[continued from previous message] 
  
 several visits. Despite all of this, Iran remains a potential target 
 for the next act of American/Zionist aggression and will not be 
 removed from Bush's characterisation as part of his 'axis of evil'. 
 Demonstrations of disgraceful jubiliation at the Coalition's current 
 successes in Iraq will change nothing. 
  
 In reality, it should be far more frightening to contemplate nuclear 
 weapons at the disposal of the Zionists, an aggressive colonialist 
 racist regime proven to have expansionist aims towards the Arab Nation 
 than nuclear power in the hands of Syria, Iran or Korea. In fact, the 
 only nation that has used nuclear weapons and used them on a civilian 
 population is the United States, the nation that demonstrated its 
 aggressive, law-defying nature once again in its invasion of the 
 sovereign country of Iraq. 
  
 A U.S. poll was taken to show that half of the United States 
 population would support U.S. military action against Iran if it 
 continued to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent of 
 those surveyed said the United States should take action against Syria 
 if it were helping Iraq. Polls only represent the views of those 
 chosen to participate, and one hopes that this is not the opinion of 
 the people of the United States, but only of those brainwashed by 
 official U.S./Zionist propaganda. Even so, it is a rather frightening 
 prospect, and if a valid poll, definitely supports the notion of 
 culpability of the people of the United States for the blood shed and 
 crimes committed by its government. 
  
 Bolton continued to elaborate upon his threat by stating that: 'I 
 think Syria is a good case where I hope that they will conclude that 
 the chemicals weapons program and the biological weapons program that 
 they have been pursuing are things that they should give up. It is a 
 wonderful opportunity for Syria to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of 
 mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see 
 if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process. 
 He concluded by stating that the priority of the United States was the 
 'peaceful elimination of these programmes.' 
  
 The U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of how 
 'peaceful elimination' is achieved. Indeed, it is obvious that other 
 nations do need to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq'. The U.S. 
 and its allies must be stopped now. Half-hearted attempts to support 
 Iraq while attempting to placate the U.S. will accomplish nothing. 
  
 The real lesson to be drawn from Iraq is that one must not acquiesce 
 in self-destruction at the hands of the enemy. Iraq actually attempted 
 to conform to the dictates of the United Nations with respect to its 
 weapons and resources for self-defence while the United States never 
 had any intention of forswearing its own plans for invasion. While 
 Iraq destroyed weapons at the behest of U.N. inspectors, the United 
 States amassed troops and weapons in preparation for invasion. 
  
 Indeed, it is interesting to look at the example of North Korea and 
 its response to U.S. pressure. In a statement made on the 6th of 
 April, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's 
 Republic of Korea demonstrated clear recognition of the dangers that 
 face any nation that dares to oppose U.S. world domination and gave 
 its own response to recent threats made by the U.S. 
  
 Stating that 'the DPRK has so far made every possible effort to ensure 
 stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula and the region', it 
 accused the United Nations Security Council first of dealing with the 
 nuclear issue on the peninsula in such a manner as to make it a 
 'prelude to war' to be 'misused by the U.S. as an excuse for war.' 
  
 One can hear the echo of similar United Nations discussions and 
 resolutions on Iraq here and recall the recent U.S. manipulation, 
 bullying and ultimate disregard of the international community in its 
 inexorable aim to invade Iraq. 
  
 The DPRK then stated very forcefully that: 'The U.S. intends to force 
 the DPRK to disarm itself. The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming 
 through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.' 
  
 Furthermore, that: 'Neither international public opinion nor the U.N. 
 Charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq. This 
 suggests that even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the 
 U.S. would not help avert a war.' 
  
 And finally: 
  
 'ONLY THE PHYSICAL DETERRENT FORCE, TREMENDOUS MILITARY DETERRENT 
 FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DECISIVELY BEAT BACK AN ATTACK SUPPORTED BY 
 ANY ULTRA-MODERN WEAPONS, CAN AVERT A WAR AND PROTECT THE SECURITY OF 
 THE COUNTRY AND THE NATION. THIS IS A LESSON DRAWN FROM THE IRAQI 
 WAR.' 
  
 Syria and Iran should take note and respond in like fashion. The DPRK 
 continues by rejecting the entire fabric of deceit upon which the U.S. 
 relies to support its worldwide aggressions, stating that: 
  
 'The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the DPRK will accept 
 the demand for disarming while watching one of the three countries the 
 U.S. listed as part of an 'axis of evil' already subject to a 
 barbarous military attack.' 
  
 In conclusion, the DPRK vowed that, should the U.S. target North 
 Korea, the DPRK would have 'no other option but to beef up the 
 deterrent force for war by mobilising all the potentials.' 
  
 In like manner, Syria and Iran must recognise the need for absolute 
 resistance to the U.S. foreign policy 'programme'. Unity against the 
 U.S. is vital. The lesson to be learned from the U.S./Coalition 
 invasion of Iraq is that the U.S. is ruthless in its programme to 
 eliminate any potential threats to its own status as the most powerful 
 dictator in the international community. At the heart of U.S. world 
 domination plans are Zionist interests and this never was more obvious 
 than when the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, a country without any 
 so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' rather than taking any action 
 towards Korea, a nation possessing nuclear deterrent power. The 
 Zionists have no interest in Korea at present, but they do have an 
 interest in increasing their sphere of control within the Arab Nation 
 and Iran. The appointment of Jay Garner, a Zionist puppet, to 
 supervise the so-called 'post-Saddam Hussayn' admininstration of Iraq 
 is damning evidence of U.S./Zionist collaboration. 
  
 Furthermore, Iraq was chosen as the first target probably because the 
 U.S. believed that it would have United Nations support and because it 
 was able to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War without any effective 
 resistance from the Arab Nation as a whole. Despite Arab opposition to 
 the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the anger and frustration with 
 respect to the economic sanctions that punished Iraq for over a 
 decade, the leaders of the Arab Nation made it clear that they would 
 not actually oppose a second U.S. invasion. Moreover, much of the 
 military apparatus for a second invasion of Iraq was in place and 
 indeed, the U.S. and British had been invading parts of Iraq 
 throughout the past decade, under spurious claims of 'enforcing' the 
 sanctions. 
  
 Iraq, therefore, was a much easier target than Syria, Iran or Korea. 
 The oil resources in Iraq made it irresistable to Western governments 
 determined to take multi-national control over Arab resources and 
 radically diminish the power of OPEC. 
  
 An invasion of Syria certainly would be in Zionist interests, perhaps 
 even more than the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq posed an easier target 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)