Brazzil

Your opinion about Brazil's performance against Japan shows to everyone here that you know little about football and that you are just babbling.

They are calling the Brazilian performance against Japan as superb (read Fifa, BBC, etc).

In the first half, the Japanese goalkeeper made 5 spectacular defenses, he is a true Samurai. The Japanese are the actual Asia’s champion. The Japanese played a good football but could not resist to Brazil’s talent.

Go watch England; they look like a bunch of pinball, bouncing all over the field without real skills and art.

Fitzpatrick has made a fool out of himself in the past, but this time he really outdid himself. How can he consider himself a real journalist and at the same time say that Brazil struggled against Japan. Did he even watch the game? I bet he watched the game with his stupid little notepad and was smiling from ear-to-ear when Japan scored that first goal. He was probably foaming at the mouth for Brazil to lose the game so he could post some half-assed rant about it here later. Fitzpatrick is a joke. No one should ever take this guy seriously.

Some gringos get way too c**ky just because they are based in brazil and have "long experience". WTF do you mean they are playing another bunch of "no-hopers" Ghana. No-one gives a f**k what you think . How dare you think that you have the right to criticise them on behalf of the "fans back home".

Fitzpatrick should refrain from commenting on football as he has shown that he has little or no understanding of the game with this laughable post.

Brazil's performance against Japan showed the strength in depth of the brazilian squad and any informed opinion would be that the football was of the highest quality.

In fact the quality demonstrated by reserve full backs Cicinho and Gilberto and reserve midfielder Juninho Pernambucano merely underlined that coach Parreira has plenty of options for later in the tournament.

Personally, I always find watching the selecao a great pleasure. If Fitzpatrick doesn't, I suggest he sticks to watching the "tartan army".

I don't know what is more pathetic, attempts at sports "journalism" if there is such a thing, or the millions of brain dead sports enthusiasts that pinne daily for games and game updates. It is a stupid game folks - get over it. It's not going to turn Brasil into some first world power of industry over night. It's a game for the uneducated, and frankly, the truly retarded.

You are the truly retarded, firstly because you you were not to give an opinion (thanks God), but mainly because you goofed up.

A sport that involves billions ( I said billions ) of people and raises billions ( I said billions ) of dollars cannot be a sport for (truly reatarded ).
The US has been endevouring to get football ( I prefer this name - soccer is an American freak word ) started, but it just sinks and sinks. They even have new idiom: soccer mom (haha) and say " soccer " instead of" footbal" like everybody else.( I mean 179 countries) They think that female football is football and their teams have very funny names likeragons, giants, angels, raptors , etc.etc. ( What a crack )
That´s real pathetic. The Football national team has a murky future and Arena is going to change his career and take up poney riding.
But, maybe you are right. I´ll check out exciting sports like golf, checkers,rope jumping.
American national team go ... home.
Frankly, I think you are a... oh, no. It is too hard on you.

A sport that involves billions ( I said billions ) of people and raises billions ( I said billions ) of dollars cannot be a sport for (truly reatarded ).

Another brain dead brasilian responding about America thinking I´m an Amerikan. The insecurities in your nation know no bounds.

Eat your beans, drink your pinga, cheer on your team - footchybolly is a silly sport, as are almost all sports. It´s all about tribalism, it´s all about being braindead and nationalistic, and frankly you´d do yourself a favor to open up a book sometime, instead of frothing at the mouth because some multi-million dollar fool kicks a ball into a net.

Now was that too hard for you to digest? Or do you need a score card?

One would think that it might dawn on Fitzpatrick, that the Brazilian Team has steadily played better with each passing game. Instead he chooses to whine about 3 wins, and 9 points in the first group.
Were 3 wins expected? Yes.
Against coatia, they didn't look great, at all. Yet, like a CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM, they got the result.
Against Australia, who played great against Brazil, they look much better, but still not great.
Once again, though, they got the result.
Against Japan, they came from behind and opened up the scoring faucet, even after a lackluster first half.
MY point>?
They are playing better and better each game, and even when they play poorly for their expectations they win, win, win,
Fitzpatrick- the football genius who know nothing.

As my mom once told me, when the dummy speaks, the smart one keeps quiet. (Quando o burro fala, o outro abaixa a orelha). But, for your own safety Fitzpatrick, lay off the Johnny Walker for a while...its making you look like an old scottish drunk

As my mom once told me, when the dummy speaks, the smart one keeps quiet. (Quando o burro fala, o outro abaixa a orelha).

And so you just had to add your two cents! HA HA HA HA.

He shoots, he SCORES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting note here. The previous article was about Lula and the upcoming elections. It accurately painted a picture of your current s**t-for-brains president who is on the verge of setting Brazil back 30 years if he hasn't already. There are approximately 10 comments regarding that article and it has been up for 3 days I believe.

Here we have an article regarding soccer that has been up for all of a few hours and already it has more comments. Brazilians may want to re-assess where they want to go in the future because an outsider looking in can only assume that you are more interested in soccer than the health of your nation. YEAH TEAM!! GO BRAZIL. You are all quite sad!!

Brazil will likely win the World Cup and everyone will party in the streets and it will be great for a few days . . .
Then reality will set in and you will realize that BRAZIL has won again and the rest of the world doesn't REALLY give a s**t! They will mostly go back to their higher standard of living while you go back to burning buses and killing police officers. Just a little perspective for you nationalist sports fanatics.

Great enthusiasm for soccer - now if you could only show some enthusiasm for ending corruption, poverty and hunger . . .

Congrats! What a bang-on post.

A little note to the all high and mighty "Some Perspective maybe":
It's a game. a God Dman Game.
And no would take it over the health of a ntion, you moron.
Yes things are bad- but thank God there can be a reprieve, if only fleeting, to help the millions of Brazilians who have ZERO control over their politcally corrupt politicians and the gangsters that employ them.
You judgemental, snobby piece of trash. Who in the hell are you to talk down to Brasil- for cheering for another championship???
Who are you to questions their love for their country or their life-long quest for national peace and fair living?
You sir/madam, are way out of bounds.

Lots of opinions, and judging by the precision of everyone's english, few of you are Brazilians. Nor am I. So you're dogmatic left wing rants are more often than not ignorant agitprop neo-colonial drivel.
Trying to save the poor natives who you think need your help doesnt make you a saint, it's racist pandering.

Lets here some Brazilian opinions. Re the Cup, I've heard several Brazilian opinions and I've watched virtually every Cup game thus far.

So from my and my Brazilian associates' perspective, Brazil sucked the first few games, but were far closer to their potential with Japan. The journalist is wrong. The Japan game showed brilliance, and to see Ronaldo, Robinho and Juninho shine was a treat. True it's only futbol, but what other event on the planet can stop wars for a month and bring disparate people of a nation together in one common interest. A revolution? Im still laughing.

Futbol wont save save the world, but if the people of Ghana, Brazil or Togo or even England for that matter didnt have the passion of futbol, the banality of daily living would take its toll. We cant spend every second of the day being revolutionaries.

Brazil will step up. England sucked too the first round, abut they'll step up.

Futbol is an opportunity for the world to see the Ghana's and Togos, and maybe even look on a map and discover where Ghana and Togo are. I only wish the Sports Channels would do more individual profiles on the backgrounds of players, like the Olympics do. This is the opp for the world to see life in Ghana/Brazil/Saudi/Togo and the challenges and joys they experience. Sure, I would love to read World Bank reports or novels on the subject. But who has the time?

You are the No Hoper. If you knew your soccer history, you will discover that Nigeria defeated Brazil and Argentina and won the soccer gold at the Olympics, and also went into the quarter final at the World cup after demolishing Spain. Just what is the criteria you rely on for declaring Ghana another No hoper.I know your type, you are only happy when you criticize others. At least stick to constructive criticism.

"They think that female football is football and their teams have very funny names likeragons, giants, angels, raptors , etc.etc. ( What a crack )
That´s real pathetic. The Football national team has a murky future and Arena is going to change his career and take up poney riding.
But, maybe you are right. I´ll check out exciting sports like golf, checkers,rope jumping.
American national team go ... home.
Frankly, I think you are a... oh, no. It is too hard on you."

Yeah it's God "Dman" Game (moron). Hard to type when you're seething with rage isn't it bitch?? Tell the f**king IDIOT above that wrote the quoted material that it's just a game as well you "PANDERING" liberal apologists. It doesn't apply to some dips**t Brazilian who offends women's soccer as well as the Joke status of American soccer does it a*****es? I love s**theads like the last 2 posters who are tripping all over themselves in order to be the first to put their tongues up Brazilian asses!! Hilarious! Yeah Raptors, Dragons and Giants are such a funny names!! Drrrrrr. Now have your mommy wipe the spittle from your chin mmmkkkk retard?

Yes Futbol is all about learning about Togo - f**kING HILARIOUS MAN!!! No it's really about charging Euro 1000 for a ticket, getting drunk and seeing Ronaldinho on a billboard selling phones . .

Furthermore, the charge that if Brazilians showed more enthusiasm for the well-being of their country as they do for a bunch of womanizing footchebol players then things may soon change, is a fair one. It all starts with not voting a s**thead like Lula back into office and I guess it's just Brazil's bad luck that the World Cup is taking place in an election year - MY OH MY what are all the Brazilians to do - worry about soccer or national politics? - they certainly can't do both it appears!!

So you two can give one another the hypocritical (because deep down inside you know you are both hypocrites) reach around and get those tongues ready to lick some Brazilan crack. Enjoy Fun Boys!!

"You sir/madam, are way out of bounds" LOVE IT MAN!!!! What a bitch!!

Hey Yawn- you incoherent f**k.
Spelling bad because of time constraints and bad typing you condesending liberal f**k.
What the f**k was liberal about my 2 cents above?
Who's the bitch? All I read in your rant is Regurgitation from about 5 other articles and posts.
You bitter, little clintonite, weak, and probably gay a*****e-
You want to challenge me because I typed too fast and mis-spelled some words, defending my friends in brazil who like the World Cup? Are you kidding me, you raving lunatic?
Try stating an opinion or try putting together a cohesive, statement instead of babbling on about your nonsensical hatered for liberals and brazil and people who mis-spell.
You dumb f**king lefty, c**ksucking, tool.
you're a moron and an a*****e.
So madam- take that bitter dick out of your "seething" mouth and explain yourself- Or- stand down like the little punk ass bitch you are.
All I tried to do was write a quick positve little note about the World Cup, and a Jackal named Yawn has to spew all of his c**ksucking bitterness all of it.
You dumb f**k.

Yawn is a moron.
Here's a hint, Yawn:
Try to have a pint in your ramblings.
And I am sure that when "sign of a great team" was playing sports and chasing skirts, you were in typing class, perfecting you art, so that one day, just one day, you can s**t on someone in a web blog by downing their typing skills.
c**ksucker is right.

point

You judgemental, snobby piece of trash. Who in the hell are you to talk down to Brasil- for cheering for another championship???
Who are you to questions their love for their country or their life-long quest for national peace and fair living?
You sir/madam, are way out of bounds.

I AM GOD. WHO ARE YOU?

The author should stick to the subject he knows best about, or show some konwledge when writing about football.

Scotland didnt qualify by the way, but I am sure he would be overjoyed if they were playing with a fraction of the potential that Brasil showed in the game against Japan, horses for courses.

To the frustrated teen above, why dont you go and find another board to fill with your dribble with. Your surplus here.

Hello God!
I can't believe I found you here, on this awful blogging site!
Wow- you do work in mysterious ways!
anyway- now that I have found you, I need to ask for a few favors:
1. Please- can you never, never allow Scotland to qualify for the World cup, please?
2. Please allow Brasils talent to rain down on the naysayers and web bloggers who can and can't spell.
3. Please bring upon all these hateful, non- insightful bloggers only misery and pain. They all stink. Afterall, Nonsense breads nonsense.
Thank you,
your humble guest

"Hey Yawn- you incoherent f**k."
"Spelling bad because of time constraints and bad (poor here idiot) typing you condesending liberal f**k."

Now, that should read - "spelling poorly" you ignorant hillbilly. Ever heard of an adverb?? Try them out the next time you get a chance you coherent f**k you!! LOL!!!

"You bitter, little clintonite, weak, and probably gay a*****e-"

Ok you out of control, Bus**te, small animal torturer you!!

"You want to challenge me because I typed too fast (should be too quickly - adverbs retard - adverbs!!) and mis-spelled some words, defending my friends in brazil who like the World Cup? Are you kidding me, you raving lunatic?" (is that a statement or a question moron?)

Why on earth should I want to challenge you. Judging by your posts you're CHALLENGED enough each and every day. Yeah, I'm the lunatic. How many bodies do you have in your freezer by the way?

"Try stating an opinion or try putting together a cohesive, statement instead of babbling on about your nonsensical hatered for liberals and brazil and people who mis-spell.
You dumb f**king lefty, c**ksucking, tool."

"Spelling bad because of time constraints and bad typing you condesending liberal f**k"

I'm confused because for most rational, non-psychotic people on earth lefty MEANS liberal. So do you hate liberals too or are you defending them in that statement dips**t?

"Try stating an opinion or try putting together a cohesive, statement instead of babbling on about your nonsensical hatered for liberals and brazil and people who mis-spell."

Try stating an opinion . . That is exactly what I did there Mr. Dahmer!! Look over your entire post again. Too easy. Honestly, did you eat paint as a child??

"Hey Yawn- you incoherent f**k.
Spelling bad because of time constraints and bad typing you condesending liberal f**k.
What the f**k was liberal about my 2 cents above?
Who's the bitch? All I read in your rant is Regurgitation from about 5 other articles and posts.
You bitter, little clintonite, weak, and probably gay a*****e-
You want to challenge me because I typed too fast and mis-spelled some words, defending my friends in brazil who like the World Cup? Are you kidding me, you raving lunatic?
Try stating an opinion or try putting together a cohesive, statement instead of babbling on about your nonsensical hatered for liberals and brazil and people who mis-spell.
You dumb f**king lefty, c**ksucking, tool.
you're a moron and an a*****e.
So madam- take that bitter dick out of your "seething" mouth and explain yourself- Or- stand down like the little punk ass bitch you are.
All I tried to do was write a quick positve little note about the World Cup, and a Jackal named Yawn has to spew all of his c**ksucking bitterness all of it.
You dumb f**k."

Yes coherent and thoughtful indeed. Behold a true mental dwarf among men . . . LMAO!! Thanks for the post - you really made my day.

And I am sure that when "sign of a great team" was playing sports and chasing skirts, you were in typing class, perfecting you art, so that one day, just one day, you can s**t on someone in a web blog by downing their typing skills.

Oh I rather think "sign of a great team" was busy cutting girls up and torturing small animals instead of playing soccer or chasing skirts. I'm sure his mommy used to dress him in skirts though! LOL!! Is that why you're so f**ked in the head today YOU Clintonite a*****e you?? LMAO!!!!

You on the other hand were probably just busy playing soccer and doing little else when your dumb ass should have been in school. Now you have no job, no life and hang all your hopes on a bunch of guys you jerk off to every night. "Oh god Ronaldo - the way you scored twice in that match - so hot!! LOL!!

"If Brazilians showed more enthusiasm for the well-being of their country. . ". C'mon, dude. If ANY country showed more enthusiasm for country and humanity than sports, we'd be somewhere. That's a dreamworld though.

Note to all self-appointed defenders of the poor disenfranchised living on the streets. Since you seem to spend a lot of time out there volunteering your time and working with poor people, go ask these folks if they prefer to have soccer or not to have soccer. And some Brazilian kids if it matters to them that they're team is one of the greatest in the world.

Every soccer star who rises from poverty gives hope to those poor kids who have little else to hope for. It might be the opiate of the masses, but so what, everything else is too. See Hip-Hop.

"That's a dreamworld though."

And that's a f**king cop-out!!

"And some Brazilian kids if it matters to them that they're team is one of the greatest in the world."

Nice, bleeding heart garbage really. At the end of the day does it put food in a child's belly? NO. Does it end corruption? - NO
Does it actually add to the standing of the country in REAL terms? - NO

Amazing how many Brazilians can afford to fly to Germany, stay for 2-3 weeks, spend thousands of Euros on tickets, food and lodging but can't do a f**king thing to take care of their own back home. Maybe that is the point there Hip-Hop!!

Why is everything so black and white with everyone? No one is saying to starve these “poor little Brasilans” of their national game (pretty condescending of you). The jest seems to be that there is a lapse in mentality about priorities. I don’t know of any other country that shuts banks and local bus routes just because their national team steps onto the camp. Most Brasilians can cite every player’s name, and babble on for hours about their stats, strengths and weaknesses, yet they couldn’t tell you the name of their local vereador even if he was standing in front them. Does this not strike you as a wee tad misguided?

Enjoy the games, have fun with the world cup, but when it’s over don’t turn your brains off until the next championships. There is more to life, and more pressing national and regional matters, than footchybolly.

It’s pretty freaking tribal to cry and cuddle the Brazilian flag after living in misery, being robbed by governments and living in fear of becoming the next homicide statistic, just because Ronaldo heads one into the goal.

"I don’t know of any other country that shuts banks and local bus routes just because their national team steps onto the camp."

More to the point - they are proud of this!

When are you going to give up this story about insecurity. Did you learn this word in your class and now you repeat it ad nauseam?
Find out why you use it so much. Maybe Freud will help you.
I have an idea: Write down the word many times. You will get fed up of it and will get rid from your neurosis. Like this:

INSECURITY, INSECURITY, INSECURITY, ..............

Go, do it. Good luck. I don´t think you are a lost case yet.

Aha. I knew you were going to slip up some time.
Now say: amerrrika.
Then, you say " "uber "
Finally, say " alles ".

OK, now you are ready to say:

amerrica uber alles.

Don´t forget your " mein kampf"

"soccer is an American freak word"

Hmm, doesn't it have its origin in England?

"The word soccer is a colloquial abbreviation of association (from assoc.) and first appeared in the 1880s. The word is sometimes credited to Charles Wreford Brown, an Oxford University student said to have been fond of shortened forms such as brekkers for breakfast and rugger for rugby football. In the late 19th century the word soccer tended to be used only at public schools (known as private schools in the United States); most people knew the game simply as football. Today the term association football is rarely used, although some clubs still include Association Football Club (AFC) in their name. "Soccer" is used by the largest number of native English speakers, although "football" is perhaps the most widely used term.The game is sometimes also known colloquially as footy and footer in some places such as the UK."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(soccer)_names

Hey, folks. the NGC HAS A SPECIAL ON A PENITENTIARY IN CALIFORNIA. It is a must. You can see what a wonderful life two million amerricans have .
Rape inside the gates go up to forty percent.
There are riots and they kill themselves with knives they manufactured themselves . It is hell on earth. They have diverse gangs . These gangs clash from times to times. Each guy has to keeps his eyes open 24 hours a day.

It is there to be seen. Don´forget. .Oh, no. They don´t play football. They play
basketball. Forget about football.

Isn't there some English punk song that goes "Soccer, soccer, soccer-soccer-soccer-soccer, soccer!"?

What the hell do I know. It's futebol!

Oh, I do know that Fitzpatrick is a boob.

"When are you going to give up this story about insecurity. Did you learn this word in your class and now you repeat it ad nauseam?"

Hey s**thead? Who wrote "insecurity" here besides you? You're a clever one aren't you. Now go back and try harder. Really put some thought into it ok?

What amazes me the most is the amount of crap written by americans with way too much spare time. So you want to tell us what the priorities should be? What about your life? Aren't you spending too much time in here?

What about your country? Waging wars over oil, torturing prisoners, killing old people and children in Iraq (and in a lot of other places as well), corruption, leaving blacks to die in some natural catastrophe, is that all ok to you?

There's too much s**t in this world, and where you live too, why don't you "fight for fixing it" instead of trying to piss other people off on the internet?

The world would be a better place without people like you, that talk too much and act too little.

BRAZIL CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WINNING TEAM!!!!!!

You are a Scotish version of Larry Rohter NYT editor based in Rio,is it that difficult to an Anglo show its passion/love for Brazil? I hope does not take too long otherwise you were living in the cosmopolitan Glasgow

Do some studying up on football, and then write about it you c**ky jackass.

"I'm sure I was not the only spectator hoping to see Japan score another goal or two just to show that Brazil's victory was nothing to celebrate."

I guess you've taken that Brazilian flag down finally, leaving the Scottish one solo. Poseur.

Larry Rohter's a tool, but Fizpatrick couldn't hold his jockstrap.

What amazes me the most is the amount of crap written by americans with way too much spare time. So you want to tell us what the priorities should be? What about your life? Aren't you spending too much time in here?

What about your country? Waging wars over oil, torturing prisoners, killing old people and children in Iraq (and in a lot of other places as well), corruption, leaving blacks to die in some natural catastrophe, is that all ok to you?

There's too much s**t in this world, and where you live too, why don't you "fight for fixing it" instead of trying to piss other people off on the internet?

The world would be a better place without people like you, that talk too much and act too little.

Ok there let's hear what you do! What are the actions you take. I love to call people like you out as well. WTF are you doing? Let's see if we get a response - chirp,chirp,chirp . . . . .

Brazil: um pais de tolos.

quote:

"corruption, leaving blacks to die in some natural catastrophe"

Leaving blacks to die in a NATURAL catastrophe....ROTFLMAO!

It wasn't like the hurricane was f**king planned!

And what f**king idiot would live in a place 12 feet below sea level?

Leave it to the americans to build a city 12 feet below sea level and fill it with "niggas".

"Eat your beans, drink your pinga, cheer on your team - footchybolly is a silly sport, as are almost all sports. It´s all about tribalism, it´s all about being braindead and nationalistic, and frankly you´d do yourself a favor to open up a book sometime, instead of frothing at the mouth because some multi-million dollar fool kicks a ball into a net. "


wow...someone got picked on in their high school locker room... save your misdirected anger it doesnt belong on a website about brazil, you'll obviously never understand anything about this country...

real talk

Larry Rohter is not a fool. Beware of him. I would not trust him even if he were my father.

Why do all people root for their teams by saying the name of the country?
Argentina, Argentina... Italy, Italy...Portugal, Portugal, Spain, Spain...Japan, Japan...

Now , guess how the americans do it.

HAHA --- They say: OOO, SS, AAA.., OOO, SS, AAA. ---


Isn´t that funny? Does it have a secret meaning? Is it superstition.

Just imagine the Germans hollering : FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY...repeat, repeat.

How about the Aussies? They could holler: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA...repeat - Isn´t that cute?

Don´t you think this is ...let´s say...more civilized?..

If you come from Congo,never holler CONGO, CONGO, but DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, -- You can repeat as many times you please. It is classy.

So, it seems, all peoples should copy the OOO, SS, AAA in all aspects.

For instance: When you sponsor a tournament, any sort of tournament, call it more properly -- World Series. It is fancier.Never mind it just compreheends three or four small islands from Central America.Don´t you sometimes think some team from Mars or from Alpha-Centauro will participate? Have you ever seen a football player from these far away places?


Don´t , also, say " football".
Saying " Soccer" is much .better .

-- OOO, SS, AAA , go home!!!
You´re out. :

Larry Rotten is not in Rio any longer. (Thanks God )

s**t... Is this your expectation?

For how long has the OOO SS AAA trying to become a champion at the world cup?

If you give a monkey a typewriter it will write a best-selling novel before the OOO SS AAA team wins three games in a row.

How poor your football is!!!

A fifth class team it is.
Now, go home. The rest of the world doesn´t give a s**t for the OOO SS AAA team.

Don´t , also, say " football".
Saying " Soccer" is much .better .

-- OOO, SS, AAA , go home!!!
You´re out. :

When the Olympics are going on in China I want you to remember your footchebal because it's the one thing you've got that is worth a s**t!! We'll see who is "going home" in 2008 won't we? 4th largest country in the world and you always finish near the bottom so reserve your f**king arrogance little prick!!

How poor Brazil is at everything else. Thankfully you have soccer so you don't have to be the laughing stock of the whole world!!

"Larry Rohter is not a fool."

No, I said he's a TOOL.

"OOO, SS, AAA"

You wouldn't criticize us if we cheered for "America"? Sure you would. Admit it.

quote:

"For instance: When you sponsor a tournament, any sort of tournament, call it more properly -- World Series."

You've shown your ignorance on this topic!

It's called the World Series because it is the world championship of baseball. It is the BEST baseball players on the planet.

Although baseball is an american invented sport, like basketball, and like american fooball, Major League baseball players come from all over the world.

quote:

"The Dominican Republic had the most non-U.S. players with 85, followed by Venezuela (43), Puerto Rico (33), Canada and Mexico (14 apiece), Japan (nine), Cuba (six), South Korea (five), Panama (four), Taiwan (three), Australia and Colombia (two each) and Aruba, Curacao and Nicaragua (one apiece)."


See you see misinformed one, Major League Baseball in this respect is a lot like the NBA....it is the BEST baseball players in the world participating in the same league. Much like the NBA which has the best basketball players from the entire world.

A microcosm of the macrocosm.

"Then reality will set in and you will realize that BRAZIL has won again and the rest of the world doesn't REALLY give a s**t! They will mostly go back to their higher standard of living while you go back to burning buses and killing police officers. Just a little perspective for you nationalist sports fanatics."

The poverty of which you speak was created by a dictatorship.

These "police officers" were trained by americans to kill! kill! kill! anyone who opposed the horrible "capitalism" that they masterminded here.

So then you petty f**ks want to come here and complain about the people trying to escape said reality?

At least brazilians didn't kill 3000 of their own, and while the rest get obssessed by rigged singing competitions on national television.

Get a grip.

Then get a brain.

At least brazilians didn't kill 3000 of their own, and while the rest get obssessed by rigged singing competitions on national television.

NO - YOU KILL FAR FAR MORE OF YOUR OWN AND I SEE IT ON GLOBO EVERY NIGHT!!!! Now you shiheads are getting ready to re-elect Lula - Good 4 U.
An EU Forum Member

"NO - YOU KILL FAR FAR MORE OF YOUR OWN AND I SEE IT ON GLOBO EVERY NIGHT!!!! Now you shiheads are getting ready to re-elect Lula - Good 4 U.
An EU Forum Member"

Lula doesn't hide the dirty shennigans like the old-school murderous corrupts did.

And the 3000 of their own they killed so that they could kill many many others who sat on oil that did not belong to them.

Italy and England joined them.

The same cannot be said for Brazil.

So there!

Those who are either "disappointed" or offer their "criticizm" of the Brazilian national team make me laugh. The team is clearly a great team -- recognized as the best of the best. Will the team win every game it plays? Will the team win the World Cup? Who knows? Who cares? Absolutely anything can happen. There are other excellent teams who have beaten them in the past. So the games should be great! Enjoy the games. Cheer for your team . . . and then for "everyone's second team"! Viva Brasil!

quote:

"These "police officers" were trained by americans to kill! kill! kill! anyone who opposed the horrible "capitalism" that they masterminded here."

You need to get one thing straight. The U.S. did not plan the coup here in brazil, brazilian generals did, and they started planning it as early as 1958. The U.S. gov't. did "support" the coup and did have CIA on the ground, as well as a battle ship off the southern coast of brazil....but that was it. The coup was orchestrated and carried out by BRAZILIANS!

Now, are you going to blame the corruption that exists TODAY, and the "death squad" style assassinations on the United States???

Yep, add yet another moronic brazilian or brazil lover that refuses to take responsibility for ANYTHING.

Maluf stealing 450 million, that was the U.S.?

Collar stealing 250 million, that was the U.S.?

The TRT scandal a couple years back, hundreds of millions, that was the U.S.?

Albano Franco stealing 200 million from the sale of the state owned power company, that was the U.S.?

Police in sao paulo and rio killing street children by the thousands every year, that is the U.S.?

One of the lowest minimum wages on the planet that spurns many of the crimes committed in this country, that is the U.S.?

If the U.S. has that much control over brazil....then I guess brazil is just plain and simply f**ked eh?

Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee? Brazilians have been f**king brazilians for decades now....it's about time you accept that so you can look for solutions instead of pointing your finger.

When you point your finger you have 3 pointing back at you!

"The U.S. gov't. did "support" the coup and did have CIA on the ground, as well as a battle ship off the southern coast of brazil....but that was it."

That was not "it". Don't lie. The american ambassador was beside the installed pawn Castelo Branco.

And much longer still they were directing the direction of the country.

You can talk as much as you want without backing anything up like you just did. That does not change the facts, does it?

"In 1970, a US Congress study group visited Brazil. It gave this summary of statements by American military advisers there:
" Rather than dwell on the authoritarian aspects of the regime, they emphasize assertions by the Brazilian armed forces that they believe in, and support, representative democracy as an ideal and would return government to civilian control if this could be done without sacrifice to security and development. This withdrawal from the political arena is not seen as occurring in the near future. For that reason they emphasize the continued importance of the military assistance training program as a means of exerting U.S. influence and retaining the current pro-U.S. attitude of the Brazilian armed forces. Possible disadvantages to U.S. interests in being so closely identified with an authoritarian regime are not seen as particularly important. ""

"Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee? Brazilians have been f**king brazilians for decades now....it's about time you accept that so you can look for solutions instead of pointing your finger.

When you point your finger you have 3 pointing back at you! "

It's easy to say to others not to "point any fingers".

Steve Biko had something to say to dishonest opressive people like you:

"Not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked."

Americans are the bullies of the world.

All for what? So that a few rich people can get richer.

Brazilians are not better either. But you cannot deny the "terrible forces" at play here - and everywhere.

Every Brazilian who defines himself by the performance of their national soccer team - raise your hand . . . . Yep - thought so!
IDIOTS!!

quote:

The role of the United States
The role of the United States in these events was complex and at times contradictory. An anti-Goulart press campaign was conducted throughout 1963, and in 1964 the Johnson administration gave moral support to the campaign. Ambassador Lincoln Gordon later admitted that the embassy had given money to anti-Goulart candidates in the 1962 municipal elections and had encouraged the plotters; that many extra United States intelligence personnel were operating in Brazil; and that four United States Navy oil tankers and the carrier Forrestal, in an operation code-named Brother Sam, had stood off the coast in case of need during the 1964 coup. Washington immediately recognized the new government in 1964 and hailed the coup d'état as one of the "democratic forces" whioch had allegedly staved off the hand of international communism. In retrospect, it appears that the only foreign hand involved was Washington's, although the United States was not the principal actor in these events. [citation needed] Indeed, THE HARD-LINERS IN THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY PRESSURED COSTA E SILVA INTO PROMULGATING THE FIFTH INSTITUTIONAL ACT ON DECEMBER 13TH, 1968.

This act gave the president dictatorial powers, dissolved Congress and state legislatures, suspended the constitution, and imposed censorship.





So, you see, I, and most any other person, or american, with knowledge of the situation won't deny the U.S. had their hand in the coup....BUT it was not designed and FORCED upon brazil!!!

This was done by BRAZILIAN MILITARY HARDLINERS!!!

Now, I'll bet you'll even deny that!

I'm very accustomed to it though, I've been in brazil for years, I know how hard it is for you people to accept responsibility, and especially for mistakes, errors, or things that are perceived as being negative.

You go right along and keep thinking that brazils military rule was completely masterminded and carried out by the U.S. gov't....any fool knows better.

The U.S. didn't even have military troops on the ground!! We had CIA agents, but NO troops!!

So, how did we FORCE these brazilian military generals to overthrow the president??

The "key" word being "force".

"So, you see, I, and most any other person, or american, with knowledge of the situation won't deny the U.S. had their hand in the coup....BUT it was not designed and FORCED upon brazil!!! "

Really?

Where are you getting your 'facts'??

When is NO a NO?

"In early 1961, shortly after Quadros took office, he was visited by Adolf Berle, Jr., President Kennedy's adviser on Latin American affairs and formerly ambassador to Brazil. Berle had come as Kennedy's special envoy to solicit Quadros's backing for the impending Bay of Pigs invasion. Ambassador Cabot was present and some years later described the meeting to author Peter Bell. Bell has written:
Ambassador Cabot remembers a "stormy conversation" in which Berle stated the United States had $300 million in reserve for Brazil and in effect "offered it as a bribe" for Brazilian cooperation ... Quadros became "visibly irritated" after Berle refused to heed his THIRD "no". No Brazilian official was at the airport the next day to see the envoy off."

I guess NEVER to amercans.

Not surprisingly, Quadros resigned.

Maybe the bribe was too little for him. There are a lot of corrupt people in the world. Principally in the military. That's not news. I am not going to deny it.

But you are intent on denying who really masterminded the "democracy" in Brazil aren't you?

Keep up with your lies. The world is full of them.

You are only one more sorry liar.

who was the coup carried out by? Americans or brazilians?

Were the brazilian military generals FORCED to play along with american wishes??

How come 2-3 years after the military gov't. took over that they began taking actions that were CONTRARY to the U.S.'s wishes??

And in the mid to late 70's the U.S. gov't. distanced itself from the brazilian military regime.

Wonder why that was since obviously, according to you, the U.S. was pulling all the strings, and in complete control.

Wake up bud! Put responsibility where it's due!

As I said, yet another, "não foi eu". Brazil should make that it's national slogan!

"who was the coup carried out by? Americans or brazilians? "

Everybody with half a brain knows that it was the brazilians with the financial and mentoring backing of americans.

Don't be so pedantic. Or no pretzel for you!


"How come 2-3 years after the military gov't. took over that they began taking actions that were CONTRARY to the U.S.'s wishes?? "

Really? Where do you get your "facts"?

Tell us since you post nothing but your vacuous opinions here so we can look for it ourselves..

Perhaps this is what you mean by "the U.S. gov't. distanced itself from the brazilian military regime"?

"Brazil's rulers themselves have had to assume a "get-tough" attitude toward the U.S. in the wake of State Department reports on human rights violations. In order to gain credibility amongst their local backers, the Brazilians showed how badly they were miffed: by canceling in March, 1977 a 25-year-old military assistance treaty between Washington and Brasilia. At the same time, Brazil turned down a $50 million loan credit for the purchase of military supplies because of human rights demands attached to it by the U.S. Congress.86 In September, 1977, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry announced the termination of a Brazilian-American military commission and a naval commission established in 1942 to coordinate World War II efforts. Also canceled were a 1967 pact governing the use of armaments imported from the U.S. and a 1952 agreement for U.S. participation in aerial mapping of Brazil.87 Of the March rejection, chief of staff General Moacir Barcelos Potyguara stated that the decision would cause no problems in Brazil's military preparedness.88

Unfortunately, this cavalier attitude will not effect the long-term military relations between the two countries. The March, 1977 announcement was to take place one year later. No mention was made of rejecting that which is already in the pipeline to Brazil. At the least, Brazil should benefit for years to come from its friendship with the U.S. Furthermore, U.S. opposition to Brazil's planned purchase of West German nuclear reprocessing technology seems to have subsided. In a recent visit to Brazil, Vice President Mondale backed away from criticizing the country's plans to build a uranium reprocessing plant capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.89

As for Brazil's new president, Joao Baptista Figueiredo, and what lies in store for the Brazilian people, a few words must be said. For the unsuspecting, last month's appointment of Figueiredo as president appeared to usher in a new era of liberalization for that country's political situation. Pledging to continue the reforms (which included the closing of Congress for four months in 1977) initiated by his predecessor, Ernesto Geisel, Figueiredo declared that it would be his "unswerving purpose" to make Brazil a democracy. He guaranteed freedom of expression for the "many segments of Brazilian public opinion."90 But for those who have even the slightest familiarity with the man who is Brazil's fifth military head of state since the armed forces carried out a CIA-backed coup in 1964, Joao Baptista Figueiredo is to be watched closely.

His background speaks to the intimate role the CIA has played in making Brazil one of the most repressive and, not surprisingly, one of the "safest" investment climates in Latin America. After the '64 coup, the CIA helped Brazil set up its first national intelligence service, the SNI. Figueiredo became the director of its Rio office. Later he was named head of the military police in Sao Paulo, after which he became then-President Emilio Medici's chief of staff. Before coming to Brasilia in 1974 to direct the SNI, Figueiredo commanded the Third Army in Porto Alegre. Given the documented penetration and usurpation of the SNI and the police forces by the CIA, can there remain any doubt that with Figueiredo's ascendancy to the executive office, Langley truly has their "man in Brazil"? "

Like they "distance" themselves from all the murderous dictatorships that they help install in the first place, right!

I guess when it gets to rough, they feel pitty for us - the poor suckers.

On the record you are so nice, aren't you?

Or are you going to say that "não fomos nós!! Freedom and democracy is on the march!! God bless america!!"

The above text was written whe Figueredo was the president.

That was the conclusion.

Here is the start, more or less, of the long analisis:

"In the fall of 1961, just as Joao Goulart was assuming the presidency, the United States began to make contact with his right-wing opposition. At the same time, the CIA began a multifaceted penetration of Brazilian society designed to influence that country's internal politics. Lincoln Gordon, U.S. ambassador to Brazil, was appointed the same day that Goulart's predecessor, Janio Quadros resigned. Soon after his arrival in October, Gordon met with a right-wing admiral named Silvio Heck. Heck informed Gordon of a poll of the armed services which revealed that over two-thirds of the enlisted men opposed Goulart. Heck also hoped that when it came time to oust Goulart "the U.S would take an understanding view."18 Although Gordon later determined that Heck's figures were exaggerated, he never once warned Goulart or his advisers of this conspiracy.

The CIA, for its part, took more than a passive interest in helping right-wing military forces come to power in Brazil. The overthrow of Goulart and the destruction of democracy in Brazil was effected through the manipulation of diverse social groups. Police, the military, political parties, labor unions, student federations and housewives associations were all exploited in the interest of stirring up opposition to Goulart. Yet, while Washington's original intent may have been to replace Goulart with the strongman General Castello Branco, the guaranty of the coup's longterm success demanded an increase in U.S. material and training for the Brazilian security forces which continues to this day."

So save yourself the empty discourse. No body will buy it.

Or try to BACK IT UP with some facts. So that you might persuade some right-wing lying corrupt people.

Now I'm using YOUR quotes.

quote:

"Everybody with half a brain knows that it was the BRAZILIAINS with the FINANCIAL and MENTORING backing of americans."

quote:

"Soon after his arrival in October, Gordon met with a right-wing admiral named SILVIO HECK. Heck informed Gordon of a poll of the armed services which revealed that over two-thirds of the enlisted men opposed Goulart. Heck ALSO HOPED THAT WHEN IT CAME TIME TO OUST GOULART "THE U.S. WOULD TAKE AN UNDERSTANDING VIEW"!!!!


So, you see, as I stated, these were BRAZILIAN military hardliners plans all along. MANY military generals have stated that this coup began to be planned in the 1950's!

During the cold war this type of thing happened all over the world. With the U.S. attempting to influence gov'ts. and install pro-american regimes and gov'ts. and Russia trying to do the same.

The U.S. did not FORCE these decisions on ANYONE. Brazilian military personnel decided this on their own.

Live with it!

quote:

"The role of the United States in these events was complex and at times contradictory. An anti-Goulart press campaign was conducted throughout 1963, and in 1964 the Johnson administration gave moral support to the campaign. Ambassador Lincoln Gordon later admitted that the embassy had given money to anti-Goulart candidates in the 1962 municipal elections and had encouraged the plotters; that many extra United States military and intelligence personnel were operating in Brazil; and that four United States Navy oil tankers and the carrier Forrestal , in an operation code-named Brother Sam, had stood off the coast in case of need during the 1964 coup. Washington immediately recognized the new government in 1964 and joined the chorus chanting that the coup d'état of the "democratic forces" had staved off the hand of international communism. In retrospect, it appears that the only foreign hand involved was Washington's, ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT THE PRINCIPLE ACTOR IN THESE EVENTS!

Indeed, the HARD-LINERS IN THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY pressured Costa e Silva into promulgating the Fifth Institutional Act on December 13, 1968. This act gave the president dictatorial powers, dissolved Congress and state legislatures, suspended the constitution, and imposed censorship.

In October 1969, when President Costa e Silva died unexpectedly, the democratic mask fell off as the officer corps of the three services consulted among themselves to pick General Garrastazú Médici for the presidency. Costa e Silva and Médici represented the hard-line, antipolitics segment of the military, which seemingly was content to hold authority as long as necessary to turn Brazil into a great power. The Médici government illustrated how it was possible to remain in power without popular support, without a political party, and without a well-defined program. It was the era of terrorist actions in the cities, replete with kidnappings of diplomats, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR, and an extensive antiguerrilla campaign in northern Goiás. The repressive apparatus expanded into various agencies, which spied on political opponents and engaged in dirty tricks, torture, and "disappearings" (see The Military Role in the Intelligence Services, ch. 5). Those operations caused an open break between the government and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church for the first time in Brazilian history. They also PRODUCED A DETORIATION IN RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES, whose leaders had expected the Castelo Branco vision of the revolution to win out."


"Brazil shifted its foreign policy to meet its economic needs. "Responsible pragmatism" REPLACED STRICT ALIGNMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES and a worldview based on ideological frontiers and blocs of nations. Because Brazil was 80 percent dependent on imported oil, Geisel SHIFTED THE COUNTRY FROM A PRO-ISRAEL STANCE to closer ties with oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Iraq. His government also recognized China, Angola, and Mozambique and moved closer to Spanish America, Europe, and Japan. The 1975 agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) to build nuclear reactors PRODUCED CONFRONTATION WITH THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION, which was ALSO SCOLDING THE GEISEL GOVERNMENT FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES THAT IS WAS FIGHTING TO STOP. Frustrated with what he saw as United States highhandedness and lack of understanding, Geisel RENOUNCED THE MILITARY ALLIANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES in April 1977."




OK, now, my point is, as it always has been to people like you, that attempt and put NO RESPONSIBILITY on brazilians, the brazilian military, etc. The U.S. DID play a role in the coup, BUT IT WAS NOT ORCHESTRATED NOR CARRIED OUT BY THE UNITED STATES!

It was SUPPORTED by the United States.

But with people such as yourself, as I previously said, "não foi eu", it's never you, it's NEVER brazils fault...no matter what happens, "who can we blame", "who can we point our fingers at?"

And anyone with a half a brain surely knows that WITHOUT american troops on the ground there certainly has to be participation by a faction or group within said country.

Even when the U.S. HAS troops on the ground, they're allied with groups and factions within said country.

But in the case of brazil, the responsibility of the coup that took place lies MUCH MORE so with Brazilian generals themselves, than with the United States.

quote:

" It was the era of terrorist actions in the cities, replete with kidnappings of diplomats, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR...."

And if the U.S. was "pulling all the strings", why in the world would we kidnap our OWN ambassador?


LOL.

"And if the U.S. was "pulling all the strings", why in the world would we kidnap our OWN ambassador?


LOL."

Hey, ignorant fool, that was the resistence who did that.

And they were sent to jail then exiled.

The ambassador himself praised their "niceness". The kidnapper, Fernando Gabeira, now was ELECTED to the Congress as a Federal Deputy.

A "fag" to use the kind of pathetic discourse that you people use. (Forgetting that the "powerful" "conservative" "christian" in your own country loves a good strap-on using dominatrix...)

so do you STILL deny brazilian involvement?

That's the question, because up until now, according to you, there wasn't any....lol.

YOUR own quote:

"Heck ALSO HOPED THAT WHEN IT CAME TIME TO OUST GOULART "THE U.S. WOULD TAKE AN UNDERSTANDING VIEW"!!!! "

So, who's idea was this? What group was the true "engine" behind the coup?

Why would HECK HOPE the U.S. would take an "understanding" view?

"OK, now, my point is, as it always has been to people like you, that attempt and put NO RESPONSIBILITY on brazilians, the brazilian military, etc. The U.S. DID play a role in the coup, BUT IT WAS NOT ORCHESTRATED NOR CARRIED OUT BY THE UNITED STATES! "



No. It was "not" orchestrated by the United States.

What don't you UNDERSTAND in this?

"In early 1961, shortly after Quadros took office, he was visited by Adolf Berle, Jr., President Kennedy's adviser on Latin American affairs and formerly ambassador to Brazil. Berle had come as Kennedy's special envoy to solicit Quadros's backing for the impending Bay of Pigs invasion. Ambassador Cabot was present and some years later described the meeting to author Peter Bell. Bell has written:

Ambassador Cabot remembers a "stormy conversation" in which Berle stated the United States had $300 million in reserve for Brazil and in effect "offered it as a bribe" for Brazilian cooperation ... Quadros became "visibly irritated" after Berle refused to heed his third "no". No Brazilian official was at the airport the next day to see the envoy off."

By early 1961.

Three years BEFORE the coup you were there.

What don't you understand in NO? Is the inability to ACCPET no also "our fault"? Or IS IT YOURS?

So why do you DENY it and want US to "accept" our "fault"?

What don't you UNDERSTAND in this:

"The Goulart administration, moreover, passed a law limiting THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS MULTINATIONALS COULD TRANSMIT OUT OF THE COUNTRY, and a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized. Compensation for the takeover was slow in coming because of Brazil's precarious financial position, but these were the only significant actions taken against US corporate interests.

Inextricably woven into all these complaints, yet at the same time standing apart, was Washington's dismay with Brazil's "drift to the left" ... the communist / leftist influence in the labor movement ... leftist "infiltration" wherever one looked ..."anti-Americanism" among students and others (the American Consul General in Sao Paulo suggested to the State Department that the United States "found COMPETING student organizations") ... THE GENERAL EROSION of "U.S. influence and the power of people and groups friendly to the United States"... one might go so far as to suggest that Washington officials felt unloved, were it not for the fact that the coup, as they well knew from MUCH PAST EXPERIENCE, could result only in intensified anti-Americanism all over Latin America.

Goulart's predecessor, Janio da Silva Quadros, had also irritated Washington. "WHY SHOULD THE UNITED STATES TRADE WITH RUSSIA AND HER SATELLITES BUT INSIST THAT BRAZIL TRADE ONLY WITH THE UNITED STATES?" he asked, and proceeded to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries to (re)establish diplomatic and commercial relations. He was, in a word, INDEPENDENT."

Only a FOOL or a LYING imbecile would say that these events had nothing to do with brazilians 'choosing" to throw Goulart out.

In being 'afraid of a dictatorship" the generals INSTALLED a dictatorship.

So I am not going to hear some putrid lying talk from an american about "democracy" when we know how much of it they INSTALL all over the world.

"Freedom and Democracy" our repressed, murdered assess!

You like to kill to STEAL.

It has been like this for ages!

And communism, as SHOWN above, has NOTHING to do with it.

Because if YOU can trade with Russia, so can OTHERS.

Can't they?

No, as also SHOWN above, others CAN'T.

Hypocrites!

"This Top Secret document referred to the Far East, but Kennan applied the same ideas to Latin America in a briefing for Latin American ambassadors in which he explained that one of the main concerns of U.S. policy is the "protection of our raw materials." Who must we protect our raw materials from? Well, primarily, the domestic populations, the indigenous population, which may have ideas of their own about raising the living standards, democratization, and human rights. And that's inconsistent with maintaining the disparity. How will we protect our raw materials from the indigenous population? Well, the answer is the following:

The final answer might be an unpleasant one, but... we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful, since the Communists are essentially traitors.... It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communists.

Well, who are the Communists? "Communists" is a term regularly used in American political theology to refer to people who are committed to the belief that "the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people." I'm quoting the words of a 1949 State Department intelligence report which warned about the spread of this grim and evil doctrine, which does, of course, threaten "our raw materials" if we can't abort it somehow."

"Our" raw materials indeed!

The lying hypocritical murderous THIEVES.

And before you harp on the same idiotically manipulative key about "denying responsibility" I will repeat myself once again:

"Maybe the bribe was too little for him. There are a lot of corrupt people in the world. Principally in the military. That's NOT NEWS. I am not going to DENY IT."

However, your petty old game is also not NEWS.

"Is their need to rationalize their misdeeds so great that they provide each other a moral shoulder to lean on; "Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices," wrote Voltaire, "and speech only to conceal their thoughts.""

So "rationalize" it away. And then hypocritically say: "No! It wasn't us! It was YOU. We only provided the brains! YOU carried the actions!"

Justify your injustice.

And then use your speech to conceal your thoughts.

And even your (perhaps paid) position.

quote:

"You like to kill to STEAL. "

Sounds like Rio and Sao Paulo.

quote:

"So "rationalize" it away. And then hypocritically say: "No! It wasn't us! It was YOU. We only provided the brains! YOU carried the actions!" "

I NEVER said the U.S. did not have involvement...that was YOU denying brazils involvement.

Tell me something, if someone comes to you with an idea, a suggestion, even offers you money to do something, do YOU have the right to CHOOSE?

Or are you f**king manipulated like a puppet?

The brazilian military had the right and obviously the power to tell the CIA, the U.S. gov't., to go f**k themselves.

OBVIOUSLY at some point not only did they agree, but it certainly appears that the "coup" was THEIR plan all along.

According to HECK!

Why would he "hope" the U.S. had an understanding view?

If it was the U.S.'s plan all along, he would never been worried about what the U.S. thought, or who they would support, afterall, it would've been their plan HECK was supporting, and not the brazilian military's.

quote:

"What don't you understand in NO? Is the inability to ACCPET no also "our fault"? Or IS IT YOURS? "

LMAO!!

Buddy, the inability to accept a NO doesn't mean that a group has to give a YES!!!

Oh, the big, bad U.S. didn't like the answer given to them....govt'.s ALL over the WORLD tell the U.S. NO!!

Look at N. Korea, look at France, look at China, look at Canada, and the list goes on and on.

Because the U.S. didn't like the answer, you MUST change it?

Grow up, and grow some balls. And better yet, put responsibility where it lies.

The U.S. had some, but certainly not the lion's share!

And if the U.S. didn't like the negative response, then brazil came back with a positive response to appease the U.S.


THAT'S BRAZILS FAULT!!

TOMAR CONTA MEU FILHO!

"If it was the U.S.'s plan all along, he would never been worried about what the U.S. thought, or who they would support, afterall, it would've been their plan HECK was supporting, and not the brazilian military's. "

Don't you know how to read?

Voltaire touched on your "point" long, and I mean long, time ago...

"Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices, and speech only to conceal their thoughts."

'I NEVER said the U.S. did not have involvement...that was YOU denying brazils involvement."

I've been through that with you twice, lying hypocrite.

You not only installed a DICTATORSHIP in Brazil, but in many many other countries.

"Freedom and Democracy" lying murderers.

wow...what influence the U.S. has without even putting troops on the ground.

I guess we should just tell the CIA to tell Lula that we expect their entire GDP to be sent to the U.S. treasury.

Afterall, if he refuses we won't take no for an answer....right? We'll just keep asking and asking, bribing and bribing, until he says "yes"...is that right?

f**king idiot.

This guys on something....
I am proud of our Australian Socceroos to have held up against Brasil. We never expected to win.
Pity the theatrics of Italy put us out in such an unsportsmanlike manor.
When I read Gianluigi Buffon's game comments on FIFA, I must say any respect I had for the man disappeared instantly. What an arogant man.
So, I'm back to supporting Brasil (not that I ever stopped ... well for the Socceroos only).
Go Brasil - make it six.

First thing is while some are here to freely exchange ideas others may have a very different goal and that we cannot know for sure, just speculate. What is America government and fanatics American nationalists than an imperialist country and imperialist citizens? Saying that I care for the security of all those who believe in the free speech. I’m serious about it. Your government is right now checking with all capacity they have those “traitors” of America with local, national spies. So just be careful. One can’t say for sure if human rights would work for even American citizens in their land. Freely writing is powerful and put in risk big profits.

oh yea, everyone that defends the U.S. and speaks the TRUTH about the misery that exists in brazil....we must be working for the CIA or NSA huh Einstein?

Same tired arguments here, I see. Yes, it was the fascists in Brazil with a little help from their friends in the US who installed a dictator in Brazil. What's your point? The wealthy elite are almost always fascist Bush's grandfather and other wealthy elite in the US supported the Nazis. Thankfully Rosevelt, an exception to the rule, was the president.

"What is America government and fanatics American nationalists than an imperialist country and imperialist citizens?"

"Your government is right now checking with all capacity they have those “traitors” of America with local, national spies."

WTF???

Wasn't this article about futebol?

"Same tired arguments here, I see. Yes, it was the fascists in Brazil with a little help from their friends in the US who installed a dictator in Brazil. What's your point? The wealthy elite are almost always fascist Bush's grandfather and other wealthy elite in the US supported the Nazis. Thankfully Rosevelt, an exception to the rule, was the president."

AMEN!

The idiotic parrots in here think that FORCE "wasn't used" to put Brazil "back where it was supposed to be".

I guess backing up a DICTATORSHIP - with money and mentoring - is not cosidered "force".

They confuse a FEW dirty bastards with the whole of Brazil.

Not only that, they, as SHOWN, use the PROPAGANDA given by their government that it was "against communism" that this DICTATORSHIP was INSTALLED, when they THEMSELVES were "condusing business" with Russia as Janio Quadros asked.

"If YOU can, WHY can't we?"

Brazilians can't, because americans are the BIGGEST FILTHIEST hypocrites ever.

And, not only that, they are now WATCHING ALL OF US typing this so that they can put all of us in jail.

So much for "freedom and democracy".

f**king trash!

And they KNOW it. That's why they PAY BIG BUCKS to be dildoed in the ass by UGLY dominatrixes.

quote:

"I guess backing up a DICTATORSHIP - with money and mentoring - is not cosidered "force". "

You're right jackass.....MONEY and MENTORING is NOT considered FORCE!

You've just shown your IGNORANCE right there!

Money and mentoring was all it took...that IS NOT force...any half-brained idiot knows that!

Obviously these "plans" of a coup existed BEFORE the U.S. even began their "mentoring".

And a "few" brazilian dirty bastards huh?

YOUR quote:

""Soon after his arrival in October, Gordon met with a right-wing admiral named SILVIO HECK. Heck informed Gordon of a poll of the armed services which revealed that over two-thirds of the enlisted men opposed Goulart. Heck ALSO HOPED THAT WHEN IT CAME TIME TO OUST GOULART "THE U.S. WOULD TAKE AN UNDERSTANDING VIEW"!!!! "

67% of the BRAZILIAN military....that's a "few" men?

EVERYONE that reads this CAN SEE the type of mentality that MANY brazilians have by this very argument.

Do the research yourself, and read these posts yourself. You'll see that I NEVER denied U.S. involvement, but it was a LIMITED, SUPORTING role.

The main driving force of the military coup and takeover in brazil was PLANNED and CARRIED out by BRAZILIAN MILITARY HARDLINERS within the BRAZILIAN MILITARY!

But this is an ALL TOO FAMILIAR song from brazilians. They are NEVER responsible for ANYTHING, it doesn't matter if it's a brazilian citizen that obviously does something wrong, you almost never hear a "desculpa" (I'm sorry), a brazilian business, they put the blame and responsibility of their problems on other affiliate companies or companies that work in conjunction with them, or the brazilian government and their politicians.

NO ONE here says, "ya know what, we f**ked up, and we're sorry, but we're going to make it right."

Instead of hearing that, you hear excuses and finger pointing, anything to avoid responsibility....it's one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen in my life!

Getting back to the point of this post:

quote:

"The repressive apparatus expanded into various agencies, which spied on political opponents and engaged in dirty tricks, torture, and "disappearings" (see The Military Role in the Intelligence Services, ch. 5). Those operations caused an open break between the government and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church for the first time in Brazilian history. They also PRODUCED A DETORIATION IN RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES, whose leaders had EXPECTED THE CASTELO BRANCO VISION OF THE REVOLUTION TO WIN OUT." "

So you see, the "coup" did not turn out as the U.S. expected or desired....who was at fault for this? Why didn't it turn out the way the U.S. desired?

And why after 25 15 years of the end of military rule are brazilian police and military STILL torturing THEIR OWN CITIZENS? Still killing THEIR OWN CITIZENS "death squad style"?

Now some idiot will chirp in about guatanamo bay, I can hear it now, and torture is WRONG, even in a time of war, BUT at least "some" incidents have occurred during a time of WAR, and to the ENEMY. Not in a time of PEACE, and to our own CITIZENS.

quote:

"And, not only that, they are now WATCHING ALL OF US typing this so that they can put all of us in jail. "

LMAO...what an idiot!

Don't you know how to read, dumb liar?

"They confuse a FEW dirty bastards with the whole of Brazil. "

67% of the military - previously stated that they are corrupt PRINCIPALLY - is NOT the WHOLE OF BRAZIL.

The MAJORITY of Brazilians - in FACT - VOTED for Goulart.

You were ALREADY there trying to PREVENT brazilians to do business with Russia - like the hypocrites that you are - for a while.

So after a few NO didn't satisfy you, you went to the military.

A FEW DIRTY BASTARDS ARE NOT THE WHOLE OF BRAZIL.

"And why after 25 15 years of the end of military rule are brazilian police and military STILL torturing THEIR OWN CITIZENS? Still killing THEIR OWN CITIZENS "death squad style"?

Why? Because they were TRAINED - as in PRATICAL "mentoring" - by americans. After the use of FORCE on the MAJORITY of the people.

The few - backed by americans - by FORCE changed the CHOICE of the many in a suposed DEMOCRACY.

"Now some idiot will chirp in about guatanamo bay, I can hear it now, and torture is WRONG, even in a time of war, BUT at least "some" incidents have occurred during a time of WAR, and to the ENEMY. Not in a time of PEACE, and to our own CITIZENS. "

That's rich!

What do you think the implosion of the Twin Towers were?

If that's not real TORTURE I don't know what it is.

"Should I burn to death, or should I jump?"

"And, not only that, they are now WATCHING ALL OF US typing this so that they can put all of us in jail. "

LMAO...what an idiot! "

Laugh away lying monkey. Laugh away.

--___________________________________________--

And political insiders Web site Capitol Hill Blue claims newly-sworn CIA head General Michael Hayden plans to build an even vaster domestic spying network that will "pry into the lives of most Americans around the clock".

Founder and Publisher Doug Thompson claims President George W Bush told Hayden to "take whatever steps necessary" to monitor Americans 24/7 by listening in on their phone calls, bugging their homes and offices, probing their private lives, snooping into their financial records and watching their travel habits.

He claims sources within the CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have warned about Hayden's plans for an expanded, consolidated spy network aimed at Americans, not terrorists, and violating numerous laws that prohibit such activities against citizens of the United States.

According to one longtime CIA operative who may retire early rather than participate in what he sees as an illegal extension of the spy agency's activities: "What Hayden plans to do is not only illegal, it is immoral."

quote:

"I guess backing up a DICTATORSHIP - with money and mentoring - is not cosidered "force". "

You're right jackass.....MONEY and MENTORING is NOT considered FORCE!

You've just shown your IGNORANCE right there!

Money and mentoring was all it took...that IS NOT force...any half-brained idiot knows that!

Obviously these "plans" of a coup existed BEFORE the U.S. even began their "mentoring".

And a "few" brazilian dirty bastards huh?

YOUR quote:

""Soon after his arrival in October, Gordon met with a right-wing admiral named SILVIO HECK. Heck informed Gordon of a poll of the armed services which revealed that over two-thirds of the enlisted men opposed Goulart. Heck ALSO HOPED THAT WHEN IT CAME TIME TO OUST GOULART "THE U.S. WOULD TAKE AN UNDERSTANDING VIEW"!!!! "

67% of the BRAZILIAN military....that's a "few" men?

EVERYONE that reads this CAN SEE the type of mentality that MANY brazilians have by this very argument.

Do the research yourself, and read these posts yourself. You'll see that I NEVER denied U.S. involvement, but it was a LIMITED, SUPORTING role.

The main driving force of the military coup and takeover in brazil was PLANNED and CARRIED out by BRAZILIAN MILITARY HARDLINERS within the BRAZILIAN MILITARY!

But this is an ALL TOO FAMILIAR song from brazilians. They are NEVER responsible for ANYTHING, it doesn't matter if it's a brazilian citizen that obviously does something wrong, you almost never hear a "desculpa" (I'm sorry), a brazilian business, they put the blame and responsibility of their problems on other affiliate companies or companies that work in conjunction with them, or the brazilian government and their politicians.

NO ONE here says, "ya know what, we f**ked up, and we're sorry, but we're going to make it right."

Instead of hearing that, you hear excuses and finger pointing, anything to avoid responsibility....it's one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen in my life!

Getting back to the point of this post:

quote:

"The repressive apparatus expanded into various agencies, which spied on political opponents and engaged in dirty tricks, torture, and "disappearings" (see The Military Role in the Intelligence Services, ch. 5). Those operations caused an open break between the government and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church for the first time in Brazilian history. They also PRODUCED A DETORIATION IN RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES, whose leaders had EXPECTED THE CASTELO BRANCO VISION OF THE REVOLUTION TO WIN OUT." "

So you see, the "coup" did not turn out as the U.S. expected or desired....who was at fault for this? Why didn't it turn out the way the U.S. desired?

And why after 25 15 years of the end of military rule are brazilian police and military STILL torturing THEIR OWN CITIZENS? Still killing THEIR OWN CITIZENS "death squad style"?

Now some idiot will chirp in about guatanamo bay, I can hear it now, and torture is WRONG, even in a time of war, BUT at least "some" incidents have occurred during a time of WAR, and to the ENEMY. Not in a time of PEACE, and to our own CITIZENS.




“Money and mentoring was all it took...that IS NOT force...any half-brained idiot knows that!”

First of all: you are a gringo, you understand Brazil like a gringo, which means with your interests view. America Latina was always ruled, oppressed by the imperialist’s countries. You can read it on any average unbiased history high school book. You can’t hide the truth. Then, money is force when you buy weapons and tools to torture nationals who try to defend their country from tyranny and lie.

“Obviously these "plans" of a coup existed BEFORE the U.S. even began their "mentoring".”

Yes, of course once more you know more than western history; all books are wrong, what is taught to children is a big lie and you Mr. I-don’t-know-who can tell us with your unbiased understanding what happened there, maybe you participated to the mentoring and know it “on the spot”?

“And a "few" brazilian dirty bastards huh?”
Still ¾ of the military force cannot be considered the whole brazilian nation. Read afian what you said 67% of MILITARY men. All Brazilians were militaries in blind bloody view.

“Do the research yourself, and read these posts yourself. You'll see that I NEVER denied U.S. involvement, but it was a LIMITED, SUPORTING role”

Ever heard of Monroe Doctrine? Being your average American I can understand NO!

“NO ONE here says, "ya know what, we f**ked up, and we're sorry, but we're going to make it right."”

When that was ever, ever heard from an American? Never and probably we’ll never do. This is a bulls**t you’re trying to sell to the ones who were, read it well, were Amerika’s back yard. The imperialist White House and the republican and democratic parties are freaking out about Evo Morales and Chaves, as you amerikan.

You forgot to mention that it was sponsored by the US. Dan Mitrione, an American policemen was sent to LA to teach his techniques of torture, etc.etc. and the history is more or less known.
He was killed by the Tupamaros from Uruguay, but before being killed he served well his American superiors. Many families in Brazil owe him losing their members.
If you are a conscious person (which I doubt) read the book ' HIDDEN TERRORS' , by A.J. Langguth - Pantheon Books. New York. -
Maybe you change your discourse, maybe not. But that would not matter.

AHH. Not again..All that crap from american stupid guys who are good for just nothing.

quote:

"NO ONE here says, "ya know what, we f**ked up, and we're sorry, but we're going to make it right."”

When that was ever, ever heard from an American? "

EVERYDAY you ignorant jackass!

But I guess since you've NEVER even been there, or maybe just to f**king disneyworld, you would know that americans, and american businesses, CONSTANTLY ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ERRORS!!!

IT DOESN'T EXIST IN BRAZIL!!

THERE IS ALWAYS AN EXCUSE!

So now, according to you idiot, MONEY is FORCE??

You're not worth debating with! You're an IDIOT!!

BRAZILIAN MILITARY GENERALS CARRIED OUT THE COUP!!!

YOUR OWN MILITARY!!!

And now you're going to say that the rio and sao paulo police go on "death squad" rampages TODAY because of torture techniques they were taught 35 years ago during a military coup?????


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


SEE WHAT I MEAN FOLKS!!!!

THE POLICE IN RIO AND SAO PAULO ARE MURDERING THEIR OWN CITIZENS BECAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!


WHAT A f**kING BORN-LOSER IDIOT, NO-TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, LYING TO HIMSELF, NÃO FOI EU JACKASS!

and quit responding to yourself....lol.

"But I guess since you've NEVER even been there, or maybe just to f**king disneyworld, you would know that americans, and american businesses, CONSTANTLY ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ERRORS!!! "

Hahahahahaha! Hehehehehe. Hohohohoho.

The Iraq people are impressed.

So are the Venezuelans.

The Chilenians.

The Brazilians.

And on and on and on it goes...

"I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are."

-George H. W. Bush

The facts are pesky rats, right hypocrites?

I think our friend is taking some time off to breathe and maybe rethink the facts he considers so right. Either way he wants to know no facts or he is just lying until he dies

Quote - In New Orleans, two FEMA officials, Andrew Rose and Loyd Holliman, both of Colorado, have pleaded guilty to taking $20,000 bribes in exchange for inflating the count on the number of meals a contractor was serving disaster workers. And a councilman in St. Tammany Parish, La., Joseph Impastato, has also been charged with trying to extort $100,000 from a debris removal contractor. Mr Impastato´s lawyer, Karl J. Koch, said he was confident his client would be cleared. Unquote

HAHA - Of course they take responsibility. HAHA
The american work drive is admirable.

tHE FACT IS:AMERRRICA UBER ALLES.

Jeliousy!! Shame on you! And Shame on a America, a rogue nation-War criminals. Oil for lives=USA.

World Cup: Now Is the Winter of Brazil's Discontent
Written by John Fitzpatrick
Friday, 23 June 2006
Watching two old men playing chess in a park would have been more exciting than watching Brazil's performance in the opening round of the World Cup. A squad made up of some of the world's top players struggled against the likes of Croatia, Australia and Japan. The feeling at the end of two of the games - Croatia and Australia - was relief that defeat had been avoided rather than a victory gained.

Write Comment (102 Comments)

Shame on America!

quote:

"Quote - In New Orleans, two FEMA officials, Andrew Rose and Loyd Holliman, both of Colorado, have pleaded guilty to taking $20,000 bribes in exchange for inflating the count on the number of meals a contractor was serving disaster workers. And a councilman in St. Tammany Parish, La., Joseph Impastato, has also been charged with trying to extort $100,000 from a debris removal contractor. Mr Impastato´s lawyer, Karl J. Koch, said he was confident his client would be cleared."

You REALLY don't want to throw those stones now do ya?

Because a book could be written only stating the number of instances of corruption that have taken place nationwide in brazil in only the last couple of years.

And when corruption occurs in brazil, it's not for 20,000 or 100,000 dollars, these guys here don't f**k around....they steal tens and hundreds of millions....of DOLLARS.

And please, keep your eye on the above story...how much do ya wanna bet that these people will GO TO JAIL.....when you steal in brazil.....NOTHING HAPPENS.

quote:

"Referring to the activities of the Brazilian government in the war on corruption, the Minister Bastos emphasized the role of the Federal Police, which is, in his view, an institution that is working "as never before to combat the diversion of government funds."

According to the Minister, 49 operations were carried out, resulting in the arrest of 1,006 people, including 465 civil servants.

"In just four operations to stop crimes against the administration, the Federal Police dismantled gangs that had already diverted more than US$ 1.09 billion (R$ 2.7 billion) from government coffers."


In just FOUR operations the federal police dismantled gangs that had diverted 2.7 BILLION reais, 1.09 BILLION DOLLARS from gov't. coffers!!!!


In 49 operations 1006 (ONE THOUSAND AND SIX!) people were arrested, including 465 (FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE) CIVIL SERVANTS!!!!

This is from an article 11 days ago!

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 2005 REPORT: BRAZIL


Egregious abuses in the criminal justice system—including extrajudicial killings and torture by police and prison authorities—remain Brazil’s most pressing human rights problem, but in 2004 there were NEW THREATS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. A foreign correspondent was nearly expelled from Brazil for an article that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva considered offensive, and the government took steps to create regulatory bodies for the country’s film, broadcast, and print media.


Socially and economically marginalized populations are among those hardest hit by long-standing and systemic weaknesses of the criminal justice system. The problems of forced labor and human trafficking, as well as rural violence and land conflicts, also target the country’s poorer citizens. As in the past, perpetrators of human rights abuses enjoy impunity in the vast majority of cases.

Police Violence
Both civil and military police forces are frequently responsible for serious abuses, including torture, extrajudicial executions, “disappearances,” and acts of racism. In the first six months of the year, the state police ombudsman for São Paulo reported 109 homicides by police. Although high, the figure represented a 73 percent DECREASE from that of the previous year, when police killings reached an eleven-year high. In Rio de Janeiro, the only state to publish such data monthly, police killed 593 people during the first eight months of 2004, representing a 25 percent decline from the previous year’s figure. Despite these decreases, unofficial estimates have placed the total number of police killings in Brazil at around 3,000 annually. Indeed, the death toll MAY EVEN BE HIGHER as many states do not record such figures correctly and some do not record them at all.

Complaints of police abuse tend to cite brutality, murder, corruption, and a lack of interest in maintaining order in certain areas. In October 2004, rights groups accused the Rio police of sitting on the sidelines in the favela of Vigario Geral while rival drug gangs engaged in deadly gun battles, endangering the lives of the area’s residents.

Free Expression
Brazil tarnished its record of respect for freedom of expression in May 2004 when it took steps to expel a foreign correspondent for commenting on the president’s alleged drinking habit. In response to an article published in the New York Times, the government canceled Larry Rohter’s visa, stating that it was “inconvenient” for him to stay in the country. The government later changed course and allowed him to remain.

With the introduction of legislation to create a National Journalists’ Council just three months later, the government cast further doubt on its commitment to press freedom. The draft law, still pending at this writing, would empower the council to “orient, discipline and monitor” journalists and their work and require all journalists to register with the body. A violation of the council’s rules could result in fines or even dismissal from the official registry. Critics of the proposed measures, among them the country’s main journalism, film, and television associations, called the draft law the WORST AFFRONT TO PRESS FREEDOM SINCE CENSORSHIP UNDER THE MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.

Also widely criticized is draft legislation that would establish a National Cinema and Audiovisual Agency. The agency would have the power to conduct prior review of programming and could veto certain programs if they were judged not to meet standards of “editorial responsibility.”

In a related move, the government has also proposed legislation, passed by the Senate on June 29, 2004, to “register, regulate and control” nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Federal funding to these organizations would be conditioned on their registry, and they would be required to report annually on all private and public funding they receive, including donations.

Detention Conditions
According to the federal Ministry of Justice, the number of inmates in Brazilian prisons rose from 114,000 in 1992 to 300,000 in 2004. Severe overcrowding and institutionalized violence—such as BEATINGS, TORTURE AND EVEN SUMMARY EXECUTIONS-are chronic and widespread in Brazilian prisons. In April 2004, a riot in Urso Branco prison in the northwestern state of Rondonia left nine inmates dead, two of whom were DECAPITATED in front of shocked onlookers. According to press reports, the prison was designed to hold 350 inmates, but housed some one thousand more than capacity at the time of the riots. In a step toward greater transparency, the government recently announced the creation of a System of Penitentiary Information (Infopen), which it says will make data on prison conditions available online, and will be updated regularly by state officials.

Children are vulnerable to abuses in the juvenile justice system. Although they are promised special protection under Brazilian and international law, children in Brazil are routinely detained in abusive conditions, where they face violence at the hands of other youths or prison guards, and are unnecessarily confined to their cells for lengthy periods of time. As of early 2004, the Justice Ministry reported that 13,489 under-eighteen-year-olds were in detention, half of them in the state of São Paulo alone, exceeding the capacity of the country’s juvenile detention centers, which are designed to hold 11,199. In May 2004, rights groups called for more transparency in cases of abuse, following public allegations that a new body within São Paulo’s state juvenile detention system charged with investigating such abuses had thrown out 94 percent of the cases that came before it in its first year of operations. According to these groups, official sources counted ten deaths in custody and twenty-six riots in São Paulo juvenile facilities in the same period.

Impunity and Access to Justice
The vast majority of human rights crimes in Brazil go UNPUNISHED, reflecting widespread CORRUPTION and other factors. LACK of ACCESS to JUSTICE—especially for the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society—is a major problem, even according to BRAZIL'S OWN SECRETARIAT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. Though the federal government created a Public Transparency and Anti-Corruption Council in September 2004, additional efforts are necessary to increase transparency and to ensure that human rights abusers are punished adequately.

The Brazilian government has yet to pass federal laws to criminalize a number of serious human rights offenses. Such laws, if enacted and enforced, would contribute significantly to improving the country’s poor record of allowing abusers to go free.

Forced Labor and Trafficking in Human Beings
MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER SLAVERY WAS FORMALLY ABOLISHED in Brazil, a MODERN-DAY VERSION of this hateful practice CONTINUES TO THRIVE in rural areas. In 2004, the Labor Ministry made progress toward addressing the issue of forced labor through a national campaign conducted in partnership with the International Labor Organization. As of September 2004, mobile inspections teams had freed 2,078 people in situations of forced labor. Worryingly, however, THREE INSPECTORS AND THEIR DRIVER WERE KILLED on January 28, 2004, in Unaí, Minas Gerais, as they were investigating forced labor on ranches in the region.

The Brazilian Ministry of Justice, in partnership with UNODC, launched a program in May 2004 against human trafficking. According to the U.N., most victims of such trafficking in Brazil are women, who are trafficked through international prostitution networks. A U.S. Congressional report estimated that between eight hundred and nine hundred women are exported for these purposes each year.

Rural Violence and Land Conflict
Though urban violence in Brazil grabs the most attention, the problem of rural violence is extremely serious. The Pastoral Land Commission has reported that 1,349 people were murdered in rural areas between 1985 and 2003. Only seventy-five cases have gone to court, however, and, of these, forty-four resulted in acquittal. In 2003 alone, seventy-three rural laborers were murdered, the highest number since 1990 and up nearly 70 percent from the previous year.

In January 2004, twenty-nine illegal diamond miners were killed on the Roosevelt reservation, home of the Cinta-Larga indigenous peoples in the state of Rondônia. Members of the tribe claimed responsibility for the massacre, stating they were acting to protect their land, which has been the site of violent clashes and invasions by miners for decades.

Key International Actors
The U.N. special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Miloon Kothari, visited Brazil in May and June 2004. He expressed concern regarding the removal of indigenous communities from ancestral lands in Alcântra, Maranhão—due to expansion of an aeronautical missile launch base—urging that such removals be carried out only with the consent of the populations facing displacement.

PT -MENSALAO

QUOTE:

"The PT strongly DENIES opposition claims that Marcos Valerio was the "bagman" who organised the alleged bribery ring. But after INITIAL DENIALS, it has acknowledged a past financial relationship with Valerio. In 2003 he personally guaranteed two bank loans to the party, and in July 2004 he paid a $150,000 instalment on one of the loans.

Such loans were not in themselves illegal. But Mr Valerio assisted the PT at a time when his advertising companies were being paid for work with state-run companies and government ministries. Opposition lawmakers allege that Mr Valerio was, through those contracts, funnelling TAXPAYERS' MONEY to the PT. Both Mr Valerio and the PT DENY the claim.

QUOTE:

"In early July, the revelations forced four members of the Party's executive to step down: Jose Genoino (PT president), Delubio Soares (treasurer), Silvio Pereira (general secretary) and Marcelo Sereno (communications). All DENY any wrongdoing. "


QUOTE:

"In June the president's influential chief of staff, Jose Dirceu, was forced to resign.

The principal accuser, Roberto Jefferson, has alleged that Mr Dirceu knew about the alleged bribery ring. Mr Dirceu insisted that he was quitting government "WITH CLEAN HANDS". "


QUOTE:

"The PT has repeatedly DENIED paying bribes to lawmakers from other parties. It also DENIES supplying undeclared campaign funds to other parties."



LOL...NÃO FOI EU!

quote:

"Endemic Corruption

Finally, another reason for being concerned about public spending in Brazil has nothing to do with financial statistics but efficiency and morality. Vast amounts of money destined for public works are used inefficiently or siphoned off by corruption. HARDLY A DAY GOES BY without newspapers printing articles on the latest cases of corruption.

Political life in Brasília has been overshadowed by the "bribes for votes" corruption scandal for the last year. The Estado de S. Paulo newspaper recently featured an article based on a report of the body (CGU) which oversees the federal public accounts. An audit by this body IDENTIFIED CORRUPT PRACTICES IN 77% OF ALL MUNICIPALITIES in the country.

It mentioned EIGHT STATESeight states in which EVERY SINGLE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SHOWED SERIOUS PROBLEMS INVOLVING CORRUPTION. In one case it said FEDERAL RESOURCES DESTINED FOR FLOOD RELIEF VICTIMS had been used to BUILD HOMES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. Much of the extra money big spender Lula is currently doling out will go the same way. "




DO YOU WANT MORE? THIS IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG!

"Because a book could be written only stating the number of instances of corruption that have taken place nationwide in brazil in only the last couple of years. "

Hahahahaha!

The lying hypocrite is at it again... Do you believe in your own bulls**t or are you being PAID to try to fool others?


"Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices, and speech only to conceal their thoughts." - Voltaire.

=______________________________________________=

GOP Kills Bill to Police Halliburton

By Bob Geiger, AlterNet. Posted June 20, 2006.

Republicans in Congress have made it clear they're willing to fight for military contractors' right to lie, cheat and defraud taxpayers.


I suppose it's old news at this point that the Bush administration lied us into the Iraq war, and that the cost of this mess will be fully realized by the next generation when Bush leaves office with the biggest budget deficit in U.S. history.

And, while Democrats have been complaining for years about the GOP-led Congress abandoning its oversight of the executive branch's wrongdoing, a vote that took place in the Senate last week shows how the Republican desire to ignore fraud and abuse extends right into killing legislation that would help stop defense contractors from ripping off the American people.

In an effort to stop companies like Halliburton and its subsidiaries from cheating our troops and stealing from Americans, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced S.AMDT.4230 and attached it to the Defense Authorization bill currently being debated in the Senate. The bill was intended to improve contracting "by eliminating fraud and abuse and improving competition in contracting and procurement."

"I think when you are at war, when a massive quantity of money is being pushed out the door, that we ought to decide to get tough on those who would be engaged in war profiteering," said Dorgan in fighting for his amendment last week. "I dare say that never in the history of this country has so much money been wasted so quickly. And, yes, there is fraud involved, there is abuse involved, and it is the case that there is a dramatic amount of taxpayers' money that is now being wasted."

Dorgan's bill -- cosponsored by 17 Democrats and called the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 -- was tabled by a roll call vote of 55-43, effectively rejecting the amendment. Every single Senate Republican voted against the measure to make the contracting process honest and impose penalties on those who break the law.

And just what were the stern rules that the GOP didn't think their buddies at Halliburton should have to live with? The text of the legislation spelled out that Bush and Cheney's defense-contractor buddies would be in trouble if they did any of the following:

* "Executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States or the entity having jurisdiction over the area in which such activities occur."

* "Falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact."

* "Makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry."

* "Materially overvalues any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or military action."

The measure called for those found guilty of violating the law to be imprisoned for up to 20 years and be subject to a fine of up to $1,000,000 -- a drop in the bucket for these guys -- or a percentage of their ill-gotten gains.

And Senate Republicans still saw fit to reject penalizing companies engaging in overt war profiteering and fraud despite Dorgan's spending a considerable amount of time on the Senate floor trotting out example after example of the hideous abuse that has been occurring in Iraq.

"What we have discovered is pretty unbelievable," said Dorgan last week. "We have direct testimony from physicians, Army doctors and others about providing nonpotable water for shaving, brushing teeth, that is in worse condition as water than the raw water coming out of the Euphrates River.

"Let me describe some of the firsthand eyewitness issues in Iraq," Dorgan continued. "Brand new $85,000 trucks that were left on the side of the road because of a flat tire and then subsequently burned. Twenty-five tons, 50,000 pounds, of nails ordered by Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), the wrong size, that are laying in the sands of Iraq. Forty-two thousand meals a day charged to the taxpayers by Halliburton and only 14,000 are actually served."

After telling the amazing tale of the KBR Halliburton subsidiary ordering hand towels for soldiers embroidered with the "KBR" logo, to allow them to double the price of the towels, Dorgan told one Halliburton whistleblower's story of his company serving food date-stamped "expired" to American troops rather than throwing it away.

"[Halliburton was] serving food at a cafeteria in Iraq for the soldiers, and a man named Roy who was the supervisor in the food service kitchen said that the food was date-stamped 'expired,''' said Dorgan. "In other words, it had a date stamp, which meant the food wasn't good anymore, and he was told by superiors that it doesn't matter. Feed it to the troops. It doesn't matter that they had an expired date stamped -- feed it to the troops."

But apparently the support-the-troops types on the Republican side of the aisle only support them until their major contributors are caught feeding them possibly tainted food before they go into battle -- at that point, I guess the love is gone.

The best the Republicans could offer in response to Dorgan was a lame statement by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who said that his committee is on the case, and that "the organization is now in place to try to monitor the situations the senator has enumerated."

There was no mention from Warner of where the hell his committee -- and the GOP -- have been for the last four years with all of this going on.

I'll leave you with one other Dorgan horror story in which he describes a massive amount of money paid to four contractors to install air-conditioning in a Baghdad building.

"The contract goes to a subcontractor, which goes to another subcontractor, and a fourth-level subcontractor," said Dorgan "And the payment for air-conditioning turns out to be payments to four contractors, the fourth of which puts a fan in a room. Yes, the American taxpayer paid for an air-conditioner and, after the money goes through four hands, there is a fan put in a room in Iraq."

I guess that's fiscal conservatism Republicans can truly embrace.

You contradict yourself again...

"And please, keep your eye on the above story...how much do ya wanna bet that these people will GO TO JAIL.....when you steal in brazil.....NOTHING HAPPENS."

vs.

"In 49 operations 1006 (ONE THOUSAND AND SIX!) people were arrested, including 465 (FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE) CIVIL SERVANTS!!!!

This is from an article 11 days ago! "

vs.

"GOP Kills Bill to Police Halliburton

By Bob Geiger, AlterNet. Posted June 20, 2006."

Hahahahaha.

The self-righteous MASS-MURDEROUS hypocrites.

have fun reading the above....and at least we don't mass murder OUR OWN PEOPLE!

HAHAHAHAHA!

And those instances of corruption are being perpetrated because conditions that exist IN A TIME OF WAR!

But I guess it happens EVERYDAY in brazil because Brazil is at war EVERY DAY with its OWN PEOPLE!

QUOTE:

"Do you believe in your own bulls**t or are you being PAID to try to fool others? "

FOOL OTHERS??

No one has to try and "paint" brazil as a world leader in corruption!!!

It's self-confirmed, and also by organizations like the United Nations...but all you have to do is read the newspaper everyday....or look at reports like this;


quote:

"The Estado de S. Paulo newspaper recently featured an article based on a report of the body (CGU) which oversees the federal public accounts. An audit by this body IDENTIFIED CORRUPT PRACTICES IN 77% OF ALL MUNICIPALITIES in the country.

It mentioned EIGHT STATESeight states in which EVERY SINGLE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SHOWED SERIOUS PROBLEMS INVOLVING CORRUPTION. In one case it said FEDERAL RESOURCES DESTINED FOR FLOOD RELIEF VICTIMS had been used to BUILD HOMES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT!!"

quote:

"You contradict yourself again...

"And please, keep your eye on the above story...how much do ya wanna bet that these people will GO TO JAIL.....when you steal in brazil.....NOTHING HAPPENS."



quote:

"Quote - In New Orleans, two FEMA officials, Andrew Rose and Loyd Holliman, both of Colorado, have pleaded guilty to taking $20,000 bribes in exchange for inflating the count on the number of meals a contractor was serving disaster workers."

Now that was the "above story", and of course you TWIST that to Halliburton.

And 20 thousand dollars???

I bet the brazilian politicians roll on the floor laughing when they see things like this....saying, "stupid americans, stealing only 20K!! That's one night at a whorehouse for us!"

quote:

"The lying hypocrite is at it again... Do you believe in your own bulls**t or are you being PAID to try to fool others? "

No, I'm believing in the BRAZILIAN MINISTER that has been assigned to combat corruption.


quote:

"According to the Minister, 49 operations were carried out, resulting in the arrest of 1,006 people, including 465 civil servants.

"In just four operations to stop crimes against the administration, the Federal Police dismantled gangs that had already diverted more than US$ 1.09 billion (R$ 2.7 billion) from government coffers."


In just FOUR operations the federal police dismantled gangs that had diverted 2.7 BILLION reais, 1.09 BILLION DOLLARS from gov't. coffers!!!!


In 49 operations 1006 (ONE THOUSAND AND SIX!) people were arrested, including 465 (FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE) CIVIL SERVANTS!!!!"

and brazilians wonder why 40 million of their own people live on less than TWO dollars a day!

"have fun reading the above....and at least we don't mass murder OUR OWN PEOPLE! "

For all intents and purposes attacking another un-provoking nation is the HIGHEST CRIME another nation can make.

See the International Criminal Court that you don't want to sign.

Brazilians do "damage" within THEIR borders.

Americans have NO RESPECT for ANYONE's borders.

Laughing idiot.

I’d like to suggest to not paying much attention to this guy who seems obstinate to provoke and ignore facts. He clearly supports White House’s goals and cannot bear freedom, tolerance, fair exchange, truth and people supporting these values. I’d like to contribute with what I can. I think there are people of both countries, Brazil and USA that face the same kind of destructive hypocrites and hope for a better future for their countries, and one another’s.

It is necessary to understand that the internationals groups had have and still have big direct influence in Brazil's destiny. Also the Brazilian society needs to develop to a more mature democracy to be in control of its own destiny more efficiently. I profoundly thank all the people who display on this site about Brazil such disposition, bravery and are open to exchange fairly with what they have of more valuable which is themselves. I wish you much happiness, good friends and all that is good in this world.

Thanks!!

Unprovoking nation???

Who are you talking about???

Iraq?


Well riddle me this, if Iraq had NOTHING to hide, why did they violate UNITED NATIONS resolution 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707,715, 986, and 1284 time, after time, after time, after time????

Iraq DISPELLED UNITED NATIONS inspectors 20+ times in a 9 year period!!!

And the fault of the Iraq war can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the PERMANENT members of the U.N. secuity council which AGREED to the conditions placed on Iraq, which they MUST cooperate, OR face SERIOUS consequences.

But you see, when the time came to GET TOUGH with Iraq for NON-COMPLIANCE...countries such as Germany, Russia, and France renigged on their previous committments!!!

Why?

Because they were SELLING ARMS to Iraq!!! They were MAKING MONEY from Iraq!! They wanted the "status quo".

They knew that if the U.S. invaded that the next Iraqi gov't. would be a "pro american" government...they did not want this....so they DID NOT ENFORCE their previous OBLIGATIONS!

If the United Nations would have ENFORCED their resolutions....AS THEY should, for god's sake, they were LENIENT enough, Saddam violated these resolutions 20+ times in nine years(!!!), the U.S. wouldn've NEVER had to go to war with Iraq because Iraq would've complied with the U.N. resolutions knowing the entire U.N. security council was demanding them to. But Iraq KNEW that France, Russia, Germany more than likely would re-nig on their "mandates", because they had a FINANCIAL INTEREST in Iraq's former regime staying "as-is".


quote:



The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to TERRORISM, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (199;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

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; "


And as far as doing "damage" to ones citizens within one's borders or outside one's borders....when YOU can't LIVE in your OWN COUNTRY without fear of being murdered by your OWN police....where can you feel comfortable??

If YOUR OWN gov't. doesn't protect you, do you think ANOTHER gov't. will?

British Attorney General's Advice to Blair
on Legality of Iraq War

March 7, 2003

SECRET

PRIME MINISTER

IRAQ: RESOLUTION 1441

1. You have asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq without a further resolution of the Security Council. This is, of course, a matter we have discussed before.

Since then, I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock (the then British ambassador to the UN), who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration from their perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution.

This note considers the issues in detail in order that you are in a position to understand the legal reasoning. My conclusions are summarised at paragraphs 26 to 31 below.

Possible legal bases for the use of force:

2. As I have previously advised, there are generally three possible bases for the use of force: (a) self-defence (which may include collective self-defence);

(b) exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and

(c) authorisation by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

3. Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack; the use of force must be necessary, ie the only means of averting an attack; and the force used must be a proportionate response. It is now widely accepted that an imminent armed attack will justify the use of force if the other conditions are met.

The concept of what is imminent may depend on the circumstances. Different considerations may apply, for example, where the risk is of attack from terrorists sponsored or harboured by a particular State, or where there is a threat of an attack by nuclear weapons.

However, in my opinion there must be some degree of imminence. I am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.

4. The use of force to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe has been emerging as a further, and exceptional, basis for the use of force. It was relied on by the UK in the Kosovo crisis and is the underlying justification for the No-Fly Zones. The doctrine remains controversial, however. I know of no reason why it would be an appropriate basis for action in present circumstances.

5. Force may be used where this authorised (sic) by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The key question is whether resolution 1441 has the effect of providing such authorisation.

Resolution 1441

6. As you are aware, the argument that resolution 1441 itself provides the authorisation to use force depends on the revival of the express authorisation to use force given in 1990 by Security Council resolution 678. This in turn gives rise to two questions:

(a) is the so-called "revival argument" a sound legal basis in principle?

(b) is resolution 1441 sufficient to revive the authorisation in resolution 678?

I deal with these questions in turn. It is a trite, but nonetheless relevant observation given what some commentators have been saying, that f the answer to these two questions is "yes", the use of force will have been authorised by the United Nations and not in defiance of it.

The revival argument

7. Following its invasion and annexation of Kuwait, the Security Council authorised the use of force against Iraq in resolution 678 (1990).

This resolution authorised coalition forces to use all necessary means to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to restore international eace and security in the area. The resolution gave a legal basis for Operation Desert Storm, which was brought to an end by the ceasefire set out by the Council in resolution 687 (1991). The conditions for the ceasefire in that resolution (and subsequent resolutions) imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring of its obligations.

Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678. Nor has any subsequent resolution terminated the authorisation to use force in resolution 678. It has been the UK's view that a violation of Iraq's obligations under resolution 687 which is sufficiently serious to undermine the basis of the ceasefire can revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678.

In reliance on this argument, force has been used on certain occasions. I am advised by the Foreign Office Legal Advisers that this was the basis for the use of force between 13 and 18 January 1993 following UN Presidential Statements on 8 and 11 January 1993 condemning particular failures by Iraq to observe the terms of the ceasefire resolution. The revival argument was also the basis for the use of force in December 1998 by the US and UK (Operation Desert Fox). This followed a series of Security Council resolutions, notably resolution 1205 (199.

9. Law Officers have advised in the past that, provided the conditions are made out, the revival argument does provide a sufficient justification in international law for the use of force against Iraq. That view is supported by an opinion given in August 1992 by the then UN Legal Counsel, Carl-August Fleischauer. However, the UK has consistently taken the view (as did the Fleischauer opinion) that, as the ceasefire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred.

The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States. I am not aware of any other state which supports this view.

This is an issue of critical importance when considering the effect of resolution 1441.

10. The revival argument is controversial. It is not widely accepted among academic commentators. However, I agree with my predecessors' advice on this issue. Further, I believe that the arguments in support of the revival argument are stronger following adoption of resolution 1441.

That is because of the terms of the resolution and the course of the negotiations which led to its adoption. Thus, preambular paragraphs 4, 5 and 10 recall the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 and that resolution 687 imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary condition of the ceasefire.

Operative paragraph (OP) 1 provides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including the resolution 687. OP13 recalls that Iraq has been warned repeatedly that "serious consequences" will result from continued violations of its obligations. The previous practice of the Council and statements made by Council members during the negotiation of resolution 1441 demonstrate that the phrase "material breach" signifies a finding by the Council of a sufficiently serious breach of the cease-fire conditions to revive the authorisation in resolution 678 and that "serious consequences" is accepted as indicating the use of force.

11. I disagree, therefore, with those commentators and lawyers, who assert that nothing less than an explicit (underlined) authorisation to use force in a Security Council resolution will be sufficient.

Sufficiency of resolution 1441

12. In order for the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 to be revived, there needs to be a determination by the Security Council that there is a violation of the conditions of the ceasefire and that the Security Council considers it sufficiently serious to destroy the basis of the ceasefire. Revival will not, however, take place, notwithstanding a finding of violation, if the Security Council has made it clear either that action short of the use of force should be taken to ensure compliance with the terms of the cease-fire, or that it intends to decide subsequently what action is required to ensure compliance.

Notwithstanding the determination of material breach in OP1 of resolution 1441, it is clear that the Council did not intend that the authorisation in resolution 678 should revive immediately (underlined) following the adoption of resolution 1441, since OP2 of the resolution affords Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations under previous resolutions by co-operating with the enhanced inspection regime described in OPs 3 and 5-9.

But OP2 also states that the Council has determined that compliance with resolution 1441 is Iraq's last chance before the ceasefire resolution will be enforced. OP2 has the effect therefore of suspending the legal consequences of the OP1 determination of material breach which would otherwise have triggered the revival of the authorisation in resolution 678. The narrow but key question is: on the true interpretation of resolution 1441, what has the Security Council decided will be the consequences of Iraq's failure to comply with the enhanced regime.

13. The provisions relevant to determining whether or not Iraq has taken the final opportunity given by the Security Council are contained in OPs 4, 11 and 12 of the resolution.

· OP4 provides that false statements or omissions in the declaration to be submitted by Iraq under OP3 and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441 will constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment under paragraphs 11 and 12 of the resolution.

· OP11 directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including the obligations regarding inspections under resolution 1441.

· OP12 provides that the Council will convene immediately on receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 "in order to consider the situation and the need for compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security". It is clear from the text of the resolution, and is apparent from the negotiating history, that if Iraq fails to comply, there will be a further Security Council discussion. The text is, however, ambiguous and unclear on what happens next.

14. There are two competing arguments:

(i) that provided there is a Council discussion, if it does not reach a conclusion, there remains an authorisation to use force;
(ii) that nothing short of a further Council decision will be a legitimate basis for the use of force.

The first argument

15. The first argument is based on the following steps

(a) OP1, by stating that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach" of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 amounts to a determination by the Council that Iraq's violations of resolution 687 are sufficiently serious to destroy the basis of the ceasefire and therefore, in principle, to revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678;

(b) the Council decided, however, to give Iraq "a final opportunity" (OP2) but because of the clear warning that it faced "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations" (OP 13) was warning that a failure to take that "final opportunity" would lead to such consequences;

(c) further, by OP 4, the Council decided in advance (underlined) that false statements or omissions in its declaration and "failure by Iraq at any time (underlined) to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution" would constitute "a further material breach"; the argument is that the Council's determination in advance (underlined) that particular conduct would constitute a material breach (thus reviving the authorisation to use force) is as good as its determination after (underlined) the event;

(d) in either event, the Council must meet (OP 12) "to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security", but the resolution singularly does not say that the Council must decide what action to take. The Council knew full well, it is argued, the difference between "consider" and "decide" and so the omission is highly significant. Indeed, the omission is especially important as the French and Russians made proposals to include an express requirement for a further decision, but these were rejected precisely to avoid being tied to the need to obtain a second resolution.

On this view, therefore, while the Council has the opportunity to take a further decision, the determinations of material breach in OPs 1 and 4 remain valid even if the Council does not act.

The second argument

16. The second argument focuses, by contrast, on two provisions in particular of the resolution: first, the final words in OP4 ("and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below") and, second, the requirement in OP12 for the Council to "consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security". Taken together, it is argued, these provisions indicate that the Council decided in resolution 1441 that in the event of continued Iraqi non-compliance, the issue should return to the Council for a further decision on what action should be taken at that stage.

Discussion

17. So far as OP4 of the resolution is concerned, one view is that the words at the end of this paragraph indicate the need for an assessment by the Security Council of how serious any Iraqi breaches really are and whether they are sufficiently serious to destroy the basis of the ceasefire. This argument is supported by public statements to the effect that only serious cases of non-compliance will constitute a further material breach.

Thus, the Foreign Secretary stated in Parliament on 25 November that "material breach means something significant; some behaviour or pattern of behaviour that is serious. Among such breaches could be action by the Government of Iraq seriously to obstruct or impede the inspectors, to intimidate witnesses, or a pattern of behaviour where any single action appears relatively minor but the action as a whole add up to something deliberate and more significant: something that shows Iraq's intention not to comply".

If that is right, then the question is who makes the assessment of what constitutes a sufficiently serious breach. On the UK view of the revival argument (though not the US view) that can only be the Council, because only the Council can decide if a violation is sufficiently serious to revive the authorisation to use force.

18. It is right to say, however, that such an argument has less force if OP4 operates automatically. Thus, the wording of OP4 indicates that any failure by Iraq to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution will constitute a further material breach (leaving aside the question of whether false statements or omissions in the OP3 declaration is an additional requirement).

If OP4 means what it says: the words "cooperate fully" were included specifically to ensure that any instances of non-cooperation would amount to a further material breach. This is the US analysis of OP4 and is undoubtedly more consistent with the view that no further decision of the Council is necessary to authorise force, because it can be argued that the Council has determined in advance that any failure will be a material breach.

19. It has been suggested that it is possible to establish that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity through the procedures in OPs 11 and 12 without regard to OP4, in which case it is unnecessary to consider the effect of the words "for assessment". I do not consider that this argument really assists. First, the resolution must be read as a whole. Second, I accept that it is possible that a Council discussion under OP12 may be triggered by a report from Blix and El-Baradei under OP11 and that this may have the effect of establishing that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity granted by OP2.

But I do not consider that it can be argued seriously that OP4 does not apply in these circumstances. It is clear from a comparison of the wording of paragraphs 4 and 11 that any Iraqi conduct which would be sufficient to trigger a report from the inspectors under OP11 would also amount to a failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution and would thus also be covered by OP4.

In addition, the reference to paragraph 11 in OP4 cannot be ignored. It is not entirely clear what this means, but the most convincing explanation seems to be that it is a recognition that an OP11 inspectors' report would also constitute a report of further material breach within the meaning of OP4 and would thus be assessed by the Council under OP12. Moreover, the US see OP4 as an essential part of the mechanism for establishing that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.

20. It has also been suggested that the final words of OP4 were chosen carefully to avoid the implication that it was for the Security Council to assess whether Iraqi conduct constituted a further material breach. The French proposed to amend OP4 so that Iraqi conduct would only amount to a further material breach "when assessed" as such by the Council, but this amendment was not accepted.

I am not wholly convinced by this argument: if, for the reasons discussed in paragraph 17 above, OP4 requires an assessment of Iraq's conduct by the Council, the alternative language makes little difference. However, I do accept that the negotiating history indicates that the words at the end of OP4 "and shall be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12" were added at a late stage, but in substitution for other language which would clearly have had the effect of making any finding of further material breach subject to a further Council decision.

21. Whether a report comes to the Council under OP4 or OP11, the critical issue is what action the Council is required to take at that point. In other words, what does OP12 require. It is clear that the language of OP12 was a compromise by the US from their starting position that the Council should authorise in advance the use of all necessary means to enforce the ceasefire resolution in the event of continued violations by Iraq.

It is equally clear, however, that the language does not expressly provide that a further Council decision is necessary to authorise the use of force. The paragraph indicates that in the event of a report of a further material breach (whether under OP4 or OP11) there will be a meeting of the Council to consider the situation and the need for compliance in order to secure international peace and security. The Council thus has the opportunity to take a further decision expressly authorising the use of force or, conceivably, to decide that other enforcement means should be used.

But the Council might fail to act. The resolution does not state what is to happen in those circumstances. The clear US view is that, whatever the reason for the Council's failure to act, the determination of material breach in OPs 1 and 4 would remain valid, thus authorising the use of force without a further decision. My view is that different considerations apply in different circumstances. The OP12 discussion might make clear that the Council's view is that military action is appropriate but that no further decision is required because of the terms of resolution 1441.

In such a case, there would be good grounds for relying on the existing resolution as the legal basis for any subsequent military action. The more difficult scenario is if the views of Council members are divided and a further resolution is not adopted either because it fails to attract 9 votes or because it is vetoed.

22. The principal argument in favour of the view that no further decision is required to authorise force in these circumstances is that the language of OP12 (ie "consider") was chosen deliberately to indicate the need for a further discussion, but not a decision.

As I have indicated, it is contended that this interpretation is supported by the negotiating history. The French and Russians both made proposals to amend OP12 to include an express requirement for a further decision, but these proposals were not accepted. The US Administration insist that they made clear throughout that they would not accept a text which subjected the use of force to a further Council decision.

The French (and others) therefore knew what they were voting for. The US are confident that in accepting OPs 4 and 12, they were conceding a Council discussion and no more. The US, of course, approached the negotiation of resolution 1441 from a different starting point because, as I explained in paragraph 9 above, they have always taken the view that "material breach" is a matter of objective fact and does not require a Security Council determination. (By contrast, the UK position taken on the advice of successive Law Officers, has been that it is for the Security Council to determine the existence of a material breach of the ceasefire.)

Therefore, while the US objective was to ensure that the resolution did not constrain the right of action which they believed they already had, our objective was to secure a sufficient authorisation from the Council in the absence of which we would have had no right to act. I have considered whether this difference in the underlying legal view means that the effect of the resolution might be different for the US than for the UK, but I have concluded that it does not affect the position.

If OP12 of the resolution, properly interpreted, were to mean that a further Council decision was required before force was authorised, this would constrain the US just as much as the UK. It was therefore an essential negotiating point for the US that the resolution should not concede the need for a second resolution. They are convinced that they succeeded. 23. I was impressed by the strength and sincerity of the views of the US Administration which I heard in Washington on this point. However, the difficulty is that we are reliant on their assertions for the view that the French (and others) knew and accepted that they were voting for a further discussion and no more. We have very little hard evidence of this beyond a couple of telegrams recording admissions by French negotiators that they knew the US would not accept a resolution which required a further Council decision.

The possibility remains that the French and others accepted OP12 because in their view it gave them a sufficient basis on which to argue that a second resolution was required (even if that was not made expressly clear). A further difficulty is that, if the matter ever came before a court, it is very uncertain to what extent the court would accept evidence of the negotiating history to support a particular interpretation of the resolution, given that most of the negotiations were conducted in private and there are no agreed or official records.

24. The counter view of OP12 is that this paragraph must imply a decision by the Council. Three particular arguments support that approach:

(i) when taken with the word "assessment" in OP4, the language of OP12 indicates that the Council will be assessing the seriousness of any Iraqi breach; this is especially powerful if in truth some assessment is necessary;

(ii) there is a special significance in the words "in order to secure international peace and security". They reflect not only the special responsibility of the Security Council under Article 39 of the UN Charter ("The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or acts of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security"), but also pick up the language of both resolution 678 (which authorised the use of force "to restore international peace and security in the area") and resolution 687 (which referred to the objective of "restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in its recent resolutions"). The clear inference, it will be argued, is that this shows the Council was to exercise a deliberative role on that issue, ie to determine what it is necessary to secure international peace and security;

(iii) any other construction reduces the role of the Council discussion under OP12 to a procedural formality. Others have jibbed at this categorisation, but I remain of the opinion that this would be the effect in legal terms of the view that no further resolution is required. The Council would be required to meet, and all members of the Council would be under an obligation to participate in the discussion in good faith, but even if an overwhelming majority of the Council were opposed to the use of force, military action could proceed regardless.

25. Where the meaning of a resolution is unclear from the text, the statements made by members of the Council at the time of its adoption may be taken into account in order to ascertain the Council's intentions. The statements made during the debate on 8 November 2002 are not, however, conclusive.

The US and UK stated that further breaches would be reported to the Council "for discussion". Jeremy Greenstock then added that we would then expect the Council to "meet its responsibilities", although (implicitly) we would be prepared to act without Council backing to ensure that the task of disarmament is completed. Only the US explicitly stated that it believed that the resolution did not constrain the use of force by States "to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security" regardless of whether there was a further Council decision.

Conversely, two other Council members, Mexico and Ireland, made clear that in their view a further decision of the Council was required before the use of force would be authorised. Syria also stated that "the resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorising any State to use force". Most other Council members were less clear in their comments.

The joint statement of France, Russia and China is somewhat opaque, but seems to imply that a further decision is required. Many delegations welcomed the fact that there was "no automaticity" in the resolution with regard to the use of force. But it is not clear what they meant by this. It could indicate that they did not consider that the resolution authorised the use of force in any circumstances by means of the revival argument. On the other hand there is some evidence from the negotiating history that their main concern was that the resolution should not authorise force immediately following its adoption (last four words underlined) on the basis of "material breach" in OP1 plus "serious consequences" in OP13. The UK and US indicated that "no automaticity" meant that there would be a Council discussion before force was used.

Summary

26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides.

A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the ceasefire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that sort, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has pre-determined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.

27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a resolution need be explicit in its terms. The key point is that it should establish that the Council has conduced that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.

28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.

29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.

30. In reaching my conclusions, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with this view.

I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do require a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing like as great as it is today.

31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable".

The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, e.g. the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution, we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at that time.

Possible consequences of acting without a second resolution

32. In assessing the risks of acting on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, you will wish to take account of the ways in which the matter might be brought before a court. There are a number of possibilities. First, the General Assembly could request an advisory opinion on the legality of the military action from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). A request for such an opinion could be made at the request of a simple majority of the States within the GA, so the UK and US could not block such action.

Second, given that the United Kingdom has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, it is possible that another State which has also accepted the Court's jurisdiction might seek to bring a case against us. This, however, seems a less likely option since Iraq itself could not bring a case and it is not easy to see on what basis any other State could establish that it had a dispute with the UK. But we cannot absolutely rule out that some State strongly opposed to military action might try to bring such a case. If it did, an application for interim measures to stop the campaign could be brought quite quickly (as it was in the case of Kosovo). 33. The International Criminal Court at present has no jurisdiction over the crime of aggression and could therefore not entertain a case concerning the lawfulness of any military action. The ICC will however have jurisdiction to examine whether any military campaign has been conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Given the controversy surrounding the legal basis for action, it is likely that the Court will scrutinise any allegations of war crimes by UK forces very closely. The Government has already been put on notice by CND that they intend to report to the ICC Prosecutor any incidents which their lawyers assess to have contravened the Geneva Conventions. The ICC would only be able to exercise jurisdiction over UK personnel if it considered that the UK prosecuting authorities were unable or unwilling to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects themselves.

34. It is also possible that CND may try to bring further action to stop military action in the domestic courts, but I am confident that the courts would decline jurisdiction as they did in the case brought by CND last November. Two further, though probably more remote possibilities, are an attempted prosecution for murder on the grounds that the military action is unlawful and an attempted prosecution for the crime of aggression.

Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts.

35. In short, there are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case, internationally or domestically, against the UK, members of the Government or UK military personnel. Some of these seem fairly remote possibilities, but given the strength of opposition to military action against Iraq, it would not be surprising if some attempts were made to get a case of some sort off the ground. We cannot be certain that they would not succeed. The GA route may be the most likely, but you are in a better position than me to judge whether there are likely to be enough States in the GA who would be willing to vote for such a course of action in present circumstances.

Proportionality

36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):

* must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
* be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
* must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.

That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003

Iraq and the Laws of War:
US as Belligerent Occupant
By Francis A. Boyle*
CounterPunch
December 22, 2005

On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq was an international crime in its own right. Of course the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

Next came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe" upon the city of Baghdad. To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the term "War crimes" to include: ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. . ." The Bush Jr. administration's infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and its inhabitants constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was certainly not justified by "military necessity," which is always defined by and includes the laws of war. Such terror bombings of cities have been criminal behavior under international law since before the Second World War: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden, London, Guernica-Fallujah.

On 1 May 2003 President Bush Jr. theatrically landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to declare: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He spoke before a large banner proclaiming: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." As of that date, the United States government became the belligerent occupant of Iraq under international law and practice.

This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003. For the purpose of this analysis here, the relevant portions of that Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) are as follows:

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/53 and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"),

5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907; . . .

In that aforementioned 8 May 2003 letter from the United States and the United Kingdom to the President of the Security Council, both countries pledged to the Security Council that: "The States participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq." No point would be served here by attempting to document the gross and repeated violations of that solemn and legally binding pledge by the United States and the United Kingdom from that date until today since it would require a separate book to catalog all of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave human rights violations inflicted by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq and against its people.

Suffice it to say here that no earlier than President Bush's 1 May 2003 Declaration of the end of hostilities in Iraq, and certainly no later than U.N. Security Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, both the United States and the United Kingdom have been the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. I do not take the position that the United States is the belligerent occupant of the entire state of Afghanistan. But certainly the laws of war and international humanitarian law apply to the United States in its conduct of hostilities in Afghanistan as well as to its presence there.

It is not generally believed that the United States is the belligerent occupant of Guantanamo, Cuba. But those detainees held there by United States armed forces who were apprehended in or near the theaters of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq are protected by either the Third Geneva Convention protecting prisoners of war or the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians. In any event every detainee held by the United States government in Guantanamo is protected by the International Covenant on a Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a contracting party. A similar analysis likewise applies pari passu to those numerous but unknown victims of torture and detention facilities operated around the world by the Central Intelligence Agency. America's own Gulag Archipelago. No wonder the Bush Jr. administration has done everything humanly possible to sabotage the International Criminal Court!

The United States government's installation of the so-called Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004 did not materially alter this legal situation. Under the laws of war, this so-called Interim Government of Iraq is nothing more than a "puppet government." As the belligerent occupant of Iraq the United States government is free to establish a puppet government if it so desires. But under the laws of war, the United States government remains fully accountable for the behavior of its puppet government.

These conclusions are made quite clear by paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956):

366. Local Governments Under Duress and Puppet Governments

The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant. Acts induced or compelled by the occupant are nonetheless its acts.

As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, the United States government is obligated to ensure that its puppet Interim Government of Iraq obeys the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. Any violation of the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq are legally imp**able to the United States government. As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, both the United States government itself as well as its concerned civilian officials and military officers are fully and personally responsible under international criminal law for all violations of the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq such as, for example, reported death squads operating under the latter's auspicies.

Furthermore, it was a total myth, fraud, lie, and outright propaganda for the Bush Jr. administration to maintain that it was somehow magically transferring "sovereignty" to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004. Under the laws of war, sovereignty is never transferred from the defeated sovereign such as Iraq to a belligerent occupant such as the United States. This is made quite clear by paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): "Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional."

If there were any doubt about this matter, paragraph 358 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) makes this legal fact crystal clear:

358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and the occupying force. . . .

Therefore, the United States government never had any "sovereignty" in the first place to transfer to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq. In Iraq the sovereignty still resides in the hands of the people of Iraq and in the state known as the Republic of Iraq, where it has always been. The legal regime described above will continue so long as the United States remains the belligerent occupant of Iraq. Only when that U.S. belligerent occupation of Iraq is factually terminated can the people of Iraq have the opportunity to exercise their international legal right of sovereignty by means of free, fair, democratic, and uncoerced elections. So as of this writing, the United States and the United Kingdom remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq despite their bogus "transfer" of their non-existent "sovereignty" to their puppet Interim Government of Iraq.

Even U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 "Welcoming" the installation of the puppet Interim Government of Iraq recognized this undeniable fact of international law. Preambular language in this Resolution referred to "the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution." In other words, that annexed letter is a legally binding part of Resolution 1546 (2004). Therein U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged to the U.N. Security Council with respect to the so-called Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq: "In addition, the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions." Pursuant thereto, the United States and the United Kingdom still remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Hague Regulations of 1907, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war.

This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state's Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). To the contrary, the United States has demonstrated gross disrespect toward every law in Iraq that has stood in the way of its imperial designs and petroleum ambitions, including and especially the pre-invasion 1990 Interim Constitution for the Republic of Iraq.

Most recently, to the same effect is U.N. Security Council Resolution 1637 of 9 November 2005, which extends the foreign military occupation of Iraq until 31 December 2006 but expressly subject to Annex II thereof setting forth a 29 October 2005 letter by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the President of the Security Council guaranteeing that: "The forces that make up the MNF will remain committed to acting consistently with their obligations under international law, including the law of armed conflict." Thereunder, the new Iraqi government that will be installed after the self-styled elections of 15 December 2005 will still remain a puppet government according to the laws of war.

As for any subsequent Security Council Resolutions, the United Nations Security Council has no power or authority to alter one iota of the laws of war since they are peremptory norms of international law. For the Security Council even to purport to authorize U.S. violations of the laws of war in Iraq would render its so-voting Member States aiders and abettors to U.S. war crimes and thus guilty of committing war crimes in their own right. Any Security Council attempt to condone, authorize, or approve violations of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq would be ultra vires, a legal nullity, and void ab initio.

In fact, the United Nations Organization itself has become complicit in U.S. and U.K. international crimes in Iraq in violation of the customary international laws of war set forth in paragraph 500 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): ". . . complicity in the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are punishable." The United Nations Organization is walking down the path of the League of Nations toward Trotsky's "ashcan" of history. And George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair are heading towards their own Judgment at Nuremberg, whose sixtieth anniversary the rest of the world gratefully but wistfully commemorates this year. Never again!

About the Author: Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press.

Once again, the United Nations has become little more than a mouthpiece that doesn't follow up on its resolutions that state....

quote:

"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; "


Well, france, russia, and germany didn't have the balls to enforce what to they AGREED to enforce, BECAUSE they were PROFITING from the sadistic, torturing, regime of Saddam Hussein.

Well, I'll betcha that Saddam wishes he would've done differently now!

The U.S. DOESN'T NEED the United Nations, or ANY other country, to give it permission to defend it's national security.

And although WMD was not found, NO ONE can deny that Iraq WAS, and IS, harboring TERRORIST organizations....even AL QUEDA, who was responsible for 9-11!!!!

American didn't start this war.....9-11 did!

"The U.S. DOESN'T NEED the United Nations, or ANY other country, to give it permission to defend it's national security. "

So WHY are you USING the United Nations to justify this ILLEGAL and IMMORAL war?


"Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices, and speech only to conceal their thoughts." - Voltaire.

Lying MASS-MURDEROUS hypocrites.

So we get to the main "point"...

"American didn't start this war.....9-11 did!"

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

http://www.911truth.org/

Certainly, with all the experience in installing dictatorships in the world, they were much better prepared to "pull" this off (like they did to WTC7) than a bunch of mediocre flight-students of middle-eastern origens.

All with Hollywood's "production-values".

Very clear.

And this is enough. We are tired of your BULLs**t.

MASS-MURDEROUS HYPOCRITES.

Go and pay a dominatrix to s**t on your sorry depraved selves.

911 TRUTH....hahahahaha!!!

Another conspiracy theorist huh???

You f**king idiot!

You've proved your ignorance time and time again.....

those brazilian death squads that just killed over 100 a couple months ago in sao paulo....the U.S.'s fault huh???

ROTFLMAO!!!


I DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING HERE TO f**k YOU.......YOUR POLITICIANS AND YOUR OWN PEOPLE DO IT TO YOU ON A DAILY BASIS!!!!


LIVE WITH THAT!

CANADA IS A LIFELESS, PUNK, LITTLE-SISTER TO THE U.S.!!

IS THAT WHAT'S GOT YOUR PANTIES IN A KNOT CANUCK??

"Another conspiracy theorist huh???

You f**king idiot!

You've proved your ignorance time and time again..... "

The Brazilian dictatorship was implemented through a CONSPIRACY. No "theory" behind it.

Then you call people "idiots" and "ignorant".

Riiiight!

Lying mass-murderous hypocrites.

I guess it's "No, it wasn't us!" for you AGAIN.

that's your theme somg a*****e.

911 TRUTH....hahahahaha!!!

Another conspiracy theorist huh???

You f**king idiot!

You've proved your ignorance time and time again.....


This dips**t will never get it so long as he lives. Don't worry, he'll be among the first to be enslaved . . . HAHAHAHA!!!

As heard - briefely - in the "conspiracy" video...

"He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

Who thinks?


Interview with NBC reporter Pat Dawson on the day of 9/11, soon after the Towers' collapses,
describing reports from the NYFD of secondary explosions and explosive devices in the Twin Towers.
Audio link

Partial Transcript of Interview

"Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the events that took place this morning, that is the first crash.

He said that at one point he had roughly ten alarms, that would equate to roughly 200 to 225 New York City firefighters who were in the building, this was after the crash, trying to rescue civilians who were in there. Now earlier this morning on the Today Show we spoke to the director of the World Trade Center. He said at that hour of the morning you could have upwards of 10,000 people in each of those towers. That would be 20,000 people total in each tower (sic).

The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place.

And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that [detonated] after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.

So that’s what we have been told by Albert Terry, who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me that just moments ago."
---- Pat Dawson

"This dips**t will never get it so long as he lives. Don't worry, he'll be among the first to be enslaved . . . HAHAHAHA!!!"

How do you know he isn't working FOR them?

wow...what paranoia!!!

Someone MUST be working for the U.S. gov't. if they don't believe YOU eh Einstein?

I've already watched all the conspiracy theory documentaries.

You an Alex Jones need to get together and sue the american gov't.....lol.


Go for it!

and so obviously you have proof of just "who" planted these bombs within the building???

Tell us "oh informed one".

quote:

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

F-16 Pilot
CLAIM: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.





Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific rep**ation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.




FINE LINES: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below).





Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science writer)/www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn





FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse.

Dear Guide:

Got this URL forwarded to me from a friend. It's a series of pictures that "shows" that a truck full of explosives, rather than a plane, caused damage to the Pentagon on Sept. 11. I'm sending it on to you for examination:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm



Dear Reader:

"Hunt the Boeing!" is a provocative display of smoke and mirrors, but there's little else to recommend the site. Its authors present a fraction of the available evidence in a highly selective, distorted, titillating way, proving absolutely nothing — except, perhaps, that there's always room for another conspiracy theory.

While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage sustained by the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.

The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores some of the most obvious, compelling evidence. For example:

Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon

The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage

The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77
Of course, evading bedrock evidence is standard procedure for conspiracy theorists. If pressed, they would doubtless claim that all of the above must have been planted or manufactured, but they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt.

An improbably successful cover-up

Make no mistake, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, whose case presupposes that all of the hundreds of people who participated in the clean-up, recovery and investigation following the 9/11 Pentagon attack — including scientists, engineers, coroners and professional air disaster investigators — are either dead wrong or participating in a massive, improbably successful government cover-up.

Eschewing plain facts and common sense, the conspiracy theorists ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed condundrums such as the following:

Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"
Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. According to the Washington Post, structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.


Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a c**kpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"
Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.


Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
Answer: No, but we can in this one credited to a U.S. Navy photographer [enlarged version]. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.

According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.

One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

About Poll
Do you believe AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
Yes.
No.
I'm not sure.


Current Results

Here's one obvious question the conspiracy theorists don't ask and certainly could not answer in any compelling way: If American Airlines Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to the jetliner and all its passengers? Did it vanish into thin air?

(For a more detailed consideration of these and other "Hunt the Boeing" puzzles, please read the excellent commentary by engineer Paul Boutin and astrophysicist Patrick Di Justo.)

A conspiracy theory in the grand tradition

You're no doubt wondering who's behind these flights of fancy and what, exactly, they're driving at. Well, according to the French newspaper Le Monde, the culprit is Thierry Meyssan, well-known leftist radical and president of the Voltaire Network, a controversial site devoted to "the fight for freedom and secularity." His son, Raphaël Meyssan, is credited as the Webmaster of both the Voltaire Network and Utopian Asylum, which, uncoincidentally, hosts "Hunt the Boeing!"

What are they trying to prove? That the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by the U.S. government upon its own citizens — a conspiracy theory in the grand tradition.

To quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So far we haven't seen any proof at all




http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Al Qaeda admits September 11th attack
Front page /
10.09.2002 Source:


Pages:

A 112-page document drawn up by Ramzi Binalshibh, of Al Qaeda, and released by Qatar-based TV station Al Jazeera, admits that the organisation was involved in the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11th and warns of a wave of new terrorist activities.



The document, called “The new reality of the Crusades” is about the justification for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 and celebrates the destruction caused by the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, described by the author as “That glorious Tuesday”.

The document tries to justify the attacks by quoting from Islamic Sunnah, or teachings, such as “For anyone that has followed the events, it is clear that what happened in America was a punishment from God for all the injustice and oppression which America has done to the nations everywhere in the world, especially to the Moslems”.

It claims that the main planners for the attacks were Khaled Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh and the four pilots of the hijacked aircraft, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Ziad Samir Jarrah and Hani Hanjour, although it attributes the responsibility for the attacks on the USA, stating that the Koran stipulates that it is legal to destroy any country which shows aggressiveness against Moslem nations, claiming also that “if the infidel fixes as objectives women, children and old people, then the Moslems can do the same thing”.

The document declares that “America converted itself into a country at war when it broke the peace and helped the Jews, over 50 years ago, to occupy Palestine…the day it bombed Iraq and began the blockade, when it attacked Sudan and when it bombed and blockaded Afghanistan and attacked the Moslems there”.

It is claimed that the attacks were a pre-emptive strike because the USA was already planning to attack Afghanistan: “America had drawn up a plan to invade Afghanistan and to make an attack there by diverse countries long before the events in America”.

The author of the document goes on to gloat over the fact that the USA lost around one billion USD in revenue after the attacks on September 11th, and the fact that it lost 2,000 financial experts, suffered a Stock Exchange crash, the USD lost value and airline companies went bankrupt.

Finally, the document promises “thousands more attacks” like September 11th to make that event “the beginning of the end for America”.

"Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices, and speech only to conceal their thoughts." - Voltaire.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

"Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices, and speech only to conceal their thoughts." - Voltaire.


And the same can be said about you and your ilk.

quote:

" As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."

Think that pretty much sums up your outlook on everything.....LOL.

Feeling impotent eh Canuckie???

"Feeling impotent eh Canuckie??? "

Who is the Canuckie?

"Men use thoughts only to justify their injustices, and speech only to conceal their thoughts." - Voltaire.

"And the same can be said about you and your ilk. "

AmeriKKKans have installed MANY dictatorhips through CONSPIRACIES. To DENY it is very telling...

Who says

"No it wasn't us!"

most AGAIN?

CURRUP LYING MUDERSOUS HYPOCRITES.

"And the same can be said about you and your ilk. "

You are LYING again.

"Our ilk" doesn't justify injustices.

"Our ilk" CHALLENGES it.

Laughing idiots.

quote:

""Our ilk" doesn't justify injustices."

So justify TODAY'S police DEATH SQUADS that STILL KILL brazilians TODAY.

quote:

"Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."

The question is...who are YOU working for?

"So justify TODAY'S police DEATH SQUADS that STILL KILL brazilians TODAY. "

We are not justifying it. They are horrible. AND they were trained by ameriKKKans.

But you say: "No it wasn't us!"

Repressive "freedom and democracy" torturing hypocrites.

quote:

"AND they were trained by ameriKKKans."

No, the police that kill people today in the brazilian death squads weren't EVEN BORN in the early 1960's!!!

f**king lying "não foi eu" idiot. I guess NOTHING is brazils fault eh idiot!

You truly have shown your ignorance and the brazilian mentality of MANY....thanks for that!

IF the U.S. trained the brazilian military in the 1960's.....over FOURTY years ago, torture methods.....what is making the brazilian police CONTINUE these MURDERS??

Does the CIA implant "mind control" computer chips in their brains to control their activity??

Just wondering, after all this conspiracy horses**t.

You all have got off the tangent line... Let's talk Wold Cup:

Bottom line, the USA is out (hehehe), while Brasil is on the way the the 6th win.

Americans, eat your hearts out and be content with your world series (what a joke!) make believe boring games...hehehe!

Good Day,

keol

You are all way OFF the subject... Let's talk World Cup:

Bottom line, the USA is out (hehehe) while Brasil on its way to the 6th Win. Amerikans...be content with your world series (hehehe) when you are the only ones playing such boring game!

Good day,

keol

You all way OFF the subject….Let’s talk World Cup:

OK, the USA is eliminated and out (hehehe) while Brasil on the way to its 6th Win. Now then, amerikans, be content with your world series (hehehe) when you are the only ones playing those boring games. Good day,

keol

quote:

""So justify TODAY'S police DEATH SQUADS that STILL KILL brazilians TODAY. "

We are not justifying it. They are horrible. AND they were trained by ameriKKKans."

What an idiotic statement...that's like saying that another country "trained" our military or police to kill people....so now we kill people everyday...."hey, if they would've never trained us, we wouldn've NEVER figured it out for ourselves!!"


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL


Levels of human rights violations continued to be extremely high, despite a number of initiatives by the federal government’s Special Secretariat of Human Rights. Reports of ineffective, violent, and corrupt policing raised doubts about the effectiveness of government proposals for reform.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilians were killed by police in alleged gun battles. Few if any of the cases were fully investigated. There were consistent reports of police participation in “death squads”. The use of torture was widespread and systematic. The prison system was characterized by overcrowding, riots and corruption. Federal and state authorities provided limited protection for human rights defenders under threat.

Rural and indigenous activists continued to be threatened, attacked and killed. Human rights violators remained largely unpunished. Following national and international condemnation the federal government promised to begin opening files detailing violations by the former military regime.

the report can be read at:


http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/bra-summary-eng

quote:

"while Brasil is on the way the the 6th win."

Wanna bet??

IF brazil gets to the finals...they'll LOSE to Germany.

And I can just hear the excuses now....."então, 'tava jogando em casa!!!"

GERMANY TO WIN FINALS !!JUST LOOK AT THEIR PHYSICAL CONDITION! THEIR TALL AGILE FAST AND DETERMINED INTELLIGENT ANGLOS. NOW LOOK AT BRAZIL FAT SCRAPPY DESPERATE ARROGANT CLUMSY LIKE A BULL IN A CHINA CLOSET.I WILL NOW SEEK OUT THE FIRST BRAZILIAN WHO WILL WAGER HIS CASA AND CLEAN HIS CLOCK.THIS OF COURSE IF.... BRAZIL ACTUALLY MAKES THE FINALS!!!!!!! SIEG HEIL!!!

"No, the police that kill people today in the brazilian death squads weren't EVEN BORN in the early 1960's!!!

f**king lying "não foi eu" idiot. I guess NOTHING is brazils fault eh idiot!

You truly have shown your ignorance and the brazilian mentality of MANY....thanks for that! "

You are talking to others about IGNORANCE?

Didn't you read:

"They ARE horrible. A-N-D they were trained by ameriKKKans"?

I'm not the one denying anything here.

YOU are.

"No! It wasn't us!"

Laughing hypocrites.

"Just wondering, after all this conspiracy horses**t."

ALL the INSTALLED dictatorships in the world, paid for ameriKKKans were done in a CONSPIRATIONAL manner.

ALL. And ALWAYS.

So what is this "conspiracy horses**t" all about?

BULLs**t.

"Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world."

And we can hear, over and over again these "conspiracies horses**t" being DENIED with a big, ulgy, lying, hypocritical:

"NO IT WASN'T US!"

"IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR BEING CORRUPT!"

"IT'S NOT OUR FAULT FOR GIVING MONEY FOR THE CORRUPTION TO BE MADE INTO DEATH AND ROBERY!!!"

Laughing criminal idiots.

"THEIR TALL AGILE FAST AND DETERMINED INTELLIGENT ANGLOS. "

It's all about the KKK's mentality in these IDIOTS.

You wives THRIVE thinking about being RIPPED by a BIG BLACK c**k, impotent trash.

If not them, YOU.

well obviously, according to your statements here, brazilians DON'T HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN!!

Can they choose? Decide with whom they want to align with and who not to??

I'm curious....how does the U.S. IMPOSE their will without ever putting military forces on the ground??

Some brazilian group had to go along.....didn't they?

Once again, you justified brazils "death squads" that exist TODAY because of "possible" CIA training in the 1960's??

Who trained american forces to kill and wage war? The British?? So can we put the blame on them for the acts done by the U.S. during the last 200 years??

Because that's pretty much the basis of your argument. "The U.S. trained us to kill and torture 45 years ago so we continue to do it TODAY."

That's all one has to see to read through your incompetent horses**t!

Quote:

"This dips**t will never get it so long as he lives. Don't worry, he'll be among the first to be enslaved . . . HAHAHAHA!!!"

Tell me you sick disgusting semi human, enslave is what you desire for anyone who doesn’t want to serve your proposes? You just disclosed yourself. Tell me you are so tough and have so much information, aren’t you involved with the enslave of women throughout the world or other wicked dramas? You have money, who knows what you do to make it? Brazil like you know well have holes that allow criminal organizations work in here. Probably what was said about the ugly dominatrix is true!

"I'm curious....how does the U.S. IMPOSE their will without ever putting military forces on the ground??

Some brazilian group had to go along.....didn't they?

Once again, you justified brazils "death squads" that exist TODAY because of "possible" CIA training in the 1960's?? "

You didn't IMPOSE your will. As already RECOGNIZED, you BOUGHT OUT the CORRUPT military to CARRY OUT the use of FORCE.

In the case that they FAILED, you HAD ships READY to take over a DEMOCRACY with FREEDOM.

This BULLs**t that "Brazil was risking to become a dictatorship" is all that is: AMERIKKKAN BULLs**t.

Because in order to prevent the "possibility of becoming a dictatorship", you in your "unselfish benevolence" INSTALLED a murderous dictatorship.

AND TRAINED the individuals.

Don't give this ANOTHER BULLs**t that "it happenned in the 60s and it stopped there" because we KNOW that it didn't stop there.

FIGUEIREDO - trained by ameriKKKans - WAS THE PRESIDENT in the EIGHTIES.

So LIE AWAY hypcritical criminal. LIE AWAY.

And say that it was because we were "doing bussiness with the communists that's why the ameriKKKan government INSTALLED - through FORCE - a dictatorship in Brazil."

Because we KNOW - through Janio Quadros - that YOU COULD DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, but "we coudn't".

"NO IT WASN'T US!"

It never is...

NOT EVEN WITH IRAQ.

""I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are." - George H. W. Bush

YOU DON'T CARE.

SO WHY DO YOU PRETEND THAT YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT BRAZILIANS THINK, HYPOCRITE?

YOU ARE MURDEROUS CRIMINALS.

WITHOUT REMORSE.

WITHOUT CONSCIENCE.

WITHOUT GUILT.

It's ALWAYS d-e-n-i-a-l-s:

"NO IT WASN'T US!"

GET THE f**k OUT OF IRAQ!

STOP THE KILLING AND STEALING.

I know you have way too much practice and addiction with all of this.

s**t EATERS.

"aren’t you involved with the enslave of women throughout the world or other wicked dramas?"

HHHAAAAA - HHHAAAAAAA

I am the one creating the WICKED DRAMAS!!! You are THE DORK WRITING THINGS LIKE THAT!!!

BTW. Have you noticed that Diebold and my German word Diebe have the same 4 letters?
Just saying.
I'm not one to spread conspiracy theories.

Most countries in Latin America were very weak and rule by a small white minority. These people were against any change in the government that didn't protect their interest. This white market-dominant minorities will work with foreign governments to keep their power. I think one could better understand this by reading Amy Chua;s book "World on Fires" she talks about how these small groups controll the governments of Latin America. This group will sell their soul to stay in power
to any foreign government.

quote:

"quote:

"while Brasil is on the way the the 6th win."

Wanna bet??

IF brazil gets to the finals...they'll LOSE to Germany."

It's why I CAPITALIZED the word "IF"!!!

uh-hum.....ha.....haha.......hahahaha.......hahahahahahahahaha.........(holding my stomach).....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA(rolling on the floor)...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


NOW BRAZIL....YOU CAN GO BACK TO YOUR CRIME, CORRUPTION, AND POVERTY!


ONE GOOD THING.....MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE QUIETEST IT HAS EVER BEEN!!!!

QUOTE:

"You didn't IMPOSE your will. As already RECOGNIZED, you BOUGHT OUT the CORRUPT military to CARRY OUT the use of FORCE."

OK, pronto, you've proved my point...there was a CORRUPT BRAZILIAN MILITARY ALREADY IN PLACE.....who's fault is that?

so...according to you.....BRAZIL has absolutely NO CONTROL over their OWN COUNTRY!!!!

I mean that is exactly what you're saying.....america did this to brazil, americans trained brazilians to do this.....so I guess you are NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF MONKEYS!!!!

quote:

"GET THE f**k OUT OF IRAQ! "

Get the f**k out of Haiti you hypocritical bastard!


quote:

"Lt. Gen. Augusto Heleno, the Brazilian commander for the U.N. peacekeeping troops in Haiti.

According to Heleno, in an interview given with the tacit approval of President Lula to the Brazilian government's official news agency, "Statements made by a candidate to the presidency of the United States created false hopes among pro-Aristide supporters. His (the candidate's) statements created the expectation that instability and a change in American policy would contribute to Aristide's return.'' Heleno was clearly referring to statements made by Kerry to the New York Times on March 7. It's a good thing Kerry isn't a Haitian living in Haiti because such an accusation would most likely result in his arrest or worse by the Haitian police with "assistance" by Lt. Gen. Heleno's forces.

It's clear that the good general's statements are intended to deflect his own responsibility for the current unrest in Haiti. The truth is Heleno is covering his own hide and negligence by allowing his forces to standby while the Haitian police shot and killed unarmed demonstrators on September 30th sparking this latest crisis.

The good general would also have us forget his lame excuses for allowing a few hundred former Haitian soldiers to take control of cities and towns in northern Haiti. He must have known how feared and hated they are by a majority of the population and that this would contribute towards edging Haitian society towards disaster. Heleno's excuse is that his few thousand heavily armed UN forces, minus those providing security in flood ravaged Gonaives, couldn't possibly have stopped a ragtag band of former soldiers despite his troop's superior firepower.

More recently, the good general has all but given the former military the keys to the capital of Port au Prince. While Heleno has more than adequate force to assist the Haitian police in making armed incursions into pro-Aristide slums, he appears helpless in stopping the former Haitian military from parading around the capital carrying semi-automatic weapons and threatening to kill anyone who utters President Aristide's name.

With all of Heleno's excuses one wonders how the Brazilian military earned its rep**ation for decisive action when, after Brazil's military coup in 1964, the armed forces managed to dominate the political system for twenty-one years (1964-85). Perhaps today's Haiti reminds Heleno of those good old days in Brazil. Those were times when the wealthy elite could count on the Brazilian military to restore order and arbitrary arrests, murder and torture were justified as a necessary evil.

quote:

"First of all,, Lavalas has already said that they will not participate in the elections and now the electoral council, which is preparing for them, is completely in disarray. And then of course it's hilarious to hear Brazil announce yeaterday that its forces are going to extend their stay in Haiti until the next elections are held in 2005. So apparently, Brazil isn't even considering whether these elections are going to be free and fair; they really just want to get this process over because they're getting a lot of heat at home. Another interesting note about Brazil is that last October 22nd the Defense Minister of Brazil, Jose Diegas, resigned, because the Brazilian military had made a statement early in October. The military high command had said that the MILITARY COUP THAT THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY DID IN 1964 HAD BEEN THE RESULT OF A "POPULAR CALL" IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBVERSIVE MOVEMENT WHICH HAD TURNED DOWN DIALOGUE." Well who does that sound like? That sounds like Lavalas in Haiti today, so it gives the appearance that what the Brazilian military cannot get away with in its own country today, it's enjoying doing in Haiti."

allez les bleus vive la france bye bye brazil!!!!

BRAZIL GETS THEIR DUE!!!!!! CONGRATULATIONS FRANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ITS OVER FOR YOU FAT BUCK TOOTHED SCRAPPY CLUMSY RAGTAG BUNCH OF LOSERS!!!!!! I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH AN UGLY TEAM THEN THIS.

Goooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllll da França! Henry! Gooooooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllllll!

Hehehe...

Vocês perderam para um time que quase não saiu do grupo! Bem feito!

truly was "bem feito". Another "diversion" from the misery that exists in brazil is wayside, são joão tambem....thank god.

Maybe this is the start of something. Hopefully the brazilian team will never make it to the semi-finals for the next 50 years. Maybe those Koran's the Saudi's are "giving" away in brazil will start to take effect, and we'll have some suicide bombers during carnaval....maybe, just maybe things will begin to turn miserable here for even the people with a "good situation" like they are for the millions upon millions living in "miseria". Maybe the "diversions" just simply won't be enough anymore, and brazilians will start to take their country seriously......maybe.

"while Brasil is on the way the the 6th win."


Choke on your words, sucka!

France- 1, Brazil- NOTHING!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

HUGO BLAMES BRAZILS LOSING TO FRANCE ON A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE U.S.A. AND ITS EUROPEAN FRIENDS...... DAMN THOSE ANGLOS!!!!!!!!! VIVA CHE! VIVA FIDEL! VIVA EVO! ......... WHO LET THAT PIG OUT OF THE PIGPEN??? DAMN THOSE AMERICANS!!!!!!

LATIN AMERICAN MARXISTS BLAME BRAZILS LOSS TO FRANCE ON A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE U.S.A. AND ITS EUROPEAN FRIENDS!!!!!!!!! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!........ WE MUST MOBILIZE OUR DONKEY CARTS!!!!!! DAMN THOSE AMERICANS!

LATIN AMERICAN MARXISTS BLAME BRAZILS LOSS TO FRANCE ON A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE U.S.A. AND ITS EUROPEAN FRIENDS!!!!!!!!! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!........ WE MUST MOBILIZE OUR DONKEY CARTS!!!!!! DAMN THOSE AMERICANS!

Stop foaming monkeys, I'm sure you never felt happier in your stupid lives!!!!

VIVA CHE! VIVA EVO MORALES!!