Israeli Vice Premier: 'Iran can also be wiped off the map'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Typical liberal response. Blame America. It's all our fault. We deserved 9/11. We should all burn in hell!

Typically conservative bull-headed response, projecting your own ignorance and personal prejudice into the argument, while ignoring what was actually said!. Do us both a favour and lets stick to the topic here and lets refrain from the stereotypes.

I never said America deserved 9/11, in fact its hard to see how you arrived at that interpretation from my post.

All I am saying is that there is a historical perspective here that to a large extent explains the resentment of some muslim nations towards America and the west. If you don't think the US (and others) have played a serious role in ###### over the nations of those countries for their own benefit and economic profit during the last 100 years (specifically), then I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Indeed - but you might as well say that the US should have thought of that back in the 50's.

Just because we didn't think of something back in the 50's, doesn't mean the US should

just give up now and let the world run amok. Somebody has to police the world while

the impotent UN sits by and passes one useless non-binding resolution after another.

Sure but I'm sure you'll agree there's a bit of a difference between 'policing the world' and imperialism masquerading as 'policing'.

I personally don't think this entire situation is going to get any better. If the USA sits back on it or not I don't think Iran is playing around either. Who really knows how far they are right now but if they did have a nuke could we trust them? Seriously, they continually claim of the destruction of israel and it's people and america. They hate us. They hate israel. They are extremists on all levels and they want to take over israel. It's only going to get worse as time goes on. The question is exactly not If but When? That is what we have to be thinking about and make sure we are ready. Who wants another 9/11 to happen or something worse. Even if we pulled out and just sat back , i think that may be one of the dumbest things to do. Especially in times like today. Just my input.

and personally i don't really think the issue right now is oil. it's way bigger than that. The way people are brought up to think there is beyond maybe even america's comprehension. This is a religious war on many levels, especially for many iranians and iraqi's. If you are not islamic, you have to be depleted. Thats that, as much as we might hate to hear that, it's so hard to change a persons mind set when they are surrounded by that and raised like that. Those people don't fool around so nor should we.

But in terms of a clash of culture / religion, do you think that things are worse now than perhaps they were prior to 9/11? Certainly its fair to ask whether this 'war on terror' has actually made anything better seeing as how it is being perceived in a lot of quarters as a 'war against Islam?' Reasonable question I think...

National traumas, perceived threats towards national security, national sovereignty etc. have a distinct tendecy to push countries toward conservatism. That happened in the US after 9/11, and it seems to be happening to a large degree in the middle-east right now. Just a general comment.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[GaryC 7]

Typical liberal response. Blame America. It's all our fault. We deserved 9/11. We should all burn in hell!

Typically conservative bull-headed response, projecting your own ignorance and personal prejudice into the argument, while ignoring what was actually said!. Do us both a favour and lets stick to the topic here and lets refrain from the stereotypes.

I never said America deserved 9/11, in fact its hard to see how you arrived at that interpretation from my post.

All I am saying is that there is a historical perspective here that to a large extent explains the resentment of some muslim nations towards America and the west. If you don't think the US (and others) have played a serious role in ###### over the nations of those countries for their own benefit and economic profit during the last 100 years (specifically), then I'd like to hear your reasoning.

I really don't care why they hate us. There is no justification for attacking us the way they did. They declaired war on us. Our only obligation now is to win. People like you only embolden the enemy. They see the desention in our country and see it as a victory. They sit back and laugh at us as we discuss the reasons why they hate us. Wether you want to admit it or not, you and your kind are helping the enemy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really don't care why they hate us. There is no justification for attacking us the way they did. They declaired war on us. Our only obligation now is to win. People like you only embolden the enemy. They see the desention in our country and see it as a victory. They sit back and laugh at us as we discuss the reasons why they hate us. Wether you want to admit it or not, you and your kind are helping the enemy.

People 'like me', but not 'actually me' right I don't know about you but I find those generalisations to be the height of ignorance - you're actually telling me what 'I' believe!? Whatever man.

"Embolden the enemy", "dissension", these comments are all right out of the mouth of the administration press office.

The reason I care about our past history in dealing with those countries is because I don't think 'repeating past mistakes' amounts to a small detail. Bin Laden, Iran, Saddam Hussein - these are all things that the US had primarily created and "emboldened" to quote your phrasing. They didn't wake up one morning and decide "Death to America", its all based in our past dealings with people in those countries.

I don't see how its unreasonable to ignore a historical perspective that applies precisely to what is going on in the world today.

Also I find it interesting that you lump 'them' into one big amorphous enemy. Does it occur to you that this 'enemy', as you put it is comprised of many groups and causes. Not all of them necessarily want the same thing, even if their methods are the same.

Am I saying terrorism is justified? Of course not - just that it doesn't exist in a vacuum and 'defeating' them long-term will require a lot more than military action. You can't defeat ideology with violence, that's plainly ridiculous!

Edited May 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[GaryC 7]

There is a time and place for everything. Now is NOT the time to examine the reasons why they hate us. That is for after we send them all to hell. We are in a war. The only thing we can do is fight it to win. They, and I do lump them all together, have a united front againsed us. Their goal is to win. We have to have a united front if we expect to win.

Do you really think they will just stop and go away if we suddenly as a nation realize our "past" sins and pledge to not do it again? NO! They want to rework the world in their twisted image. They will not stop until we stop them!

After we kill them all and win this war then is the right time to discuss what led up to all of this. Not now. All this does is show our lack of resolve to fight them and that gives them reason to continue.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is a time and place for everything. Now is NOT the time to examine the reasons why they hate us.

Why not? Our previous strategies haven't exactly improved matters have they?

That is for after we send them all to hell.

Not really the point is it?

We are in a war. The only thing we can do is fight it to win.

Such as it has been defined by the Administration. What are we actually at war with? People who don't like us? In that case, we'll be at war for a long long time... Iraq had no direct links with 9/11 but the policy was prosecuted as though it did. Again, no physical evidence whatsoever.

They, and I do lump them all together, have a united front againsed us.

Such as we choose to define it.

Their goal is to win.

Win what?

We have to have a united front if we expect to win.

A united front in condemning terrorist atrocities, is not the same as a united front clamouring for war without end, and without restraint

Do you really think they will just stop and go away if we suddenly as a nation realize our "past" sins and pledge to not do it again? NO!

Not saying they will. I'm saying that a new long term strategy is required to deal with 3rd world countries. As I've said many times before, we are not spotless in our dealings with them, and that contributes in no small part to the situation we are faced with today.

They want to rework the world in their twisted image. They will not stop until we stop them!

After we kill them all and win this war then is the right time to discuss what led up to all of this. Not now. All this does is show our lack of resolve to fight them and that gives them reason to continue.

This isn't a James Bond movie, there is not overarching strategy for world domination, and even less chance of a group of disparate 3rd world nations achieving it. Shoot first, ask questions later shows a basic lack of understanding of the issues in the region. Kill them all? Violence is self-perpetuating - the more people we kill, the more terrorists we create, that's common-sense IMO.

The real danger here is what will happen if Russia and China opt to militarily oppose any direct US-led invasion of Iran which sees Iran's oil interests in the hands of the United States. As I said before, the seeds of WW3.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[GaryC 7]

There is a time and place for everything. Now is NOT the time to examine the reasons why they hate us.

Why not? Our previous strategies haven't exactly improved matters have they?

And how will your endless self accusing examinations help win this?

That is for after we send them all to hell.

Not really the point is it?

Hello??? The whole point of war is to kill them first!

We are in a war. The only thing we can do is fight it to win.

Such as it has been defined by the Administration. What are we actually at war with? People who don't like us? In that case, we'll be at war for a long long time... Iraq had no direct links with 9/11 but the policy was prosecuted as though it did. Again, no physical evidence whatsoever.

Ok, so your hatred for Bush and his policies has led you to just surrender? I don't care if there were any direct links to Iraq and 9/11. That was a evil dictator that needed taking out. I am happy we did it. But that isn't the point. We are in a war againsed terrorism. It has no national boundries. You fight the terrorist where you find them. Right now they are in Iraq.

They, and I do lump them all together, have a united front againsed us.

Such as we choose to define it.

It is how it's defined. If you shoot at us your the enemy.

Their goal is to win.

Win what?

They want to turn the world into an extremist islamic run theocracy. I could give you many examples but I won't boor you with the facts. You would just dismiss it anyway.

Do you really think they will just stop and go away if we suddenly as a nation realize our "past" sins and pledge to not do it again? NO!

Not saying they will. I'm saying that a new long term strategy is required to deal with 3rd world countries. As I've said many times before, we are not spotless in our dealings with them, and that contributes in no small part to the situation we are faced with today.

So what is your plan? Talk them to death? Just because we have made mistakes in the past disqualifies us from fighting back?

They want to rework the world in their twisted image. They will not stop until we stop them!

After we kill them all and win this war then is the right time to discuss what led up to all of this. Not now. All this does is show our lack of resolve to fight them and that gives them reason to continue.

This isn't a James Bond movie, there is not overarching strategy for world domination, and even less chance of a group of disparate 3rd world nations achieving it. Shoot first, ask questions later shows a basic lack of understanding of the issues in the region. Kill them all? Violence is self-perpetuating - the more people we kill, the more terrorists we create, that's common-sense IMO.

No this isn't a movie. What would you do? There are only two choices. Fight to win or surrender. You can't talk them out of it. So what will it be?

[GaryC 7]

Bottom line fishdude, What is your ideas for this whole issue? I have heard a lot of liberal clap-trap but none of it solves the problem. Do you fight and win or do you roll over and surrender? There isn't a third option. If you think there is all you will do is surrender by default.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Quite simply, without buggering about with anymore semantic bullshit - this issue REQUIRES a degree of self-examination and critical thought that doesn't rely on trotting out the same stale old party political talking points.

Before 9/11 no-one in the US gave a ####### about terrorism, or the broad state of the world outside the US. Now you get a 'wake-up call' in the form of 30 years of terrorism in single day you think you have all the answers to it? Phshaw...

5 years of almost constant war will not, and indeed has not defeated the ideology that emboldens these guys. That's not defeatist, that's a realistic interpretation based on historical evidence!

If there weren't terrorists inside Iraq before, there certainly are now - and the body count goes up day by day. If you think that's 'winning', you have a vastly different definition of it than I do. You only need look at the Israelis - they've been doing the whole "blood for blood", "eye for an eye" thing for nearly 50 years? Has it stopped terrorism against its citizens and assets? Has it hell!

Bottom line fishdude, What is your ideas for this whole issue? I have heard a lot of liberal clap-trap but none of it solves the problem. Do you fight and win or do you roll over and surrender? There isn't a third option. If you think there is all you will do is surrender by default.

You see this as a black and white issue. I don't. You claim to support a solution without demonstrating any significant knowledge of the problem or its historical contexts that isn't based on clicheed political soundbites.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's a thought, instead of spending these countless billions of dollars ###### around in the affairs of other countries, the US focusses on fixing among other things, the economic deficit, now many billions in the red, due largely to the Iraq war.

If you're worried about security, why not spend some of that 'war money' fixing the illegal immigration issue and securing the borders?

What happened to Bin Laden, BTW? Are we still after him, or just using 9/11 as an excuse to knock over all the ant-hills in the 3rd world? Again.

This 'grand cause' that you seem to think so highly about, is a huge waste of time, money and lives IMHO.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[I'm Gone 60]

Quite simply, without buggering about with anymore semantic bullshit - this issue REQUIRES a degree of self-examination and critical thought that doesn't rely on trotting out the same stale old party political talking points.

Speaking of talking points they have no shame. LOL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6050700898.html

The USDA on Iraq: Everything's Coming Up Rosy

By Al Kamen

Monday, May 8, 2006; A17

Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department.

"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.

The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks.

The e-mail provided language "being used by Secretary [Michael O.] Johanns and deputy secretary [Charles F.] Conner in all of their remarks and is being sent to you for inclusion in your speeches."

Another attachment "contains specific examples of GWOT messages within agriculture speeches. Please use these message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips , USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly account sent to the White House."

This scoreboard, of course, will ensure you give it your best shot.

Now, you might still be scratching your heads, trying to figure out how this is going to work when people expect a talk about agriculture issues. Not to worry.

The attachments -- which can be viewed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/fedpage -- show how easy it is to work a little Iraq happy talk into just about anything.

There's a sample introduction: "Several topics I'd like to talk about today -- Farm Bill, trade with Japan, WTO, avian flu . . . but before I do, let me touch on a subject people always ask about . . . progress in Iraq." See? Smooth as silk.

So then you talk about how "we are helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous." If it looks like the audience is with you, try to slip in the old Iraq/al-Qaeda/terrorism link and say Americans are helping build a country "that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists."[/b]

Loop suggestion: With the polls showing that only about 40 percent of those surveyed actually still buy the linkage thing, you may want to use some discretion here lest you lose the audience.

The e-mail shows how to weave in a comment that times are tough for Iraqi farmers. "But revitalization is underway. President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured on three tracks -- political, economic and security."

Be crop-specific. "The Iraqis have also discussed specific products, like tomatoes, which they are anxious to export into the world community," the e-mail notes.

Talk turkey, or chicken, to your audience: "The major poultry producers in Iraq . . . are using [u.S.] loan guarantees to buy U.S. corn and soybeans. . . . This in turn provides a cycle of income that is being used to update 25-year-old chicken houses," the e-mail suggests. Chickens apparently produce better in nice homes.

But what if your speech is on civil rights? Easy. Begin this way: "I'm here to talk about civil rights, which is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy." Then you can say this country "has been evolving for 230 years . . . still working to become a more perfect union . . .

"So before I begin talking about the civil rights climate at USDA," the example says, "I'd like to address the situation in another nation that is just now forging the path to democracy."

Bingo! You're in. Now: "The president has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured along three tracks," etc.

Let's say you're talking about U.S. agricultural productivity. Try this: "I'd like to take a moment to talk about a nation that is just now beginning to rebuild its own agricultural production.

"Iraq is part to the 'fertile crescent' of Mesopotamia," the sample script says. "It is there, in around 8,500 to 8,000 B.C., that mankind first domesticated wheat, there that agriculture was born. In recent years, however, the birthplace of farming has been in trouble."

Probably want to pause here and give the audience a chance to catch its breath. It's hard to travel 10,500 years that quickly. "But revitalization is underway. President Bush has a clear strategy . . ."

Edited May 11, 2006 by mdyoung

[mawilson 2,133]

Here's a thought, instead of spending these countless billions of dollars ###### around in the affairs of other countries, the US focusses on fixing among other things, the economic deficit, now many billions in the red, due largely to the Iraq war.

...

This 'grand cause' that you seem to think so highly about, is a huge waste of time, money and lives IMHO.

###### around in the affairs of other countries is important for the long-term economic interests

of our country. The Iraq war was indeed a huge waste of money and resources, but one failure

does not erase all of the successes that we've had (###### around with other countries.)

[GaryC 7]

Seized Papers Said to Show Qaeda in Iraq Is Worried

E-MailPrint Reprints Save

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 9, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 8 (AP) — The Council of Holy Warriors, Al Qaeda's branch in Iraq, is worried that its cells in the Baghdad area are ineffective, with one militant describing their activities as nothing more than a "daily annoyance" to the Iraqi government, according to two documents released Monday by the United States military.

The military said it had seized the documents on April 16 during raids in and around Yusifiya, a town 10 miles south of Baghdad that has long served as a base for Sunni Arab extremists. The documents indicate that the group is worried that it is unable to secure a solid base within Baghdad, military officials said.

The documents seemed to be released as part of an American campaign to deflate the image of the local branch of Al Qaeda and that of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The documents were made available four days after the military released what it said were clips that the group had cut from a video before posting it on the Web. In those clips, Mr. Zarqawi fumbles with an American-made machine gun. In the version on the Web, Mr. Zarqawi appears as a confident, skilled warrior.

In one of the newly released documents, an unidentified member of the group wrote that the cells in Baghdad are capable of only "hit and run" operations, leading the public to conclude that "the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and nearer to controlling it," while the mujahedeen "are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government."

The other document released Monday outlined the group's strategy in Baghdad. It said the Council of Holy Warriors should focus on the capital and reduce its attacks on Sunni areas.

Focusing on Baghdad, the document stated, would force the United States military to shift more of its resources there, which would allow the militants to regroup in their traditional bases. Those bases include the ones in Anbar Province, where the cities of Falluja and Ramadi are situated.

The writer says that the American and Iraqi government forces "were able to absorb our painful blows," enlist new recruits and "take control of Baghdad as well as other areas, one after the other."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Quite simply, without buggering about with anymore semantic bullshit - this issue REQUIRES a degree of self-examination and critical thought that doesn't rely on trotting out the same stale old party political talking points.

Speaking of talking points they have no shame. LOL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6050700898.html

The USDA on Iraq: Everything's Coming Up Rosy

By Al Kamen

Monday, May 8, 2006; A17

Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department.

"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.

The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks.

The e-mail provided language "being used by Secretary [Michael O.] Johanns and deputy secretary [Charles F.] Conner in all of their remarks and is being sent to you for inclusion in your speeches."

Another attachment "contains specific examples of GWOT messages within agriculture speeches. Please use these message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips , USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly account sent to the White House."

This scoreboard, of course, will ensure you give it your best shot.

Now, you might still be scratching your heads, trying to figure out how this is going to work when people expect a talk about agriculture issues. Not to worry.

The attachments -- which can be viewed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/fedpage -- show how easy it is to work a little Iraq happy talk into just about anything.

There's a sample introduction: "Several topics I'd like to talk about today -- Farm Bill, trade with Japan, WTO, avian flu . . . but before I do, let me touch on a subject people always ask about . . . progress in Iraq." See? Smooth as silk.

So then you talk about how "we are helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous." If it looks like the audience is with you, try to slip in the old Iraq/al-Qaeda/terrorism link and say Americans are helping build a country "that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists."[/b]

Loop suggestion: With the polls showing that only about 40 percent of those surveyed actually still buy the linkage thing, you may want to use some discretion here lest you lose the audience.

The e-mail shows how to weave in a comment that times are tough for Iraqi farmers. "But revitalization is underway. President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured on three tracks -- political, economic and security."

Be crop-specific. "The Iraqis have also discussed specific products, like tomatoes, which they are anxious to export into the world community," the e-mail notes.

Talk turkey, or chicken, to your audience: "The major poultry producers in Iraq . . . are using [u.S.] loan guarantees to buy U.S. corn and soybeans. . . . This in turn provides a cycle of income that is being used to update 25-year-old chicken houses," the e-mail suggests. Chickens apparently produce better in nice homes.

But what if your speech is on civil rights? Easy. Begin this way: "I'm here to talk about civil rights, which is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy." Then you can say this country "has been evolving for 230 years . . . still working to become a more perfect union . . .

"So before I begin talking about the civil rights climate at USDA," the example says, "I'd like to address the situation in another nation that is just now forging the path to democracy."

Bingo! You're in. Now: "The president has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured along three tracks," etc.

Let's say you're talking about U.S. agricultural productivity. Try this: "I'd like to take a moment to talk about a nation that is just now beginning to rebuild its own agricultural production.

"Iraq is part to the 'fertile crescent' of Mesopotamia," the sample script says. "It is there, in around 8,500 to 8,000 B.C., that mankind first domesticated wheat, there that agriculture was born. In recent years, however, the birthplace of farming has been in trouble."

Probably want to pause here and give the audience a chance to catch its breath. It's hard to travel 10,500 years that quickly. "But revitalization is underway. President Bush has a clear strategy . . ."

Wow... that's totally shameless.

###### around in the affairs of other countries is important for the long-term economic interests of our country. The Iraq war was indeed a huge waste of money and resources, but one failure does not erase all of the successes that we've had (###### around with other countries.)

Sure, but it stands to reason that if you pursue those kind of imperialist foreign policies you have to expect the problems that result, terrorism being on of those.

That's why dressing up the 'war on terror' as some moral crusade against evil is bullshit, IMO.

Seized Papers Said to Show Qaeda in Iraq Is Worried

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 9, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 8 (AP) — The Council of Holy Warriors, Al Qaeda's branch in Iraq, is worried that its cells in the Baghdad area are ineffective, with one militant describing their activities as nothing more than a "daily annoyance" to the Iraqi government, according to two documents released Monday by the United States military.

The military said it had seized the documents on April 16 during raids in and around Yusifiya, a town 10 miles south of Baghdad that has long served as a base for Sunni Arab extremists. The documents indicate that the group is worried that it is unable to secure a solid base within Baghdad, military officials said.

The documents seemed to be released as part of an American campaign to deflate the image of the local branch of Al Qaeda and that of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The documents were made available four days after the military released what it said were clips that the group had cut from a video before posting it on the Web. In those clips, Mr. Zarqawi fumbles with an American-made machine gun. In the version on the Web, Mr. Zarqawi appears as a confident, skilled warrior.

In one of the newly released documents, an unidentified member of the group wrote that the cells in Baghdad are capable of only "hit and run" operations, leading the public to conclude that "the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and nearer to controlling it," while the mujahedeen "are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government."

The other document released Monday outlined the group's strategy in Baghdad. It said the Council of Holy Warriors should focus on the capital and reduce its attacks on Sunni areas.

Focusing on Baghdad, the document stated, would force the United States military to shift more of its resources there, which would allow the militants to regroup in their traditional bases. Those bases include the ones in Anbar Province, where the cities of Falluja and Ramadi are situated.

The writer says that the American and Iraqi government forces "were able to absorb our painful blows," enlist new recruits and "take control of Baghdad as well as other areas, one after the other."

Do you mean to say that Al Qaeda is not necessarily the same as 'insurgents'?

Different groups, different goals...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This was in the news today a day after the UK secretary general (the man who determined the Iraq war was 'legal') publicly condemned Guantanamo Bay; and a few days after Bush told the world that he wants the facility closed.

UK told US won't shut Guantanamo

That makes, several world governments, the UN and several major charity organisations to publicly criticise the policy.

Seems only the President and his advisors are allowed to have any 'legitimate' criticism of the policy anyone else gets labelled as "irresponsible", and the US either threatens to pull troops out of UN operations, or tries to cut the funding of human rights charities for not supporting the government agenda. Those same charity organisations that the govts has previously praised when it has thrown light on human rights abuses in the 3rd world.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fuzzness 2]

Sometimes it is better to treat the cause rather than mask the symptoms......

referring to the "figure out why they hate us" quote