what kind of poll was that anyways? i don’t really think it is a representative one. why don’t you just finally stop condemning whole nations for not supporting the us going to war? at least in this forum people should be more open minded…
Americans in Europe combat anti-U.S. views
On an overnight train trip from Bozel to Berlin in Germany in May, Gary Smith, executive director of the American Academy in that country, debated a pair of German professors about America’s search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
“If the U.S. finds weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it’ll only be because the CIA planted them,” the Germans said, according to Mr. Smith, who has lived in Germany for 19 years and identifies with the Democratic Party here.
“What possible scenario would change your mind?” Mr. Smith said he asked the Germans, but they couldn’t come up with an answer.
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _criminals
Nazi-Hunting Center Criticizes Austria
In our haste to put the spotlight on the Germans, I suggest that we shift focus to their smaller, southern, but just as dirty Austrians. 
Aren’t there some who stereotype Germans as logical and insightful in their thinking? Perhaps that is where it comes from.
Is Dick Cheney German?
[quote]Cheney’s Counterspin
Amy Goodman, July 26, 2003
On Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney attempted to restate the administration’s case for war at a speech at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. He repeatedly cited an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that warned Saddam Hussein was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
“Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away, would be irresponsible in the extreme,” Cheney said. “And our President did not ignore that information–he faced it. He sought to eliminate the threat by peaceful, diplomatic means and, when all else failed, he acted forcefully to remove the danger.”
Former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman responded on Pacifica radio’s Democracy Now! by describing Cheney’s speech as the “longest statement of disinformation that I think the American government has distributed to the American people.”
Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Center’s National Security Project. He is the author of the forthcoming book “Bush League Diplomacy: Putting the Nation At Risk” (Prometheus). He is also a professor of international security studies and chairman of the international relations department at the National War College.
Goodman told Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman, “For Dick Cheney to recite those charges we all know now not to be true adds to the terrible politicization of intelligence that’s created a scandal in the intelligence community unlike anything I ever saw in my 24 years in the C.I.A. that includes the period of Vietnam, the period of the intelligence failure on the Soviet Union, and the incredibly contentious disputes over arms control.”
Cheney did not discuss his role in the Iraq-Niger uranium scandal or the reports that he personally went to CIA headquarters to pressure the Agency on Iraq intelligence.
Senator Bob Graham of Florida called for a congressional probe Thursday to examine whether Cheney’s meetings with the CIA.
TRANSCRIPT, Democracy Now! July 25, 2003
DICK CHENEY: The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy. But those who do so have an obligation to answer this question. How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat? Last October, the director of central intelligence issued a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s continuing programs of weapons of mass destruction. That document contained the consensus judgments of the intelligence community based upon the best information available about the Iraqi threat. The N.I.E. declared: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of the U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Those charged with the security of this nation, could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away would be irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information, he faced it. He sought to eliminate the threat by peaceful diplomatic means and when all else failed, he acted forcefully to remove the danger.
Consider another passage from last October’s National Intelligence Estimate. It reported: All key aspects, the R&D, production, and weaponization of Iraq’s offensive program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Remember we were dealing here with a regime that had already killed thousands of people with chemical weapons. Against this background, to disregard the N.I.E.'s warnings would have been irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information. He faced it and acted to remove the danger. Take a third example – the N.I.E. cautioned that, Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons. In the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Here again, this warning could hardly be more blunt or disturbing. To shrug off such a warning would have been irresponsible in the extreme. And so President Bush faced that information and acted to remove the danger.
A fourth and final example – the National Intelligence Estimate contains a section that specifies the level of confidence that the intelligence community has on the various judgments included in the report. In the N.I.E. on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the community had high confidence in the conclusion that Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to U.N. resolutions. The intelligence community also had high confidence in the judgment that, and I quote, Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material.End quote. Ladies and gentlemen, this is some of what we knew. Knowing these thing, how could we, I ask, have allowed that threat to stand. These judgments were not lightly arrived at, and all who were aware of them bore a heavy responsibility for the security of America.
AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Dick Cheney speaking yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute just after the congressional report came out. You are listening to Democracy Now!. Melvin Goodman, former C.I.A. and State Department analyst, your response to what Dick Cheney was attempting to put out yesterday?
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, this is the longest statement of disinformation that I think the American government has distributed to the American people. You know, the very obvious thing is where are the nuclear weapons. Why haven’t we found the nuclear weapons? Why haven’t we found the evidence that he was really trying to import uranium and enrich uranium for nuclear weapons? Where are the scud-type missiles that Cheney was talking about? Where are the hundreds and hundreds of tons of chemical agents that he said, and the C.I.A. said could fill 16,000 rockets. Where are the huge numbers of materials that were supposedly produced for thousands of liters of Anthrax and botulinum toxin and all of the other biological agents that Colin Powell listed in his speech to the UN–which was written for him by the C.IA. after he turned down a version of the speech that was written for him by Dick Cheney’s chief subordinate? Where is any of this material? The fact of the matter is that there was no clear and present danger, there was no imminent threat. And for Dick Cheney just to recite these charges that we all know now not to be true, adds to the terrible politicization of intelligence that’s created a scandal in the intelligence community unlike anything I ever saw in my 24 years in the C.I.A. That includes the period of Vietnam, the period of the intelligence failure on the Soviet union, and the incredibly contentious disputes over arms control.
The unfortunate thing is that George Tenet’s hands aren’t clean in any of this either. He tried to have it both ways. In October, which is important–the very month that George Tenet sent two memos to the N.F.C. and called Stephen Hadley and told Hadley that he could not use the statement with reference to Iraq trying to obtain supplies of uranium, of so-called yellow cake–that was the same month that George Tenet endorsed, authorized, signed the national intelligence estimate that said many of the things that Dick Cheney just recited. So this is what I mean by George Tenet failing totally in his job as an intelligence coordinator or intelligence arbitrator. He gave evidence out there that the critics of the war could use, and he gave a great deal of material out there that people such as Dick Cheney who wanted this war so badly could also use. That’s why this country faces the terrible dilemma it now faces and continues to witness the terrible situation we have in Iraq, where American lives are lost on almost a daily basis and American treasure to the tune of about $4 billion a month is being spent to try to get through some transition period in Iraq, from which we’re eventually going to have to withdraw from. This is a very sad spectacle and Dick Cheney has just added to this terrible problem.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Melvin Goodman, you talk about the inability of the administration to find any physical evidence. But there was a lot made during the period leading up to the invasion of the – of the Iraqi scientists. And once the Iraqi scientist were able to freely talk about what kind of a program Saddam Hussein had, that the truth would come out. Yet we’ve seen no Iraqi scientists even brought forward by the administration to give eyewitness accounts of this alleged program.
MELVIN GOODMAN: I agree with your point there. And the worst example of that is the fact that the United States is holding at the Baghdad airport the chief scientific advisor to Saddam Hussein. A man by the name of Amir al-Saadi. Now, I would have to think that if Amir al-Saadi were giving information to the United States that would be helpful to make the case that Dick Cheney has just alleged, I think we’d be parading Amir al-Saadi before the National Press Club or meet the American audience to make the case for us. But we’re not doing that. Many of the scientists we captured made it clear that these materials were destroyed in the 1990’s, the so-called weapons of mass destruction.
The picture that’s forming here is that the very point when the C.I.A. lost most of its intelligence collection-- remember when the U.N. inspectors could not return to Iraq, we lost our major means of collecting intelligence against Saddam Hussein and against the weapons of mass destruction. That’s when the C.I.A. started doing its worst case estimates. And I think it’s axiomatic, certainly for my 24 years in the intelligence community, that the less intelligence you have, the more dire are your warnings, because you’re so afraid of the gaps in your intelligence. Clearly what we had from 1998 on to 2003 were huge gaps in intelligence. For Dick Cheney to talk about the intelligence community speaking with confidence is incredibly fallacious. There was no confidence within the intelligence community. And most of the serious analysts took argument with a lot of the opinions that were coming out that were supported by George Tenet and others.
A good example of that was the case of the aluminum tubes–whether they were for strategic arms or for conventional arms. The Department of Energy which has the key expertise in this government for nuclear matters, made it clear that aluminum tubing was for conventional arms. But Colin Powell made a shaky case at the U.N. for why the aluminum tubes could only be compatible with strategic arms. That’s why the Niger documents were so important. They were a hoax but they became important because if Saddam Hussein was trying to get his hands on uranium, that it would lend some credibility to the very weakest part of the argument about reconstituting its nuclear capability, which was having the aluminum tubes which, I might add, was obtained on the open market, with open documentation, That
I lived in Vienna for a while. I have rarely seen a more beautiful city with such ugly and arrogant people. Even the other Austrians dislike the Viennese. They say the contrast adds to the beauty of the city itself and the music.
[quote]Full List Of US Weapons
Suppliers To Iraq
By Anu de Monterice
coachanu@earthlink.net
12-19-2
Here is my translation of the original article of 12-18-02 published in the Taz (die tageszeitung), followed by a link and translation of the supplier list of 12-19-02.
USA CENSORS IRAQ REPORT
Germany and the other non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a truncated version of the weapons dossier. Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing.
Geneva: The 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council–to which Germany will belong starting in January–have been withheld substantial parts of the Iraqi arms report. All information about the supplies from–and the support of–foreign companies, research labs and governments from the mid-1970’s on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted. The 5 permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, are aware of this censorship. According to the German Press Agency DPA, it has reduced the 12,00 page report to only 3000 pages.
From information gathered from UN diplomats of 2 of these 5 countries taz learned that the censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the United States. Among the 5 constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support to Saddam Hussain’s regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction.
The report gives us a complete overview of these supplies for the first time. In particular it names the 24 US companies and when and to whom in Iraq the supplies were delivered. And it makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990/91. Substantial construction units for the Iraqi nuclear weapon and rocket programs were supplied with permission of the government in Washington. The poison Anthrax for the arming of Iraq with biological weapons stemmed from US laboratories. Iraqi military and armament experts were trained in the US and there received know-how having to do with their domestic arms programs.
According to the estimation of Susan Wright, a US arms-control expert from the University of Michigan, publication of this information would be “especially embarassing for the USA.” It would “remind people in the USA of a very dark chapter, which the Bush administration would prefer to forget about.” Whether the US had already struck out this information before it made copies for the other 4 permanent Council members continues to be unclear.
Author: Andreas Zumach
Original in German at taz.de/pt/2002/12/18/a0049.nf/text
Translator: Anu de Monterice
The full list of arms suppliers to Iraq, as published by the taz on 12/19/02, can be found at taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck
Legend used in this list:
A = nuclear program,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants.
After the list of US firms are these remarks: “In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq’s arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.” (Anu’s translation)
US CORPORATIONS
1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex ®
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A)
13 Eastman Kodak ®
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International ©
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates ®
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. ®
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
Zus
earlier I had read articles about the suspect priorities of the interim government in iraq. eg getting in the Haliburton contracts and other oil-related contracts and lucrative deals like wireless infrastructure before making basic necessities available.
now reuters has an article about hussein’s sons. but note
[quote] BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 26
Compare this to the number of Americans who thought Saddam was personally involved in the 911 attack. See who “wins” and has more idiots - based on your “conclusion”. As an American I would start to worry now …
[quote][b]“Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?” Form B (N=519, MoE
Well Rascal:
Let’s look at it this way. The US is an idiot for pissing off all its allies or the allies are idiots for pissing off the US?
Hmmm what has Germany or France done for the US? What has the US done for them? Who has gained more?
If the US were in the future to NOT help Germany or France would they be worse off or vice versa? Think Bosnia (US helping Germany and France as well as Europe) or Afghanistan (Germany and France still helping the US)
That’s generally the way to look at a nation’s strategic interests.
Say the US is lying about Iraq and just wanted to invade to grab its oil. Is that what you truly believe? If so, there’s no point in discussing this further.
Let’s say the US has a point about reshaping the Middle East. Do Germany and France want to be part of this? or is the US completely out of line. This is a serious question so please leave behind all the Chomsky baggage about how can the US say it cares about democracy when it supported Pinochet or I will be back with how can Germany say anything about anyone or anything after having voted in Hitler. Can we try to see if there is an area for common benefit here or will this just be the usual: US bad. George Bush stupid and then links to your usual crackpot sites?
Now we know why Rascal and his compatriots are pissed at everyone. 
German penises ‘too small for EU condoms’
Germany has demanded a rethink on EU guidelines on condom size after finding its average penis did not measure up.
Doctors around Essen were ordered by the government’s health department to check out the average size suggested by Brussels.
They reported the EU has overestimated the size of the average penis by almost 20% and insist other countries will discover the same.
Urologist Gunther Hagler, head of the team compiling the research, said: "By checking hundreds of patients we found German penises were too small for standard EU condoms.
“On average they were 14.48 cms long and 3.95 cms wide. That makes them much smaller than the EU standard condom size of 17 cms in length and 5.6 cms in width.”
He denied the German man was any smaller than the rest of Europe, adding: "We think the EU has got its sums wrong, and if other countries were to check out their men’s assets they would find the EU has made a mistake in its calculations.
“There should be a rethink and the EU statisticians should check their figures again. After all, they have also ruled EU standard condoms should be able to hold 18 litres of fluid without breaking, which also seems a bit excessive.”
[quote=“European”]
9/11 Report - The real Saudi Ties are U.S. Ties
new.globalfreepress.com/article. … /30/229223[/quote]
Ah, yes. The Global ‘Free’ Press… a collection of Leftist-biased articles from around the world. Good choice 
The very same people who have promulgated the consipiracy theories about the US and/or Bush gov. being responsible or somehow involved in the 911 attacks are the same who peddle conspiracy theories about ‘evil Jews controlling the world’:
[b]"Barry Kosmin, editor of a forthcoming study of British anti-Semitism, says Mr Dalyell combines
[quote=“WarMonkey”][quote=“European”]
9/11 Report - The real Saudi Ties are U.S. Ties
new.globalfreepress.com/article. … /30/229223[/quote]
Ah, yes. The Global ‘Free’ Press… a collection of Leftist-biased articles from around the world. Good choice
The very same people who have promulgated the consipiracy theories about the US and/or Bush gov. being responsible or somehow involved in the 911 attacks are the same who peddle conspiracy theories about ‘evil Jews controlling the world’:
[b]"Barry Kosmin, editor of a forthcoming study of British anti-Semitism, says Mr Dalyell combines
Coldfront:
Excellent economist article. I totally agree.
Second, I read an interesting psychological study of the European refusal to see Israel as an innocent victim. Part of this the study said stems from the fact that Europe is very proud of its civilization and many are having a hard time being morally superior around the world when everyone can point back to the Holocaust and say oh really. By way of contrast, Russia never portrayed itself as the defender of human rights, etc. so its equally rotten Stalin regime gets less attention.
It is like the fine upstanding member of the community who kills someone while drunk driving. No matter how many good things they do later, there is always the stigma hanging over their head, hence the desperate need to prove everyone else is just as bad, just as sinful, or merely to deflect attention away from the one bad act. Europeans are desperate to live the fantasy of being morally superior human beings and this desperation stems from their rotten history of colonialism, aggression and imperialism, all values they are equally desperate to project onto the US. By setting up a straw man and then condemning it, many are able to prove that while Europe had a rotten history, things are “different” now and the Europeans are occupying the moral high ground. Most of course, would hesitate to look too closely to how the US still guarantees their security but… why let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good worldclass delusion?
[quote=“fred smith”]Coldfront:
Excellent economist article. I totally agree.[/quote]
I’d like to take credit for it, Fred, but it was first cited by War Monkey.
I completely agree with the rest of your points.
[quote=“Cold Front”][quote=“fred smith”]Coldfront:
Excellent economist article. I totally agree.[/quote]
I’d like to take credit for it, Fred, but it was first cited by War Monkey.
I completely agree with the rest of your points.[/quote]
The Economist on whole, not just that article, is excellent.
Subscribe or lead a life of intellectual mediocrity.
… well, at least look at their website more often, most articles are free. 
www.economist.com
One word:
BULLSHIT!
Well if Cake does not like the psychological study it must ergo:
A. be true.
b. be reasonable.
c. be a sound explanation.
Thanks Cake for that vote of confidence. I was not sure about the study until you replied. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
All the best,
freddy
One of my more liberal thinking family members sent this to me. I can