antimo_d

Hell Yeah! I don't get along with Marmist at all... to snub this woman like that... I would give my arm for a night where she fulfills every one of my desires... come on, arms don't have much value anyway...

You're right, Francesco... forgive us, we have usurped this space :)

Yes, first homophile petting and then the hummingbird I’ll stick it in....

Anyway, on my very personal scorecard, 'barbara ann' vs. 'vespa 50 ocomecippasichiama' = 25 to 2

how nice, two friends, a guitar and... well, I think about hummingbirds, I download it and listen to it and then tonight I’ll get it put in my ass (after an exhausting gay petting...) ;)

I want to clarify that in my opinion, it doesn't really make much sense to talk about withdrawing from Iraq now, whether it be all the troops or just the Italian ones... it is evident that military control is needed in that country. It should have been, and it would be desirable if it were composed of a multinational force under UN auspices, but this, as of today, seems like a utopia, since I believe very few are willing to get involved in that mess... I won't dwell on conspiracy theories; I just want to say that we (the Italians) would have been better off not participating in the war (not ignoring it, but trying to unite in Europe to operate differently).

So, in this war, as in others, strategy is fundamental: a partial victory can also mean a significant disadvantage in the long term... that is, Saddam has been brought down - advantages and disadvantages: we have one less odious dictator, who lavishly funded the Palestinian Jihad and, as you say (I have no evidence of a strong link; if you want, prove me wrong with some sources, and I’ll be ready to acknowledge it…), even Al Qaeda; on the other hand, the wrong bombings of weddings and other such events, the torture of innocents in Abu Ghraib that became globally known, the various abuses by Western soldiers towards Arabs (like shooting a 'suspect' who is curled up on the ground in front of the camera), the widespread suspicion, especially in the Islamic world, that a war was waged for control of Iraqi oil reservoirs and that its management is being improperly occupied (whether true or not) have intensified anti-Western hatred in light of significant military spending and an economic crisis that has weighed on most Westerners... was it ultimately wise to attack Iraq? Are we safer, albeit poorer, now? I heavily doubt it; in fact, I am convinced that our involvement in the Iraqi 'cul de sac' will cost (in addition to the casualties we have already sustained among the military) (I touch my balls saying this...) even innocent victims in our country, considering how easy it is to cause damage in a major metropolis (be it Rome, London, Milan, Naples... we can contain damages when an alarm goes off, like it did yesterday, but it will never be possible in a free country to completely erase the threat that some fanatic might blow themselves up in a crowded place...). Obviously, I sincerely hope I'm wrong...

I told you, this is just the opinion of a fool, eh... 1) (I consider this the priority) to ensure that terrorism attracts fewer and fewer recruits, we need to avoid fueling anti-Western hatred, as I said; a great point, I repeat, would be to continue a serious commitment to resolving the Israeli-Arab issue, then avoid solutions that might suggest economic interests (like the war in Iraq) and respect Arabs (no more Abu Ghraib and resulting easy absolutions, etc.) 2) intelligence (anyway the British intelligence managed to limit the damage, a slim consolation, but at least it worked in this case, stopping trains and isolating areas after a probable tip-off received) but we should mainly work on drying up funding sources - you say Bin Laden is a multi-billionaire... let's freeze his accounts and businesses, even by exerting political pressure on countries that might host or support this...

the more you bomb indiscriminately, the more you kill innocent people, the more they gain sympathizers, no doubt about it... today's attacks, if you allow me, also demonstrate that the war in Iraq hasn't really weakened the terrorists much, if you ask me... violence should be met with intelligence; attacking Iraq was a big mistake for me.

So: if we play the game of hypotheses, we could also imagine that Saddam had the doomsday device from Dr. Strangelove... based on the bare facts, as you say, nothing has proven that Saddam had (or even intended to procure) nuclear or chemical weapons (I repeat: he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds back then, but that doesn't imply he still had them... and in fact, none were found); when we consider the bare facts, this whole story about nuclear weapons turns out, for now, to be a gigantic lie, especially likely considering the huge economic interests at stake... and what if he hid them in Syria? Maybe he hid them in Italy at the home of some sympathizer? These are all futile conjectures, and if they are enough to trigger a war, well, they could also come to bomb us in Casal Palocco... the bare facts: 2/3 of Iraqis hated the Raiss... why wasn’t the choice made to arm them, support them, and wait for them to bring down the regime? In my opinion, it’s because it was much scarier to give control of the oil to untrustworthy people, so they jumped in personally, driven by the enormous interests of many - not us poor fools, though, who have always gotten the short end of the stick, I reiterate (that’s the thing I care about the most) (the respect they have for Iraqis, then, is often and willingly demonstrated...); on the Palestinian issue: it’s undeniable that Saddam funded Jihad, etc., but as mentioned, an alternative solution could have been found to get him out of the way; then, I am convinced (noting also from when attacks actually diminished significantly) that the more 'tranquil' situation is much more a result of Arafat's death and the rise of a moderate (with a consequent change of policy on Sharon's part) than of Saddam's fall...