Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Hansel Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 00:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you the top one or the bottom one in your pic? (reply to this comment)

from JudasChrist Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 14:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Most, if not all, criticisms of the Bush administration's motivation for launching a preemptive war on Iraq focus on a combination of the imperial world views of conservative politicians in power in Washington, D.C., and the corporate interests that drive the political agenda of the Bush administration. This study will provide a radically different political analysis of the Bush administration's motivation for going war, and of the explanations offered by his critics. This study provides an exopolitical analysis of the policy dimensions of an historic extraterrestrial presence that is pertinent to Iraq and a US led preemptive attack. It will be argued that competing clandestine government organizations are struggling through proxy means to take control of ancient extraterrestrial (ET) technology that exists in Iraq, in order to prepare for an impending series of events corresponding to the 'prophesied return' of an advanced race of ETs. In his 2003 State of the Union address President George W. Bush declared "the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." (1) In his speech, President Bush eloquently expressed his main motivation for launching a preemptive war against Iraq in order to prevent "a day of horror like none we have ever known." Critics of President Bush's preemptive policy, including the political commentator, Robert Fisk, argue the upcoming US led war against Iraq "isn't about chemical warheads or human rights: it's about oil." (2) According to another prominent political commentator, Michael Lind, the motivation lies in the preemptive military doctrine championed by 'neo-conservatives' such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose policy views were given more prominence after the September 11 attack. (3) Most, if not all, criticisms of the Bush administration's motivation for going to war focus on a combination of the imperial world views of conservative politicians in power in Washington, D.C., and the corporate interests that drive the political agenda of the Bush administration. This paper will provide a radically different political analysis of the Bush administration's motivation for going war, and of the explanations offered by his critics. It will be argued that the focus on either the factors supporting a preemptive war against an Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction; or on criticisms against US imperialism and corporate interests, are not so much wrong, but simply reflect a limited political paradigm for understanding the motivations behind US foreign policy. The political paradigm to be used in this paper is based on 'exopolitics'. (4) This paradigm starts with the premise that there exists an extraterrestrial (ET) presence on Earth which clandestine government organizations have been withholding knowledge of from the general public and elected public officials. Rather than being an unsubstantiated 'conspiracy theory' with little relevance to contemporary policy issues such as a preemptive US war against Iraq, it will be argued that an exopolitical analysis can provide a more comprehensive understanding of what motivates the Bush administration in launching a preemptive attack against Iraq. Exopolitics as an emerging field of public policy is primarily based on the evidence provided by a range of sources supporting the idea of an ET presence that is known by clandestine government organizations that suppress this from the general public and elected political leaders. (5) The most important evidence comes from former military and government officials who have come forward to give 'whistle blower' testimony in a number of non-governmental initiatives to promote disclosure of the ET presence. (6) While many disagree over the plausibility of the available evidence and take various positions either for or against the existence of an ET presence and government non-disclosure of this presence, exopolitics is based on the premise that such debate ought not preclude discussion of the implications of such a presence among policy makers and the general public. Therefore when one examines contemporary international issue such as a US led preemptive war in Iraq, one can explore the viewpoints offered by those using an exopolitical analysis, and consider the plausibility of these for a more comprehensive understanding of foreign policy, irrespective of the ongoing debate over the persuasiveness of the available evidence. This is necessary since those actively involved in a non-disclosure program will be use disinformation, intimidation and other strategies to deter witnesses, distort evidence, and deter public attention from the ET presence and how it pertains to a range of contemporary policy issues.Finally, a clandestine campaign of non-disclosure needs to be considered in conducting exopolitical analysis in terms of the likelihood of this influencing and/or compromising available empirical evidence that otherwise would confirm an ET presence. Therefore, exopolitical analysis has some key differences from more conventional approaches to political analysis which are based on a traditional social scientific method of a value free, objective analysis of available processes, institutions and actors in the public policy arena. What follows is an exopolitical analysis of the policy dimensions of an historic ET presence that is pertinent to Iraq and a US led preemptive attack on the regime of Saddam Hussein. In conducting this analysis, I will first examine the available evidence of an historical ET presence in Iraq; then apply this evidence to better understand the contemporary political situation in Iraq; I will then analyze the motivations of the main political actors in the prospective US led preemptive war against Iraq; and finally conclude by making some policy recommendations. What's the Evidence for an historic ET presence in Iraq? The strongest available evidence for an historical ET presence in Iraq comes from cuneiform tablets directly recording the beliefs and activities of the ancient Sumerians whose civilization began almost overnight in 3800 BC. Most of these cuneiform tablets relate stories of the Sumerians interacting with their 'gods'. Most archeologists initially accepted that these were merely myths and attached little importance to them other than giving insight into the mytho-religious beliefs of the ancient Sumerians. That viewpoint received a major challenge in 1976 when the Sumerian scholar, Zecharia Sitchin, published the first of a series of books on his translations of thousands of Sumerian tablets. (7) Rather than treating the stories of the gods as myths that had little empirical relevance, Sitchin interpreted the tablets as literal descriptions of events as they occurred in the time. Sitchin's translations of Sumerian cuneiform tablets revealed precise information on a range of topics that he argues could not have been possible for a civilization at the initial stages of its development with no obvious predecessor civilization to borrow from. According to Sitchin, the Sumerians had detailed knowledge of all the planets in the solar system, understood the precession of the equinoxes, and also had an understanding of complex medical procedures. (8) As to where they could have gained this detailed knowledge, Sitchin's translations suggest that the Sumerians provided a clear answer for its ultimate source. They revealed in their tablets that all their knowledge came from a race of extraterrestrial visitors the 'Anunnaki' ('those who from heaven to Earth came') who were not only teachers for the Sumerians, but also played a role in the creation of the human race. The origin of this ET race was a planet called Nibiru that had a long elliptical journey around the sun, and returned to this region of the solar system every 3,600 years. (9) When Sitchin's innovative work was first published, it raised great controversy and intense debate between those either for or against his main thesis of an historic ET presence in Sumer that was responsible for starting the remarkable Sumerian civilization. Among those responding favorably to Sitchin's thesis included established popular authors such as Erik Von Danniken who had himself written in 1969, the best selling book, Chariots of the Gods, that proposed an historic ET presence in different parts of the planet. (10) Another popular author, David Hatcher Childress, outlines with great detail the ET technology possessed by ancient civilizations in his various books. (11) Less well known authors such as William Henry have similarly published books supporting Sitchin's thesis. (12) To support Sitchin's thesis, many authors typically cite biblical texts that make reference to the 'gods' that resided on Earth and interacted with humanity. The biblical text most referred to is the apocryphal book of Enoch. (13) While the Book of Enoch was excluded in most versions of the Old Testament, it was nevertheless part of ancient Hebrew scholarship and indeed is included in the Ethiopian and Slavic versions of the Old Testament. The Book of Enoch describes a rebel group of angels, the 'Nephilim', who numbered 200, who settled the Earth and interbred with the human population before being recalled and punished by their superiors, the 'Elohim'. (14) The Book of Enoch provides contextual detail for mysterious verses in the Book of Genesis which describes a time when the 'sons of gods', the Nephilim/Anunnaki, interbred with humanity, and created a race of giants/heroes that ruled over the rest of humanity: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterwards-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." (15) Supporters of the Sitchin thesis say that this is part of the biblical evidence that an advanced ET race did in fact exist on Earth, had a long interaction with humanity, and even played a role in the creation of the human race. In addition to the growing number of authors, independent archaeologists and biblical commentators supporting Sitchin's thesis, there are a burgeoning number of individuals who claim to be in telepathic communication with ET races who reveal information on the historic ET presence in Sumer. One of these ET 'channels', is Jelaila Starr who claims to be in touch with beings from Nibiru itself, and she regularly releases online information from the Anunnaki themselves on her website. (16) Another is Sheldan Nidle who 'channels' an ET race from the star system Sirius gives extensive information on the historic presence and influence of the Anunnaki in his books and website. (17) There is great controversy over the extent to which such a disparate collection of evidentiary sources can substantiate the Sitchin thesis of an historic ET presence in Sumer. Despite the controversy generated by such sources, they provide a wealth of information that merits closer examination in terms of their public policy implications. Given that exopolitics is based on the premise of an ET presence that is subject to non-disclosure by clandestine government organizations, it is possible to provide an exopolitical perspective on Sitchin's thesis despite the ongoing debate over the consistency and accuracy of the available evidence. How Does the Historic ET presence relate to US policy in Iraq? An independent archaeologist that discusses a direct link between the ancient ET presence in Sumer (southern Iraq) and current US focus on the regime of Saddam Hussein, is William Henry. Henry's main thesis is that there existed in Sumerian times a technological device which he describes as a 'Stargate', that the Anunnaki/Nephilim used to travel back and forth from their homeworld and the Earth, and also how they travel around the galaxy. (18) Henry focuses on the following scene described by Sitchin's interpretation of a cuneiform tablet of an Uruk ritual text: Depictions have been found that show divine beings flanking a temple entrance and holding up poles to which ringlike objects are attached. The celestial nature of the scene is indicated by the inclusion of the symbols of the Sun and the Moon.... depicting Enlil and Enki flanking a gateway through which Anu is making a grand entrance. (19) Rather than a simple temple scene involving the chief Anunnaki of the Sumerians, Anu and his two sons, Enlil and Enki, Henry proposes that the above scene represents a transportation device used by Anu and others from the elite Anunnaki. If so, then such a device is most likely located in the Sumerian city of Uruk which was the founding city of the Sumerian civilization and the home of Gilgamesh, the famed king of the Epic of Gilgamesh. (20) Sitchin, and authors such as David Childress who discuss the various technologies used by ETs and ancient civilizations, missed the significance of the Stargate in their own translations of the above texts and investigations of ET transportation. Both operated in a conventional paradigm where transportation occurs through rocket propelled vehicles. (21) Sitchin focuses on rocket propelled spacecraft in his description of the Anunnaki and their various trips to and from the Earth. For example, describing the transportation used by the Anunnaki in moving between their earth and space based locations, Sitchin wrote: "The texts reveal that three hundred of them - The "Anunnaki of Heaven," or Igig- were true astronauts who stayed aboard the spacecraft without actually landing on Earth. Orbiting Earth, these spacecraft launched and received the shuttle craft to and from Earth." (22) It therefore can be concluded that there were two forms of transportation used by the Anunnaki. One was a form of rocket technology familiar to us which was used by the resident Anunnaki on Earth who Sitchin, described as the "rank and file Anunnaki" who administered the Earth and humanity according to the dictates of their space based compatriots. (23) Another transportation technology was the Stargate which presumably was used only by the highest class of Anunnaki, who dispensed the tasks of harvesting the Earth's resources to the resident and space based Anunnaki (lessor gods/rebel angels). Interpreting the Babylonian Epic of Creation, one gains an idea of the way tasks were allotted and the hierarchy of the Anunnaki in the way the 'supreme god' Marduk, dispensed tasks to his subordinate Anu, chief of the Anunnaki: Assigned to Anu, to heed his instructions, Three hundred in the heavens he stationed as a guard; the ways of Earth to define from the Heaven; And on Earth, Six hundred he made reside. After he all their instructions had ordered, to the Anunnaki of Heaven and of Earth he allotted their assignments. (24) Thus the Anunnaki operated outposts both on Earth and in Space to maintain their control over the planet. Given the strict hierarchy of authority described by Sitchin in his detailed analysis of the Anunnaki and their interactions with one another and humanity, it is likely that the Stargate would have been revered and a subject of awe by the resident Anunnaki and humanity who could only observe its operation but were not allowed to use it themselves. As such, there would have been only a limited number of Stargates around the planet, with the Sumerian Stargate being located in the most important of the ancient Sumerian cities - the most likely being the ancient capital of Uruk, home of the ancient kings, which is located in Southern Iraq. Significantly, after a 12 year lull in excavations, a team of German researchers in 2002 resumed excavations in the buried city of Uruk. Using a magnetometer which is able to detect the presence of man-made objects beneath the soil, and a powerful computer system in Germany, German geophysicists were able to map out the buried structures of the sprawling ancient capital of 5.5 km2 that was where Sumerian civilization began. (25) An important event in the Sumerian descriptions of the Anunnaki, was the latter's final departure from the planet during a series of cataclysmic events that culminated in the period 1800-1700 BC. (26) Indeed, conventional archeologists support the view that there was a regional cataclysmic event that occurred at that time. (27) If in fact there were two modes of transportation used by the Anunnaki, when most of the resident/lessor Anunnaki left by conventional rocket ships, elite Anunnaki most likely left by the Stargate and closed it down. Predictably, given the reverence and awe surrounding the Stargate, it would not have been left unprotected in the interim period between their departure and its reactivation with the prophesied return of the Anunnaki. A wide number of sources describe the present era in terms of a 'prophesied return of the gods/Anunnaki'. The notion of a 'prophesied return' in the context of the former Anunnaki presence varies in meaning according to three different perspectives. The first perspective is based simply on the idea of the gods or 'Anunnaki' physically returning to resume a prominent role in influencing human affairs and overseeing the use of resources of the planet. (28) In such a scenario, the first wave of Anunnaki would arrive to create the favorable conditions for the anticipated return of the Anunnaki elite. This would involve the lessor Anunnaki first returning and activating the Sumerian Stargate that would be required for the return of their leaders. Presumably, this would be heralded as a sacred event that should be celebrated by all humanity. The authors, Clive Prince and Lyn Picknett, argue that there has been an identifiable chain of global events involving key religious and political actors preparing humanity for just such a return. (29) The second perspective on the "return of the gods/Anunnaki' is the return of their home world, the planet Nibiru. Indeed, there has been much interest generated by a range of books and online web sites devoted to the topic of the return of Nibiru, the home world of the Anunnaki. Many authors cite a variety of astronomical evidence supporting the idea of a tenth planet that has long been speculated to influence the orbits of Uranus and Neptune ever since it was found that Pluto (discovered in 1930) could not account for these perturbations. In the late1970's two astronomers from the US Naval Observatory, Tom van Flandern and Richard Harrington, begun publishing a series of papers supporting the existence of a tenth planet. (30) The most widely cited reference to support the thesis of a tenth planet that is known but not released to the general public, is a series of press releases by the astronomical team that were searching a part of the sky which calculations by van Flandern and Harrington suggested would be where the tenth planet was. In December 1983, the chief astronomer in charge of the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) run by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Dr Gerry Neugebauer, announced possible confirmation of such a planet. The Washington Post Reporter summarizing the announcement wrote: "[a] heavenly body possibly as large as ... Jupiter and possibly ... part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation of Orion by an orbiting telescope..." (31) After a total of six major newspapers covered the announcement, there was a retraction of the announcement and public silence by astronomers on the possible existence of a tenth planet. Rumors began to emerge of an active campaign of suppression of information and intimidation by clandestine government organizations. (32) For example, one of the astronomers at the US Naval Observatory, Dr Richard Harrington, spoke publically and wrote articles on the hypothetical planet X and there has been speculation that this directly contributed to his untimely death by 'natural causes' in 1992. (33) A third perspective on what the 'prophesied return of the gods/Anunnaki' means can be found in authors who focus on the significance of the upcoming end of the current Mayan 5,200 year cycle. According to John Major Jenkins, the Mayans were aware of the way the solar ecliptic plane comes into alignment with the galactic plane on periodic basis. This makes it possible for more intense cosmic energies to reach the earth from the galactic core. There is then a corresponding increase or decrease in the level of human consciousness, i.e., parts of the brain either go online or off-line, as these Mayan cycles go through their different phases. According to Jenkins, the year 2012 corresponds to the end of the current Mayan cycle and will lead to a rapid transformation of global consciousness. (34) Numerous authors refer to this as a New Age of more enlightened global thinking and increased human potential. (35) The 'prophesied return of the gods' may therefore signify a rapid in human consciousness as dormant parts of the brain come on line when the solar ecliptic comes into alignment with the galactic plane. In this explanation, humanity itself would develop 'god-like' powers which spontaneously become accessible to large numbers of humanity. A number of authors, for example, have been describing the amazing abilities and psychic powers of an increasing number of children world wide. (36) In sum, the available information on the 'prophesied return of the gods' can be understood to signify an important milestone in the growth of human civilization. The 'prophesied return' can be interpreted either literally or metaphorically to mean either a physical return of the 'gods'/Anunnaki; the return of a mysterious 10th planet to the solar system; or a rapid growth in the consciousness of humanity as the solar plane comes into alignment with the galactic plane. Despite the controversy over what precisely such a 'prophesied return' signifies, the factors in such a return that most pertain to the current political situation in Iraq and preemptive military intervention by the US can be identified and analyzed. The first factor is that an ET transportation device, a Stargate, or some other important ET artifact, may lie buried in the desert of Southern Iraq which presumably will play a role in the 'prophesied return of the gods'. Second, it is possible that there will be a return of a tenth planet that plays a critical role in return of the Anunnaki and/or which significantly impacts on the global environment. Finally, there is the potential for a rapid acceleration of human consciousness as the end of the Mayan Calendar, 2012, approaches. Exopolitical Analysis of US policy towards Iraq If there is a Stargate existing in Southern Iraq that will play a role in such a 'prophesied return of the gods', then it is most likely that clandestine government organizations that greatly influence or control the Bush administration, are aware of the existence and the role of this Stargate. Iraq's President Hussein is most likely also aware of such a Stargate's existence as might be inferred by his architectural projects intent on reviving the grandeur of early Mesopotamian civilizations, and cementing his place as the restorer of Iraq's past glory. (37) More significantly, his permission for a German team of archaeologists to resume excavations in the Sumerian city of Uruk after detailed underground mapping, suggests that this may be the location of the Sumerian Stargate. This knowledge of a buried Stargate, may also be part of the reason why the German government has been publically opposed to a US preemptive war against Iraq. If in fact both the Hussein regime and the Bush administration believe that a Stargate lies buried in the sands of Southern Iraq, then there most likely exists a race to gain access to it and to control it. William Henry's thesis is that this is indeed the political underpinning of the continuing military conflict in Iraq. (38) From the perspective of the Bush administration, control of the Sumerian Stargate would enable clandestine government organizations to continue their global campaign of non-disclosure of the ET presence. (39) This is strongly implied by the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and overturning many of the Freedom of Information initiatives from the earlier Clinton administration. Control of the Stargate, in addition to any other Stargates that may have been established in the capitals of other civilizations, e.g., the Egyptian, Incan and Aztec; would presumably give clandestine government organizations greater leverage with ET races that are presently interacting with the planet, or are predicted to arrive on the scene in some event associated with the 'prophesied return of the gods'. At the very least, control of the Sumerian Stargate would allow clandestine government organizations to dictate the pace of global transformations that ET races promise to introduce to the Earth with their advanced technology, superior knowledge and heightened psychic abilities. On the part of Hussein Regime, control of the Stargate would allow him to activate it and to fulfill prophesy by facilitating the return of an advanced race of ETs, the elite Anunnaki. President Hussein probably imagines that in return for his loyalty to the elite Anunnaki, he would be rewarded with a position of great global authority. Perhaps he would even see himself as some kind of human savior facilitating the return of the gods who would solve all of humanity's problem, and end the rule of clandestine government organizations perpetuating non-disclosure of the ET presence. Significantly, European governments such as Germany, and perhaps even France and Russia, may be giving themselves greater leverage in the future control of the Stargate by offering diplomatic cover for the Hussein regime as a quid pro quo for allowing the resumption of archaeological digging in Uruk. These governments and the clandestine organizations associated with them that have access to knowledge over the ET presence, most likely have deep suspicion over the willingness of the US to share information and control over the future of the Sumerian Stargate and any other ET technology discovered in Iraq. Sitchin's thesis of an ancient ET presence in Sumer combined with the notion of a variety of ET transportation devices described by other authors in their research of ancient civilizations, and resumption of archaeological excavations of the first Sumerian capital Uruk in 2002, give support to William Henry's thesis of a Stargate that lies buried in the sands of southern Iraq. This provides important contextual information that is helpful in understanding the true motivations of the Bush administration in launching a preemptive attack on Iraq. It may be argued that the Bush administration and the Hussein Regime are both in a race against time to gain access and control of the Stargate in the ruins of Uruk or some other location in Iraq, before the prophesied return of the Anunnaki. At the moment, a stalemate exists. Hussein controls the ground in Southern Iraq, and is permitting the German led excavations in Uruk, while the US led coalition controls the sky and is monitoring the situation. The Bush administration wants control of Iraq territory to take control of excavations of Uruk to uncover its buried Stargate, and closely monitor and control it. In contrast, Hussein wants to find and activate the Stargate for his greater glory and presumably the benefit of humanity. The primary evidentiary support for the above discussion is admittedly thin for conventional public policy experts and may sound better suited to a fictional thriller than serious public debate. From a conventional perspective, a scattered assortment of independent archeological authors, radical exegetical interpretations of biblical texts, the writings of 'channels' of ET knowledge, speculative papers from astronomers hardly constitute a persuasive source of information for understanding the motivations of US foreign policy. The prevailing explanations of a Bush administration as either devoted to eradicating Weapons of Mass Destruction, and/or being driven by oil interests and imperial ambitions would predictably prevail for those unconvinced by the above sources. There is however some important circumstantial evidence which lends plausibility to the Henry thesis of a Stargate as the true focus of the Bush administration or at least key interest groups behind it. The first piece of circumstantial evidence, are the overwhelming whistleblower testimonies confirming the existence of clandestine government organizations responsible for suppressing public knowledge of an ET presence, and which controls all official interaction with ET races. (40) From an exopolitical perspective, then, the clandestine suppression of a contemporary ET presence, supports the conclusion that there is also an active clandestine suppression of an ancient ET presence which also has significant public policy implications. The second piece of circumstantial evidence, is the powerful diplomatic support given by Germany and France to the Hussein Regime in warding off a preemptive military strike. So powerful has been this support, that the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, disparagingly referred to them as the "Old Europe" in response to a reporter on January 22, 2003: "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's 'old Europe.' If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the East. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it, 26, something like that? [But] you're right. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem." (41) Rather than backtracking on what was a diplomatic bombshell, the Bush administration has instead continued to go to extraordinary lengths to isolate the German and French positions on Iraq. For example, the administration encouraged the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic, to write a letter to the Wall Street Journal on January 30 that said ``the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security.'' (42) Rather than merely an intense diplomatic debate over different policy positions on Iraq, the striking language and positions taken in this debate suggests a more fundamental conflict over issues hidden from the public view. It is likely that there exists a factional struggle between clandestine government organizations set up to deal with the ET presence in the US, with rival organizations created in Germany, France and also Russia. The third piece of circumstantial evidence is the resumption of excavations of the first capital of Sumer, Uruk, by a German archeological team in 2002. Given the prominence of Uruk and its likelihood as the site for a Sumerian Stargate, then resumption of excavations raises questions over why they were resumed at this time and what is being sought. Given that political tensions in Iraq had not significantly diminished in 2002 with it being a likely source of future military conflict with the US, it can be suggested that there are powerful hidden motivations for what on the surface appears to be a purely scientific dig of an ancient Sumerian capital. The fourth piece of circumstantial evidence was the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia during its final descent on February 1, 2003, at an approximate height of 38 miles and travelling at Mach 18. One of the astronauts was the first Israeli in Space, Colonel IIan Ramon from the Israeli Airforce. Col Ramon reportedly played a role in the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear facility in Osirak in June 1981, and there has been speculation that his mission involved intelligence gathering over Iraq during the Shuttle's orbits. The destruction of Columbia occurred 16 minutes before touch down when its fuel tanks would have been virtually empty. A likely source of the Shuttle's destruction, given the speed and height of the Columbia, would have been some form of attack from an organization or state possessing military capabilities well beyond any terrorist groups and indeed most nations. The likely cause would have been a clandestine government organization that desired to send an important message to its US rivals over the threatened preemptive attack on Iraq. When all the primary and circumstantial evidence is put together, what emerges is a very plausible case that supports Henry's thesis of a power struggle that goes to the heart of the ET presence and the continued clandestine suppression of ET related information and its full implications. The interpretations of the motivations of the Bush administration in launching preemptive war on Iraq in terms of the concerns raised in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, or the corporate and imperial interests suggested by his critics such as Robert Fisk and Michael Lind, can all be described as part of the surface layer of motivations driving the Bush administration. At a deeper level, it is likely that there is great anxiety by clandestine government organizations in terms of what would happen if Hussein, with the support of the German and other European governments, gained access to the Sumerian Stargate or other ET technology buried in Uruk, or if the Stargate were to somehow reactivate without clandestine government personnel present to monitor and control the Stargate. President Bush's State of the Union address outlining the need for a preemptive attack on Iraq, in most likelihood masks a hidden agenda to gain access to the Stargate or other ET technology in Uruk and elsewhere in Iraq. Such access would presumably perpetuate clandestine government control over global resources and information at a time of increased ET activity and influence. Conclusion: Policy Implications and Recommendations If the exopolitical perspective is a more accurate description of the motivations driving the Bush administration in pushing for a preemptive war on Iraq, then the following policy recommendations can be made. (43) First, the quality of evidence substantiating an historic ET presence and clandestine government cover up has a significant degree of credibility and persuasiveness. This supports the creation a new field of public policy, exopolitics, which would study the historic ET presence in terms of its implications for contemporary public policy. Second, there is a need to promote official government disclosure of the historic ET presence and/or the impending return of these ETs; and to make more representative the policy making process that has evolved in government responses to such information. Third, evidence suggests that the present military preparations for a war against Iraq have little to do with weapons of mass destruction, but are designed to perpetuate US clandestine government control of information concerning the historic and present ET presence. Such a preemptive war should therefore be stopped and a resolution between the US, Iraq and interested European governments should be encouraged. Fourth, evidence suggests that the Iraq conflict and the destruction of the Columbia Space Shuttle mask a deep factional struggle between clandestine government organizations associated with different national governments that were initially created to deal with the ET presence. It is recommended that there is public disclosure of these organizations and their efforts in monitoring and responding to the ET presence, and that these organizations become accountable to elected public officials. The final policy recommendation is that there needs to be more effort in determining the extent to which congressional and legislative oversight is required for organizations created in different countries to deal with all aspects of the ET presence, both past and present, and on the implications of a projected return of a race of ETs associated with the birth of human civilization. This paper suggests that the best mechanism for responding to the existence of ancient ET technology in the ancient Sumerian capital of Uruk and/or elsewhere, is a willingness by major world governments and associated clandestine organizations to share information and control over these ET assets. A preemptive war conducted largely for the control of a 'Stargate' in Uruk which pits the US and its allies, against an Iraq which is tacitly supported by key European nations, could be calamitous if indeed the 'prophesied return' signified an actual physical event involving the ancient ET race that played a role in the start of human civilization. Competing clandestine government organizations struggling through a proxy war over the control of ancient ET technology in order to prepare for those events corresponding to the 'prophesied return of the gods', would hardly send the best example of a mature humanity responsible enough to continue to exercise sovereignty over the Earth's resources. The Columbia Space Shuttle may well have been a high profile victim of such a proxy war intended to send a message to US based clandestine organizations over the preemptive war against Iraq. .Human sovereignty may therefore be at stake at the very time where there exists an opportunity for a rapid movement forward in the evolutionary growth of human consciousness. It is up to all humanity to decide how we respond to the challenge posed by clandestine organizations struggling over Iraq's historic resources to further their respective secret agendas. --JudasChrist (MentalVisualArtist@poetic.com) (reply to this comment)

From JudasChrist Thursday, August 21, 2003, 14:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Tim. Once again I put Occams' Razor in2 effect. I do believe a good bit of what I ramble ab out...(reply to this comment)

from Anthony Friday, March 21, 2003 - 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) It's just too damn bad we didn't let the Serbs finish their job when they had the chance to.  And how the future reflects the past. J. Anthony R. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, March 21, 2003, 16:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Anthony, What are you referring to here? Are you referring to the Kurds kicking Sadam out of power when the US left? If so, then that was exactly what they intended to happen, but it went sour. Here is a little history on what happened. After the US left Iraq there was quite an army of Kurds there in Baghdad and in Iraq and the US was fully intending for them to over throw Sadam. The US had been fighting this war for a while and had reached somewhat of a victory but knew that continued fighting would cause more loss of American lives. Sadam on the other hand knew he was doomed knew that he better come to some sort of agreement fast before we killed him. Sadam agreed to have his generals meet with an American and British delegation led by General Norman Schwarkopf. The main gist of the meeting was all about UN watch dogs having access to Iraq nuclear sites and also what military action was acceptable during the next few years etc. Iraq however, pulled a fast one. While writing up a list of military sanctions that Iraq could and could not do the Iraq generals said "hey, we wanna be able to fly our own choppers over Iraq and Baghdad to see what’s going on. General Schwarkopf said "OK, your city is in ruins, I guess you need to survey this, go ahead." Iraq then said "Well how about armed choppers?" Schwarkopf, with ought thinking said "why not. Go ahead." Now that was probably one of the biggest mistakes made in the whole negotiation process. Once the treaty was signed the US had no authority to fire a single shot at Iraq. However the Iraq army had armed choppers up there and they were able to very quickly wipe out the Kurds along with all the rebels fighting Sadam. They systematically threw them all out of the country, slautering thousands upon thousands of Kurds while the US watched helplessly from a few hundred meters away and could do nothing. This was in effect an ethnic cleansing. Hundreds of thousands of women and children were forced out of their homes in a mass exodus similar to what happened in Serbia. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Saturday, March 22, 2003, 14:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm talking about the Serbs, not the Kurds.(reply to this comment)

from anovagrrrl Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 17:22 (Agree/Disagree?) The most scientific polls (as I read them) say the American people are evenly split on going to war with Iraq without UN support.  The margin of error is 3 percentage points, which means the estimated 47% who support this war without UN support could be anywhere from 44% to 50% of the people.  The 50% who oppose it could be 47% to 53% of the people.  There is no consensus. Now that hostilities have started, I feel it is time to silence open dissent to a war of imperialist hegemony.  That will be hard to do.  I love my country deeply, and because I love America, I feel compelled to speak out at what I see as a betrayal of national ideals.  The doctrine of "pre-emptive first strike" is unconscionable, and I feel ashamed of my government's actions with regard to Iraq. I am no peacenik.  I supported the war in Afghanistan, because there was clearly a connection with Al Queda.  Afghanistan was a war of self-defense sanctioned by the UN security council.  Nevertheless, now that Americans are putting their lives on the line, I will not lend support to their enemy.  I will support our troops, even if I cannot support the policy that put them where they are.  In place of protest, I will work hard to get the Bush regime voted out of office in 2004.  Many, many innocent people will suffer and die as a consequence of America's unrestrained thirst for oil and this administration's myopic Middle East policies.            (reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 16:30 (Agree/Disagree?)  Good point, yet on the other hand, if another administration is brought into power while this war is still going on (hopefully not by 2004) It will be dangerously simular to vietnam. While bush is a complete mantard, I believe he is the best one to finish exactly what he has started. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, March 20, 2003, 20:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I couldn't agree more nova.  To take it a step further, I think when the issue is war, even 60% isn't a good enough majority on which to make a decision.  Not to mention the millions in other countries who are opposed to this war, and Bush's snubbing of our strongest allies.  It's embarassing!  It makes one ashamed to be American. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 16:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I am not ashamed to be an American. I support our troops! We are already engaging the enemy, so I see no point in dogging my leadership right now.  I see a lot of opinions against this war, but doesn't anyone really hate dictatorships? I mean, we were raised in one. I know personally speaking I want to see Saddam taken down. His idea of governing is very simular to cult leaders.   (reply to this comment)

From Gar Thursday, August 21, 2003, 17:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you Lance, I support our troops, the reason being? For one, I would hate to live in a world run by the Arabs. (even just the thought horrifies me) And if things keep going the way they are we just might be. (my grandchildren that is) Saddam was a total dictator, thief (of his own people) and was living the good life while his people in utter poverty. (kind of like Berg) He was capable (financially) of gaining a lot more power that could threaten the civilized world. My wife lived in Kuwait for 3 years and she can tell you what Islam was like, just like you said, a dictatorship and the worst of them. Secondly, can you imagine any other country in the world with the amount of power the US has in this day and age and how they would handle it? I have gone through the list and it doesn’t look good with the exception of a small few. At least we have a democracy here with some safeguards. The US is basically policing the world and are bound to make mistakes, even big ones and I know that it is far, and I mean far from perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than anyone else could do. (in my opinion) (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 27, 2003, 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly Lance, We are already deep into the war. What exactly do these idiots that are out there protesting think that they are going to accomplish? Do they really think that Bush is going to change his mind and stop the war? Maybe some people do not agree with the war, but it's now time to face the fact that it's happening and support our troops that are out there as well as support the families that sacrificed their loved ones to be out there.   (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 16:49 (Agree/Disagree?) That seems like a funny logic to me.  It's equivalent to saying: "My sister is already a prostitute, so no point in trying to encourage her to consider a different career now" Dictatorships are wrong.  Pre-emptive strikes are also wrong.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just like holding up traffic is an atrocity, even when in protest of illegal military action.   (reply to this comment)

From Thursday, March 27, 2003, 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Surely holding up traffic can't be described as an atrocity?! (reply to this comment)

From Lance Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 15:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks! I had nearly forgotten about your love for ridiculous comparisons.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) They're called metaphors or analogies buddy(reply to this comment)

From Lance Thursday, March 27, 2003, 04:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, if you want to compare Presidents with/to prostitutes, then I wouldn't call that a proper "analogy".  As far as metaphors go: "two wrongs don't make a right" belongs to the fair tutelage of 5 year olds, not to someone trying to make a respectful-if even valid-point to us grown ups.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, March 27, 2003, 13:50 (Agree/Disagree?) But it's still true that two wrongs don't make a right, and if our president ignores that fact and starts acting like a five-year old, than I think it belongs in the discussion.(reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 27, 2003, 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) To wrongs don’t make a right, but they can make it better. I don’t know what that means, I am still against this war but it sounded good in my head, where I should have kept it. oooookay no more for me. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Thursday, March 27, 2003, 04:38 (Agree/Disagree?) like I said, "I had nearly forgotten".(reply to this comment)

from Jules Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Here is something I thought was interesting, which does not seem to have been picked up by the US media. "THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html> (reply to this comment)

from Ian Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 11:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Your "facts" seem a bit out of place.  I'm not sure about there certainty or relevancy to anything.  I don't neccesarily agree with this war either, but not because some corporation just won a contract to rebuild oil fields.   "...another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

from Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 11:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it’s interesting how so many of us have so many different feelings and opinions on this war. I have chatted with Athena on numerous occasions and found her to be a interesting and intelligent woman, however sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Sorry babe. L   Point # 1. 10 million march for peace: Yes, millions of people may have marched for peace, but the majority of the world wants this war and in a democracy majority rules! Viva democracy! Point # 2. Man arrested for wearing pro-peace T shirt: Sorry darling, but I am unable to see how this is a good anti war argument. Point # 3. War to cost U.S. $70 - $200 Billion$70 Billion:  Freedom Doesn’t come Cheep. Yes this war is going to cost us an arm and a leg. On the bright side it will do good for the US economy. Point # 4. 1 in 6 U.S. Children live in Poverty: Seeing as what a great and wealthy nation the US is, the standards for poverty are not anywhere near what you and me are used to seeing in Asia and 3rd world countries. US children do NOT starve every day. Yes some are poor and may be eating fish sticks and Mack and cheese every day. But that’s not at all near to the poverty that you think. US children do NOT starve. Point # 5. Starting salary for soldiers: $14,244: Again, I am trying to see the pertinence of this point and how it pertains to the war at hand. $14,244 is a very low salary, but considering that they pay for medical, rent and all your other basic needs, it’s not the same as some jo blow on the St making 14k a year. Also you have to remember that is Starting salary. I personally don’t know of any US serviceman making under 20k. Point # 6. Pentagon orders 77,000 body bags: Did you know that they ordered 14,000 body bags for the gulf war? How many US casualties did they have? Barely a few hundred. They just want to have everything they may ever need out there in case of emergency. Point # 7. U.S. Navy hiring morticians. Mortician-$6,000 Sign-on bonus: No one said war was pretty. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Point # 8. Number of congressmen with a child in the military: 1 (NOTE: ENLISTED RANKS):  Did you see the point there where it says “Note: Enlisted ranks.” That’s because their kids were fortunate enough to go to the good schools and become officers etc. Anyway, how do you know they don’t have Grandchildren and nieces and nephews that are enlisted. Point # 9. UN: 10 million Iraqis could face starvation: OK, here is one that may be debatable. There have been UN reports on how the affects of a long term war may affect the Iraq people. The thing is that this will not be a long term war. This will be a swift kick ass, in and out deal like in Serbia. I am sure that there will be some major deficiencies and shortages at first but aid agencies like the Red Cross and the UN have never in the past been unable to cope. Just like they said they were unable to cope in Bosnia. Point # 10. 500,000 Iraqi children died during 90s from bombings and sanctions: Read carefully. These deaths, if it really was ½ a mill as stated by two scientists, were not all from the bombings, but also within that last 12 years of sanctions. If the people want and end to the sanctions then get that dictator outa power! If you are unable to do it, we will help ya. Point # 11. UN officials: “U.S. lacks intelligence”: Ummmm, OK…. Can we have some details and specifics here. Just because the UN said it, doesn’t necessarily make it so. Point # 12: U.S. Weighs Nuclear Strike on Iraq: I don’t believe that for one min. Why would we even have to? We have the fire power and resources to do without that. Did you know that we only have 300,000 US, British and Australian troops over there right now in comparison to their 1,000,000 troops. And even with only our 300,000 we are more than capable of kicking their ass with ought nuclear war. Point # 13. Bush advisers have been planning the Iraq war since 1998: Suuuuuweet! Finally we get a president with some balls and vision! Point # 14. Halliburton wins contract to rebuild Iraqi oil fields: I don’t see how this pertains to whether or not we should be fighting this war. Point # 15. Federal Deficit to soar past $300 Billion: Like I said earlier. Freedom doesn’t come with ought a price. Point # 16. US airlines to fire 70,000 if war starts:  I don’t see that happening at all. I do see a few liberals crying a river and again jumping on the anti war bandwagon by throwing out more highly unlikely scenarios of what may happen if we go to war. (reply to this comment)

From Athena Sunday, March 23, 2003, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I thing its quite obvious this post was not my personal 'anti-war argument", but rather parts of articles from reliable newspapers concerning current events that I found interesting. Saying that, I recognize the mistake of calling it "Facts" since that bothered some people, even though I dont think its highly important what the title was.  Like Ive said before Im not anti-american, I think its a beautiful  country with extremely friendly people, but I find it tiring when discussing politics and more specifically this war, that more often than not all I end up getting is a "We are the best, the strongest, the bravest" speech, and now we can add "the policemen of the world". I appreciate qualities such as loyalty and dedication to one's country and president, but I dont believe that because we love our country we have to agree and blindly follow everything the government spoonfeeds us.  For example I cant imagine supporting a war, when the man that declares it, announces it while having his hair done! Tell me, was that mockery or just plain stupidity? Either way Bush has earned my full and utter disrespect!  Yes Hussein is guilty of many crimes he has comitted against his own people and I dont think anyone doubts that, he deserves the very worst of punishments, but I find it very naive for someone to think that the actual reason for this war is to offer the Iraqi people freedom out of the kindness of junior's heart. If that was the goal it could have been done alot more easily, with the support of most governments and civilians worldwide.   Why was there no proof given that Iraq actually has these weapons? If they did, dont you think its strange they weren't disarmed a hell of a long time ago? Isn't it a slight bit convenient how Bush and Blair just all of a sudden "remembered" to make a big deal out of it? Im not very convinced that Hussein and Iraq were or are that big of a threat and in this great fury to defeat terrorism, Bush lashes out at the easiest target advertising it as a big "humanitarian" act, but lusting after the land and oil, not to mention settling a personal little family vendetta with Sadam. Why didnt the States take care of this years ago? Countries in Europe, Russia, China etc, were very willing to support this war if given appropriate and definetly alot more proof of why this war just had to start. Its quite idiotic that a country who proclaims itself as the biggest defender of freedom of speech to not allow continued debate and dialog with the countries that were against its actions, and instead put out ridiculous ultimatums.  Its not a coincidence that so many are voicing concern and doubts about the logic of this war, as you said Nick yes alot of countries are supporting the States...but then again what else are they supposed to do? What counts is what the people think, that's Democracy! I personally have never seen more protesting against a war, in so many countries ever before. Ofcourse they dont show any of that over there do they?!  I dont think any one man or government is moral enough to make decisions such as this one.   (reply to this comment)

From katrim4 Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:30 (Agree/Disagree?) As far as # 2 goes Nick, we are supposedly going to "give the Iraqi people freedom". Yesterday the department of homeland security talked about some of the measures being taken because of our Orange Plus alert level (Operation Liberty Sheild). Did you know that one of those measures is that your car is subject to random searches near an airport? Random! No reason needed other than some police man doesn't like the way you look. The point is that while our government goes around saying that we need to give the poor people of Iraq their liberty, our liberties as American citizens are quietly being taken away from us. If you don't get angry about the T-shirt, and you don't get angry about the random car searches, and you don't get angry about credit checks at the airport, then where do you draw the line? (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Friday, March 21, 2003, 11:10 (Agree/Disagree?) You are absolutely right Kat. I'm sick of hearing people talk about the insignificance of everything.This is not the only arrest that has been made, just the other day in NY more than 20 people were arrested and charged. Why are there no arrests being made on the Pro War protests? Not trying to sound tit-for-tat here but it really is amazing how little say we "free" people of the US have in any of the decisions concerning these issues. "I won't be IGNORED Goeorge"(reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:53 (Agree/Disagree?) This Orange alert level will last for but a short time yet the dictatorship that Sadam has had over Iraq has been going on well over a decade. I don't know about you all, but I can tolerate a few random searches of my car for a few months if it's what I have to sacrifice for the good as a whole. (reply to this comment)

From Ian Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Just curious Katrim4, where do you draw the line?  Personally I hate cops, security, all military, and anyone who tries to tell me what to do.  That list includes militant muslim radicals who want to kill me because of my way of life.  This current "war" that we have with Iraq has very little to do with all of that, but you mentioned security at airports so I'm asking. I wouldn't get your panties all bunched up over this lawyer that got arrested, I'm sure there is more than meets the eye. If the story holds true then he will obviously be sueing someone. Then he can pay off his student loans and buy a BMW. And the great US economy will roll on.   "...another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, March 21, 2003, 18:30 (Agree/Disagree?) "militant muslim radicals who want to kill me because of my way of life."  Why don't they blow up Amsterdam or Rio de Janeiro, cities that are far more sinful than New York?  Can we stop kidding ourselves and saying "oh, they hate our freedom!"?(reply to this comment)

From katrim4 Thursday, March 20, 2003, 12:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I beleive the owner of the mall dropped the charges, so this lawyer doesn't really have to worry about that anymore. Of course we need security at our airports. I don't even think that I would be outraged or even upset if my car was searched at the airport. I would be upset though if I was on a road somewhere near an airport (there are 3 here and I happen to live near one) and some dumb ass cop decided to use that as an excuse to pull me over and search my car.  So I guess that is where I would draw the line. If it makes logical sense (airport security) or not (random searches near an airport). The radical muslims that want to kill us for our way of life are of course on the side of line that makes sense. But like you said, this war has little to do with all of that. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, you are right, the charges were dropped. I watched the Larry King with these two guys on there. It was a father and son, (Both attorneys BTW.) and they were confronted by two over zealous security guards. Apparently the day before there were some unauthorized mini protests or something like that in the mall, so mall management decided to have  no tolerance policy towards those kid of political statements on placards etc. Anyway, the dumbass rent a cop went to far and off course the local PD had to arrest the poor guys as it was on private property and the guards spewed "trespassing" charges. (reply to this comment)

From katrim4 Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Nick, I beleive the point of # 14 is that one could argue that if Halliburton has won the contract for rebuilding the Iraqui oil feilds after the war, then it stands to reason that Cheney could make quite a bit of money from this war. That of course would pose a conflict of interest. If he is going to be making so much money from a very likely war scenario then he probably shouldn't be one of the people advising the president (a long time family friend) about the war. Much less be one of the key decison makers. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, Halliburton is connected to Dick Chaney, but did anyone bother to see how? He was on the board of directors and had a substantial amount of stock in the company. However during the presidential campaign he was forced to resign his post and sell his stock due to conflicts of interest. If memory serves me right he got around $60,000,000 for that stock. All that to say, he is not a shareholder in Halliburton anymore hence very unlikely to benefit financially from this war. (reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:20 (Agree/Disagree?) "Point # 1. 10 million march for peace: Yes, millions of people may have marched for peace, but the majority of the world wants this war and in a democracy majority rules! Viva democracy!" Can you back this up with facts or have you not been watching the news. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh believe me I have been following the news. Although the US and Britain may not have backing of some of the larger key players in the UN like France, for the most part we have world support. There are over 30 countries that we supportive of the war initiative as of early March and I have no idea how many more that were undecided are now in support. The list of 30 countries the US State Department says are members of a "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq" is: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, Uzbekistan. Excerpt taken from www.CNN.comhttp://www.CNN.com">www.CNN.com> As for US support, go to CNN, FOX News, ABC, BBC and you will see that every one of their polls show strong US sentiment in support of the war. Anywhere from 65% to 80% in favor. (reply to this comment)

From Fedburin Friday, March 21, 2003, 18:15 (Agree/Disagree?) You said, "As for US support, go to CNN, FOX News, ABC, BBC and you will see that every one of their polls show strong US sentiment in support of the war. Anywhere from 65% to 80% in favor."  You seem to base many of your arguments on polls and statistics.  Out of curiosity, what was the final consensus regarding the election of our "beloved" President Bush?  Didn't the majority vote for Gore?  Do you believe everything you watch in the news?  Do you really think that during a time of war that CNN is going to come out with statistics saying that, for example, over 80% of America opposes the war?  Besides that how accurate are the polls?  Please don't give me an error margin either what I mean is have you personally been polled?  I haven't and as a matter fact no I know has been polled.  How large is the sample that is being polled I wonder.  Do you have these numbers or are you just spouting off statistical information with no information on how that information was obtained? Cheers (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, March 21, 2003, 18:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I base most my arguments on fact. However in the case of what percent of the American population want this war, yes I do base that on polls. Not from just the one poll, but every major network poll that’s out there reflects the same which is that more American people support the war that don’t support it. Do you know of another better or more accurate way that we can gauge this? As for who has and has not been polled, off course they can't get to everyone in the US, but they do take a very varied demographic and have anywhere from 35,000 to 200,000 people polled. If you look at the info on most polls you can see the # of people polled. BTW, how is a simple yes or no poll anything like the complicated general election process in which we chose a president? Your analogy there is way off. (reply to this comment)

From K Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you not think that they would loose too much to go against the U.s? They have done it many times[buying votes-Yemen lost all their aid]and could that be the reason? America plays  with their little toy solder's and the world has to pick up the pieces. All the money spent on the war would have been a fantastic present for the  less fortunate countries-helping to eradicate all those"bitter and angry" terrorists of the future. The u.s needs to answer the Question they said they asked themselves after 11/9, of which it appears they still don't have the answer too.Isreal needs a good talking too. Peace (reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 13:06 (Agree/Disagree?) “This is more a list of the ‘coalition of the sinning’ rather than of ‘the willing’, it contains many governments that have done their utmost to suppress and stifle the independent media in their countries. They should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the other democratic countries named on the same list who continue to espouse the principles of a free press. Moreover, at a time when the United States and Great Britain are promising to introduce democracy to post-war Iraq, it is troubling to see them aligned with so many authoritarian states.” ”The list was shorter than previous suggestions by administration officials, who recently said the coalition supporting the United States was in the "high two digits," and it included nations like Eritrea, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Colombia and Ethiopia, who have little to offer beyond moral support. Only a handful will actually contribute to the U.S. military effort in the Persian Gulf.” IMO I think Saddam should be removed and there are many countries who would like to see this happen, the war is what I see as unnecessary. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 13:13 (Agree/Disagree?) "IMO I think Saddam should be removed and there are many countries who would like to see this happen, the war is what I see as unnecessary." OMG, what a genius idea! Why didn't we think of that? You know what we should have done? We should have given him an ultimatum to get out of the country and step down from power.... Yeah, that’s what we should have done.... Oh wait. That is what we did and it didn't work. Hence the missiles.   (reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 13:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam as a dictator should be removed, I fail to see the logic in why he should be given an ultimatum and then proceed to bomb the country. I would like to know why you support this war. (reply to this comment)

from pharmaboy.. Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 06:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I was so saddened on hearing the war started this morning. Not because I have any feelings for Saddam, but because it goes to prove that as an ordinary citizen, we have NO say at all in what our governments decide to do. It doesn't matter if 60mil people protest, I had hoped for once us ordinary pawns could be heard and impose OUR way. It didn't make a shit of difference, as mis-information and propaganda yelled louder than us, the people. 'Democracy', that word has absoulutely no meaning to me whatsoever. Fuck even trying, fuck it all, it's all useless, they'll do what they want anyway at the expense of us common, worthless citizens. Let's just keep at our jobs, pay our taxes & loans, and play the part of the happy, free western citizen. Everyone should be like us, what more could we want? To leave this place perhaps... (reply to this comment)

From proudtobeamerican Thursday, March 20, 2003, 16:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, maybe that is what you should do. If you hate this place so much, then go live somewhere else. It is tiring to listen to all of you people whine about what you want and how you want it. You say you want Saddam out. How do you suggest we do that...ask him nicely to please leave?? He is not going anywhere until we force him too. You all want to sit back and let the terrorists walk all over us. If we don't do something PROactive, it will happen again. You don't want another 9/11. Rest assured, if we do not start eliminating some of these people, it will happen again. So just for a moment, why don't you pay a little bit of respect for the men and women who have left their families with full faith in our country and its leaders to go and defend YOUR freedom to sit on your computer and whine!! (reply to this comment)

From Tim R Thursday, March 20, 2003, 18:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Um, Proud, you're wellcome to your own opinions, but Pharma DOES live somewhere else. (reply to this comment)

From beproudnotblind Thursday, March 20, 2003, 17:09 (Agree/Disagree?) You should read some of these articles before you entrust your faith to your country and leaders. http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/013003A.wrp.unsaid.htm http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/013003A.wrp.unsaid.htm">http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/013003A.wrp.unsaid.htm> http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/weneedawar.html http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/weneedawar.html">http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/weneedawar.html>(reply to this comment)

From K Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I've also heard evidence that Bush senior was a business partner with Osama Bin Ladin -both wanted to attack Iraq. It's quite alarming that Americans [Hopefully not on the whole as the last election shows,] feel so much fear caused by mental coercion at the hands of a Dictator, ie Bush junior and friends.Saddam's name is used in place of Osama's now and as the media is so censured it's harder to inform the population.I'm also aware of the coercive tactics used,hypnotic voice and language style.The camera focusing in slowly on the eyes.The constant writing flashing across the screen, [reminding us that two suspect's have been playing with their chemistry sets again.]when an important and occasional, educational,intellectual programme is aired ;and usually at 2 in the morning.O n the news last night, who did they choose to to interview? A young ten girl who was so excited she was barely understandable and i could see how this would give creadance to the "war mongerers" amongst us that "she was just a silly girl.." and go on believing they have the moral high-ground. Viva la france -American fries,French kiss!(reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 16:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I support the men and women of the military, but this war is not about freedom or terrorist.(reply to this comment)

From proudtobeamerican Friday, March 21, 2003, 01:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I suppose all of you who are against this war could be right. Saddam must be collecting weapons of mass destruction for fun. I am sure he has no intention on ever using them against the U.S., the country for which he has nothing but hatred. You're right. Let's let him keep it all and keep his power. Let's wait until he decides to pull something like Osama Bin Laden did on 9/11. But you know what, since you all feel like we are not being fair. Why don't you let him know where you're at so that you can "talk it out" calmly and peacefully with him. I am not a violent person. I think about families like mine over in Iraq living in fear for their lives. But, the fact is, Saddam is insane and there is no logical way to deal with him. No one did anything when Osama Bin Laden bombed the World Trade Center the first time and look what happened. Why is it so wrong to hold Saddam accountable for breeching U.N. regulations?? He has had plenty of time to make this right. The thing that really gets me is that the people who are protesting and complaining about the war would be the very same people asking why our government wasn't protecting us if something did happen. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, March 21, 2003, 18:36 (Agree/Disagree?) If I think that my neighbor has a gun, or perhaps some chemicals from which he could fashion a bomb, I have no legal right to go over and beat the shit out of him, no matter how much I think he hates me.  Pre-emptive strikes are illegal and immoral.  Life is filled with risk, you just have to learn to live with it.  (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 21, 2003, 07:02 (Agree/Disagree?) The big question should not be why this war is being waged - We all know that OIL is at the crux of the matter - nor should we out too much weight on what percentage of the US or UK populations are for or against military action.  The overriding factor should be What do the people of Iraq want. It's easy enough for people in the US and also here in the UK to campaign for peace because we are not affected by the rule of a dictator and his regime. I started out strongly opposed to this war, mainly because I don't feel America and it's allies should be able to bully the rest of the world - In my view there should have been UN agreement first. But I cannot be completely opposed to an effort that would hopefully bring with it greater freedom for the Iraqi people. If YOU were living in a country like Iraq with a leader who is as ruthless as Saddam has proved to be would you not want the chance of liberation? I will reserve judgement on the moral issues until I see what is done in the aftermath of the war. If America and Britain stand by their pledge to build the country up again and do their duty to the highest degree then I will concede that the war was worthwhile. I am sure you wil agree that countries such as Japan owe a lot to the regenaration the US headed up after WWII and if Iraq can benifit from this then I don't really care what the underlying and most likely corrupt reasons the US had for spearheading this war.   Nobody wants war just for the sake of it but sometimes it is necessary. (reply to this comment)

From K Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?) We should want them to be fully independent and not in Bush's payroll as so many others are.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 21, 2003, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, of course in an ideal world there would be no back-room politics and we could just take things at face value, but unfortunately that is completely unrealistic and just not the way things are. I've come to the conclusion that you can't fight the system and the sooner people would just accept that nothing in politics is ever as it seems we would save ourselves a lot of unnecessary anger and frustration. Of course the US will rule by default and will have gotten their way in regards to controlling the world's 2nd largest oil reserve, but if it brings with it democracy and freedom for the grassroots then I say that's better than nothing. Let's just hope they can finish this war off quickly wihtout too many civilian casualties!  (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 21, 2003, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Very tired this morning - just noticed several typos in the above comment: First par. should read "Nor should we PUT too much weight on what percentage of the US or UK populations are for or against military action" Second to last par. should read "IF Iraq can benifit from this then I don't really care what the underlying and most likely corrupt reasons the US had for spearheading this war ARE". (reply to this comment)

From TimR Friday, March 21, 2003, 02:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Well "The thing that gets me" is when patridiots like you have the nerve to accuse ANYONE of "Violating The UN resolutions", what do you call the USA's current actions? America has just anounced to the world that it can do what ever it wants, and will give whatever reasons it wants without any concern for ANYONE'S opinions. The USA has become the very definition of a "Rogue State". MAY GEORGE BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN SHARE THE SAME CELL!  (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 10:20 (Agree/Disagree?)  Bull fucking shit! about 60% of the US population is for this war! Yes all your protesting did no good. That’s because this country, unlike Iraq, is a democracy and our great president knows that and did what the people want. Quit with all your bull shit about what the american people want and read the facts! The facts clearly state that the people of US OF A want this war. http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=327 http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=327">http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=327> http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=327 http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=327">http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=327> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0205/p01s01-usgn.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0205/p01s01-usgn.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0205/p01s01-usgn.html> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME">http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME> And those are only a fraction of the articles out there. (reply to this comment)

From mmmmm Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Sad sad sad sad sad sad sad sad and bad!(reply to this comment)

From TimR Friday, March 21, 2003, 02:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know if that is true or not, but if 60% of Americans feel that way, then 60% of Americans are wrong. Remember, the majority of Germans supported Hitler. (reply to this comment)

From Sick and Tired Anonymous Brit Thursday, March 20, 2003, 13:16 (Agree/Disagree?) You "Americans" are all gung ho about this war, when you aren't the ones who have to put up with the aftermath of it!  If any of you lived in Britain, or most other European countries for that matter you will soon find out that we are nearly overrun with asylum seekers as it is, London is 1/3 non-white (or to be politically correct Non-British). Every time America gets involved with something it always turns sour.  Take the last "Gulf War" America bombs and all, encouraged the Southern Iraqis to revolt against Sadam saying that they would back them when they did, no chance!  The US pulled out and they were all wiped out with Mustard Gas, Ricin etc. Don't get me wrong, Sadam is an evil piece of work but then so is Mugabe and I don't see the US getting involved in that, I wonder why?  Could it possibly be that Africa has nothing that they want? What about Pol Pot? Hitler? The US didn't give a toss about him untill their precious navy was attacked by the Japs! So, I think the US Government and that fool Bush need to pull their finger out and be a bit less obvious about their alterior motives, and sort out some real problems in this World like the Iraqi, African, Indian children that are starving through no fault of their own! (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Ummmmm... I am a Brit. (reply to this comment)

From Sick and Tired Brit Friday, March 21, 2003, 05:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe, but you don't live here so you don't have to put up with all your taxes going to giving foreigners 5 bedroomed houses while there are families of 4 or 5 (legitimate BRITISH families) squashed into 2 bedroomed flats!! You don't have to get on a bus or a tube to work everyday only to be pushed and shoved by some gibberish-speaking dressed-like-an-idiot-in-flourecent-green Jamacian or some horribly smelly Turk!  Not to mention the crime they bring to this country, Yardies distributing cocaine to kids, the Turkish gangs who bring in the heroin, the drive-by-shootings that are common place here now, people being mugged for their mobiles left right and center by, may I stress, non-Brits.  This has got to end somewhere! (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, March 21, 2003, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Well why the hell don’t we kick out your damn left wing liberal Gov and get the Tories back in power. (reply to this comment)

From Anon Brit Monday, March 24, 2003, 08:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Would rather have the British National Party in power than Ian "Never-Under-Estimate-the-Quiet Man" Duncan Smith! Or better yet, another Maggie Thatcher! (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 21, 2003, 13:05 (Agree/Disagree?) It could be going that way.   (reply to this comment)

From mmmmmm Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Stop reading the Daily mail, please? or listening to the generation who fought in the last world war, unless you understand where they're coming from. Britain needs more immigrants,our work force is decreasing every year, which we'll need when we are old. Other wise what will happen? Slavery- which is what we should and could be aiming for.  (reply to this comment)

From Anon Brit Monday, March 24, 2003, 08:44 (Agree/Disagree?) What a mis-informed opinion!  Do you live in London or are you tucked up in some Welsh village?  The immigrants don't f**king work! They are on the dole, criminals or otherwise.  Just because you may be an asylum seeker doesn't mean you automatically get a work permit!  What about the refugees (1000's every month!!) that come over illegally?  THEY are not allowed to work and so sponge of the working classes.  They are not the ones who will be paying our pensions when we are old.  They would probably rather save their cash (and avoid taxes) to send to their families to bring more of them over here, mostly women and children who don't work in the first place. So, please stick to reading the Sun, Daily Sport or News of the World and continue to live in your fantasy land where Asylum Seekers are the bread winners for Brits and not the cause of most of this country's problems i.e. unemployment, street crime, racially aggrivated crimes, over crowded hospitals, AIDS etc. (reply to this comment)

From Alf Monday, March 24, 2003, 13:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Here here.. As far as I'm concerned the more local council seats won by the BNP the better. We need to amplify racial tensions to the point where the immigrants v English situation becomes untenable and turns into actual urban conflict/combat. Lets have the bastards. Alf (for a whiter, brighter, better tomorrow)   (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 21, 2003, 13:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I  agree with you that it is perfectly alright to have some immigrants to make up the numbers in the workforce,  but letting in foreigners to the tune of 100,000 a year (And that's only the official figure!) is not going to work in the long-term. What I don't like is the way this present government seems to be totally incapable of doing anything in a way that actually works.  How come we can't at least have one top-notch system - Either the NHS, the National Rail system, Education System to name a few - to show for all the taxes we have to pay?! I'm not sure if New Labour will survive the next vote. But in all honesty I'm fed up with any kind of politics - I really can't say that I think life under a Tory government would be any better. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you that the examples you cited are some of the main reasons why a majority of british citizens did not want the war to go ahead. To add to this I would say that it is shameful that the war could end up costing this country and the taxpayers billions of pounds when for years now New Labour has been using the "Not enough money" excuse to get out of honouring the commitments they made to this country before election. We have a huge crisis in the National Health service to the point that there are maternity wards where the mothers have to deliver babies on their own without a midwife hardly being with them for more than a few minutes because the staff shortages are so bad, people are being denied life-saving medicine and treatments for such illnesses as cancer and MS and many others because funding is handed out in a ridiculously unfair way depending on which county one lives in, people fly off to India or South Africa to have operations that are supposed to be covered by the National Health service because the waiting lists are so long that they often have to wait 2 years or more for life-saving treatment and they can fly out there for private treatment and still pay less than half of what it costs to have private treatment here. The school and Education system is completely useless with huge teacher shortages and classes with far too many pupils to a teacher  because the schools cannot afford to hire as many teachers as they actually need. We are taking in far too many so-called asylum seekers (Not forgetting that there are some who genuinely deserve help) and giving them everything free to the point of luxurious living while old people who are not actually ill  are dying in hospital after months and sometimes even years languishing in hospital beds sorely needed by other patients. Why? - Because care homes are shutting due to lack of funding from the government. The Firefighters' Union are striking time after time in order to try to win a fair pay deal amounting to the equivalent of a couple of pounds more per hour but have been met with continued resistance from the government - "There just isn't enough money to go around." Meanwhile the Parliament votes to give themselves a huge pay increase while decreasing the hours they spend at work! How does this possibly add up?! It is truly disgraceful and I can understand why people are angry. Whether or not Tony Blair's reasons for joining the war effort are morally sound we'll probably never know with complete certainty but one thing's for sure: He's going to have to do a hell of a lot better at getting his own country up to standard in coming years or the political road ahead will be very difficult for him. He has a duty to this country too and we expect better than we've got at the moment.  (reply to this comment)

From K Friday, March 21, 2003, 09:56 (Agree/Disagree?) If only Blair remembered his duty. Instead of wasting his time and our money being the fall guy of Bush.[Interrestingly the UK fired the first shot.](reply to this comment)

From Mildy Annoyed Brit Friday, March 21, 2003, 07:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Agree wholeheartedly, ok it's our PM's fault as well but man I normally park the motorbike and use the tube on a friday - not anymore! and not because of who's on it, London is on a terror alert and the tube is a prime target. I think I'll avoid it for a couple months. Tell you what, they should move the anti war protesters from Westminster and put them underground as human shields. One things for sure, America isn't going to load up their planes with Iraqi refugees - come 2004 the Asian community might have to give up the east end to Iraqis. Sheep head will become the new kebab. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 20, 2003, 10:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Nick, Am I confused here, or are the first 2 articles about the Afganistan war? The invasion of Iraq is a different issue. The only thing I could find in what you posted that was revelant to this particular situation was: "People were just about evenly split on an invasion if the United States did not offer a U.N. resolution and said it would proceed with military action without any new vote. In that case, 47 percent supported such an action and 50 percent opposed it." --The Washington Times, March 17, 2003 http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME">http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME>(reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Oops, sorry all! I have like 20 articles open and on my browser right now. I mixed a few up. My bad. (reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 11:26 (Agree/Disagree?) NIck, I get the feeling that you are pro this war, can ask you why?(reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 10:33 (Agree/Disagree?) The people of the USA that want the war are sheep that believe whatever is fed to them. open your fucking eyes. (reply to this comment)

From captain Thursday, March 20, 2003, 17:11 (Agree/Disagree?) You are making a gross generalization. YOur choice of metaphors does nothing for your argument, neither do the expletives. Use valid sources if you want anyone to take you seriously. (reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 20, 2003, 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) i just posted two links under "beproudnotblind" I would enjoy your feedback. (reply to this comment)

From venusbutterfly Thursday, March 20, 2003, 06:57 (Agree/Disagree?) to leave this place indeed...!! (reply to this comment)

from mex Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 22:39 (Agree/Disagree?) It has begun. (reply to this comment)