not but well how could you check?did you check secrets credentials. "hi jerry was secret scrivers ever a nationalist in your army with inside info on the reasons you started to talk peace?"do you want me to find and prove that BODO is a racist?Or that MA2 knows nothing of blacksmithing?And has the morals of dick cheney or Hillary.Or that as I was stating nukes are unpopular because there have been a couple of accidents and it has put people off.all the last number of posting get off topic because the likes of you keep getting personal. So I respond in Kind. As for my credentials I have several times, something I have never heard from the others.You have my age, my location, and several past locations. two of the educational establishments I studied at. My profession , welding experience , WHAT ELSE MY SOCIAL SECURITY. and all I have heard from any others is a bunch of quotes from other people and personal attacks. that started with:bodo and the How you call me racist because I think all blacks are lazy unemployed etc. your a useless hippie lineOr marcus the unwise with. attacks on me because I am a blacksmith. And now another idiot. (for yes ed you are way more polite than me). there is no evidence that is real this is the internet at least I produced some pictures of my work to show I am a blacksmith. i ask of eastern euro experience because I have some. I lived in two communist states. I have seen the effects of their system.first hand.I have given far more of my info than you or any others except maybe Ed. proof is in the pudding and there is no virtual pudding. so no I will write and speak as always from my knowledge,,from the light within.How can I produce evidence to prove that hurting the enviroment and all life is morally wrong, or the death penalty is morally wrong. that nuke waste should not be left to some generation down the road to clean up. so BAck to the point peace was achieved through talks. something that some disputed in this blog when discusing the benifits of talking to enemies .as in relation to Obama.who dareed to express the reality that talks are needed. he was jumped on he was called a fool and a coward but idiots with no understanding of diplomacy (And yes I have a little knowledge of that it just as most military families understand the military better than those that have no involvement). He was not a fool and many well evidenced bloggers here say Obama was wrong and weak.well like I said long time ago. it worked in northern Ireland.As to the Troubles being won by force.was that when the Brits went in and subdued both the catholics and the protestants .Like I said tactics had changed after un popular attacks(harrods),just as the IRA stopped targeting the royal family after mountbatten. the IRA was broke , financially.Oooh and then 9/11 and suddenly all realised that they better get real serious because the americans were getting tough on terrorists and had declared The War On Terror. Not a good time to be handing hte hat out at the St patricks day parade in NY that year. Sponsoring terrorists big crime,big time.So a big OK we'll make sure talks work. Sat 31 May 2008 16:49:22 GMT+1 bethpa A bunch of men and you want to kill...Every person who is killed is connected to others...and there is a ripple effect that goes out in a community with every death.Someone you may consider worthy of being killed is related to people who love that person or with whom they have some feelings of connection.My great grand father was hung for stealing sheep. My grandfather was still bitter about that and that bitterness was passed to me. ( That side of the family is Irish.)The Civil War lasted only 4 years in the US yet the effects are still felt over 150 years later..But every war is a civil war...Some of you imo have views based in racism, nationalism and feelings of religious superiority. Sat 31 May 2008 16:07:22 GMT+1 powermeerkat 1.Re Lend/Lease.Soviet masses were largely unaware where not only boots and tins with pork but also heavy guns and planes were coming from . And at what cost. And the official propaganda was such that when drivers of Red Army were asked by East/Central Europeans they were "liberating" what do big white letters "USA" on hoods of their jeeps and trucks stood for they'd reply proudly:"Ubiyom Sukinsyna Adolfa!"(We shall kill that SOB Adolf)2. How wars should be faught?As gen. Patton famously explained to his troops : "You don't win wars by dying for your country; you win them by making the other side's SOBs die for THEIR country".3. Personally, I don't mind talking to al-Qaeda's leader "through other means" [#70].Could you send me his coordinates? :-) Sat 31 May 2008 15:43:46 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII Actually the UK was helpless. Chamberlain didn't want Britain to build up its military because he felt it would be a provocative threat to Germany. Meanwhile, Germany was secretly building up its own military. By the time war came, the UK was no match for the Wermacht. Despite what Europans say (and they do have a strong tendency to revise history) the Allies would have lost in Europe had the US not entered. Popular sentiment was against entering the war in America. Roosevelt saw that if the US didn't fight the Nazis in Europe, he would eventually have to fight them in America. Churchill helped persuade him of that. (This is the same reason we attacked Saddam Hussein in Iraq.) Roosevelt had to break American law to get enough armaments to Britain just so it could hold out long enough for America to find a way to enter. This was the canard of "lend lease" where American warships were supposedly leased to Britain at low rates and would someday be paid for (Britain was also bankrupt) and returned. During this period, Americans shipped vast amount of food and other supplies to Britain to keep it afloat. When America finally did enter the war after Pearl Harbor, Britain had to persuade America to put priority on the war in Europe, not the Pacific from where it had been attacked. American shipments were stepped up, especially to the USSR. It was said Soviet troops marched in American boots. American warships accompanied fleets of merchants ships during the battle of the Atlantic where many were lost to German U-boats wolfpacks. The Americans entered the war in North Africa, losing badly at first. (Funny how so many of those who would give up in Iraq would have done the same early on in WWII when things weren't going well.) The slow systematic war in North Africa leading to the invasion of Sicilly and the Italian mainland diverted enough Nazi military force from the Eastern front to buy the Soviets time. The British were getting their heads handed to them in the Pacific too in places like Malaya by the Japanese at the same time. But the real decisive battles of the Pacific were won by America. The rapid militarization of the US turning the full might of its industrial production to the war effort was nothing short of remarkable. Nobody worried about how many German or Japanese civilians died as collateral damage in those days. If they had, the Allies still would have lost. Contrast that to the stupidity with which we fight military battles against our enemies today. You don't win wars by winning hearts and minds, you win by finding and killing the enemy first and most effectively. The current view is the politically correct one but militarily incorrect suicidal answer. It's why we never win wars anymore. You don't fight to a point where you can negotiate, you fight until the enemy is dead. Sat 31 May 2008 14:54:04 GMT+1 stupendousMadBadger MA2. Seriously, Britain was helpless in 1938? A full year before WW2 started? Oh, by the way wasn't it the USS COLE, not Kohl. You might be thinking of the former German chancellor. Sat 31 May 2008 14:18:46 GMT+1 kburns_ireland Talking with Bin Laden would be ill-advised. I don't doubt the power of dialogue, I'm from Northern Ireland, and it's only by the most bitter enemies talking that we've had the modest, but good, change that we've had.But, 'Bin-Laden' is just a dirty word for Americans, and understandably so. Obama would be better to have dialogue with muslim leaders, which would trickle down to the masses that they represent from whom this phantom terrorist organisation supposedly draws support.You can talk to Al Quaeda through other means. It's the only thing for it, really, because perpetual war and sabre rattling is going to be a continuation of disastrous Bush-policies. Sat 31 May 2008 14:02:44 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Living directly across the pond from the US of A, westcoast Europe, I was surprised to be woken this morning by the sounds of hammering and sawing, coming from a few fields away. Wondering whether I was shortly to greet new neighbours putting in the foundation framework, I walked over to investigate, only to realise that it was just another new set of goalposts being erected for Hillarys' Democrat campaign arguments. A smaller advertising slogan nearby read- Do not forget to vote Chelsea - 2024. Oh well. Nothing changes. She is obviously planning ahead!With the Rules and Bylaws committee meeting today I had not expected anything else.Seriously. Any news yet?Okay. I have been talking to the trees and not about Bin Laden. Bin hoping though! Sat 31 May 2008 13:58:41 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Tales from Uncle Remus: Brer Hillary and the Briar Patch;-)ed Sat 31 May 2008 13:45:08 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart What's wrong with this?;-)ed Sat 31 May 2008 13:40:41 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart From the QuakersCompliments of American Friends Service CommitteeWhat would YOU do with $720 Million?And tomorrow? And the next day?...Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you Sat 31 May 2008 12:45:57 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Guns'nReligion, Namaste I've long celebrated the irony that the Brits exited Empire, leaving the mess to be picked up by the unwary. Almost every 'trouble spot' in today's world bears the fingerprints (and droppings) of Empire. Why, oh why did we not heed Great(n) Uncle George's advice and beware of foreign entanglements?Peter and David,Glad to see y'all getting along so well. The general level of harmony here is admirable.Adrian, Good stuff, as always, if a bit long. If I was to settle down in any single area of 'faith', Quakerism would be on the short list, but here is where my heart sings.Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/PeaceVaya con Gaia -ed Sat 31 May 2008 11:02:32 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII David CunardWorld War IV didn't begin with the attacks on 9-11. Al Qaeda had waged it for over a decade by then. The attacks on the Kohl and the embassies in Africa were part of it. Unlike Britain in 1938, the US wasn't weak and helpless, unable and unwilling to act. It took 9-11 to wake it up. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the coming wars with Iran and Syria are all part of World War IV. What angers Europeans is that the US cannot be thwarted in its response. The war in the Middle East is going very well. Al Qaeda has been badly damaged in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Baathists are no longer a threat to the US. The Taleban and al Qaeda have retreated to the sanctuary the US has allowed them in Pakistan. Obama has already said he would attack and just this week, the US warned Pakistan that if it doesn't deal with them more effectively, the US will have to do it itself. I would not be surprised to see American forays and greater use of Predator aircraft into Pakistan. The Israelis botched the war in Lebanon two years ago. They didn't have the military resolve to deal with the threat and so it remains. They are out of necessity dealing with Hamas and right now Gaza is surviving on a thread. It won't take much to inadvertently cut it. A massive failure of their water system or sewage system or an outbreak of a water borne epidemic could bring a final end to Gazans and the insanity of a proposed Palestinian state. The big question is Iran. How long will the US and Israel be prepared to allow the menace of a nuclear Iran to grow. If they make the same mistake the French and British made prior to WWII, the world will pay a very high price, as great as WWII itself. 56 million dead may be a small number in the aftermath. Peterm99Its views like yours which give hope to the enemies of our Western civilization. In the end, no matter how many have to die on either side, they will be destroyed. Otherwise you'd better grow a very long beard and learn to face Mecca and chant in Arabic five times a day. Sat 31 May 2008 10:55:05 GMT+1 Adrian_Evitts PART FOURMY OWN PERSONAL VIEW OF THE WORLDMy first is in always in Query, never in AdviceMy second is U, but also me too!My third and fourth A and K, but you won't find them in an AK47My fifth and sixth, "ER...", 'cos inhesitant are the fools who rush in where angels fear to tread.A would-be Quaker without a cent, in need of an employer who thinks that money should occupy something other than first place in our lives ... that's what I am, Friends ... a Quaker parrot! today, gone tomorrow? I've spoken to you, now speak to me! Pretty please with lots of sugar on! Sat 31 May 2008 10:04:55 GMT+1 Adrian_Evitts PART THREE – A DIFFERENT APPROACHWAGING A WAR ON GREED, A WAR ON WANTWho is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but you don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.James 3: 13 to 4: 3, Rocky Raccoon's (Gideon's) BibleThe most telling of my postings to this particular edition of Justin's blog so far is not Part One or Part Two, but the short one sandwiched between them (3). Look for it, read it, and think about the consequences of it. (A slow container ship would be better for the environment - so why is it more expensive?)"I want, I want, I want! NOW!" Materially speaking, to have what I want right now requires oil to be guzzled. As demand for that oil rises, and reserves fall, we see that one of the bitterest legacies of the Bush era has been a quadrupling of the price of it. This hurts every person whose lifestyle depends on oil. But it benefits in great measure all those who extract, produce and sell it: the oilmen of the world, those who put and keep Gorgeous George and his ilk in power and those countries throughout the world who have this commodity to sell - the Saudis among them. Now those boys really do value human life, don't you, boys?"And the Iranians also!" you say. Yes, 'tis true. And yet, oil is now so expensive that it will work out cheaper (in terms of monetary cost) to finance a war against a country with large quantities of it than to buy it legitimately. Do you really think that it's just coincidence that large numbers of US troops occupy two countries either side of an oil-rich country even as I write? What real good is the US doing in those countries, pray tell me! And is it simply coincidence that those arguing for more of the same old American approach to the world are trying to find any old excuse to wage war on Iran? Hillary, I'd have more time for you if you'd only see this, believe me!"We don't want them to have a nuclear capability", you say. How ironic is that statement coming from a nation with a stockpile of them so large that the world's entire population have cause to tremble! I oppose nuclear weaponry, not just because I don't want Iran to have them, but because I don't want anyone else to have them. Those outside America are suspicious of America's motives partly because they see blatant hypocrisy in America's approach. Are they wrong to think this?"We don't mind them having nuclear energy", you say, "it's just that we know it's a short step from there to them having nuclear weapons!" 'Tis true, it is a short step. So tell me, America, what steps have you taken with real gusto to reduce your own reliance on nuclear energy? If only you had pursued renewable energy with anything like the enthusiasm you have for procuring oil supplies, and defending your own right to be a nuclear power! It's late in the day to change, but not too late. I have to be optimistic. There's no point in being anything else.There are two sensible ways of tackling our energy vampirism.The first is going to take a while: SUPPLYing demand for energy through sustainable energy, and in the process weaning ourselves off nuclear power (thereby demonstrating moral consistency to those other countries we object to developing it), thus gradually and steadily weaning ourselves off oil. Oil is a commodity now so expensive that it is cheaper to spend massive quantities of taxpayer's cash killing for it, than buying it without bloodshed. I find this reasoning process obscene, yet I know in my heart that there is a rate of exchange not simply between money and oil, but between blood and oil. As world demand for oil rises as the world's population rises, the former rate of exchange will continue to rise with it. The latter rate of exchange will surely tumble, for what regard does war have for precious human life? America's contempt for innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years shows the world just how little it values the individual's right to life, an "inalienable" God-given right to be enjoyed by ALL of the world's inhabitants. This last observation is made not simply by a peace-loving idealist. It was made in the Preamble to your own Declaration of Independence. Given America's conduct under your current President, are you surprised that many outside of your great country consider your war-mongering to constitute some of your worst hypocrisy of all?The second thing to be done, and this we can do more speedily, lies in reducing our DEMAND to consume the world's precious energy resources by resisting our desire to consume them. Every time we as individuals embrace the desire to go somewhere, to consume something, the world pays a price, to use James' words, for our "envy and selfish ambition". We as individuals must change our own mentality before we can expect those who serve as our political representatives to advocate a mentality which is better than same old, same old "produce and consume".Reader, I am knackered, truly knackered. You are gonna get one last blog entry before I call it a day, for a while at least. In that one last entry, I'm gonna consider how I would personally want to live as my own personal contribution to a better world. "Well, if you are so tired", you ask, "why do you bother?"Reader, it's because I know that every precious day of my life on this planet, terrified people are being blown to pieces - men, women, children, each of them equal in the sight of God - so that I can exercise my "right" to fly and to own an electric dishwasher. It's because I see that the former is truly bound up in the latter that I want the world to change. America has everything it needs to take its seat at the table of responsible nations. It's time that it set us all a better example.May God truly bless America for God is greatest! Sat 31 May 2008 09:54:03 GMT+1 peterm99 re: #58 David CunardThanks for the links. I was surprised to find them in their entirety on the PBS site, of all places.My previous comment was related to the 1998 one (I had only seen a very short snippet of the 1996 one before).You're right about his not being a terse writer! His 1998 fatwa is the epitome of terse clarity by comparison to his 1996 one.Nevertheless, the three items that jumped out at me from the 1998 fatwa were: 1. US military presence in Arabian Peninsula (we are still there, although the presence in Saudi Arabia is reduced) and the acquiescence of Arabian rulers to US dictates, 2. Killing Iraqis and destroying the country's infrastructure (we are still doing that), 3. Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and environs (still ongoing),and 4. "messing" with Muslim countries in general to keep Muslims weak and divided (still ongoing).I skimmed the 1996 fatwa you linked to and it made my head spin. Nevertheless, what I got out of it was pretty much the same as what the 1998 fatwa said. Nowhere did I note any mention of taking over the world or of killing all the Jews in Israel as many seem to claim. (Again, I only skimmed the 1996 one, so, if I missed that, please point it out to me.)I didn't interpret any "disable Saudi Arabia" that you mention, although I may have missed it in the skimming as well. All I got was the loathing of the House of Saud who he considers as traitors. Can you point to any different interpretation of what he wrote?Regarding your comment about Obama policy and Bin Laden demands: My interpretation is that BL wants to preserve Saudi oil to use as a wealth generator by selling it to the world; however, he wants the wealth to go to the Muslim community at large, and not to the House of Saud. I suppose one could say that BO's policy is consistent with the not enriching the H of S part, after a fashion. However, even if we stopped all oil purchases from Saudi Arabia (fat chance), that wouldn't perceptibly cut into the wealth flowing into the Muslim world over time due to the growing demand from China, India, and everywhere else. Sat 31 May 2008 06:36:39 GMT+1 gunsandreligion Look, guys and gals, we are getting nowherewith this whole middle east thing.Quite obviously, we Americans have madea big mess of things. We just aren't cut outfor the whole empire thing, being theisolationists that we are. So, I propose that you Brits (I know thatyou are out there) take over. You didsuch a good job in 1920. Just think howwell you will do now that all of the oilreserves have been mapped.We can help out a little bit. We can sellyou a few aircraft carrier battle groupsbefore the production line closes.We can even throw in some F-22's to sweeten the deal. And, we have somenew stuff that even the press doesn'tknow about. As the line from "IndependenceDay" goes, "You didn't think that theypaid $900 for a hammer, did you?"So, think it over, and write yourrepresentative. Sat 31 May 2008 05:55:01 GMT+1 David Cunard #52 MarcusAureliusII commenting about the end of a terrorism campaign, writes "How about World War II?"I hardly think a world war in which it is estimated that over fifty-six million people died can be equated with "terrorism". The use of the word 'war' belittles the sacrifices of both the military and civilians involved. Despite the atrocities inflicted on New York and later in London and Madrid, the people of the nations involved suffered no deprivation; unlike 1939 - 1945 and beyond, food remained plentiful, there was no rationing, television programmes continued to be transmitted and life continued as normal. Had MAII lived under the threat of bombs and the hardships which ordinary people suffered, he would know the difference between a war and terrorism, as Britons can attest, having endured both. Sat 31 May 2008 05:42:42 GMT+1 David Cunard #47 peterm99 - I read both the 1996 and 1998 declarations which can be seen here and also here about which you write "Bin Laden (and/or his spokespeople)have been very clear in their objectives" and if that be clarity, then it's little wonder that there remains a problem; Churchill it ain't! Since at least one of the goals is to disable Saudi Arabia, I find a statement by Mr Obama curiously parallel to Bin Laden's demands "Change is an energy policy that doesn’t rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family." Or am I reading too much into that? Sat 31 May 2008 05:04:27 GMT+1 MagicKirin 43. At 9:22 pm on 30 May 2008, purpleDogzzz wrote:@41You are correct. I would compress that into, Who has caused the death of more innocent people? Al Queda or Bush/Blair?The answer is simple, Al Queda have killed less than 1/100th as many innocent people as Bush/Blair.Wrong almost of the deaths in Iraq are the result of Al Quada and Iran backed terrorists.Just as all the death in Lebanon lies with Hezbollah. Sat 31 May 2008 03:50:15 GMT+1 peterm99 re - post 49 AndreainNYDore Gold has an axe to grind. He and his Likud compatriots have consistently demonized all who oppose Zionist expansionism and conquest of territory they consider to be greater Israel. They have missed no opportunity to proselytize their agenda by whatever means they find convenient. In my view, Gold and his ilk differ from Muslim terrorists only in language, religion, and access to Western weaponry, finances, and propaganda outlets.Picking on extreme Wahhabism is disingenuous, at best, as even the most cursory Google searches will disclose fringe elements of a myriad of religious persuasions that advocate subjugation, ethnic cleansing, and/or extermination of those who hold opposing religious views. This includes Christians, Muslims, and Jews (e.g., Kach and Kahane Chai among many others).Regarding your last sentence - I agree, it is difficult for many Westerners to understand Middle Eastern terrorists, be they Arab or Israeli. Sat 31 May 2008 03:21:18 GMT+1 bethpa human rights..thats the key..human rightsnow a quote from the BBC article "As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women."There are honour killings," she explains."We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love."There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them." Sat 31 May 2008 02:33:21 GMT+1 bethpa And this is a bold move by Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts"Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion"................................That has a far greater chance of making the world a safer place than the proliferation of weaponry that goes with warfare Sat 31 May 2008 02:29:57 GMT+1 bethpa This is a war of ideologies and usng a military solution will not work.Instead of pushing democracy (and we saw what that brought to the Palestinians) the emphasis should be on human rights. Sat 31 May 2008 02:19:06 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII "Orde, the frontrunner to be the next commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said he could not think of a single terrorism campaign in history that ended without negotiation"How about World War II? Sat 31 May 2008 02:10:42 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Young Hillary Clinton;-)ed Sat 31 May 2008 01:50:45 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart The fish was this big!No, mine was bigger!;-)ed Sat 31 May 2008 01:39:23 GMT+1 AndreainNY Dore Gold's "Hatred's Kingdom" is a great place to begin educating oneself about Wahhabism. He covers the beginning of Wahhabism in the 7th century through 2003. He pinpoints the time in Wahhabist thinking when it became exceptable to kill those who did not share their view. OBL was trained by a Wahhabist. Many paths lead back to them.As difficult as it is for westerners to understand, Wahhabists have, for centuries, been at war with outsiders, whose influence they believe has led to the fall of Islam. This started long before Bush. He was the first to recognize the seriousness of their threat.It is foolish to believe one can understand Middle Eastern terrorists by studying western acts of terrorism. Apples and oranges. Sat 31 May 2008 01:31:14 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Peterm99,I accept, embrace and second your clarifications. It's instructive to note that the only times in which there has been serious conflict in Palestine have been the times when Europeans took an interest. Thank you for your clarity, and Salaam.ed Sat 31 May 2008 00:21:20 GMT+1 peterm99 #40 Ed IglehartActually, it's more along the lines of eliminating the Zionist control (read Israeli government) of Palestine and Palestinians. Historically, Muslims and Jews have lived side-by-side in the Middle East for centuries with no more friction between them than Moslems/Hindus or Catholics/Protestants or Muslims/Christians elsewhere in the world. That, of course, doesn't mean that they didn't kill each other every now and then, but, on balance, they weren't any worse or better neighbors than most populations elsewhere in the world.#41 Adrian EvittsExcellent post.#44 bethpaGood comment - he is a "whistleblower", not a snitch and he's done a public service. However, I am not so charitable in terms of his motives. Given that he was a willing participant in the crimes, I believe he's now looking to cash in on his previous position. The "public service" of his actions is a by-product, not a motive, of his actions.#45 David Cunard1. Bin Laden (and/or his spokespeople) have been very clear in their objectives, most specifically in his fatwa/declaration well before the Sep '01 attacks. The press (in the US, at least) does a poor job of reporting his entire messages (usually under the pretext of their likely containing hidden instructions to sleeper cells.)2. The major purpose of "terrorism" is to create at least disillusionment in the government of the people being attacked. The theory is that given the inability of the terrorists themselves to achieve success by opposing the government, if the people lose confidence in that government, it will either be deposed or forced to change policies because of the public outcry, thus achieving the desired ends. Attacks on the US and UK and others were merely to influence public opinion in the countries that are enablers of the Israeli occupation/repression of the Palestinians. Attacks against Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries are intended to destabilize governments that are considered to be accomplices of the US.3. Although the topic of a worldwide caliphate is often cited, my _opinion_ is that it has no more significance than the Pope's desire to have the entire world Catholic. Religious arguments are used to enlist foot soldiers to a cause. There will always be a few crazies that take such exhortations seriously, but that is true with all religions and "civilizations" (e.g., Hagee and the Zio-Christian crazies). No serious person believes for a moment that the Northern Ireland "Troubles" were a Catholic/Protestant issue at heart, but both sides did use the religious issue as a means to enlist additional support for their cause. Fri 30 May 2008 23:49:59 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart David,I don't think OBL expects total victory, but he and the other former mujihadeen believe they defeated the Soviet Union, so who knows?There is no basis to expect rational behaviour, but it's conceivable that an overthrow attempt in Saudi might be stimulated. My main point, however, is that as long as we continue to unconditionally support such repugnant regimes, as well as direct intervention in Iraq, etc., we are his best recruiting agents. That and to question your (and others') contention that AlQaeda is bent on World Domination. I just don't think so. It is a response to an irritant - us.Salaam, etc.ed Fri 30 May 2008 23:31:47 GMT+1 David Cunard #40, E. I appreciate what you write: "He wants the Infidels out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia), and also the Zionist colonials out of Palestine" but that sounds so broad and ill-defined. To remove whole populations would have taxed even the resources and machiavellian brains of Nazi Germany. I cannot see how such violent acts against America or Spain or the United Kingdom (and/or others) can advance their cause. It would be as if the IRA had bombed Boston or the University of Notre Dame; although peripherally involved with things Irish, so doing would have had no effect on the British Government, except for inducing great sympathy. Even when claims are made for this or that organisation after another atrocity, there is no accompanying note to say "get out of Palestine" or any other demand. I might have more sympathy with their movement (but not their methods) if were better defined. Fri 30 May 2008 22:20:10 GMT+1 bethpa The reason Mc Clellan came out NOW with the book is to weaken the Bush administration so this administration does not start a war on Iran this fall. A war with Iran would protect Bush/Cheney et al for the charges that are coming about their breaking American laws.McClellan is not a "weasel" He realizes how dangerous the Bush administration is and is trying to limit them from causing further damage to America. My guess is that Mc Clellan is part of a group that is opposing the Bush administration and its attempt to further more war in the ME..Mc Clellan is not a "snitch" ..he is a whistle blower.And I thank God for Scott MClellan and his trying to save America from people who should never have been in the White HouseBush and Cheney should be tried in the Hague as war criminals Fri 30 May 2008 21:59:28 GMT+1 purpleDogzzz @41You are correct. I would compress that into, Who has caused the death of more innocent people? Al Queda or Bush/Blair?The answer is simple, Al Queda have killed less than 1/100th as many innocent people as Bush/Blair.That fact does not hurt me, but what does is that the mainstream media was complicit in the deliberate spreading of the lies that led to the invasion. They knew that Saddam had been comprehensively disarmed to the degree that Saddam no longer had ANY affective WMD capability. This was known, this was understood by all the independent experts at the time. The media suppressed the truth and promoted the lies. Fri 30 May 2008 20:22:41 GMT+1 purpleDogzzz This post has been Removed Fri 30 May 2008 20:13:55 GMT+1 Adrian_Evitts PART TWO - REASONING A WAY FORWARDCOLD LOGIC AND WAR IN AFGHANISTANThe police attend the scene of a homicide where the victim is dead and the perpetrator has apparently committed suicide. The police reasonably suspect that the perpetrator was employed by others still at large to commit the crime.Acting on the basis of reasonable suspicion, they are empowered to conduct an investigation, use reasonable (which in some circumstances may be lethal) force to apprehend person(s) on the basis of that suspicion, and then subject accused person(s) to a judicial process where guilt must be proved by the state beyond reasonable doubt. Upon conviction, provided that the case falls to be determined as a capital offence, the convicted person(s) then fall(s) liable to be sentenced to death. If the state cannot prove guilt to this standard, then the convicted person is entitled to his liberty.Suppose that the evidence against a person accused of conspiring to commit homicide consists of the following:(1) a hatred of the victim to the extent of wishing he were dead;(2) evidence that he associated with the kind of people who may well have had the means to commit the crime;(3) at various intervals, receipt by the police of recordings said to be made by the accused person in which he allegedly confesses to the crime (although it cannot be authoritatively stated to the criminal standard of proof that these recordings are of the accused person);(4) evidence of detained persons implicating the accused person obtained as a result of “torture or cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5, Universal Declaration of Human Rights).(1), (2) and (3) all taken together do not constitute sufficient evidence against an accused person to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence obtained under (4) is inadmissible. Here, the accused is entitled to his liberty.Suppose now that homicide is committed on a large scale, but again with evidence against an accused person being no stronger than that already outlined. How can a state justify the use of lethal force against large numbers of people, seven years into the process of investigation of a crime and the apprehension of persons reasonably suspected of it, if the evidence against them would be no stronger than this (even if it were possible to take the suspects alive)?If we have the courage to distance ourselves from the highly emotive effect of 9/11, and consider the evidence against persons like Bin Laden (for whom I am no apologist), can we honestly say that the case is one of which we could convict him in a court of law?And if we do honestly acknowledge this, what purpose is served by continuing to use lethal force if we cannot even be sure that Bin Laden is alive, or even if Bin Laden is in the place where that lethal force is being used?And if, in the process of apprehending or eliminating persons we believe are guilty of a crime in which 3,000 people were killed, we take the lives of many more innocent people than that, do we not stand to be considered as, in some ways, no better than the persons we are seeking to punish for it?Before you accuse me of sheltering behind mealy-mouthed legalese, ask yourself: isn't the “war on terror” being waged in defence of so-called civilised behaviour, including the rule of law? I fully expect severe criticism for these observations. Go right ahead. Fri 30 May 2008 19:36:45 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart David, "Apart from the desire to convert the globe to Islam, Al Qaeda's aims seem to me to be elusive - "I think you're being a wee bit disingenuous. Bin Laden has made himself very clear. He wants the Infidels out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia), and also the Zionist colonials out of Palestine. The Saudis are unwilling to ask the US troops to leave for two reasons:1. They aren't sure the USA would accede to such a request.2. The troops are there in part to secure the rather unsavoury Saudi regime, should the people take a notion to overthrow the dictatorship.The Zionist colonists, of course, have unconditional US support as well, even to the withdrawal of Fullbright awards to imprisoned Gazans, as noted elsewhere today.Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace Namaste -ed Fri 30 May 2008 19:26:27 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Here's Scotty!Perfect timing, bei mir.xxed Fri 30 May 2008 18:59:59 GMT+1 David Cunard The problem with Scott McClellan's book, which I for one have not read, is surely with its timing. Had it been published in February next, the reaction to it from all who have adversely criticised both it and the writer, might have been more positive. Publishing a 'tell-all' volume, whether it be a living celebrity or politician - or while an administration remains in power - is always treading on thin ice. The obvious difference between the IRA (including Sinn Fein) and Al Qaeda is that with the Irish, it was known where they were. Despite all efforts, Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts has not been discovered and, as far as is known, the group has not been infiltrated by Western operatives. Although Winston Churchill said it was better to "jaw jaw than war war", the first order of business would be to find someone in authority to talk with. However, as #32 DutchNemo notes, the aims of the two organizations are very different: the IRA and Sinn Fein did not seek to make the world (Roman) Catholic, but rather to unite the two parts of Ireland. Apart from the desire to convert the globe to Islam, Al Qaeda's aims seem to me to be elusive - what did destroying the World Trade Center achieve for them? Appalling as many actions of the IRA were (equally unacceptable as those of Al Qaeda) at least it was known what they wanted: reunification. Fri 30 May 2008 18:43:13 GMT+1 StephMar jacksforgeI keep reading this in your posts where you claim people don't know what they are talking about.Why don't you provide your credentials because I haven't read a single post from you that was backed by any sources or data. It's mostly very emotional and actually even offensive and you keep obstinately arguing with people who back their facts. Post #15 actually provides info on the posters background. So you seem to keep arguing just to argue. You know on blogs like this you usually provide reasonable arguments backed by facts and people share their often opposing opinions and you seem to take everything as a personal offense and return with namecalling. I notcied that people stopped responding to you posts just because it seems pointless. Fri 30 May 2008 18:23:15 GMT+1 jacksforge secret skrivvers. so were you in the IRA or another group,just so as to understand the credentials of your claim to have Inside knowledge. Not because I disbelieve you per se but having read many post here from some that claim to know things that in the long run seem a little inflated. I had heard the same but it was in reference to an earlier stage. One thing that did happen way the IRA attacked Harrods and many americans finally found it offensive, what with the Chrimbo rush and all. The money stopped coming in.Then the terrorists turned to attacking signal stations on the rail tracks. Stopped bombing people, this led to many saying that though they thought the IRA were terrorists at least they were not killing people.thats a start (plus we all got a day off when the trains were stopped.ooh (in very quiet whisper;thnkyou.) They evolved as most "terrorist" organisations do and when there was a chance of talks.the brits took it. An american peacemaker was sent.As to the assurtion that there were two sides. WRONG there were many more. the factions are still fighting for their identity. Fri 30 May 2008 17:50:29 GMT+1 jacksforge I'm beginning to believe that the only thing the democrats have going for them is their ability to be right in hindsight. Would it be too much to ask them to get it right at the time?Yea if you go for Obama Fri 30 May 2008 17:32:01 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham powermeerkat,I think we first have to know what he knew when he was fronting, don't we. I know if I were planning on conning a nation into a groundless war I would want as convincing a front man as possible, which might just mean not filling him in on the inconvenient facts. Fri 30 May 2008 17:07:23 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Meerkat,Good question. He must be a slow learner.How about "Talking to the Gnerals"?Salaam, etc.ed Fri 30 May 2008 17:07:15 GMT+1 DutchNemo You can't compare Al-Qaida with the IRA. The IRA didn't desire a worldwide 'Catholic Empire'. Islamfascists do desire a global Caliphate. This is why we can't negotiate with Islamic extremists like Osama bin Laden. They don't desire peace so they will continue to attack us. We must fight them. Meanwhile we should invest in places like Waziristan. Poverty generates extremism so when we are able to reduce poverty in those regions we will reduce the total amount of possible Al-Qaida and Taliban recruits to. The War on Terror is a War on Poverty to. Fri 30 May 2008 16:57:45 GMT+1 powermeerkat What do we to think about a credibility and integrity of a person who continued fronting for people and policies he didn't agree with when he could have easily resigned? Fri 30 May 2008 16:26:17 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Wise words, Walkingbeard. Namaste I second all you say. Treat the cause rather than the symptom.Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace -ed Fri 30 May 2008 16:18:48 GMT+1 David Hanneman SecretSkivver wrote:Northern Ireland is a very clear case where 'war on terror' worked.======================Well, while you are right that Britain armied the militant republicans into submission, you still point out that Adams and McGuiness persuaded their people to put down their arms, instead of continuing a war of fruitless urban insurrection.As per Mr Orde's speculation, maybe there are a couple of hundred vehemently militant republicans left. There would certainly be more than that without the dialogue carried out through the medium of Sinn Fein.Hardline Islam is something for the "200 die-hards" of militant Islam. Most of the fighters will have come to their militancy through seeing the horrible effects of American economic and military aggression. What *they* want is for American influence to dry up and for their markedly different culture to be free of outside influence. Even many Western liberals want that for their homeland.If you can satisfy the situation-driven militants, you isolate and marginalise the few ideologists. That's what I think Orde was saying, and what some responsible American might do well to bear in mind. Fri 30 May 2008 15:55:40 GMT+1 lordSimon21 "As for McClellan's book, it's another criticism of Bush written in "hindsight". There is a curious tendency to critique Bush after the fact. "Yes, but all books of memoirs and record are written in "hindsight" And it would surely be positively bizzare to criticise anyone before the facts are established.To put it simply Bush would not be criticised for his blundering invasion of Iraq, if he had not actually invaded. Fri 30 May 2008 15:48:36 GMT+1 s_slatt They certainly misunderestimated his ability to lie cheat and steal his way into the Whitehouse in the first place, and then everyone misunderestimated the Dems' ability to oust him 4 years later! Fri 30 May 2008 15:39:05 GMT+1 MMarcelo AndreainNY (#13) - You seem to be saying that terrorists are strictly non-westerners - please correct me if I am mistaken. I just wanted to point out that the most devastating act of terrorism on U.S. soil before 9/11 was the Oklahoma City Bombing. Also, Scott McClellan was a White House Press Secretary for President G.W. Bush. He is a Republican. The fact that he is condemning this administration (though he is partly to blame for misleading the public) is not simple partisan rhetoric. He was a Republican insider and his book has effectively ended his career in politics. Fri 30 May 2008 15:30:21 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart I think the truth is more like far too many folk misoverestimated him.xxedIt's time I'm talkin' to bin LadenI'm talkin' to bin LadenI'm going to need a new kinda BluesWhen I get through talkin' to youWhen I finally find bin LadenI've got my RPG in my handThrough with trashin' other folks' landI'm leavin' Iraq todayYes, I'm goin' back home to stayYes, I'm talkin' to bin LadenY'all used to be his honeyTill Shrub spent all your moneyNo use for you to cryI'll see you bye and byeCause I'm talkin' to bin LadenI've got no time for walkin'I've got to keep on talkin'New Orleans ain't my homeThat's the reason why I'm goin'Yes, I'm talkin' to bin LadenFADE:I'm talkin' to bin LadenI'm talkin' to bin LadenI'm talkin' to bin Laden(With apologies to Fats Domino) Fri 30 May 2008 15:06:44 GMT+1