The Middle East and Western Asia: Bit of a hot spot?

[toc_bat]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Hussein was certainly helped by the americans to gain power, there is evidence he was a CIA operative in the 60's before gaining the leadership of the Bath party. After he did the CIA handed him a list of hundreds, 500-600 Iraqi communists which were promptly executed.

Hussei was one of the few secterian, non religious leaders, under his leadership Baghdad was one of the few if not only Arabic countries that had a Jewish population with its own mosque.

Bush may be a secterian leader of a secterian country but the constant references to God save America, and God is on our side makes me wonder just how secterian the current american leadership is.
Ayatolla Khomeini was helped to power by a popular revolution because the USA backed Shah of Iran was so opressive the situation arose whereby many Iranians willingly backed Khomeini.

The Taliban was heavily backed by the USA, yet again and Pakistan. THe USA was very hopefull that the Taliban would unite Afghanistan and provide stability in the country so that their pipeline from Khazakstan could reach the sea.

Just about every reperessive regime since WWII has had help or encouragment from the US. The CIA has had a hand in over 50 coup dé tat, very democratic stuff indeed, there is still a lot of controversy surrounding the sacking of Whitlam, some of which is about whether the CIA or USA told John Kerr that if he sacks Whitlam, the USA will recognise this as a legal move. Post WWII greece was graced with a repressive fascist regime for about 25 yrs, fascists which were very active witht eh Nazis of WWII, these guys were supported by the USA because they were a better alternative for them - not the greeks necessarily, than the possible greek socialists. Remember Noriega? A CIA agent and president of Panama! What about Augusto Pinochet, supported by the US because Allende wanted to nationalise US owned mines in Chile, I think you will find the USA is the most destructive force on the planet, certainly we, england, most of europe and canada, NZ, benefit from that destructivness. Oh just on our doorstep, the USA and AUSTRALIA actively helped Suharto gain control of Indonesia and exterminate up to a Million 'communists'. Most of whom were primitive villagers living in commuist controlled areas. Basically we the powerfull play chess with the rest of the world, its about time they united and turned the tables on us and wiped us all out. Huauauahahahhaaa

ps WHAT ABOUT THE VIETNAM WAR!?!?!? 4 MILLION dead, mostly peasants, living in the jungle, 10s of 1000s of american and aussie soldiers suffering from agent orange exposure, man Hussain or any other bad guy doesn't even come close to such madness, yet we so readily forget and forgive such reprehensible stuff simply cos we did it, the only way any of this will stop is if individuals stop taking sides simply beacuse they were born into a culture.

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Hussein was certainly helped by the americans to gain power, there is evidence he was a CIA operative in the 60's before gaining the leadership of the Bath party. After he did the CIA handed him a list of hundreds, 500-600 Iraqi communists which were promptly executed.

Hussei was one of the few secterian, non religious leaders, under his leadership Baghdad was one of the few if not only Arabic countries that had a Jewish population with its own mosque.

Bush may be a secterian leader of a secterian country but the constant references to God save America, and God is on our side makes me wonder just how secterian the current american leadership is.
Ayatolla Khomeini was helped to power by a popular revolution because the USA backed Shah of Iran was so opressive the situation arose whereby many Iranians willingly backed Khomeini.

The Taliban was heavily backed by the USA, yet again and Pakistan. THe USA was very hopefull that the Taliban would unite Afghanistan and provide stability in the country so that their pipeline from Khazakstan could reach the sea.

Just about every reperessive regime since WWII has had help or encouragment from the US. The CIA has had a hand in over 50 coup dé tat, very democratic stuff indeed, there is still a lot of controversy surrounding the sacking of Whitlam, some of which is about whether the CIA or USA told John Kerr that if he sacks Whitlam, the USA will recognise this as a legal move. Post WWII greece was graced with a repressive fascist regime for about 25 yrs, fascists which were very active witht eh Nazis of WWII, these guys were supported by the USA because they were a better alternative for them - not the greeks necessarily, than the possible greek socialists. Remember Noriega? A CIA agent and president of Panama! What about Augusto Pinochet, supported by the US because Allende wanted to nationalise US owned mines in Chile, I think you will find the USA is the most destructive force on the planet, certainly we, england, most of europe and canada, NZ, benefit from that destructivness. Oh just on our doorstep, the USA and AUSTRALIA actively helped Suharto gain control of Indonesia and exterminate up to a Million 'communists'. Most of whom were primitive villagers living in commuist controlled areas. Basically we the powerfull play chess with the rest of the world, its about time they united and turned the tables on us and wiped us all out. Huauauahahahhaaa

ps WHAT ABOUT THE VIETNAM WAR!?!?!? 4 MILLION dead, mostly peasants, living in the jungle, 10s of 1000s of american and aussie soldiers suffering from agent orange exposure, man Hussain or any other bad guy doesn't even come close to such madness, yet we so readily forget and forgive such reprehensible stuff simply cos we did it, the only way any of this will stop is if individuals stop taking sides simply beacuse they were born into a culture.

The US also backed Indonesia invading East Timor in 75. The day before the invasion, Kissinger was in Jakarta......The reason they allowed it was that Fretilin was a Marxist based political organisation. They were happy that 'Communists' were not spreading any further, and there is talk that Australia supported it at the time as well for the same reasons.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

it always comes down to a choice between the better of two evils, sure america flexes their power to the benefit of their economy but so does every other country.

My point here is that if you think the US is the only country with secret organisations running around killing people and funding coups then you are being nieve.

Every country in the world buts its own interests first. Sure America has gained alot out of its intervention and globalisation of world economies and politics but because of this most people in the world live in safe, secure societies with jobs and opportunities.

Before you critise America for killing 4 million people in Vietnam look at cambodia where Pol Pot murdered more than that of his own countrymen.

If you want to see a country flexing its economic power right now look at russia they doubled the price of Gas to Belarus , why?. Because they wouldn't go along with what the Russians want. Now Germany and Polland have no Oil flowing into the country.

It is also a well known fact that China has huge influence and dodgy dealings going on with Island nations of the south Pacific. Not to mention the thousands of missles pointed at Tiawan which they will use if they declare independance.

We can all sit here and critisize the roles America has played in many countries throughout History but does anyone really know what the alternative would have being like.

I for one do not want to live in a communist country ie china or even the non communist Russia now where people are poor, starving and get paid virtually nothing for working lives of hard labour

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

it always comes down to a choice between the better of two evils, sure america flexes their power to the benefit of their economy but so does every other country.

My point here is that if you think the US is the only country with secret organisations running around killing people and funding coups then you are being nieve.

Every country in the world buts its own interests first. Sure America has gained alot out of its intervention and globalisation of world economies and politics but because of this most people in the world live in safe, secure societies with jobs and opportunities.

Before you critise America for killing 4 million people in Vietnam look at cambodia where Pol Pot murdered more than that of his own countrymen.

If you want to see a country flexing its economic power right now look at russia they doubled the price of Gas to Belarus , why?. Because they wouldn't go along with what the Russians want. Now Germany and Polland have no Oil flowing into the country.

It is also a well known fact that China has huge influence and dodgy dealings going on with Island nations of the south Pacific. Not to mention the thousands of missles pointed at Tiawan which they will use if they declare independance.

We can all sit here and critisize the roles America has played in many countries throughout History but does anyone really know what the alternative would have being like.

I for one do not want to live in a communist country ie china or even the non communist Russia now where people are poor, starving and get paid virtually nothing for working lives of hard labour

So Kiwi, overall, do you think Americas intervention in the Middle East is a positive or a negative or is it too complicated to be cut and dry?

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

I believe it can be a positive, at the moment it can go either way and we are at the fork in the road.

I think that it was unfortunatly necessary, even though i ackknowledge it is a disaster of there in Iraq right now.
Honestly i think there are some issues within the muslim religeon itself between sectarian differences which needed to be sorted out by muslims and the countries they live in not by foreigners.

I believe that if America had not gone into Iraq then these issues could have spread further within the region and perhapes into other regions. I think they could have gone about it in a better way and I dislike George Bush because i think he like Putin have personal stakes in the situaton.

I see the three big powers of the world being China, Russia (emerging as potential super powers in relation to energy and economies) and the US and all trying to establish their footholds in the regions which in this ever increasingly energy hungry world will become more important.

Unfortunately I think the world is in for a big shock in this century with global warming, energy issues and the environment degradation on a worldwide scale. The middle east is only one piece of this puzzle. If all these aren't properly addressed I think we are in for troubled times.

 

[OK2]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Off the topic guys just for one moment,

A friend of mine who is a firefighter saved for his first overseas trip and adventure. He only ever wanted to go to the great USA, where else would anyone want to go. He was going to use the 12 week trip to coincide with the 9/11 Memorial March which is open to emergency workers from around the world. He arrived in Washington and was treated more like an illegal immigrant than a tourist from Australia. He found the food to be extremely poor and this is a guy who lives off the Big Mac. When travelling to his hotel the bus deviated 2 blocks from a straight line and when he asked the bus driver why the answer was "I do not like taking bullets!" To get a meal outside of the hotel the doorman insisted that it was hotel policy to hail a cab afterhours for guests, even though he was only travelling 200 meters the doorman went on to explain of what lurked in the shadows. At the restaurant he had a number of conversations which were dead beat until he came accross some Brit backpackers who were the life of the party and they went on to explain they were heading home early because the US was not for them. They left a few hours later and his last conversation that night was with an American who asked him what language we speak in Australia? The next morning he booked an early flight back home and lost all of his prepaid holiday money. He spent the rest of his holiday travelling the east coast of Australia as the Brit backpackers had recommended and he is now saving to visit Europe!

 

[ironchef]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

toc_bat, you have excellent historical/contemprary knowledge of the world. Bravo.

Everyone, i'd recommend reading news from:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
It is a great source of news that you will not see from other sources.

 

[Buster]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

toc_bat, you have excellent historical/contemprary knowledge of the world. Bravo.

Indeed, he certainly has a better grasp, and seemingly unbiased, than most..

Going back in time a little further though, like say the first time George became president.. and took the time (along with his mates/buddies) to create a couple of 'amendments'.. I'm talking about George Washington now, and a wide range of constitutional amendments that ensured that, specifically, no one man would hold too much power. Hence the need for the 'congress' (power of the people) to keep the man in check.

Unfortunately, our Boy George (Dubya) has breeched pretty much all of them (illegally obviously e.g. http://www.schneier.com/essay-102.html) whilst in power, and amazingly (or sadly) congress has since handed over some of their power of veto to, what the old boys expressly feared, one man.. the president (aka The Dolt).

So why are we in IRAQ at the moment?? Hmmm.. Dolt for President, surrounded by advisors and contractors hell bent on imperial expansion and/or chasing the big bucks (The Vice, Cheney, is both advisor AND contractor!!).. Seems simple enough, cull some of the white trash that are using our oxygen, increase our holdings and control in the ME, secure the second largest known oil rich environment on the planet & make bookoo dollars in the process.. lets go with 'Weapons of Mass Deception'..

Not too dissimilar to our own AWB.. 'Hey, we're sending our troops over your way to enforce sanctions.. Here’s a few bucks to buy bullets'..

regards,

Buster

 

[toc_bat]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

a few months before the sacond Iraqi US war i met some very nice and friendly americans, i mean it they were nice and friendly, in their mid 20s at college, ie ought to be reasonably intelligent to be doing university degrees, anyway all their intelligence seemed to immediately dissipate when we started talking about the latest intended invasion of Iraq,

but wait for the punch line,

their concern was not about WMDs or Husseins dictatorial evils, no they said something to the effect - (it was a few years ago so i cant give direct quotes) so paraphrasing them would go something like this:

"we gotta that mad man [Hussein] out of there, he is sitting on OUR oil"

oh my god, my jaw dropped through the crust all the way to china, how much would i prefer some ignorant fool to tell me about bad guys and WMDs and us and them, instead these guys see Iraqi oil as theirs, goes without saying I reckon that they see the whole planet, moon, solar system, all of godly creation as theirs.

and if you listen critically to a lot of american commentators, esp right wing guys, white house spokespeople, some american retired general that jana wendt intervied pre war, then the same sentiments, although a bit more veiled keep coming through.

i have often heard things like, " ... we will attack Iraq when it suits us ... ", or " .... the world order has changed and it is now time for our investment in our military forces to be put into use and we intend to use those forces to further our economic interests ... ". These kinds of things now get said quite openly in interviews with prominent americans, you simply have to pay attention. The thing is i reckon these sentiments have been there for a long time in certain sections of society but they were not utterable, what has changed is all the brakes have been taken of, the conservatives are in power and flexing their muscles and have created an unbridled atmosphere where these previously unheard sentiments are now being the norm.

PS there was a discussion on NPR, a community radio network in the USA - National Public Radio, it was on a news commentary and current affairs program that gets replayed in sydney by 2SER (a sydney community radio station) anyway the discussion was pre Iraq attack, at a time when many comentators and people in the US were saying the US will attack both Iraq and North Korea. The concesus within the discussion was that the US will not attack North Korea because it can not afford the financial burden of fighting on two fronts!!!! AAARRRGGGGGGHHHHH - what are they saying between the lines??!?! Not we cant attack because diplomacy is not yet exhausted, we cant attack because war is immoral, we cant attack because North Korea has nukes - no, we cant attack because it will be to expensive!!!

PPS 2SER and its national equivalents, i know there is a similar station Melbourne, are by far the best sources of info on the radio. Example, during the children over board scandal prior to the federal election, when every journo was swallowing the govt line with hook and sinker, 2SER decided to ring Christmas Island, they spoke to an alderman that told them: " ... the sailors from the naval vessel involved have been going to the local pub, and after some drinks have told the locals that the children overboard line was completely false, that in fact the vessel sunk and that is how the refugees got into the water ..." again paraphrased. The TRUTH had become common knowledge on Christmas Island! Wow that was 6 weeks prior to the election that was partly won due to this scandal, and months before the truth came out. So if the sailors knew, so did their officers on board, and so did the admirals back in Canberra and hence the politicians in the Govt who spun the lie. Listen to 2SER!

 

[wayneL]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

a few months before the sacond Iraqi US war i met some very nice and friendly americans, i mean it they were nice and friendly, in their mid 20s at college, ie ought to be reasonably intelligent to be doing university degrees, anyway all their intelligence seemed to immediately dissipate when we started talking about the latest intended invasion of Iraq,

but wait for the punch line,

their concern was not about WMDs or Husseins dictatorial evils, no they said something to the effect - (it was a few years ago so i cant give direct quotes) so paraphrasing them would go something like this:

"we gotta that mad man [Hussein] out of there, he is sitting on OUR oil"

oh my god, my jaw dropped through the crust all the way to china, how much would i prefer some ignorant fool to tell me about bad guys and WMDs and us and them, instead these guys see Iraqi oil as theirs, goes without saying I reckon that they see the whole planet, moon, solar system, all of godly creation as theirs.

and if you listen critically to a lot of american commentators, esp right wing guys, white house spokespeople, some american retired general that jana wendt intervied pre war, then the same sentiments, although a bit more veiled keep coming through.

i have often heard things like, " ... we will attack Iraq when it suits us ... ", or " .... the world order has changed and it is now time for our investment in our military forces to be put into use and we intend to use those forces to further our economic interests ... ". These kinds of things now get said quite openly in interviews with prominent americans, you simply have to pay attention. The thing is i reckon these sentiments have been there for a long time in certain sections of society but they were not utterable, what has changed is all the brakes have been taken of, the conservatives are in power and flexing their muscles and have created an unbridled atmosphere where these previously unheard sentiments are now being the norm.

PS there was a discussion on NPR, a community radio network in the USA - National Public Radio, it was on a news commentary and current affairs program that gets replayed in sydney by 2SER (a sydney community radio station) anyway the discussion was pre Iraq attack, at a time when many comentators and people in the US were saying the US will attack both Iraq and North Korea. The concesus within the discussion was that the US will not attack North Korea because it can not afford the financial burden of fighting on two fronts!!!! AAARRRGGGGGGHHHHH - what are they saying between the lines??!?! Not we cant attack because diplomacy is not yet exhausted, we cant attack because war is immoral, we cant attack because North Korea has nukes - no, we cant attack because it will be to expensive!!!

PPS 2SER and its national equivalents, i know there is a similar station Melbourne, are by far the best sources of info on the radio. Example, during the children over board scandal prior to the federal election, when every journo was swallowing the govt line with hook and sinker, 2SER decided to ring Christmas Island, they spoke to an alderman that told them: " ... the sailors from the naval vessel involved have been going to the local pub, and after some drinks have told the locals that the children overboard line was completely false, that in fact the vessel sunk and that is how the refugees got into the water ..." again paraphrased. The TRUTH had become common knowledge on Christmas Island! Wow that was 6 weeks prior to the election that was partly won due to this scandal, and months before the truth came out. So if the sailors knew, so did their officers on board, and so did the admirals back in Canberra and hence the politicians in the Govt who spun the lie. Listen to 2SER!

All too sickeningly true Toc Bat.

The moral bancruptcy in that place emits an unbearable stench.

Wayne (ex yank)

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

More engineered media to prepare us for attacks against Syria and Iran.....

U.S. denies military plans against Iran, Syria
Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:36pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States denied on Friday it was preparing for military action against Iran and Syria, after President George W. Bush issued a stern warning to them, raising concerns of a spillover from the Iraq war.

Bush, in his speech on Wednesday unveiling his revised Iraq strategy, accused Tehran and Damascus of allowing use of their territory for launching attacks inside Iraq, and vowed "we will interrupt the flow of support."

U.S. lawmakers voiced concern on Thursday the Iraq war could spread to neighboring Iran and Syria if U.S. troops were to chase militants across the border. But U.S. officials insisted the plan was to disrupt supply lines from inside Iraq.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said he wanted to knock down an "urban legend" that Bush was "trying to prepare the way for war with either country and that there were war preparations under way."

"There are not," he told reporters. "What the president was talking about is defending American forces within Iraq."

"There's lots of war gaming," he added. "This notion that somehow the president was announcing as a precursor to planned military action, a planned war against Iran, that's just not the case."

Snow reiterated that Washington was focusing on diplomatic means against Iran over its nuclear program. Western powers say Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants nuclear technology for civilian power generation.

The United States has repeatedly accused Shi'ite Iran of meddling in Iraq, where the long-oppressed Shi'ite majority is now in power and sectarian violence is raging. Tehran denies U.S. charges that it supplies Shi'ite militias with weapons.

Bush also said he had ordered an additional aircraft carrier strike group to the region and would deploy Patriot missile defense systems to "reassure our friends and allies" -- steps widely seen as a warning to Iran and Syria.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks against militant networks in Iran and Syria.

 

[kgee]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Spin?


Terror cells in Bush's sights
Friday, January 12, 2007
Greg Sheridan


A US military strike against Iran must now be considered formally on the international agenda, following George W. Bush’s sombre, calm, but in substance extraordinarily bold address on Iraq.

Bush accused Iran of providing material assistance for attacks on US troops in Iraq.

It is hard to imagine a more serious accusation.

What’s more, Bush promised to stop such Iranian actions.

Whatever you think of Bush, he has a very high level of credibility when it comes to carrying out any threat he makes of military action.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Should journalists spin be believed?

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Should journalists spin be believed?

Good question Snake.

Is the media but the barometer of the public opinion, or do they create opinion?

 

[billhill]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

I think the Americans will take a back seat on Iran so to speak. They will do alot behind the scenes while Israel takes the lead and attacks Iran. Israel will never let nuclear weapons be developed by other countries in the middle east but its most likely going to be a sustained missle and air war as a ground invasion will leave their home territories vulnerable to attacks from palastinian, syrian, lebanese and egyptian militia or military forces. So long as iran attempts to develop nuclear weapons the middle east will remain on a knife edge.

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

I think the Americans will take a back seat on Iran so to speak. They will do alot behind the scenes while Israel takes the lead and attacks Iran. Israel will never let nuclear weapons be developed by other countries in the middle east but its most likely going to be a sustained missle and air war as a ground invasion will leave their home territories vulnerable to attacks from palastinian, syrian, lebanese and egyptian militia or military forces. So long as iran attempts to develop nuclear weapons the middle east will remain on a knife edge.

I agree to some extent here Bill, but Israel don't have the arsenal for a protracted, sustained bombing campaign of Iran. They ran out of bombs just bombing Hezbolah. They will need the US's logiistic support, if not material forces to conduct a detailed campaign. I imagine strategic bombers will be required with Special Forces on the ground to be calling the bombs in. And you are right about the rest of the region, to some extent. I don't think Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Lebanon, or especially Turkey would back Iran. The US is still too powerful for these countries to risk all out war in the region. The US could launch an all out attack on the region with just their submarines and a squadron of B2s! But, as you stated, Israel, and especially the US will NOT allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability. It changes the balance of power in the Middle East too much.

 

[billhill]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Israel don't have the arsenal for a protracted, sustained bombing campaign of Iran

Yes you are right, but who knows maybe the US will ship huge supplies of military hardware to israel or even launch a few missiles themselves letting the israelis claim them. They are after all made by the same companies.

An israeli attack on iran could be a perfect tactical move for the bush administration to legitamise a war using their own force. Hypothetically if israel were to strike iran likely relatitory attacks would occur not just against israel but also probably US forces in the area. This would mobilise the American public and bush would probably be given the go ahead to retaliate, all the while keeping the chinese and russians objections from being relavent.

 

[Buster]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Hey Kennas,

Is the media but the barometer of the public opinion, or do they create opinion?

OR, are they simply banging out the claptrap from our political masters and the swags of professional spin doctors, in good faith?? We only get to see and hear what they (Politicians/Spinners) want us to see and hear, and having it spread by the media gives it some sort of credibility. I don't know why exactly, but people seem to accept information from an 'independent' source easier.. and there is a great deal that ‘we don’t know we don’t know.. [Had to get some Don in there.. ]

Ever heard of the Term 'Blowback'?? It's a CIA term created many, many moons ago, Google it, you'll find some interesting articles..

Here’s one for starters.. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

Regards,


Buster

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

Yes you are right, but who knows maybe the US will ship huge supplies of military hardware to israel or even launch a few missiles themselves letting the israelis claim them. They are after all made by the same companies.

An israeli attack on iran could be a perfect tactical move for the bush administration to legitamise a war using their own force. Hypothetically if israel were to strike iran likely relatitory attacks would occur not just against israel but also probably US forces in the area. This would mobilise the American public and bush would probably be given the go ahead to retaliate, all the while keeping the chinese and russians objections from being relavent.

Yes, in regard to US missile strike, we only heard about a fraction of what was launched in Iraq in the initial days if the war. They could do quite a bit clandestinely.

I am not too sure about China and Russia though. They are becomming more and more powerful by the day. There will come a time when the US wants to do something and they say, 'NO, you are not in control of the world now!' It's not too far off......

And, in regard to the American public, they are so blindly insular and have no understanding of the rest of the world that I would not be surprised if they rally behind old Dubya, and be led to their inevitable doom.

 

[billhill]

Re: The Middle East - Set for disaster - again

I am not too sure about China and Russia though. They are becomming more and more powerful by the day. There will come a time when the US wants to do something and they say, 'NO, you are not in control of the world now!' It's not too far off......

Thats why i think an attack on iran will come sooner rather then later. The US knows if they can secure large energy supplies before russia or china can do anything about it they will remain at the top of the tree for many years to come.

And, in regard to the American public, they are so blindly insular and have no understanding of the rest of the world that I would not be surprised if they rally behind old Dubya, and be led to their inevitable doom.

Yes Kennas i too am guilty of bashing the yanks for their apparent ignorance, but the US is a great nation and come 2 years time i think it will be back to the good old clinton days literally. The US have had bad leadership which has quite frankly made them vunerable to critcisms they would have shaken off during the clinton era. They may have continued problems in the middle east but under new leadership i think they will return to their former glory.