Air Travel

Question:

> And after all this rhetoric from an intellectually shamingly low-key US president and his aides, > we still have not the slightest proof that such biological and nuclear warheads ever existed in > the Iraq, and even less that they still do exist. It’s a fact: Iraq needs PR support.

In all fairness, we do have proof that they have existed. The UN inspectors between 1991 and 1998 uncovered and destroyed almost all of it. Whether we have actual proof that Hussein used such weapons on Iran and on Iraqis who don’t support Hussein, I don’t know. But those accusations are credible. However, this was a long time ago. And so far, the Bush-Jr/Blair duo have only been able to talk about past abuses, not what is happening right now. The accuse Iraq of rebuilding banned weapons factories simply because satellite images show that a building was built where a former facility once existed. That is not credible evidence. And if satellite images is all Powell will be able to produce, it also will not be credible, except to americans who beliece everything their government says, even if it is an obvious slant or lie.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Congratulations John, you hit the nail on the head. Before I would >intervene to settle a conflict, I > certainly wanted to hear the position of the other side. Until now, all we >know about Saddam > and his character and evil projects has been propagated by the White House >and its muppets > (CNN and Company). Did we and the media ever give the opportunity to >Saddam to explain > himself? Anything coming from Baghdad is ridiculed right away by the Bush >administratio  and > denounced as propaganda. It’s got no chance to hit the headlines in the >Western world. >Feel free to visit the Iraqi state controlled "media" web site, if you would >like Saddam’s view.  It’s accessable to anyone. >Goto: http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm >It’s even in English .. You can read all about Saddam and how he explains >himself.   Needless to say, the reports (propaganda) on the Iraqi News >Agency site are not very credible, let alone believable.  Keep in mind the >Iraqi News Agency is "state" controlled, while western media here in the >United States are free to report as they please. >Last but not least, I would take a serious look at Dr. Blix’s criticisms of >the inspections.  While Iraq has opened doors, esentially no progress has >been made, and without full Iraqi cooperation, progress will never be made. >Hell will freeze over before Iraq cooperates.   While war is the last thing >I’d like to have happen, it appears to be necessary, IMHO, unless Iraq comes >clean immediately.  The bottom line is Saddam is not only a threat to his >own people, but he is a threat to other middle east nations as well as the >western world.

What made you suddenly focus, after 12 years, on how awful and immediate a thread Saddam is to his own people and the world? Could it have anything to do with the Bush  Administration needing to find another reason to terrify the public, to revive his slipping credibility?  With the managed media obediently pointing us where Dubya wants us to look? He’s not only wrecked the economy by turning a big, fat surplus into a horrendous deficit by his tax cut (for the rich, of course), but he and his gang are raping the country, under cover of the Iraq scam. It’s worked before in past Rep. admins. and it’s working again, but this gang is much better organized, much more sinister, and the public is much more brain-washed and apathetic. Try going back in news reports to just when Iraq became the Topic of the Day.  Betcha it was before the mid-term elections last year, when the Bush gang needed to scare people into a bellicose mode over a Saddam situation that had been contained for 12 years. Shell game. — Polar

Response:

> The point is that the White House has busted its buns to make the > (non-existent) connection with Al Quaeda, where they have so > spectacularly failed.

Do you think that Abu Nadal operated from a ’safe harbor’ in Iraq? jay Wed, Jan 29, 2003 — Legend insists that as he finished his abject… Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Response:

> Congratulations John, you hit the nail on the head. Before I would

intervene to settle a conflict, I > certainly wanted to hear the position of the other side. Until now, all we know about Saddam > and his character and evil projects has been propagated by the White House and its muppets > (CNN and Company). Did we and the media ever give the opportunity to Saddam to explain > himself? Anything coming from Baghdad is ridiculed right away by the Bush administratio  and > denounced as propaganda. It’s got no chance to hit the headlines in the

Western world. Feel free to visit the Iraqi state controlled "media" web site, if you would like Saddam’s view.  It’s accessable to anyone. Goto: http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm It’s even in English .. You can read all about Saddam and how he explains himself.   Needless to say, the reports (propaganda) on the Iraqi News Agency site are not very credible, let alone believable.  Keep in mind the Iraqi News Agency is "state" controlled, while western media here in the United States are free to report as they please. Last but not least, I would take a serious look at Dr. Blix’s criticisms of the inspections.  While Iraq has opened doors, esentially no progress has been made, and without full Iraqi cooperation, progress will never be made. Hell will freeze over before Iraq cooperates.   While war is the last thing I’d like to have happen, it appears to be necessary, IMHO, unless Iraq comes clean immediately.  The bottom line is Saddam is not only a threat to his own people, but he is a threat to other middle east nations as well as the western world. -Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Congratulations John, you hit the nail on the head. Before I would intervene > to settle a conflict, I > certainly wanted to hear the position of the other side. Until now, all we > know about Saddam > and his character and evil projects has been propagated by the White House > and its muppets > (CNN and Company). >You are a apologist, ask the people he invaded in 1990 if its >propaganda, better yet go and visit the museum they have constructed >outlining in graphic detail his atrocities….

[...] > And after all this rhetoric from an intellectually shamingly low-key US > president and his aides, > we still have not the slightest proof that such biological and nuclear > warheads ever existed in > the Iraq, and even less that they still do exist. It’s a fact: Iraq needs PR > support.

[...] Whether Saddam has the stuff is not really the point. The point is that he’s not crazy enough to endanger us. The point is that the White House has busted its buns to make the (non-existent) connection with Al Quaeda, where they have so spectacularly failed. The point is that, since before the mid-term elections last year, Bush (or rather his handlers), realizing how much his (chuckle!) "support" had slipped since the 9/11 patriotic high; since the public began to get a glimmer of his handlers’ real agenda for the country — since that time, they needed a means of re-scaring the American people enough to pull off a major scam like Iraq..   That’s about when the drumbeat about Iraq began.  Before the mid-terms.  The electorate, not noted for its penetrating analytic abilities, obediently looked where the Bushies told them to look. Just like any other shell game. Result (due partly to the pathetic performance of the ass-kissing Democrats):  All three branches of government now controlled by the most reactionary elements ever.  Goodbye, Bill of Rights! Now, back to Saddam, that cuddly Boy Scout (anybody catch the Atlantic article about him few months ago?  Good summary of a baaaad guy!) He’s been "contained" very nicely for 12 years. So what’s the sudden hurry?  See above, about the domestic U.S. political angle.  See also the plans for oil domination, with long-range intentions of disengaging from Saudi — if Bush, pere et fils, can stand to give up their investments Over There. The recycled Cold War hawks who are running Bush haven’t a clue what the world thinks, and if they did, they wouldn’t care.  They are completely crazy, reckless, amoral.  After all, it isn’t *their* sons and daughter who are going to get killed. You think these folks have children in the services???  And who cares about a country full of Iraqui civilians, anyway? So, they mind**** the public, which obediently looks where it’s told to look.  Shell game.  Pity.  We still have alternative media available here, plus access to foreign press, if anybody but a small fraction of the public bothered to research the terrifying truth behind the Iraqui drumbeat.  Some of the posters on this NG Get It.  Many just spout the Bush line. How long we will have alternative media is questionable, given the machinations of the Ayatollah Ashcroft and his born-again minions. If there’s anything worse than a stupid, ignorant puppet president, it’s a stupid, ignorant, puppet, religious nut president. — Polar

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the >hands of a good public relations firm. >The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English >and thus do not make a good impression. >They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their >public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday >news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. >This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, >insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. >The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much >better than the current spokesman. >CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by >the spokesman. >To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. >John > Congratulations John, you hit the nail on the head. Before I would intervene > to settle a conflict, I > certainly wanted to hear the position of the other side. Until now, all we > know about Saddam > and his character and evil projects has been propagated by the White House > and its muppets > (CNN and Company).

You are a apologist, ask the people he invaded in 1990 if its propaganda, better yet go and visit the museum they have constructed outlining in graphic detail his atrocities…. Pathetic ! jay Wed, Jan 29, 2003  Did we and the media ever give the opportunity to Saddam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> to explain > himself? Anything coming from Baghdad is ridiculed right away by the Bush > administratio  and > denounced as propaganda. It’s got no chance to hit the headlines in the > Western world. > And after all this rhetoric from an intellectually shamingly low-key US > president and his aides, > we still have not the slightest proof that such biological and nuclear > warheads ever existed in > the Iraq, and even less that they still do exist. It’s a fact: Iraq needs PR > support. > Sorry, I know this subject does not belong into theAir  Travel section. But > since it does and will > affect air travel….. > ->Posted by Ozum (http://ozinsight.com/) > ->All-in-one yEnc newsreader, scanner and freeware autoposter.

– Legend insists that as he finished his abject… Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Response:

> And more importantly, unless the USA stays there for over a decade while the > coutry rebuilds (you break it, you fix it), whoever takes power again (most > likely Shitte fundamentalists) are also much more likely to be friendly to > terrorists who will attack the USA in every way they can in retaliation fo > rthe USA having invaded an arab nation. And those Shiites will do the > searching and find wahetever weapons might stil lbe there if any.

Oh, Bush and his friends DO plan to stay on in Iraq for a long time. Post-Saddam scenarios have already been drawn out, and they plan on "rebuilding" (read: getting the oil of) the country while they’re there. Ritwik — A war on terrorism is rubbish. War IS terrorism.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the >hands of a good public relations firm. >The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English >and thus do not make a good impression. >They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their >public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday >news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. >This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, >insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. >The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much >better than the current spokesman. >CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by >the spokesman. >To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. >John

Congratulations John, you hit the nail on the head. Before I would intervene to settle a conflict, I certainly wanted to hear the position of the other side. Until now, all we know about Saddam and his character and evil projects has been propagated by the White House and its muppets (CNN and Company). Did we and the media ever give the opportunity to Saddam to explain himself? Anything coming from Baghdad is ridiculed right away by the Bush administratio  and denounced as propaganda. It’s got no chance to hit the headlines in the Western world. And after all this rhetoric from an intellectually shamingly low-key US president and his aides, we still have not the slightest proof that such biological and nuclear warheads ever existed in the Iraq, and even less that they still do exist. It’s a fact: Iraq needs PR support. Sorry, I know this subject does not belong into theAir  Travel section. But since it does and will affect air travel….. ->Posted by Ozum (http://ozinsight.com/) ->All-in-one yEnc newsreader, scanner and freeware autoposter.

Response:

> It’s past time the UN and the rest of tlhe world realizes that UNMOVIC > is nothing but a farce as long as Sadam continues to deceive and hide > his WMD.

I assume you’ll also say that between 1991 and 1998, the UN inspectors accomplished nothing ? I have news for you. It was the UN inspectors who discovered that Iraq had nuclear ambitions, not the CIA. And this is the bifg problem for Bush Jr: if the CIA was unaware of Iraq’s weapons back then, what if it was unaware of new weapon developments.  In other words, Bush is attacking Iraq because the CIA doesn’t have evidence, and Bush is affraid Iraq might have something he doesn’t know about. > One only has to realize that the Butcher of Baghdad has already sent out > DEATH CERTIFICATES to all his atomic scientists with the strong

And you believe everything Bush Jr says on TV ? Just because he says that in his rethoric doesn’t mean it is true. He has already lied to the american public on many occasions by slanting worlds to shift blame to Iraq. Unless he produces evidence that can be corroborated by UN inspectors, Bush Jr has no credibility because he has cried worlf too many times on Iraq without ever producing any evidence. Had the USA produced evidence, it woudl have a whole bunch of countries allied and ready to pounce. USA doesn’t have any evidence, so it is essentially going at it alone with its loyal terrier Blair and a stupid Australia that blindly goes to help  without so much as a thank you or even acknowledgement from the USA. The fact that most of the world is against the USA is simple: until there is credible evidence that Saddam not only has such weapons but refuses to destroy them, then there is no reason to attack. > The ONLY way to make sure Iraq is completely disarmed is to get rid of > Sadam and his band of butchers first.

Wrong. If the USA invades Iraq, it will result in massive destruction of facilities in a country already ravaged and poor. Citizens will suffer. The USA will gloat about finally having killed Hussein. Woopty doo. But guess what, kill Hussein and friends, and how will you know where the goodies were hidden, if they were still there ? And more importantly, unless the USA stays there for over a decade while the coutry rebuilds (you break it, you fix it), whoever takes power again (most likely Shitte fundamentalists) are also much more likely to be friendly to terrorists who will attack the USA in every way they can in retaliation fo rthe USA having invaded an arab nation. And those Shiites will do the searching and find wahetever weapons might stil lbe there if any.

Response:

> It’s past time the UN and the rest of tlhe world realizes that UNMOVIC > is nothing but a farce as long as Sadam continues to deceive and hide > his WMD. > One only has to realize that the Butcher of Baghdad has already sent out > DEATH CERTIFICATES to all his atomic scientists with the strong > implication that should they reveal anything about Sadam’s nuclear > weapons, they will be met with a horrible fate in one of his torture > cells. > The only way UNSCOM was able to discover what they did in the 90s was > through revelations by defectors and having murdered even his own > sons-in-law, Sadam is now making sure no one will be brave enough to > talk.  And it seems to be working.

So what?  What’s new there?  Where is the urgency? > The ONLY way to make sure Iraq is completely disarmed is to get rid of > Sadam and his band of butchers first.  

So you would rather turn yourself into a butcher?

Response:

English – at least not all of the time.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the > hands of a good public relations firm. > The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English > and thus do not make a good impression. > They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their > public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday > news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. > This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, > insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. > The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much > better than the current spokesman. > CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by > the spokesman. > To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. > John

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

It’s past time the UN and the rest of tlhe world realizes that UNMOVIC is nothing but a farce as long as Sadam continues to deceive and hide his WMD. One only has to realize that the Butcher of Baghdad has already sent out DEATH CERTIFICATES to all his atomic scientists with the strong implication that should they reveal anything about Sadam’s nuclear weapons, they will be met with a horrible fate in one of his torture cells. The only way UNSCOM was able to discover what they did in the 90s was through revelations by defectors and having murdered even his own sons-in-law, Sadam is now making sure no one will be brave enough to talk.  And it seems to be working. The ONLY way to make sure Iraq is completely disarmed is to get rid of Sadam and his band of butchers first.   And he sure as hell won’t go with just a polite French s’il vous plait.

Response:

> I take it you have not bothered to read UN 1441, if you do read it… > you should know that it was passed by the UN SC unanimously.  It later > was endorsed by the Arab League.

1441 passed unanimously exactly because the world convinced the USA to remove the "go to war" from the resolution. Some facts: many of the chemicals that Bush Jr accused Hussein of still having have limited lifetimes of a few years, and if at the time the inspectors left, there were still X amount of those chemicals/bio agents, they would be of no use today because of decay.  So Iraq could still claim having no usable bio/chemical weapons even if it has no record of destroying these. However, Iraq should have told the inspectors where that material is located so they could verify it is no lopnger usable. Also note that Bush did not accuse Iraq of having such weapons, he only alleged that Iraq had some of the ingredients that COULD be used to build such weapons. Sorry, there is still no smoking gun. The thing is: the USA has said that after a war, the US military would have to stay for about 18 months. Remember that the whole government would be destroyed along with its facilities, military totally decimated etc etc. But declaring war won’t destroy the supposedly hidden materials, and UN inspectors will still be needed to sniff out the whole country. So it is pointless to go to war now since the UN inspector’s job need to be done anyways.

Response:

> > I take it you have not bothered to read UN 1441, if you do read it… > you should know that it was passed by the UN SC unanimously.  It later > was endorsed by the Arab League. > UN resolution 1441 does not call for a war against Iraq.

13. Recalls , in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; For now the burden is still on the butcher, shortly it unfortunately appears that the burden will shift to the UN.  If the UN does not have the conviction of its words then the U.S. with others will. jay Wed, Jan 29, 2003 — Legend insists that as he finished his abject… Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Response:

> To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. > John

Or spokeswoman, for that matter.. Richard

Response:

> I take it you have not bothered to read UN 1441, if you do read it… > you should know that it was passed by the UN SC unanimously.  It later > was endorsed by the Arab League.

UN resolution 1441 does not call for a war against Iraq. Sjoerd

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the >> hands of a good public relations firm. >> The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English >> and thus do not make a good impression. >> They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their >> public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday >> news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. >> This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, >> insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. >> The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much >> better than the current spokesman. >> CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by >> the spokesman. >> To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. >You seem to be of the opinion that "public relations" is something that it >is purely in English. Perhaps Iraq needs a good PR person for the American >and other English speaking markets. >Bush needs a PR person for *every* market. >Sjoerd > I am mainly concerned with the US public relations. > It is the US who is considering going to war against Iraq-not Europe.

I take it you have not bothered to read UN 1441, if you do read it… you should know that it was passed by the UN SC unanimously.  It later was endorsed by the Arab League. jay Tue, Jan 28, 2003 > If one is trying to affect public opinion in the US against the war >  then that’s where the public relations should be focused. > John

– Legend insists that as he finished his abject… Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I personally don’t think good Public Relations from Iraq is going to > help this possibly disastrous situation. >Look, Bush has lied to the american public when, for instance, he stated that >Iraq had requested an extension of the UN inspector’s madate. Had Iraq come >back that same day with an interview where they stated that Iraq made no such >request and that they are simply cooperating with UN ispectectors and that if >the UN isnpectors request more time, Iraq will allow them to stay as long as >necessary to clear Iraq of any false accusations, THEN, Iraq would have made >Bush Jr’s job of convincing americans of the need for war much harder. >The USA is the invador. Iraq needs to convince the politicians, the media and >the people of the invading country that he is not as evil as Bush Jr makes him >out to be. It is call PR. (some call it propaganda).

That is so true. another aspect of an articulate PR campaign is to describe to the American public the death and destruction that is going to rein down on Iraq. They should describe how the bombing AGAIN is going to destroy the water supply, electric supply and the total infrastructure. They should also describe the "Shock and Awe" plan to destroy Iraq. This plan, recently made public, intends to launch 400 cruise missiles on day 1 and 400 cruise missiles on day 2. The idea is to put the Iraqis in such a state of shock that they will give up.I guess if that doesn’t work then the 2000 lb bombs will be dropped. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Right now, the USA is figfhting a once sided propaganda war, and the only >reason we see through it is because Bush Jr is totally inept at it, saying all >sorts of false things, exagerations and not providing any evidence. He is just >not credible. But if Bush Jr were credible, he wouldn’t have had any >difficulty in convincing the american media/public and the rest of the world >of the need to act quickly.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the > hands of a good public relations firm. > The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English > and thus do not make a good impression. > They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their > public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday > news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. > This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, > insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. > The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much > better than the current spokesman. > CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by > the spokesman. > To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. >You seem to be of the opinion that "public relations" is something that it >is purely in English. Perhaps Iraq needs a good PR person for the American >and other English speaking markets. >Bush needs a PR person for *every* market. >Sjoerd

I am mainly concerned with the US public relations. It is the US who is considering going to war against Iraq-not Europe. If one is trying to affect public opinion in the US against the war  then that’s where the public relations should be focused. John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the >hands of a good public relations firm. >The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English >and thus do not make a good impression. >They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their >public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday >news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. >This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, >insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. >The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much >better than the current spokesman. >CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by >the spokesman. >To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman.

They can’t do better than Yassir Arafat.  I don’t mean in his repulsive person; I mean he commands a sophisticated PR operation that has the entire West suckered. — Polar

Response:

> I personally don’t think good Public Relations from Iraq is going to > help this possibly disastrous situation.

Look, Bush has lied to the american public when, for instance, he stated that Iraq had requested an extension of the UN inspector’s madate. Had Iraq come back that same day with an interview where they stated that Iraq made no such request and that they are simply cooperating with UN ispectectors and that if the UN isnpectors request more time, Iraq will allow them to stay as long as necessary to clear Iraq of any false accusations, THEN, Iraq would have made Bush Jr’s job of convincing americans of the need for war much harder. The USA is the invador. Iraq needs to convince the politicians, the media and the people of the invading country that he is not as evil as Bush Jr makes him out to be. It is call PR. (some call it propaganda). Right now, the USA is figfhting a once sided propaganda war, and the only reason we see through it is because Bush Jr is totally inept at it, saying all sorts of false things, exagerations and not providing any evidence. He is just not credible. But if Bush Jr were credible, he wouldn’t have had any difficulty in convincing the american media/public and the rest of the world of the need to act quickly.

Response:

I personally don’t think good Public Relations from Iraq is going to help this possibly disastrous situation.  What we need is the two "powers" involved (Bush & Sadam) to think seriously about what their actions can bring upon the world and make decisions to stop it from happening.  It has become a sick game of "who  will back down first". Forget Public Relations and just pray that "Sound Reasoning" will prevail at the right time and "soon".     Mary

Response:

> Admirable sentiments, but I fear it’s not going to happen. The best > for everyone would be for both to be removed from power.

Or for the UN to tell Bush : We’ll grant you permission to invade Iraq if you first agree to invite Hussein to Camp David for a week to negotiate a truce. If that fails, then we’ll give you a sandbox (Iraq) in which you can play with your little tanks, planes and soldiers.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the > hands of a good public relations firm. > The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English > and thus do not make a good impression. > They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their > public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday > news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. > This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, > insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. > The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much > better than the current spokesman. > CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by > the spokesman. > To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman.

You seem to be of the opinion that "public relations" is something that it is purely in English. Perhaps Iraq needs a good PR person for the American and other English speaking markets. Bush needs a PR person for *every* market. Sjoerd

Response:

I have come to the conclusion that what Iraq needs is to be in the hands of a good public relations firm. The bozos that they have speaking for them can barely speak English and thus do not make a good impression. They need a good-looking English-speaking  spokesman handling their public affairs. He would easily be able to appear on all the Sunday news shows and could debate with the Bush crowd. This spokesman would be able to respond, tit-for-tat, insult-by-insult, to every statement by the Bush administration. The spokesman would be able to sway world-wide public opinion much better than the current spokesman. CNN,FOX and MSNBC would be fighting to cover every pronouncement by the spokesman. To win the propaganda battle you need a good, articulate spokesman. John

Response: