Response to I support the US in their efforts for world peace


Mike: other contributors have very clearly addressed some of the twisted and factually incorrect material you have been posting, so I won't go over old ground...except in one small area. I really can't understand why, after it was explained that Al-Qaeda and Saddam couldn't be connected, you haven't really got the message. I know that when we shove our brains into neutral and just accept what the media feeds us (which undoubtedly consists of a cocktail of 'Sky News' and 'The Irish Independent' in your case) the truth can often get side stepped. Perhaps your insistance that these two groups are connected is anti-Muslim in nature; you can't possibly conceive of two diametrically opposed groups that both come from the Middle East/North Africa region. Anyway, the new point I wanted to make to you is that a US/UK attack attack on Iraq, without UN sanction would be illegal and would therefore be a terrorist act. If the letter of international law is followed, the UN should then assemble a coalition to remove the US/UK aggressors from Iraq. One question I'd like to ask: after the US makes the world a safer place by killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, perhaps removing Hussein in the process and securing oil rights by appointing a member of some US oil corporation as president (as they did in Afghanistan), where is the next place the US should obliterate? North Korea looks favourite at the moment. After that, would Cuba be a good target? They don't have any oil or weapons, but they have championed an alternative method of government for years now! And will you wait for Bush to get one of his advisers to look up an atlas, before taking the lead on the next soverign state to attack?

Created By: Colm Campbell