Iamon lyme: Yep.. a few papers took hold of a few papers and said it proved that cooling was starting... despite that few papers being 7 and 44 saying global warming was a good probability.

Blame the press!! lol

Bernice: Like with WMD's.... but they were wrong about that. Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam... but they were wrong about that.

That everyone who was not a Christian (and only the born again type) was bound for hell... Someone here was so sure about that.

Even Glenn Beck was bound to hell by the views of this person and his worships a false prophet..

... but now they worship Glenn Beck.

How times change LMAO

Btw... my point of the radiation of Nuclear above ground tests...

The steel they need to make Geiger counters has to be from pre 1945 smelted steel. Basically, they scavenge off sunken WWII vessels.

Since 1945, the smelting process is using air contaminated with radioactive particles which makes the Geiger counter useless.

Also it seems to forgotten about how leukaemia cases in children seemed to rise for no reason whatsoever.... or was it that Strontium-90 was being absorbed by kids bones....

..."The study's final results showed that children born in 1963 had levels of 90Sr in their deciduous teeth that was 50 times higher than that found in children born in 1950, before the advent of large-scale atomic testing. An article with the study's initial findings was circulated to U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1961, and helped convince him to sign the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the United Kingdom and Soviet Union, ending the above-ground nuclear weapons testing that placed the greatest amounts of nuclear fallout into the atmosphere."

IE... we poisoned our own children in order to look like big kids with big bombs.

Übergeek 바둑이: Bush isn't the point. The point is that the darling of the left took money from the big corporations just like any other politician. Obama is NO DIFFERENT than the rest. Even though he campaigned on being a cut above the rest. He's cut from the same cloth.

Bernice: It's amazing how much money is spent on getting someone elected to office. What a waste.

Like Sarah Palin and the reported $250,000 the Republican party spent on her dresses during the 2008 campaign to make her look good.

But shhhhhhhhh it's not the point.

I wonder if Sarah Palin think everyone who's not Christian (or as some Christians say, specifically not a born again Christian) is going to Hell??

What do you think Dan?

(V): I think you're trolling.

Artful Dodger: I usually don't click on links, as I am afraid of getting a virus which might give me a runny nose that drips onto my keyboard and shorts it out, but on the off chance that I might not be you I should probably take a look at it. If I've already seen it because I posted it then I'll have to re-evaluate the facts surrounding the question of my being a separately existing sentient being..

Vikings: That's right, I had forgotten that. They are already in the process of distancing themselves from their own global warming prediction. Sometime down the road, after making other changes to the rhetoric, they can then claim that global warming was never an issue.

I know how stupid that sounds, because who would believe that global warming proponents never warned us about global warming? A few years ago I was involved in a debate over another subject, where someone claimed opposition to the big bang theory had nothing to do with religion. I was alive at the time when some scientists opposed the big bang theory because of how it resembled the genesis account of creation. If you compared both the steady state universe and big bang theories to the genesis account, it's a no brainer which one comes closest to resembling the biblical acccount. But here it is only a few years ago someone is telling me that never happened. It makes me wonder, how many other things never happened that I've personally witnessed?

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: I'll have to wait until tomorrow to hear the link. I didn't think of taking earphones with me to my favorite wi-fi spot this evening, and it's difficult to hear what my computer is trying to say. And when I say favorite spot, I mean it's only a 15 minute walk from my home. I'll probably get internet service at my home before the new year, but until then I'll be slumming it.

You wealthy fat cats (that's code for 'employed') have it easy, but I need to venture outside and walk to get my online fix... I have to work before I can get my pop corn brain cells popping.

Artful Dodger: Just looking back at how peoples views change Dan.

Like when you said Saddam had WMD's.... Like when you said you like Obama..

Politics (Artful Dodger, 2009-01-25 05:37:17)

Iamon lyme: I could just use my neighbors hot spot. lol But I think I'd get caught. I may get an iphone and then I'd have internet everywhere. There goes my life! lol

(V): News flash for ya Sherlock. Saddam DID have WMDs. Everybody knew it. He'd used them. So it wan't brain science to conclude he might still have stockpiles. Former presidents, democrats and republicans, liberal news commentators, ALL OF THEM are on record saying Saddam was a destructive force and had access to WMDs. There, now you're no longer clueless on that subject.

And as for liking Obama at one time, look at his election victory numbers and his current polls. His poll numbers indicate that much of his support has been lost. So like me, they liked him in the beginning but after seeing his true colors, they changed their minds. Open minded people do that ya know.

Artful Dodger: Yes... he did. The ones that he used on Iran supplied via the US. But at the time of the Invasion of Iraq by Bush he did not, otherwise We'd have found them.

Iraq was just an easy victory... or was supposed to be.

Are you that clueless you don't know that?

(V): I know everything about it. But you keep harping that there were no WMDs found. There are many possible explanations for this.

Artful Dodger: Please explain. I'd like to hear your theories....

But.. if you know everything, why are there so "many possible explanations"?

(V): You have no interest in my theories. You're just trolling again. WMDs is OLD NEWS and everything that can be known is known about it. So you won't surprise me with anything new here. You need to find a current issue with which to disagree.

Artful Dodger: I would like to hear. It'd be interesting to see what the right neo cons invented to back up Bush.

But I'll guess it's a big zero.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama is NO DIFFERENT than the rest. Even though he campaigned on being a cut above the rest. He's cut from the same cloth.

The question is: Is there anyone who is not like the rest?

Is there any Democrat or Republican who has not taken money from corporations or wealthy businessmen?

I think at this point the only political party not takiing money from corporations is probably the Communist Party USA!

Well, many Americans want to believe that somehow Democrats and Republicans are really different, but they do have two things in common: greed and hypocrysy.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well, without big money and support from corporations or individuals nowadays in the US there is no effective election campaign.

I think maybe the US needs to take on a UK system regarding TV advertising. In the UK such advertising is limited but free. Even during a general election parties get just a few slots per week.

Thank God for that imho ;)

Übergeek 바둑이: I think that you are right. It cuts across party lines. I do believe you see more of it on the liberal side but it's not exclusively theirs. However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC. I suppose there has to be some level of the sort of thing we're discussing (in order to get things done in DC) but often the lines of decency not only get blurred, they are blantenly crossed. A thousand excuses follow.

(V): If you really are interested in the various explanations for no WMDs and the possible why for that, try http://www.google.com

I'm sure you can navigate your way around there.

Artful Dodger: Yes.. just like you showed me years ago you do.

"If you really are interested in the various explanations for no WMDs and the possible why for that"

I have already looked, and it seems Bush went by gut feeling. Something you keep saying is not good enough. Maybe if he'd gone on facts... ... ..

But it seems he wanted to make up for his daddies failure on Iraq.

(V): Facts? Like you just did? Did you even know what speculation mean???

yes.... but do you?

Artful Dodger:

> However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC.

This is a serious problem is most western democracies, not just the USA. The rich and powerful use their money to influence policy makers. In most countries the winners of elections are those who advertise and campaign aggressively. It costs money to mount aggressive campaigns. Advertising is aimed at building up your own image while discrediting your opponents. Character assasination and underhanded tactices go hand in hand.

The rich and powerful know this, so they strategically donate money to candidates that will further carefully selected political and economic interests. Money becomes a tool to influence law makers.

Candiadtes have learned that a mixture of big advertising dollars and populism sells well at election time. Barrack Obama is a great example, as was Ronald Regan.

The situation is such that the candidates generally elected are those who spend the most on election campaigns. Campaign expenditures have risen election after election, to the point that now candidates are spending over a billion dollars during a presidential campaign.

Small political parties with new ideas are shut out completely. The playing field is not level and that means that the two dominant political parties completely choke small parties. Then both parties often represent competing political and economic interests and that leads to a political stalemate. The two parties are virtually unable to function without constantly trumping each other at every turn.

We have heard of Wshington being "dysfunctional". I think the main culprit is special interests and campaign donors that expect the money they donated to buy power and influence. Candidates that take no money have virtually no chance of being elected, and therefore cannot come in and bring change and new ideas.

The public craves change and renewal. Since the dominant parties are unable to deliver, people look for whoever can offer something new. Barrack Obama sold himself as a man who could bring change. I think that at least to some extent he was sincere in his desire, but failed on account of the much bigger and much more powerful machinery of money and hypocrysy.

The Tea Party is offering more transparency, a return to some traditional values of the past, and a more honest, open government. The big question is whether they can deliver. Unfortunately their front runners are people who grew up politically in the same system. Only time can tell whether they can break away from the "old boys club" mentaility and the pervasive presence of special interests and corporate meddling.

(V): Of course I do. YOu know that. I'm far more educated than you are. And like you, I can navigate google too!

Übergeek 바둑이: If Jesus was in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess!

I don't want to vilify the rich generally. I know a few millionaires. One, uses his money to help the poor build churches in South America along with roads and wells.

Artful Dodger: don't you have that bit wrong???

what you mean is...If a woman was in charge we wouldn't be in this mess....

Please get YOUR facts straight.

Bernice: Jesus first, a woman second. And don't forget it's a woman's fault were in this mess in the first place (she ate the apple) ;)

Artful Dodger: OI!!!!....cut that out....she was in the kitchen (where men like to keep us, barefoot and....)and just had a taste....but because men are wooses (sp) she got the blame...

OK OK ....Jesus first I guess, but then wasn't Jesus a woman?

Artful Dodger: "We've seen these things before in the history of the world. Climate changes. Normal cycyle. Nothing new. Man made? That's where the junk science comes in."

I feel with you

Disastrous pollutions, we should agree on that, are man made. It appears that nothing on this world could mess us up, although, certain toys are not in trustable hands. Just like soups and Bernice. Who could stand the poison.

Bernice: Jesus broke the tradition of excluding women in the affairs of men. He was a bit of a radical when it comes to tradition.

Artful Dodger:

> If Jesus was in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess!

I suppose Jesus would do certain things differently. He would probably support free, universal health care for the poor since his ministry dealt so much with the suffering of the poor. He would probably support feeding the poor too, and to do so he might have had to use state funds. Jesus would be on the side of the poor all the way. He would care for the working man (his father was a carpenter), and he would pardon criminals who repented of their transgressions. He would probably get rid of all the weapons, including the nuclear arsenal. He would leave all theatres of war operations and simply refuse to go to war. It is difficult to say. It all depends on how one interprets the New Testament.

> I don't want to vilify the rich generally. I know a few millionaires. One, uses his money to help the poor build churches in South America along with roads and wells.

I don't generalize abou the rich. Some of them do great things with their money. Other are just plain greedy. The rich live in a state of contradiction. They want to make a lot of money, and to do that you have to be aggressive. At the same time they want to be good, or at least be seen as good.

The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He founded the Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). He turned that company into the biggest monopoly in the world. To do that he engaged in industrial espionage, price wars, heavy-handed marketing tactics, courtroom evasions and shennanigans, bribery, supporting dictators abroad, using thugs to beat up workers who went on strike, influencing and corrupting elected representatives, etc. At the same time he was engaged in huge charity projects and gave away over 1 billion dollars to charity (in today's money that would be about 50 billion).

So there is a deep contradiction between the brutality of his business tactics, and the generosity of his charitable donations. He made thousands of people poor and dispossesed, and helped thousands of poor people at the same time.

Some of the businessmen that influence Washington today probably have the same contradictions. They will use their money to influence representatives, they will use brutal business tactics both at home and abroad, and then they will donate a lot of money to charity. Sometimes those donations are given out of altruistic principles, sometimes the donations become tax deductions. In the meantime representatives are easily swayed by money and a system that undermines the democratic process.

(V): The answer can be found in your statement that by the time Bush invaded Iraq we didn't find WMDs. We found evidence that there had been those devices and materials used to make them, but you are ignoring the fact (or have forgotten) that several months passed while Bush was trying to get the UN to sanction the invasion, giving Saddam ample time to get rid of them. We later stopped a ship containing those materials coming from another country after they believed we might strike there next. Can you guess (or do you know) what contry that was?

(V): We were first invited to go after Saddam by other Arab nations. It was the only time they have ever directly asked for our help. Do you really not understand what was happening over there?

(V): lol.. Yes, there are many possible explanations, but only if you ignore the facts and let your imagination run wild.

Iamon lyme: and how about this:


US did find Iraq WMD
By DON KAPLAN

Last Updated: 8:57 AM, October 25, 2010

Posted: 12:44 AM, October 25, 2010


More Print There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

Artful Dodger:

> the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq
> American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard
> troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents

Maybe it was the real deal, I mean Grey Poupon!

The truth is that there never was a "smoking gun". Colin Powell stood in front of the UN General Assembly and gave a speech about Iraq's alleged WMDs, even though weapons inspectors and intelligence agencies inside and outside the USA had insisted that Iraq had destroyed its WMD manufacturing capabilities in the 1990s.

The fact that the UK manufactured a weapons dossier, and the man who wrote it mysteriously commited suicide before the inquiry says a lot about the truth. By the admission of both Tony Blair and George W. Bush the intelligence was "faulty".

Some Americans really want to believe that Iraq had WMDs because that gives legitimacy to the war. Without WMDs the war in Iraq is an imperialist war aimed at misappropriating Iraq's oil. 400,000 civilians were killed by the Coalition of the Willing. If there were no WMDs, then those civilian deaths amount to no more than a war crime, rather than some heroic liberation of the country.

If Iraq had WMDs, instead of a few thousand American soldiers being killed there would have been hundreds of thousands of casualties.

If those containers of Grey Poupon truly contained chemical weapons, the insurgents would have killed thousands with a single suicide chemical weapons release. After all, if common citizens had chemical weapons, insurgents would have chemical weapons too, and American servicemen on the ground would have stood no chance.

What nobody ever talks about is chemical weapons used by the USA in Iraq. The USA used massive amounts of white phosphorus in Fallujah:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm

The USA has refused to sign a treaty that bans the use of white phosphorus because it is a convenient way to "provide illumination". The fact that it can set human flesh on fire has nothing to do with anything.

The USA has also used Uranium depleted missiles. These shells are made with a steel alloy containing waste uranium from nulcear reactors and they spread large amounts of radiation. They are in essence a "dirty bomb".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQhvX6Vbvhc
http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm

The number of children born with birth defects has increased 2-6 times. Cancer and leukemia among children has increased 3-12 times. That is a 300% to 1200% increase in cancer rates. There is already evidence of a large incidence of cancer and leukemia among American servicement who were exposed to depleted uranium left over after explosion.

The question is: who imposes sanctions on the USA for using chemical and radioactive weapons?

Artful Dodger: I knew we found some of it after the initial search, but didn't realise how much there really was. The news of what we found wasn't exactly splashed across the headlines as most of the negative reporting was.

Just because news agencies lose interest in the story after the initial find doesn't mean everyone else has lost interest. All I saw were bits and pieces of news stories that made a few finds sound anti-climatic, so it was never front page news.

Übergeek 바둑이: So I guess the fact that Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were asked to take millitary action against him at the behest of Arabian nations had nothing to do with it, we just used that as an excuse to eventually take control of Iraqs oil. Right.

On a side note, the reason aliens were scooping people up and probling them had to do with the fact that they originally came here for our jobs and our women. But before they could go after our women, they first had to figure out which of us are the women. You see, we all look alike to them. Personally, I think they are all a bunch of imperialist spacists!

: Lemon lyme: I meant probing, not probling.

Probing, as in poking us and making us stick out our tongues and say "aaaaaaaah".

Probing.

Iamon lyme:

> So I guess the fact that Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were asked to take millitary action against him at the behest of Arabian nations had nothing to do with it, we just used that as an excuse to eventually take control of Iraqs oil. Right.

The Gulf War (1991) was approved by the United Nations. Saddam's forces were defeated and sanctions were imposed on Iraq to stop Saddam from acquiring more weapons and invading any of Iraq's neighbors.

Now, the Iraq War (2003) was not backed by the United Nations because the Security Council saw through the web of lies that the USA and the UK were trying to sell. Most members of the Security Council realized that the claims of WMDs in Iraq were false. Colin Powell gave a speech before the UN General Assembly saying that Iraq was a big threat because of its huge stockpiles of WMDs, in particular its biological weapons nuclear weapons programs.

Weapons inspectors, including those sent by the Bush administration, repeatedly serched and found nothing before the war.

Consider for example what weapons inspector Scott Ritter, director of UNSCOM from 1991-1998, said with respect to Iraq's weapons capabilities in June 1999:

"When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

This was 4 years before the war even started and by then Iraq was already disarmed.

Then UNSCOM was replaced by UNMOVIC in 1999.

"UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction.

Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s."

"Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war"."

Here is more from Scott Ritter:

"We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [Which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, an if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi Nuclear Program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, I'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "We know who you are, you're not Saddam's 'Bombmaker', go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and I've told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about."

So the government knew that the key CIA informant was a fraud.

"On 23 January 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."

So the head of the Iraq Survey Group, the agency set up by the American government to find WMDs, resigned because the government wanted him to find WMDs that did not exist.

Considering how many people before and after the war found no WMDs, how can the war be justified? The USA can come out and say that Saddam was a brutal dictator, but for decades the American government has supported and done business with many brutal dictators around the world. However, Saddam never attacked the USA, the links to terrorism were never proven, Iraq's military was weak, and Iraq was contained within its borders.

Then one has to wonder how much money Exxon and Haliburton made from the war. If the war was not about oil, then why did Haliburton make billions from both oil and servicing the military at inflated prices?

Übergeek 바둑이: So are you disputing the entire info found in the wiileaks?

Not finding a smoking gun doesn't mean there wasn't one. We know there were WMDs. Intelligence suggested that Saddam was trying to get more. But I do suspect that there was a measured effort to find reason to topple Saddam. But it's just a guess on my part. That Saddam was a bad leader is not debatable. He was a killer. But the US is mistaken if they think they can create a Western democracy in an Eastern country. Especially a Muslim country. A huge mistake. All this while Obama has just sent in 100 troops to a South African country to help with the rebellion going on there. Not much has changed in Washington DC. Obama still has in place many of the Bush policies pertaining to the war.


When someone commits suicide, it may say things one way or another. Only the one who took his/her life knows the deeper reason. That man's death COULD say something about the truth but just the fact that he took his own life doesn't REALLY say anything. People take their lives for many reasons. We can only guess why.

Iraq did have WMDs. Did they still have some at the time of the "invasion?" I doubt it. But no one knew with absolute certainty until AFTER.

"What nobody ever talks about is chemical weapons used by the USA in Iraq. The USA used massive amounts of white phosphorus in Fallujah:"

That is meaningless if Saddam had WMD's of his own. What the US has/had isn't the issue.

War sucks. And since the intent in war is to kill, white phosphorus is handy. But likely innocents are being killed this way and in those cases, it should be banned.

Artful Dodger:

> Iraq did have WMDs. Did they still have some at the time of the "invasion?" I doubt it. But no one knew with absolute certainty until AFTER.

But that is the point I was trying to make. They knew BEFORE the war. They were told so by the head of UNSCOM in 1998. Then by UNMOVIC in 1999 and through to the start of the war in 2003. The Bush administration deliberately ignored its own appointed weapons inspectors. They knew the "bombmaker" informant was a fraud, and still pushed him as an authority on WMDs in Iraq. The Bush administration deliberately deceived the American public to justify the war. They "hoped" to find a smoking gun and instead found nothing substantial, as would be expected from years of inspection turning up nothing.

> "What nobody ever talks about is chemical weapons used by the USA in Iraq. The USA used massive amounts of white phosphorus in Fallujah:"
> That is meaningless if Saddam had WMD's of his own. What the US has/had isn't the issue.

Isn't the issue? The USA is invading countries for using chemical weapons, and then it turns around and uses white phosphorus and depleted Uranium. This is being done deliberately. Look at this training video that the American army produced. It clearly identifies the radioactive nature of contamination left behind by depleted uranium. Knowing this fully, the American military is still using a radioactive weapon in the field, exposing not only civilians but also American servicemen in the field:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ML8i3XefHQ

And if anyone doubts what it does, maybe they should see the rise in birth defects in Fallujah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYBmnw8rgio

> War sucks. And since the intent in war is to kill, white phosphorus is handy. But likely innocents are being killed this way and in those cases, it should be banned.

When will Americans stop and do some soul searching? Talk of freedom and democracy is meaningless if all that an army does is bring death and suffering. Deliberately lying and using false intelligence hardly makes things better. I wonder how many Iraqi children see at what has happened to their country, and then turn around to blame the USA. Then they will grow up hating the USA for bringing a war based on a pipe dream of non-existent WMDs, then seeing their country's wealth pumped out in oil pipelines. Now let's give those kids a reason NOT to become terrorists.

perhaps USA, UK, AUS should just invade the countries and feed the poor.....mainly the USA because their spend on "WAR" is phenomenal

Bernice: That would be nice. Hunger is a huge problem in the world and it doesn't have to be that way.