OT: Pictures of Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Topha]

This thread is getting pretty long, considering almost everyone said at some time this would be their last post.

But it definitley is interesting, and so far there has been no real flaming going on, despite the posters having very different opinions, wow

Fact of the matter is, and I posted that before, that Saddams was funded by the US, just like Osama bin Laden was trained by the US. In the end its all about oil, influence, etc., in short: Money and Power.

What I want to know is: Whats so important about that anyway? From what I've seen of the world so far, the wealthy and powerful people are never very happy.

I was very impressed by the Ministerpresident of Luxemburg the other day, who said that there probably has to be war, and there probably will be, but we still had to do everything that is possible to prevent that war, because nothing good will come of it, for no one. And that is definitly true, and thats definitly not what Bush is doing at the moment.

And while I am glad that US interferred with WWII in europe, maybe they should back away from their world-police attitude a little, because there are a lot of country's out there that dont want to be helped, and who are just not ready for democracy yet, especially when it means having a ruler instated by some rich superpower (their point of view, not mine!!!, honestly) a few thousand miles away.

How would the US feel, if suddenly some people from out of space came, replaced the president, gave them a new political system etc. etc.? Even if they would be better off in the long run, they still would try everything to fight those aliens, because they would rob them off their freedom of choice.

This may seem a little far off, but I didnt find another example

[Jkun]

Originally posted by Hulk
Or are you against anybody refuting your wild left, socialist agenda?

Oh, and your last statement is pure demagoguery. Look it up.

You just proved my point. Anybody who doesn't agree with you must be a wild left "socialist". Which you intend to be an insult.

Only right-extremists would consider "left" or "socialist" an insult. You obviously don't even know what "socialist" means.

For your information, your great ally in Britain, dear ol' Tony, is a _socialist_ *shock!* Maybe you should start bashing Brits now?

As for demagoguery, try your unelected president's "you are with us or you're our enemy" speeches.

Your behaviour in this thread is a clear example of what went wrong in the US since Bush usurped the presidency. Freedom of speech is no longer alive in the US, for everyone who dares to disagree with the official policy has to pay the price.

Not in direct sanctions, but in persecution by the so-called "patriots" who find it their duty to discriminate against people with different opinions. Go ask a few people if they dare to speak their mind and not fear of getting sacked or lose chances for promotion, because their boss is a hardline rightwinger like yourself.

See, freedom of speech is not about being allowed to say what you think. It's about being able to say what you think without any fear of repercussions. Without some "patriot" coming along and loudly starting to complain people are pushing their opinions on him and what not.

Guess what. Freedom of speech is for all. Not just for those who's opinions you think are acceptable. IMHO, all those now claiming to be "patriots" in the US, and supporting all those new laws that take away the rights that made America the great free nation it once was, are the biggest pack of lying hypocrites you can find.

Patriottism means loving your country. America is (was?) about democracy (ever heard of it, dear Mr Bush?) and freedom of speech (among other things). And all those "Patriots" have done is violated these rights. That kind of love, anyone can do without!

J-kun

[Hulk]

Originally posted by grizzlybear65
Here's my 2 cents...

"If it's OK for GWBush to decide who the hell gets to be the president of this or that country.. what makes him any different from the those that he seeks to have replaced.."

As I continue to say, Bush and his cabinet have decided that the current regime in Iraq is a threat to the US. In the same way we "get" to decide who runs Germany and Japan after WWII, we "get" to decide who runs Iraq after the war, which I hope does not happen. What makes him different from Saddam Hussain, Hitler and Tojo. Come on, I think you know that. How about gassing your own people, trying to exterminate the Jewish race, and bombing Pearl Harbor while negociating a treaty for starter? Your comment is severely misguided.

he's got no regards for the UN. What the hell is the UN there for if he's not willing to listen to it. what would the world come to if every Tom, Dick & Harry or Bush out there decides that they should have a pre-emptive strike on another country because they fear that sometime in the next 300 yrs. they might have the technology and weaponry that could reach half way across the sea to only fizzle and flop somewhere in the ocean.

I agree, the UN is pointless since they can't enforce thier resolutions. In THIS CASE, this resolution is important to the security of the US, so the US is taking action to protect itself. I fear the UN is going the way of the League of Nations. If someone wants to have a pre-emptive strike on a country that has killed it's own people, and rules through fear, torture and murder, we should give them full consideration! Remember to compare apples to apples.

for God's sake.. Korea is not ONLY a threat to the US, but has defied the UN and the US by withdrawing from the agreement to curtail the production/advancement of nuclear development. Korea also has the means/resources to get to the weapons of mass destruction a lot faster than IRAQ or even all the Arab states put together.
But you don't see the US going after them.. NO NO... that would be too darn right logical.

So you're saying if we go after North Korea AND Iraq, then it would be okay That is a specious argument.

Clinton and Carter (among others) helped N Korea to acquire the breeder reactor technology allowing them to process weapons grade Plutonium. They SWORE they wouldn't develop weapons, they did. Now, I'm sure Clinton and Carter did this in good faith and in the name of helping humanity, I don't blame them, they did what they thought was right based on all evidence at the time. Now, we are very limited in what we can do with the North Koreans because they have nukes! They are trying to extort us, they want money. Bush and his cabinet don't believe N Korea is as big a threat as Iraq, I believe them as I believed Clinton before him for doing what he did. I guess you have more intelligence briefs than our Presidents do, or at least you think you do. Believe me, China will cool down the North Koreans.



India has more nuclear power/potential than the arab world put together, you don't see him going after them either

India doesn't have a mass murdering dictator AND didn't violate the terms of a surrender after invading a neighbor. Quite a different situation isnt' it?


Just as much as Saddam is defying the UN by continuing to produce these so called weapons of mass destructions, GW Bush is defying the UN by going ahead with this war. But of course, the US is regarded as God's gift to mankind whereas the other.. well..


Oh come on. What came first? Of course it was Saddam defying the UN, we are only trying to enforce what the UN will NOT!


You know what, I just read the rest of your post and it's inane. Your conspiracy theory of a military base is simply foolish.
You are on another plane with your secret conspiracy government. You're just anti-Bush, no matter what. When you have no argument, make up a "conspiracy." The OJ defense.

Bye bye!



The American government body pretty much regards Syria, Saudi Arabia (House of Saoud), Iraq, Iran, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.. (and whatever Arab countries I've left out) as countries that are either supporting/abetting or giving birth to terrorist groups and terrorist activities.

It regards Korea as a threat because of its Nuclear capabilities and they have vowed to deal with them after the whole "IRAQ: Showdown" thing.

It threatened to war with Pakistan when it went after Osama Bin Laden and talibans.

By France and Germany not standing by or supporting the decision to blow up IRAQ to kingdom come, they were branded as cowards, and are possibly looked at as part of the problem (since they're not part of GWB's solution) etc.. .

You see the pattern here. Every country or regime that doesn't see it his (GW's) way, is an axis of evil - or will soon be.

This, IMO, was never about IRAQ invading Kuwait, it is not about IRAQ having weapons of mass destruction - it's not even FULLY about the oil there (though it plays a big role). To me, it seems that this is just another cheap, back-channel way for the american governement to secure a full military base somewhere on the arabian gulf/land - somewhere close to the oils and also on the arab soil - something much larger than the strip of desert space now occupied on the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border.

Think about it for a second.. If America is so fr..king bent on saving the world, why not send less than half the military power it sent now to IRAQ over to Somalia, Columbia, West Africa, etc.. to push the rebels away and restore order - why?? that's cause the Americans get no tangible benefit from these countries.

It ONLY sticks it's nose into other people's business when it can claim the spoils - regardless of the wake of destruction it leaves in its path.

[Hulk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jkun
[B]You just proved my point. Anybody who doesn't agree with you must be a wild left "socialist". Which you intend to be an insult.

Only right-extremists would consider "left" or "socialist" an insult. You obviously don't even know what "socialist" means.

Okay, sure, whatever you say buddy. I just don't want an all-inclusive government "taking care" of me. I cherish my freedom "from" government and much at "to" government.

For your information, your great ally in Britain, dear ol' Tony, is a _socialist_ *shock!* Maybe you should start bashing Brits now?

No, they are fundamentally a capitolistic society.

As for demagoguery, try your unelected president's "you are with us or you're our enemy" speeches.

Actually with us or the terrorists. Also, we just lost 3000 people a few days before. I knew one of them. I will admit that sometimes the Bush administration can be arrogent.


Your behaviour in this thread is a clear example of what went wrong in the US since Bush usurped the presidency. Freedom of speech is no longer alive in the US, for everyone who dares to disagree with the official policy has to pay the price.



Um, do you see the protests going on? Do you see both sides presented on TV everyday? I don't know where you're from but freedom of speech is alive and well in the US. It's people like you that scare me, I WANT you to state your position, and believe that we can work things out and get along. Is that your goal?

How have you "paid the price" for speaking out?

How is freedom of speech no longer alive? Has the military stopped the demonstrations, does Bush control the media? Come on, we can talk real issues, can't we?


Not in direct sanctions, but in persecution by the so-called "patriots" who find it their duty to discriminate against people with different opinions. Go ask a few people if they dare to speak their mind and not fear of getting sacked or lose chances for promotion, because their boss is a hardline rightwinger like yourself.

I agree, that's not right when it happens, nor when liberal professors and teachers brainwash their students. I believe everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion. If we are all really trying to live in peace, effective communication is the only way to get there. I won't defend the actions of extreme right wing kooks, but I'm not one of them. I said I don't want war, but I do trust my President on this matter. Why does that make me a right wing extremist?


See, freedom of speech is not about being allowed to say what you think. It's about being able to say what you think without any fear of repercussions. Without some "patriot" coming along and loudly starting to complain people are pushing their opinions on him and what not.

Right and wrong here. If you say what you believe in public, then don't complain when someone disagrees with you. This sounds like freedom of speech ONLY for what you believe in. If you are in a private place or have a quiet conversation, then yes, no one should come up and bother you. But if you present your opinions in public, those with other views can respond in a nonviolent manner! That IS free speech.


Guess what. Freedom of speech is for all. Not just for those who's opinions you think are acceptable. IMHO, all those now claiming to be "patriots" in the US, and supporting all those new laws that take away the rights that made America the great free nation it once was, are the biggest pack of lying hypocrites you can find.

What rights have WE lost (I'm assuming your from America)? I can't think of one thing I've lost, except for longer wait times at the airport. Please give me examples.


Patriottism means loving your country. America is (was?) about democracy (ever heard of it, dear Mr Bush?) and freedom of speech (among other things). And all those "Patriots" have done is violated these rights. That kind of love, anyone can do without!

Who is stopping freedom of speech? Nobody is being shut up in this country. EVERYBODY is being heard. Just because things aren't following the course of action you want doesn't mean we've lost our 1st amendment rights.

Take it easy, if someone tries to take away my freedom, I'll be the first one protesting. I don't see that happening.

[Hulk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Topha
[B]This thread is getting pretty long, considering almost everyone said at some time this would be their last post.

But it definitley is interesting, and so far there has been no real flaming going on, despite the posters having very different opinions, wow

Hello Topha!
I am only stating my point of view and trying to understand the other side's view in hopes of both sides coming closer together, not further apart.

Fact of the matter is, and I posted that before, that Saddams was funded by the US, just like Osama bin Laden was trained by the US. In the end its all about oil, influence, etc., in short: Money and Power.

I disagree, the US funded Bin Ladin to help fight the Soviets in Afganistan, the cold war was still on then. The monitary drain from that engagement helped to end the Soviet Union and free those people. But it did create another problem for us! Hindsight is always 20/20

Iraq was funded to fight a larger perceived enemy at the time, Iran. Looking back now I would say that wasn't the best decision, but I don't know what would have happened if we didn't.

IT WAS about money and power. Now, after 9/11 it's about SECURITY, with a little bit of money and power thrown in, it's human nature! I understand where you're coming from but I think 9/11 changed the motives somewhat.



"What I want to know is: Whats so important about that anyway? From what I've seen of the world so far, the wealthy and powerful people are never very happy."

I'm not wealthy or powerful so I can't answer that!



"I was very impressed by the Ministerpresident of Luxemburg the other day, who said that there probably has to be war, and there probably will be, but we still had to do everything that is possible to prevent that war, because nothing good will come of it, for no one. And that is definitly true, and thats definitly not what Bush is doing at the moment."

We go round and round on this point. I'll state my opinion one last time for the record:

THE CURRENT US PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET HAVE DECIDED THAT IRAQ IS A THREAT TO US SECURITY. HE HAS DECIDED TO CARRY OUT RESOLUTION 1441, AS IT IS HIS SWORN DUTY TO PROTECT THE US CITIZENS. (sorry for the shouting, just wanted to make the point)

I happen to have more faith in Bush than the posters in this thread. That's our main disagreement. I don't want war, I have evaluated the evidence and agree with the president. LIstening to the posters in here will make me look more closely at what Bush does, so you have all succeeded in a way!



"And while I am glad that US interferred with WWII in europe, maybe they should back away from their world-police attitude a little, because there are a lot of country's out there that dont want to be helped, and who are just not ready for democracy yet, especially when it means having a ruler instated by some rich superpower (their point of view, not mine!!!, honestly) a few thousand miles away."


You have a point. I admit the Bush administration is a little arrogent, they should tread more carefully. In the end I agree with them, I just wish they would calm the talk a bit.


"How would the US feel, if suddenly some people from out of space came, replaced the president, gave them a new political system etc. etc.? Even if they would be better off in the long run, they still would try everything to fight those aliens, because they would rob them off their freedom of choice."

That's really not a fair question. We HAVE freedom of choice now, we change leadership every 4 years, our leaders don't kill and torture us. If they did all that, maybe we would welcome CHOICE.


"This may seem a little far off, but I didnt find another example "


Good points Tophy. I guess if I were in another country I could be afraid that the US could flippantly decide that MY country needed new leadership, leadership more supportive of US positions. Believe me, I don't want a US that acts in a capricious manner. I'll be the first to protest if I believe we're doing that, or if I think our aims become imperialistic.

Come on guys, you've all opened my eyes a bit, isn't there any middle ground? If I'm the right-wing conservative you're worried about, then you have nothing to worry about!

Without the pressure the US is putting on Iraq right now there would have been no 12000 page document, no allowing inspectors back in, no U2 flyovers, no interviewing scientists (albiet it while being taped, therefore useless), no destroying missiles.

You must admit that Hussain will only give as much as needed to keep the US off his back, he is playing a game. The US is the "bad" guy, the UN has the line of "hey, I'm trying to keep the US off you, just come clean!" I know that's simplistic, but it has much truth in it. I can see this policy could be scary to other nations.

[Hulk]

Originally posted by thop
You're right, i made an opinion and i'm sort of backing away from it.
I have decided to stay out of political discussions here after the Soap Box was closed. You can read up my opinion in every thread about the iraq thing there, it has all been said already.
It appears i couldn't hold myself back though when i posted the Atta thing, sorry won't happen again

thop,

You are a stand up guy. I'd vote for you!

[Hulk]

why enforce one resolution if you won't enforce another is not sound for many reasons, here are a few:"

This basically makes the UN a joke. If the UN gives the OK to invade Iraq on the reason "They are violating UN sanctions", then the same should be done towards everyone else that are against their sanctions. Picking and choosing as you please will just create alot of bad blood between many nations.

Since the UN have Khadafi and Arrafat on their comittee, I personally think they are a joke.

"On the other hand, Iraq is a concern of American security,"

I don't think your goverment has conveyed this message properly. They still haven't stated as to why Iraq is a threat. I only watch CNN from time to time so that said, all I see is that Iraq has missiles that can go 150 miles or so. That being said, people are under the impression that this is to protect Israel, hence, the old arguement "this is all becuase of the Israel/Palestine conflict" comes up every time.

The missile violation is only one violation. The real problem is the question of the biological and chemical weapons. And the nuke technology. Saddam will hold out that stuff until right before the war, then he'll trickle something out.

"If they called Bush a moron do they not deserve to take a shot in return?"

Yep, you guys do, but that isn't how it actually happened. The term Dino came out from day 1 that Bush got into power. No one here made a big deal out of it, in fact, many had a good laugh. Last year, some women in our PM's party was overheard by a reporter calling Bush a moron. Your news took it to the extreme for 1 week and they actually demanded for her resignation. I don't know what was said between both goverments but she did resign.

I'm not up on the details of this so I really can't comment. Calling for a resignation for name calling seems crazy. I do know that Bush takes a lot of bashing, and our media (except for Fox) is, in liberal slanted.


For everyone's sake in the States, I just hope you guys find the WMP. If you don't, lord knows what kind of a revenge trip these sleeper sells are going to be on. Hopefully, the new prisoner you have will start talking.

I must disagree here. We are not going to be able to make these cell any madder, I don't believe in appeasing them in any way. The Iraqi's who are liberated will speak loudly for the US in a positive manner. And we won't find the WMD, the liberated Iraqi's will lead us straight to them!

[Hulk]

Palestine/Israel..
"The US doesn't come down on Israel anymore.. mainly because..
it happened to them.. on sept. 11th they got a taste of nut case
Islamists.. and the US is about to set off and do what Israel
has been blamed for doing for many years.. pre-emptive elimination of a threat.. attacking Iraq..
Side Note: The arabs always complain the palestinians
need a country.. but I never seen them give the Kurds back
their country... hippocrytical.. "

Good points.




"Noth Korea.. is not a threat at all.. Since the americans cut handouts to them..
they have no other choice but to fire up the
reactors.. Nasa had a Night shot of north korea..
it was pitch black, no signs of any light anywhere.. so they're just trying to
pressure the US into giving back the handouts..
and if they
want to make nukes.. why not.. it's their right.. the US has
tons of them.. so what if they make a few... it's not like they're
going to fire it at anyone.. "

I agree.

"Iraq..
For all intents the USA has the worst track record in the middle
east.. The Shaw of Iran dealt with the russians.. so the US funded
the Khamenie to overthrow the secular (non psycho religious) king.
well it worked.. and then a new enemy was borne..
so they gave money to saddam to overthow Khamenie.. well strike 2..
let's add afganistan to the list.. of funding your own demise..
The crap that's there today is partially US's fault. it's about time
they fix it.."

So far so good...


"But attacking Iraq right now makes no sense..
Hesbollah has killed more americans than al-qeida and Iraq put together..
so why isn't Syria the target? they a much larger threat,
it's predicted they will have a nuclear weapon in the next
4 years.. they might already have it.. same goes for Iran
they just about to get a nuke..

Don't get me wrong.. I'm far from some tree hugging peace
whimp.. I'd like to see Saddam's head on a pike
but he's not an immeadiate threat.. "


Okay, I can understand your point of view.
Syria isn't the target because they didn't invade Kuwait, agree to surrender conditions, and then violate those conditions.


Good points, I must admit.

[Topha]

"How would the US feel, if suddenly some people from out of space came, replaced the president, gave them a new political system etc. etc.? Even if they would be better off in the long run, they still would try everything to fight those aliens, because they would rob them off their freedom of choice."

That's really not a fair question. We HAVE freedom of choice now, we change leadership every 4 years, our leaders don't kill and torture us. If they did all that, maybe we would welcome CHOICE.


Okay, so you can vote, I'll grant that

But it was a very theoretical question, and those are never fair. I just wanted to point out that Americans would fight for their independence, while they seem to expect everyone else to be willing to depend on them.

[Hulk]

Sometimes people aren't able to win thier independence in a fight, sometimes they need help. The US needed help from France during the Revolution, then we helped them 150 years later.

Okay, this is my last post!

[Topha]

Originally posted by Hulk
Okay, this is my last post!

yeah right

just kidding, if all the current issue threads were like this, we would still have the soap box

but hey, we got the lounge now

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by Topha
Fact of the matter is, and I posted that before, that Saddams was funded by the US, just like Osama bin Laden was trained by the US. In the end its all about oil, influence, etc., in short: Money and Power.

No this isn't about oil, everytime we see a mid-east country in chaos we fear the oil thing, truth be known the USA gets more oil from Canada and Mexico than Iraq. [And that isn't combined totals either]

And if and when the war is over we will continue to get the oil we do from Iraq the same way we currently do and that price is decided by the markets.

So if this was about oil, we would get more mileage from our bombing dollar to bomb Canada and Mexico instead.

[Hacker]

Hi,
I still hope Hulk is going to reply.
Many of the points have been raised and answered, still, I have some questions to ask or points to make:

1. You (Hulk) and even Ray are saying it's not about oil, money, or power. Could it be that it is about this all but with a, well, "legitimate" reason - to free the world from a tyrant?
I am not pro killing anyone, but it might be just that I am still young, naive and idealistic.

2. The point of other countries possessing nuclear weapons has been raised. What about China?

3. Concerning the Anti-American mood - I think one of the reasons might be, "IRAQ is first, who is going to be next?". Topha raised that already. I think many countries feel endangered by what they see as the US's power to do whatever they want with whichever country they want. They see no force to stop the US in case they just decide to invade any country they want (not saying it is likely to happen). The US don't even respect the UN, as it seems. (Don't say Saddam doesn't, either, that was not my point.)

4. Why is Saddam threatening US security so much more than any other dictator in the world (say, Castro)? Nuclear weapons? They weren't involved in 9/11 but you still say 9/11 is the reason for all this, let me call it offensive precautions. Anyone can repeat 9/11 with the necessary logistics (right word?). Of course, the security makes it much harder, but will removing Saddam stop terrorists?

5. Why is everybody saying Saddam but not George?

TIA
Roman

P.S.: I actually came here to ask about A/V desync when using an MP3 codec (Radium, Lame).

[Debbie]

Pardon me intruding. Is this a Desstop Video Forum or a Political one.

God Bless You All,

Debbie

[Hulk]

"Hi,
I still hope Hulk is going to reply.
Many of the points have been raised and answered, still, I have some questions to ask or points to make:

1. You (Hulk) and even Ray are saying it's not about oil, money, or power. Could it be that it is about this all but with a, well, "legitimate" reason - to free the world from a tyrant?
I am not pro killing anyone, but it might be just that I am still young, naive and idealistic."

Hello, okay, I'm still game.
As I said before I believe it's about:
1. WMD still not accounted for and the security threat they pose to the US directly from the current regime in Iraq or other operatives that may get thier hands on them, with or without Hussain's consent, it could occur in a hostile takeover of the current regime by forces other than the US.

2. 17 material breeches of the UN resolutions, and the ineffectiveness of the inspections due to lack of cooperation of Iraq over the last 12 years. Failure to comply with 1441.

3. Liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator who has invaded his neighbor and gassed and tortured his own people.



"2. The point of other countries possessing nuclear weapons has been raised. What about China?"

When China (or North Korea, or the US for that matter), invades it's neighbor, is pushed back by the UN, and then has 17 UN violations, THEN they will be in the same boat as Iraq. Yes, NK did invade SK, but that was fifty years ago, different leadership. Unfortunately, the "game" will have to begin anew with them.

Also, as you can image, the reality of nuclear weapons dicates different procedure to deal with a country that has them. That is why Iraq must be disarmed BEFORE they acquire nuclear capability.

"3. Concerning the Anti-American mood - I think one of the reasons might be, "IRAQ is first, who is going to be next?". Topha raised that already. I think many countries feel endangered by what they see as the US's power to do whatever they want with whichever country they want. They see no force to stop the US in case they just decide to invade any country they want (not saying it is likely to happen). The US don't even respect the UN, as it seems. (Don't say Saddam doesn't, either, that was not my point.)"

The next country to invade it's neighbor, surrender to UN forces, and then break the surrender conditions with 17 UN violations will be next. Really, the US isn't be capricious about this, it's been last chance after last chance for Iraq. The reason the US has no respect for the UN is the same reason the League of Nations fell apart, it became an arguing society that never had the will to enforce it's decisions.


"4. Why is Saddam threatening US security so much more than any other dictator in the world (say, Castro)? Nuclear weapons? They weren't involved in 9/11 but you still say 9/11 is the reason for all this, let me call it offensive precautions. Anyone can repeat 9/11 with the necessary logistics (right word?). Of course, the security makes it much harder, but will removing Saddam stop terrorists?"

Terrorism is not the only reason to stop Saddam, as I said above. It's the 17 UN violations and his unwillingness to comply. That's a question you should put to the UN, THEY are the ones who voted for 1441, but sadly, they will not enforce it.

On another note, seeing that Saddam pays homocide bombers families, his removal may slow the funding of such events.

Further, just because taking out one terrorist won't stop it completely doesn't mean you don't continue to fight back. 9/11 was simply a wake-up call for this country, as you can see the US believe some of the security council is still sleeping. We are concerned about ALL threats, and trying to force Iraq to comply with the UN mandate.



"5. Why is everybody saying Saddam but not George?"

I don't know!



"P.S.: I actually came here to ask about A/V desync when using an MP3 codec (Radium, Lame). "


I've never had problem with A/V sync using mp3 files, but then again I ALWAYS convert mp3 files to wav format before using them in any video project.