<p>Scom:</p>
<p>It includes terrorist attack victims and dead terrorists themselves. There is no differentiation between Iraqi civilians (innocent) and Iraqi civilians (terrorist on the ground) - the Iraqi resistance has no formal army, and as such, they are all counted as civilians.</p>
<p>I see the idiots like futurenyustudent are out in force:</p>
<p>Popular Mechanics debunked your dumb**** conspiracies, including that WTC was a controlled demolition.</p>
<p>Oh, and here's a new video blowing a hole in the Pentagon conspiracy: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html</a></p>
<p>interesting...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I believe the figure is up to 100k civilians now watercannon.</p>
<p>Quote:
but i cant see him trying to misuse your checking account or your social security number..</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it's a possibility watercannon. There's also a possibility that an employee of the government who happens to be extremely corrupt can misuse my personal information. How do I know that I'm not giving my personal information to a registered sex offender when I get my driver's license or file a tax return? For all I care, he could come breaking into my house, rape my mom and my sister, and shoot me along with all occupants of the house at the time. It's out there, but it's a possibility...</p>
<p>Bush lied to get us into Iraq. For all I know, he could be abusing my social security number. You never know what these politicians will do. They're in the business of lying. I geinuinely don't trust them.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>you'll fit right in at NYU...</p>
<p>my only request... gimme some of that sht you're smokin...</p>
<p>Glad we've all decended to meaningless name-calling and bullying, just because they don't agree with your views.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we're redifining the history of an entire nation...that was previously under control by the hands of an oppressive dictator...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what exactly gives the US the right to redefine the history of an entire nation? What gives it the right to unilaterally invade?</p>
<p>The US is irresponsible.. It shouldnt be allowed to have nukes..</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Glad we've all decended to meaningless name-calling and bullying, just because they don't agree with your views.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>it's not because futurenyustudent disagrees...it's because his/her view is so far out there that it's not even worth arguing against...</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's not even worth arguing against...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then disregard me.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
So what exactly gives the US the right to redefine the history of an entire nation? What gives it the right to unilaterally invade?</p>
<p>The US is irresponsible.. It shouldnt be allowed to have nukes..
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure how reliable the information is on this site... but take a look.</p>
<p><a href="http://icasualties.org/oif/%5B/url%5D">http://icasualties.org/oif/</a></p>
<p>these countries might be a little irritated at your statement of deeming the invasion to be "unilateral"...</p>
<p>coalition deaths in iraq...</p>
<p>Australia 2
Bulgaria 13
Denmark 3
El Salvador 2
Estonia 2
Hungary 1
Italy 31
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 1
Netherlands 2
Poland 17
Romania 2
Slovakia 3
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
Great Britain 111</p>
<p>2 days ago 2 british soldiers were killed from a roadside bomb in basra...bringing the total number of british service men and women deaths to 111...</p>
<p>these are just coalition deaths... there are many other countries who donated soldiers and equipment/money... i will try to google up a list of them and their contributions...</p>
<p>and as you can see from this page...</p>
<p><a href="http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx</a></p>
<p>the Iraqi security forces have lost 4,667....</p>
<p>as to your argument why the US should not have nukes...when was the last time you rememeber us selling nukes to radical/unstable nations and/or terrorist groups?</p>
<p>take a gander...</p>
<p>Over 100,000 soldiers
United States - As of May 8, 2006, there were around 133,000 Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps personnel in West, North and Central Iraq [5]; a planned reduction to 115,000 was cancelled due to losses and intense Iraqi resistance, primarily located in Al Anbar province and Baghdad. An increase to 153,000 was supposed to have taken place in early-mid 2005, but such plans never materialized. As of 7 May, 2006 2,418 American military personnel from every branch of the US military have been killed in Iraq: 1,910 in engagements and ambushes (assault rifle and sniper fire; RPG, Katyusha and mortar attacks; the shooting down of several helicopters and a jet; but mostly roadside bombings) as well as vehicle & helicopter accidents which occurred as a result of hostile fire. 508 were killed in non-hostile incidents including a small number of drownings, illnesses, electrocutions etc, but mostly accidental vehicle & helicopter crashes and weapon discharges. At least 17,874 American military personnel have been wounded in action. On the first of December 2005, Democratic Representative John Murtha predicted that the US Military would withdraw from Iraq 'within a year' because it is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth". At least 126 American contractors (57 of which are private military) have been killed in Iraq, in addition to two State Department employees and several civilians affiliated with various Christian organisations.[6]. 1 soldier was confirmed captured while another is listed as missing following an ambush on April 9th 2004. An American journalist was killed in April 2003 when the military vehicle he was travelling in swerved to avoid Iraqi gunfire and plunged into a canal, while another, David Bloom, died of a heart attack after being cramped in an armoured vehicle for hours. Another, Steven Vincent was abducted and shot dead in July 2004 in Basra. </p>
<p>Over 5,000 soldiers
United Kingdom - 8,361 (previous listed number: 7,900) troops in South East Iraq; also commanding a number of other coalition troops throughout South Eastern provinces. 3,500 more are stationed in The Persian Gulf region. The British forces command the Multi-National Division (South East) which consists of forces from several other countries. Prime minister Tony Blair had considered an expansion of 1,500 to 2,000 troops to replace the troops of Spain and other departing nations. However, military commanders as well as former diplomats criticizing US military tactics put this into question. The UK has lost 109 soldiers in Iraq: 79 in ambushes, engagements or other attacks (including the shooting down of a C-130 Hercules transport plane which killed 10 soldiers). Out of the remaining 30, the cause of death included accidents, friendly fire, illnesses, and suicide. See also: Operation Telic (operational name for UK's involvement in Iraq) for further information on the UK's contribution. On 13 March, 2006, it was announced that the UK planned to withdraw about 800 troops by the end of May. [7] At least 28 British contractors (22 of which are private military) have been killed in Iraq.[8] One British journalist, Gaby Rado, died in Iraq in March 2003 after falling from a hotel roof, while another was shot and killed in June. </p>
<p>1,000 - 5,000 soldiers
Republic of Korea - About 3,300 South Korean troops are officially deployed in Iraq (as of October 1 2005). In early December 2005, the National Assembly voted [9] 10-3 with one abstention for the withdrawal of 1000 troops in the first half of 2006, thus approving a government proposal. The main tasks of the troops are to offer medical services and build and repair roads, power lines, schools and other infrastructure. The 2,500 soldiers, mostly combat engineers of the Zaytun ("olive-peace") Division were deployed in late September 2004 to Irbil in the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq, and combined with the 660 humanitarian troops that have been operating in southern Iraq since April 2003, South Korea has the third-largest military presence in the war-torn nation after the United States and Britain. There are also large numbers of Korean mercenaries, most notably from the NKTS, a private Korean security company, operating in Iraq. They are estimated to number between 70 to 700, and most protect South Korean civilian assets as well as other coalition civilian assets. 4 South Korean commercial and technical contractors have died in Iraq: one in a building accident, while the other three were killed by insurgents. </p>
<p>Italy - Independent contingent of 2,600 troops [10], the 'Garibaldi Brigade' is currently serving a 4 months duty, including Signal & transport soldiers, mech. infantry, engineers, helicopterists and Carabinieri in South Central Iraq, around Nasiriyah. In March 2005 it was rumoured that Italian officials planned to begin the withdrawal of their forces in September, and this was confirmed by Prime Minister Berlusconi on the 9th of July. Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government is withdrawing its forces gradually, in groups of 300, having completed the first stage in September 2004, and commencing the second in January 2006 with the halving of the entire contingent expected by May. A full withdrawal is expected by the end of the year. The Italian forces have lost 31 soldiers in Iraq. 24 were hostile deaths: 2 in separate engagements, 5 in roadside bombings, 17 in a late 2003 suicide bombing on the Italian HQ in Nasiriyah, 7 were accidents and one, a ranking major general, was a controversial friendly fire incident. Italy has another 84 troops stationed on bases in the Persian Gulf. Recently, A-129 Mangusta attack helicopters and more Dardo tracked IFV are being sent to Iraq. In March 2004, four Italian private military contractors were taken hostage in Iraq. One was executed in April and the rest were released later in the month. Later in 2004 two aid workers were taken hostage and then released unharmed several weeks later. At least one reporter, Enzo Baldoni, was captured and executed by insurgents. </p>
<p>Poland - 1,500 Polish troops in South Central Iraq; The Polish forces command the Multi-National Division (South Central) which consists of forces from several other countries. The contingent will be cut to 900 by March 2006, and Polish force will shift toward the training of Iraqi security forces. On the 5th of January 2006, Radio Polonia reported that Polish troops had handed over control of the central Babil province to US troops and would be stationed at camps in the cities of Kut and Diwaniyah for the remainder of their mandate. In accordance with the decision of the Former Polish Minister of Defense Jerzy Szmajdzinski, the number of troops was reduced from 2,500 to 1,500 during the second half of 2005. Poland's former leftist government, which lost Sept. 25th 2005 elections, had planned to withdraw its 1,400 troops in January. The new defense minister, Radek Sikorski, visited Washington on the 3rd of December for talks on Poland's coalition plans, and Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz declared that he would decide after the Iraqi elections on Dec. 15th, whether to extend its troops' mandate beyond Dec. 31st. On Tuesday 22nd December, Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz announced to reporters following a government meeting, that he had asked President Lech Kaczynski to keep Polish troops in Iraq for another year, calling it "a very difficult decision." Kaczynski, who recently took office, has until the end of the month to decide. Poland has lost 17 soldiers in Iraq: 11 in engagements or ambushes and 6 in various accidents. In a statement released in July 2004, 'Al Zarqawi' released a statement threatening Japan, Poland and Bulgaria over their troop deployments. He demanded of the Polish government 'Pull your troops out of Iraq or you will hear the sounds of explosions that will hit your country.' Hours later Prime Minister Marek Belka denied, and deputy Defence Minister Janusz Zemke said pulling out would be a 'terrible mistake.' In addition, in June 2004, two Polish Blackwater USA private military contractors were ambushed and killed. One Polish and one Polish-Algerian journalist were ambushed and killed in May 2005. </p>
<p>100 - 1,000 soldiers
Romania - 830 troops (half infantry, the rest includes: an intelligence team, military police, and de-miners) under Italian command (South East Iraq). One soldier died in a Kuwait City hospital in March 2006, ten days after shooting himself in the head, and another was killed in a roadside bombing (along with three Italians) the following month. In addition one Romanian private military contractor has been killed in Iraq. Three Romanian journalists were held captive by insurgents, but were released in May 2005 </p>
<p>Georgia - 400 troops including special forces, medics and engineers. In June 2004, 3 soldiers were wounded in an attack on a US base, and in November 2005, four were wounded in a bombing in Baqouba. 500 more forces were deployed in June 2005, for UNAMI including liaison officers.</p>
<p>Japan - 600 medics and engineers based in Samawah (Southern Iraq) on a humanitarian aid mission to rebuild local infrastructure, purify water and provide medical assistance. The reconstruction mission in Samawa limits the troops' activities to "non-combat zones". Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet decided on Dec. 8 2005 to allow its 600 troops to stay for another year, despite a poll by the Asahi newspaper which found that 69% of respondents were against renewing the mandate, up from 55% in January. 3 Japanese hostages were captured in Iraq in early 2004 but were released unharmed a week later following non-compliance from Tokyo to the hostage takers' demands. Later, in a statement released in July 2004, 'Al Zarqawi' released a statement threatening Japan, Poland and Bulgaria over their troop deployments. He demanded the Japanese government to 'do what the Philippines have done' and withdraw its troops, and said that 'lines of cars laden with explosives are awaiting you' if his demands were not met. In May 2004, a Japanese freelance journalist and his nephew were ambushed and killed along with their translator. A Japanese private military contractor was ambushed and killed in Anbar province in May 2005. Mortars and rockets have been lobbed at the Japanese camp several times, causing no damage or injuries.</p>
<p>Denmark - Independent contingent of 550 troops including infantry, medics and military police in South East Iraq near Basra at "Camp Danevang". Denmark has lost three soldiers in Iraq: one to friendly fire and the two others other to separate IEDs, while 2 were wounded in August 2005. In addition, one Danish businessman was killed in April 2004 in an insurgent attack. Denmark has plans to leave Iraq in early to late 2006 at the expected request of the Iraqi government, although Denmark has not laid down any firm plans and may stay on if requested at that time. Iceland had 2 EOD experts, a medical advisor, and some transport experts assigned to the Danish unit immediately after the occupation began; they have since been withdrawn.</p>
<p>Australia - Independent contingent of 450 troops including an infantry company, a cavalry squadron and around 40 LAVs deployed on Feb 22nd 2005<a href="this%20contingent%20is%20designated%20the%20Al%20Muthanna%20Task%20Group">11</a>. 500 more are stationed in Kuwait. AAP Newsfeed reported on Oct. 18, that Australia, in addition to its contingent of troops in-country, also had in Iraq an army security unit called SECDET, which is composed of 120 troops assigned to protect the Australian embassy. There is also an Australian Naval LAST with a 220-man crew patrolling the Persian Gulf just off the coast of Iraq. Prime minister John Howard plans for additional troops to go to Iraq. (see also: Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq). In January 2005, 8 Australian soldiers were wounded, 2 seriously, in an ambush on the road to Baghdad International Airport. An Australian journalist was killed near the beginning of the war; one Australian private military contractor was ambushed and killed along with a British and American counterpart in mid-2005, while he travelled along the airport road. On November 7, 2005, an Australian soldier was killed in a traffic accident while training in Kuwait for Iraq duty. On 21 April 2006, an Australian soldier died after accidentally shooting himself. The independent Australian force in southern Iraq will remain in the country until at least late 2007[12]. An Australian journalist was killed by in a car bombing in March 2003, while another was killed five months later when an RPG struck the US military vehicle he was in. </p>
<p>El Salvador - 380 special forces troops under Polish command (Central South Iraq). New President Antonio Saca took office on June 1st 2004 and promised to renew his troop contingent's stay in Iraq beyond the expiry of their commitment in August, saying that a further decision would be made after the January 30th elections in Iraq. El Salvador has lost two soldiers in Iraq, one in a firefight and the other in an accident. </p>
<p>Azerbaijan - 150 troops. 100 soldiers were sent on the 29th of December 2004 to reinforce the 150 soldiers already in the country. They provide security for local Turkmen populations, religious sites and convoys. </p>
<p>Mongolia - 145 men in an infantry company under Polish command. </p>
<p>Albania - 125 non-combat troops under US command near Mosul. </p>
<p>Latvia - 122 troops under Polish command (Central South Iraq). Latvia lost one soldier in Iraq in an insurgent attack. </p>
<p>Czech Republic - 90 police trainers. (Reduced from 300 troops, a small detachment of MPs, and 3 civilians running a field hospital as of November 2003.) The Czech government announced the troops will be pulled out completely by the end of 2005. In addition, a Czech industrial contractor was killed in an accident in April 2004. </p>
<p>Lithuania - 120 troops under Polish command (Central South Iraq). The Lithuanian government has declared its intention to stay until the end of 2007. </p>
<p>Slovakia - 105 military engineers under Polish command (Central South Iraq). Slovakia lost three soldiers in Iraq (06/08/04) along with two Poles and a Latvian, when a mortar landed on a truck laden with munitions prepared for transportation to a detonation site. As of 2005, Slovakia has an 85 man engineering unit remaining in Iraq.</p>
<p>Fewer than 100 soldiers
Armenia has deployed a unit of 46 soldiers (a mixture of logistic, medical and support soldiers) to support the effort in Iraq. On the 5th of December 2005, the Armenian government declared its intention to stay in Iraq for another year. </p>
<p>Bosnia and Herzegovina deployed a 36 man force to destroy explosives and clear mines as of June 2005. 1 Bosnian truck driver employed by a firm serving coalition troops was killed in an ambush on his convoy. </p>
<p>Estonia - 35 troops. Two soldiers were killed in Iraq in separate insurgent attacks. </p>
<p>Macedonia - 33 troops (possibly special forces). In late 2004 three Macedonian workers building barracks on American bases were executed after being captured by insurgents. As of October 1, 2005, Macedonia is planning to deploy 12 more soldiers. </p>
<p>Kazakhstan - 29 military engineers. One was killed (09/01/2005) along with eight Ukrainians when a pile of booby-trapped munitions was detonated by insurgents. </p>
<p>Canada has recently disclosed that they have had Canadian military personnel "embedded in American and coalition forces since the beginning of the conflict." Prime Minister Stephen Harper also stated that this is an unchanged state. In addition an undisclosed number of JTF2 operators were deployed to Iraq, working closely with Delta Force and the SAS. [13]. 5 Canadian private military contractors working for various US and UK 'security' firms were killed by insurgents between January 2004 and April 2003. </p>
<p>United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)
Georgia - 500 blue-helmets performing UN protection duties (separate to 400 Coalition troops). </p>
<p>Fiji - 335 Fijian troops protecting UN buildings and staff in and around the Green Zone, ahead of the Iraqi elections in January. ABC News reported on the 20th of October 2004, that the contingent (trained, equipped and transported to Iraq by Australia) would be deployed the following month. 13 Fijian private military contractors were killed in Iraq including 4 who were shot dead in Kirkuk on the 18th of April 2006 and another 3 just days later, a Fijian soldier was also wounded in the first attack. A Fijian soldier died of a suspected heart attack on 16 March, 2006. </p>
<p>Romania - 130 blue-helmets performing UN protection duties, separate from the 830 Romanian Coalition troops.</p>
<p>photo showing countries that are/were involved...</p>
<p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ange%5B/url%5D">http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ange</a> &pl=true</p>
<p>At the start of the video they mention a flash at the Beginning of the first Tower hit. Are they trying to say that the government knew which side and which story the plane was going to hit and detonated a device at a millisecond point before the actual impact? They dont say.</p>
<p>A few seconds later they mention the pod under the Boeing aircraft. So how did the pod get there? Was it on the plane before it took off? Did the hijackers land the plane and attach this so called pod or was it an entirely different airplane that the government decided to use, but were too stupid to put the explosives inside the plane instead of in a supposed pod where all of New York could see? If the later is the case they are trying to make, again they dont say, then we would have to assume that all the passengers on that plane are in hiding at this very moment. That, or they were taken off the plane, killed, and then placed inside the buildings later to be DNA identified.</p>
<p>They say that Boeing decided not to comment on the pod because it was due to national security, again, they refuse to show or cite or source proving this statement.</p>
<p>At around the 2:41 mark they rewind and fast forward the plane impacting the building. Showing what seems to be a small explosion right as the airplane hit the building. They claim that it is a missile being shot seconds before impact. Where was the missile on the plane when we were being shown the invisible pod? Clearly you would have been able to see a missile if they can point out a pod under the fuselage. This then asks the question, why would they need to shoot the missile seconds before impact?</p>
<p>At around 3:50 they decide to make an attack on the American Media and they also attack the philosophy that it is not ok to question the conspiracy theorist because we would then be accusing them as being anti-American. Are you noticing a plan of attack by these conspiracy theorists?</p>
<p>Around the 4:50 mark they picked an eyewitness testimony that backs their case that it was something other than a Boeing jet that hit the WTC. I remember when I saw the WTC towers get hit the first thing I thought is that they were hit by a small bi-plane. I didnt have the sense of how large these buildings were. If I would have been testifying what I saw that day I would have said it was a small aircraft. So now we are led to believe that it was a windowless cargo plane, strapped with a pod and a missile, with a blue Phillips circular logo on the front.</p>
<p>At around the 6:00 mark they start to explain who stands to benefit, they try outlining a motive. They mention the Bush administration, but they never outline what Bush, a multimillionaire and president of the United States, has to gain from the attacks.</p>
<p>At 8:00 they start discussing the Pentagon attack. They begin to explain how one of the hijackers had trouble landing and controlling a single engine aircraft. They forget to draw the parallel between why its harder to crash a plane then it is to land it. Whats humorous is that they explain that he did earn his pilot license. This in turn discredits that he didnt know how to fly a plane. They sort of shoot themselves in the foot on this one.</p>
<p>At 10:48 they mentioned that Air traffic controllers thought it was a military plane making the maneuvers and not a Boeing aircraft. Again, we are running into problems with this debate. First, they show a quote, but fail to list the name of who said such quote. This lends me to believe that it could have been made up. Secondly, if flight 77 is being tracked on radar, Im assuming that Air traffic control knew that it was indeed flight 77. Now, if it was a military plane that crashed into the Pentagon, such as a cargo plane. They dont explain how a large military cargo plane could pull off the same maneuvers while a Boeing jet could not have. Secondly, if it was a small military plane, how did its engine parts punch through 3 layers of the Pentagons reinforced concrete? Not to mention we have to assume all the victims of flight 77 are in permanent hiding, but then how do you account for victim teeth DNA that was found at the crash scene? Another flaw in this web of lies?</p>
<p>At 11:00 they try and discredit just one eyewitness testimony that reported that the plane had clipped the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. Most people did not witness this. Out of the couple hundred Ive seen that did see a Boeing plane, only a couple said that the plane had crash landed first before hitting the Pentagon. This means that loose change picked the weakest testimony and built a case around that, ignoring all the other eyewitness testimony and leading the impressionable to believe that all the eyewitness testimonys are nothing but lies.</p>
<p>At 11:20 they try and discredit that the light posts were knocked over by the Boeing jet. Instead, they want you to believe that these light posts were all planted by insiders, such as the FBI, even though they fail to mention that this is on a very busy stretch of traffic jammed highway and someone would have seen them carrying these massive light posts. They make the claim that the posts were ripped out of the ground yet were not facing the Pentagon. Lets look at the absurdity of this statement. First, Im sure its easy to see where a light post has been ripped out of the ground. Second, if light posts being hit at over 500 mph by a Boeing plane always land facing the direction of the target, then Im sure the FBI would have known this and placed them facing the Pentagon, but something tells me that a light post being nailed by a plane moving 500mph might tip and tumble a bit before landing.</p>
<p>At 11:50 they try drawing a parallel between a Boeing aircraft hitting the Pentagon and a Phantom jet hitting reinforced concrete used in the containment centers of nuclear plants. They say that the wings should have simply sheered off as what is being shown in the Phantom video. The problem with this is that the wingspan of the phantom is wider than the concrete wall that it is hitting. If you crashed a Phantom in the Pentagon, you can bet that the wings are not going to simply sheer off.</p>
<p>At 12:00 they say In fact, why are there not pieces of the aircraft outside at all? Well, lets ask the question. If it was a military cargo plane or a military jet like you would like us to assume then where are THOSE pieces of aircraft? durrrrr. They also mention that zero plane debris was found. Well, I guess it wasnt a plane after all then. Wait, what were those pictures of engine, landing gear, tires, wheel rims, green insulation, and passenger seating found at the crash scene? Also notice how they say, A hundred tons of titanium, steel, and aluminum, gone. A hundred tons is 200,000 lbs. Lets analyze why this is incorrect. A more accurate assessment is that the max takeoff weight of a Boeing jet is around 255,000 pounds. The actual weight of the aircraft empty is around 128,730 lb (64 tons) with a fuel load of 11,500 gallons. One gallon is equivalent to 5.8 to 6.5 lbs. If we are conservative the fuel load itself weighs 66,700 lbs. The rest is passenger and cargo. Someone correct me if Im wrong, but they seem to be a little confused on most of their information. Very few parts of the plane are made up of titanium even though they would like you to believe a very large percentage of it is.</p>
<p>At 12:25 Employees were seen taking away a large box Lets highlight some good points I found on another website. It's to be found on many other sites, too, although without the extra details that are added here. So is this a plausible story? We don't think so, for the following reasons.</p>
<h1>1, the idea that a large piece of wing will be found after hitting the reinforced Pentagon wall, at 500 mph, seems unlikely. Especially so large that you can readily identify it as something else.</h1>
<h1>2, even if that is possible, take a look at the photo again. If these men are "carrying" something then it doesn't look like it weighs anything at all: some are using one arm only, others just vaguely steering, no-one looks like they're breaking a sweat.</h1>
<h1>3, note that there are no references here for the important details. Who says it was a piece of wreckage? Who identified it as from a wing? Flocco doesn't say -- we're just supposed to believe it.</h1>
<h1>4, the photograph itself proves nothing. We don't know when it was take, or where. The conspiracy sites who use this image like to say it shows something being taken away, but never have any explanation of how they know that, either. Why can it not be something being brought to the Pentagon?</h1>
<h1>5, there are alternative candidates for lightweight objects being bought to the Pentagon, too. Take a look at this Pentagon cleanup photo, for instance -- the grounds are full of tents, and there's a few blue tarpaulins around, too. See <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...8006R-005.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...8006R-005.html</a> for the original.</h1>
<h1>6, we found a version of the original photo that contained the URL <a href="http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/sres...ef=defenselink%5B/url%5D">http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/sres...ef=defenselink</a> in its Comments field (right-click in Windows, select Properties > Advanced). This site is restricted so we can't confirm it's correct, but if so it raises another question. If this image is depicting some key moment of evidence destruction, then would the conspirators take a photograph, then preserve it forever online? Doesn't make a lot of sense to us.</h1>
<p>None of this can prove there isn't something suspicious happening here, but then proving a negative is always tricky. What we can say is that the "carrying away a wing" claim seems unlikely for several reasons, and theres a distinct lack of any evidence to support it.</p>
<p>Scom.. agreed that the invasion wasnt really unilateral in practice.. but it was in principle..</p>
<p>There were polls held in most of the countries you named, and in a majority of the cases the public was against invading Iraq.. Obviously, when the US bribes the leader (well give you more nuclear technology, well reduce your debt, etc), the public arent in a position to go against his decision or reverse it.. In principle though, if you look at the people in the countries, its pretty clear that they were against the war..</p>
<p>Also, youve left out some pretty important countries in the colition of the willing..</p>
<p>Tonga (total population might just be enough to fill up madison square garden)
Faroe Islands
Eritrea
Estonia
Nicaragua</p>
<p>Hmm... thats where they ended up getting the 49 "willing" countries from..</p>
<p>That right Watercanon. Only 20%-25% (even in countries like the UK, Spain and Italy) of Europeans believed the war in Iraq was acceptable. The remaining 75%-80% of Europeans felt the war was an unacceptable and illegal act of aggression. </p>
<p>And the "coalition of the willing" is more of a coalition of the racist. Australia, Italy and Spain had racist and fascist leaders who would rejoice at the sight of a non-christian/non-white person being reduced to servitude. Poland and England can only ligitimize themselves in Europe by kissing up to the US. If they could, they would become US states. South Korea's security depneds on US presence. The rest of the countries don't even matter. Kazakistan, Estonia, Eritria, Tonga, Faroe Islands, Nicaragua and Mongolia? PLEASE! LOL </p>
<p>I was suprised that the Dutch and Japanese were invovled. Otherwise, it was a coalition of the racist, Anglophiles, bribed and coerced! Other than those two countries, none of the major powers were involved. China, France, Germany, India and Russia all refused to take part in this illegal action.</p>
<p>Racist and fascist? ****.</p>
<p>Aznar, Berlusconi, Bush and Howard are definitely racist. Some of the comments they make are very condescending.</p>
<p>Bush, to my knowledge, isn't.</p>
<p>If it makes you feel better, that's cool. As far as I am concerned, Bush is definitely racist.</p>
<p>What ignorant statements. If Bush was racist, aka a Modern Hitler, anyone with the power he has, would've already been doing a lot of crazy and unthinkable stuff. The day there's funny signs hanging from the whitehouse, or the day we have to say "Heil Bush." Is the day I may change my allegiance.</p>
