Here's my take...keep in mind I'm not necessarily 'pro-war' but when something is necessary something is necessary and I can darn sure understand it.

Plain and simple:

Has Iraq dis-armed? No. Do they have ANY REASON AT ALL TO HAVE NOT DIS-ARMED? Nope.

This isnt on Bush and this isnt about oil. This is on Saddam. He's had years upon years upon years to do this. This is all on him to be non-secretive, non-deceptive, non-shady, and totally forthcoming. This isnt up to us or the UN to search out this evidence (although we've had to), it's on Iraq to willingly and totally bring it to US. Have they? Nope. What have they been? Secretive, deceptive, shady, and totally unforthcoming.

Now what do we do? Kick his butt. Why? Because he's had this coming from his OWN actions (and non-actions). He's been ****ing everyone around now for 12 yrs and Bush is the only one with enough ***** to take care of it.

I dont expect everyone to be 'pro-war' but I just dont see how everyone cant see how/why democracy has failed and there's a need now to use force. War is sadly sometimes necessary, and this is one of those times.

Iraq also isnt the same as N. Korea and other countries people are trying to liken them to. These other countries dont have specific sanctions and resolutions that flat out ban these weapons and strategies, etc.

Anyone saying this stuff about Bush being a war happy oil grabber should also probably realize Clinton REALLY wanted to do this in '98 but backed off knowing the UN wouldnt go for it and that he'd be passing on these problems when he left...

Tidbit on France. Know who France's #1 trading partner is? Iraq. Hmm...

These anti-war protests are waaaaay out of hand and these people quite frankly boggle my mind. My message to the protestors:

Get out of the streets people you're doing absolutely NO good and you look like freaking morons with your 'no blood for oil' crap. If you claim to be protesting for a 'cause' why not get on a plane and go give some first hand help? Cluttering up our streets and creating chaos here certainly does NO good. If you're not gonna get your *** over there and help them first hand then STFU idiots. You have Saddam's gratitude as this is exactly what he wanted from you.

God Bless America and all the troops over there fighting for this.

 

why shouldn't people be allowed to voice their opinions?? its their right as an AMERICAN! why would they go over to Iraq, when the cemter of the problem is in this country?? I agree some protests get out of hand, but don't label all protestors as morons, simply cause you don't agree with their views or methods they use to voice opinions...the right to protest is one of the most important rights!

 

It looks like James was just venting and I understand what he means becuase my dailylife was disrupted yesterday because of some of these morons. Disrupting the normal daily lives is not the way to protest. If people want to protest and get their point accross then organize a march on Washington. 1 million protestors marching on Washington would wow me. A few thousand people sitting in the middle of the street disrupting the peace doesn't wow me and p*sses normal people off. If I was undecided and came across what I came across yesterday I'd probably lean more towards supporting the war just to spite some of these people.

I have no problems with protesting for what you believe but do it in a sensible way and have common courtesy for the general population...

 

oh yeah I know...this war is effecting everyone in different ways and "venting" will be expected. but I deal with this protesting everday down here in DC, my girl is in school downtown so going to see her is more of a bother. but thankfully there haven't been any major occurances here in DC. but I can deal with it, its probably easier for me since I agree with majority of the protestors points as opposed to someone "for the war".

 

Does anyone know how to get into touch with the troops?? I would look to write a soldier some mail, as a nice jesture for what they are doing. I think it would be great if a lot of us Maxima owners took 10 minutes to write a letter to our troop!!!! I mean if you have time to check this thread, you have the time to write a simple letter.

 

AGREED!

i went to my old university yesterday and saw flyers for protesting the war. It said for people to come together at noon or something like that. My question is: what good will this gathering do besides disrupting other students?

hopefully none of these protests get out of hand. i believe cops arrested 1000 protestors yesterday.

 

To find out where to send mail for soldiers, contact your local VFW.

Now, as far as protesting goes, I don't show my support for liberating oppressed people in a foreign country by standing in the middle of busy intersections and bridges in America, so don't protest by doing it. Call the local news stations and go protest in a park or something. In closing, if 75% of this country is supporting this war, why is it I only see the 100 protesters on TV, and not the MILLIONS of people supporting the war? SHOW YOUR SUPPORT PEOPLE!

 

it'll do a lot of good, because it shows that college students actually think about more than beer and partying! and actually care about whats going on in this world!

I'm here at University of MD...there have been mass protests all week, sometimes excess of 500 people gathered on the mall and marching, no disruptions, no arrests, no problems. and this is at the same school that burned down and rioted on Route 1 causing millions in damage when we lost to Duke...

 

I agree with you that Saddam is not a good person but my point is there are many bad people who rule countries, are we going to take all of them out? 500,000 people were killed in Rawanda a few years ago, why didn't we go in there and kill the leaders of that country? North Korea is starving it's population and publicly shows it's weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. is doing nothing, it wants diplomacy to work there, why?

As of this morning, Turkey has gone back on it's word and will not let U.S. airplanes use its airspace, got it from CNN. Turkey has it's own agenda in Iraq, it wants to suppress the Kurds and the U.S. won't let it and that is why they won't let us use their land and airspace. Aside from Turkey and Israel, are there any other democracies in the Middle East, NO. All of the U.S. friends in the region are dictatorships, let me list them,
- Egypt, ruled by Hosni Mubarak as a dictatorship since 1981,
- Saudi Arabia, ruled by the house of Saud as a Monorachy(dictatorship), there is no dissent allowed in Saudi Arabia, so how are they different from Iraq, why don't we take over Saudi Arabia first(I would support that). Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq. Saudi Arabia exports its radical form of Islam worldwide, to Pakistan, to Afganistan(they supported the Taliban).
- Gulf States(Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) are all monarchies, not democracies

So, I am not against liberating people, but why are we being so selective about doing it. Also our economy is spirling down the tube and we are concerned about freeing people half-way around the world, why?

Most of the countries on the list are supporting us because they don't want to antagonize us or they were bribed. U.S. tried to strong arm Mexico, but they resisted and went public when the strong arming started, so the U.S. backed off. I read this in last week's Time magazine.

Last time I checked, missiles were not "weapons of mass destruction". If he used chemical or biological weapons then I will agree with you. You are wrong when you state that France and others will support us now that Saddam has launched a few missiles at us. What they actually said was that if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons, they will support us. So far he has not used them, if he even has them. As far as Pres. Bush is concerned, I just don't trust him. I guess that is what it comes down to, trust. Pres. Bush and his administration wants all Americans to just fall in line behind him, he wants no dissent. Is that the American way? What proof has Pres. Bush given to anyone that can show that this war is justified? Pres. Bush says that Saddam is a threat to America, I want to know how is a person sitting thousands of miles away from America a threat to us. Saddam does not have intercontinental missiles that are capable of reaching America.

I feel that I am educated enough on this subject to offer my opinions, looks like we both are passionate about our beliefs and have expressed them so. I will say again that I support our troops 100%, I am not one of those anti-war protesters in the streets, but I feel that Pres. Bush has not been honest to us about why we are fighting over there and many of our troops are going to die for nothing and that is wrong in my opinion. Peace.

 

Yes, if we continue to have leaders with a backbone, eventually, we will take them all out. There are legal processes that must be gone through before our nation will do that though. We didn't just decide one day to attack Iraq. Iraq is in defiance of NUMEROUS international laws. They are violating NUMEROUS treaties, and they are willing and able to provide weapons to terrorist groups or states. If other nations decide to follow that same doctrine, then I fully believe that we should take them out too. There is a difference between Iraq and N. Korea. N.Korea isn't YET violating NUMEROUS treaties and international laws. They are also NOT publicly showing ANY weapons of mass destruction. There is no international law preventing N. Korea from building missiles with the range that they have developed. They are not flaunting chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons (yet), and as of yet, there is no evidence that they are providing terrorist states with any weapons. THAT is the difference. And (this part is just my opinion), I dare say that if G.W. Bush had been President during Rwanda, we would have taken out that regime, too.

Quote:

As of this morning, Turkey has gone back on it's word and will not let U.S. airplanes use its airspace, got it from CNN. Turkey has it's own agenda in Iraq, it wants to suppress the Kurds and the U.S. won't let it and that is why they won't let us use their land and airspace. Aside from Turkey and Israel, are there any other democracies in the Middle East, NO. All of the U.S. friends in the region are dictatorships, let me list them,
- Egypt, ruled by Hosni Mubarak as a dictatorship since 1981,
- Saudi Arabia, ruled by the house of Saud as a Monorachy(dictatorship), there is no dissent allowed in Saudi Arabia, so how are they different from Iraq, why don't we take over Saudi Arabia first(I would support that). Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq. Saudi Arabia exports its radical form of Islam worldwide, to Pakistan, to Afganistan(they supported the Taliban).
- Gulf States(Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) are all monarchies, not democracies

So, I am not against liberating people, but why are we being so selective about doing it. Also our economy is spirling down the tube and we are concerned about freeing people half-way around the world, why?

Your information on Turkey is not completely correct. Their parliament has voted for it, it just hasn't been agreed how to implement it yet. I would insert a comment about CNN here, but I think it would be too obvious. I can't stomach CNN. They report the news very... ummm... liberally, to say the least. Fox News, please.

Now, about the "monarchies" that you have listed. They are not all "traditional" monarchies, in the truest sense. Their laws are slanted much more toward freedom and choice than those of Iraq ever have been. Now, I would guess, if, in the future, any of those monarchies decided to begin persecuting their citizens, we would respond. Let us not forget, technically, the UK is still a monarchy as well.

To label Egypt a "friend" of the US would be a bit of a stretch. And concerning Saudi Arabia... where did you get your information about dissent not being allowed? I have a family member who has worked in that nation regularly over a period of many years, and his opinion is that, while the Saudi's are a deeply religious citizenry, they are nowhere near as "suppressed" as many would believe them to be. Perhaps in the outlying areas, there are clans that are more rigidly structured (I'm sure that's where many of the 9-11 hijackers were trained), but in their major cities, universities, and ports, they are a much more "free" people than you think. Hell, there are some outlying areas in the US that regularly practice bigotry and hatred! Our friends in the region, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Israel, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc... are ALL examples of either democracy or "free monarchy", if you will.

About the economy... in the long run, what is more important... cheaper gas and richer rich people, or leaving the world in a state of relative security so that our great-great-grandchildren still have a civilized world to live in? I vote for the future.

Quote:

Most of the countries on the list are supporting us because they don't want to antagonize us or they were bribed. U.S. tried to strong arm Mexico, but they resisted and went public when the strong arming started, so the U.S. backed off. I read this in last week's Time magazine.

This is nothing more than a product of more "liberal" reporting. If you don't think that the US could "force" their influence on Mexico and "encourage" them to join the coalition, then you are sadly misinformed. What happened is... Mexico, another FREE nation VOTED not to join the coalition openly. Period. And I dare say that they are more than likely one of the "behind the scenes" supporters of the US.

Quote:

Last time I checked, missiles were not "weapons of mass destruction". If he used chemical or biological weapons then I will agree with you. You are wrong when you state that France and others will support us now that Saddam has launched a few missiles at us. What they actually said was that if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons, they will support us. So far he has not used them, if he even has them. As far as Pres. Bush is concerned, I just don't trust him. I guess that is what it comes down to, trust. Pres. Bush and his administration wants all Americans to just fall in line behind him, he wants no dissent. Is that the American way? What proof has Pres. Bush given to anyone that can show that this war is justified? Pres. Bush says that Saddam is a threat to America, I want to know how is a person sitting thousands of miles away from America a threat to us. Saddam does not have intercontinental missiles that are capable of reaching America.

I didn't say that France would support us now. I said that they are being made a fool of, and that they will end up with egg on their face for backing him.

Second, I support the President. It's not a matter of "trusting" only him. Do you think, for one minute, that he alone could pull the wool over the eyes of the entire nation? No, he couldn't. If you have a distrust of government, then so be it. But, you can't say that you don't support the war because you "don't trust the President".

As far as proof... what more could you ask for??? The man is INSANE! He tortures people. He invades sovereign nations. He defies the world by keeping weapons in his arsenal that have been BANNED by the international community! He hides weapons that he has been told, by the entire world, to get rid of. Is that not proof?!?

No, Saddam does not have a missile capable of reaching the US. That is irrelevant. He has things like mobile SCUD missile launchers, unaccounted stores of VX, anthrax, ricin, and sarin, and he has attempted to begin a nuclear weapons "procurement" program. All of those things are things that his nation is NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE!!! Were it not for the United States of America, he would likely have more of those things, and tens of thousands more would have died at his hands by now.

Quote:

I feel that I am educated enough on this subject to offer my opinions, looks like we both are passionate about our beliefs and have expressed them so. I will say again that I support our troops 100%, I am not one of those anti-war protesters in the streets, but I feel that Pres. Bush has not been honest to us about why we are fighting over there and many of our troops are going to die for nothing and that is wrong in my opinion. Peace.

I agree, your opinions are welcome. I would fight to the death for your right to disagree with me. That's what it's all about. We will never ALL agree about anything. The only thing I'm concerned about is the number of people, like one certain friend of mine, who turn on the TV, watch the evening news, and then make uneducated decisions about world politics. Knowledge is power. Don't let yourself stop learning. There is ALWAYS another side to the story, and while you might not agree with it, you should, at least, become very familiar with it, so that your decision will be an educated one. Thanks for the spirited conversation. Peace.

 

bush and his group are either lying or being lied to http://www.polyconomics.com/showarti...articleid=2420 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/ma...bush-m20.shtml .The media is a busness http://www.fair.org/media-woes/corporate.html .This war was planed years ago http://64.176.94.191/article2041.htm

 

If you'll notice I was directly referring to the idiots in the streets (and other places) disrupting the daily flow of life. I also didnt label all protestors as morons, just the ones in the streets (and other places) doing moron stuff. Either way protesting isnt THAT effective...

I didnt say people shouldnt be allowed to voice their opinions. I agree the right to protest is one of the most important rights we have, however, in this case is anything going to change because of a few thousand protesters in a country of 250 million? Heck no. These protestors are very delusional if they think they're going to change anything here and are wasting their time at best. If these protestors want to write an article, or some informative books, or voice their opinions in constructive ways then it'd be a different story, but standing in the streets, creating chaos, forming human shields (how STOOPID), yelling at/behind reporters trying to do their jobs, harrassing individuals out and about in the city is stupid, annoying, very offensive and just what Saddam wants.

Although, I also must say that I feel the vast majority of these protestors dont ACTUALLY know what they're protesting for. They just wanna be involved in chaos and blindly bash the Bush administration and push liberal agenda. Probably at the manipulation of these blatant anti-Bush beatniks (for lack of a better word). I can pretty much gaurandamtee the anti-war sentiment wouldnt be this bad had Clinton gone through with it in '98. It seems most of it is hinged on 'no blood for oil' which is HARDLY the case at all, and quite ironic, considering most of these people are the 'educated' and 'enlightened' ones here...

 

 

Good question about Rawanda. Clinton should have done something. If North Korea gets out of hand, something will be done.

The goal is to liberate people in a country that supports terrorists, including those that attacked our civilians in 9/11. And the economy is not "spiraling down the tube". It's slowly recovering from the collapse at the end of the Clinton adminstration, which was exacerbated by 9/11. Note the stock market just had the biggest increase in 20 years this week.

Who'd you "check" with? Ballistic missiles capable of carrying chemical, biological and nuclear weapons most certainly are WMD and were defined so by the UN.

Hw certainly used chemical weapons in the past, against both his own people and the Iranians. Reports from the gulf war state he would have used them against us but feared nuclear retaliation. He may very well use them before this one is over in a desperate attempt to inflict casualties.

Not sure what you mean about Bush wanting no dissent. Who says that? People are entitled to their opinion. The administration has given plenty of proof that the war is justified. If you don't believe it, that's your perogative. It seems obvious to me Saddam was merely fooling the UN inspectors, launch of Scud missiles that supposedly didn't exist illustrate the point. And it is also obvious to me that a terrorist financed and supplied with anthrax, smallpox or chemical weapons by Saddam are a very real risk to all of us in America. If nothing else, 9/11 should have taught that lesson.

Take a look at the Iraqis cheering Americans as liberators. It should speak volumes as to whether this is a just war...

 

1. Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. True or False.

False. The U.S. Armed Forces only consider a nuclear weapon a weapon of mass destruction. Iraq has neither nuclear weapons nor chemical or biological weapons, although it may possess some of the ingredients that would enable it to develop a chemical or biological weapon.

2. Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction in the past. True or False.

False. Iraq had a program to develop a nuclear weapon and acquired a design for one that would use highly-enriched uranium (HEU), but was unable to produce more than a few grams of HEU when it would take several hundred pounds to make one nuke.

3. White House officials assert that Iraq has been training terrorists. True or False.

False. Iraq did support a terrorist network prior to 1983, but in that year the U.S. offered to provide support for Baghdad in its war against Iran on condition that it withdraw support from the network. There is no evidence it has resumed.

4. Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda’s terrorist forces have been operating inside Iraq. True or False.

True. Al Qaeda is known to have operatives inside Iraq, but in Kurdistan, outside the reach of the Baghdad government.

5. In March 1988, Saddam Hussein committed genocide, killing several thousand Iraqi Kurds at Halabja with poison gas. True or False.

False. According to the CIA, “hundreds” of Iraqi Kurds died at Halabja when caught between the Iraqi and Iranian armies, both of whom used gas. The U.S. government in 1990 concluded the Kurds who died were victims of a cyanide-based gas, which the Iranians possessed, but not the Iraqi army, which used mustard gas.

6. In August 1988, Saddam Hussein committed genocide, killing 100,000 Iraqi Kurds with machine guns, then burying them in mass graves. True or False.

False. This is an assertion of Human Rights Watch, which originally reported in 1988 that 100,000 Kurds had been killed by poison gas. When U.S. intelligence services uniformly dismissed this as a possibility and that there was no evidence of mass graves in Kurdistan, Human Rights Watch altered its story to say the Kurds were put in trucks, driven south, machine gunned outside of Kurdistan, and buried in mass graves. No such mass graves have been found and the U.S. Army War College says none exist, that the story was a “non-event.”

7. In June 1990, Saddam Hussein asked permission of the United States to settle his border dispute with Kuwait, with force if diplomacy failed. True or False.

True. Iraq argued that Kuwait was cheating on its OPEC agreement to produce only a certain amount of oil per day, and was driving down the international price of oil. Saddam said his country would be bankrupt unless Kuwait relented and compensated Iraq from what it had stolen from Iraq, by overproducing and by slant-drilling into the Iraqi oilfields on the other side of the Kuwait border.

8. In 1990, the United States advised Saddam Hussein that his issues with Kuwait were a local matter, and that the U.S. had no diplomatic obligation to defend Kuwait if attacked by Iraq. True or False.

True. The U.S. State Department testified before congressional committees to that effect: at the time Saddam Hussein was weighing his options with Kuwait.

9. Saddam Hussein personally assured the United States Ambassador to Baghdad that he would take no military action against Kuwait if the emir of Kuwait -- in a meeting scheduled to take place in July 1990 -- agreed to end its “economic warfare”” against Iraq. True or False.

True. The Ambassador, April Glaspie, was assured and left on vacation. The emir of Kuwait decided not to show up at the meeting in Baghdad, with assurances from the Pentagon that it would defend Kuwait without an agreement to do so. Saddam invaded.

10. After quickly occupying Kuwait, the Iraqi army positioned itself on the border of Saudi Arabia and threatened an invasion. True or False.

False. The U.S. government advised King Fahd that Iraq was poised to invade Saudi Arabia. King Fahd sent scouts to check and they could find no sign of the Iraqi army. But when the Pentagon showed aerial photographs of the army, King Fahd agreed to join the coalition. Commercial aerial photographs of the region subsequently showed no signs of any Iraqi army movement at the border area. The details are still Pentagon classified.

11. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990, Iraq immediately offered to negotiate a withdrawal in response to the UN demand that it do so. True or False.

True.

 

12. Before President Bush gave the go-ahead for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Saddam Hussein agreed to unconditional surrender, and began moving his troops out of Kuwait. True or False.

False. There was no “surrender,” but two days before Desert Storm, USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev informed President Bush that Saddam had agreed to leave Kuwait without conditions, and in fact Radio Baghdad reported its troops would be returning. As U.S. ground troops moved into Kuwait from Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi Republican Guard was already moving back into Iraq. When Colin Powell said the plan was to encircle the Republican Guard and “kill it,” he did not know the elite troops were already gone.

13. The reason the United States and its coalition allies only lost 143 troops in the Gulf War is that the Iraqi army was ill-equipped, demoralized, and did not put up a fight. True or False.

False. The Iraqi army had been ordered to withdraw and it only provided a cover for retreat. Its conscripts suffered heavy casualties as the coalition forces fired upon the retreating army in what became known as “the turkey shoot.”

14. The Iraqi army committed atrocities during the brief occupation of Kuwait, including the killings of Kuwaiti newborn infants by taking them out of their incubators. True or False.

False. The Kuwait government hired a NY public relations firm to drum up support for U.S. military action to oust Iraq. The firm came up with the atrocity story, which was subsequently exposed when it was revealed the source was the daughter of the Kuwait information minister, who claimed to be in the hospital.

15. When the Gulf War ended in 1991, the United Nations resolved that the economic embargo on Iraq would be lifted if Iraq destroyed its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs within six months. Iraq refused to do so. True or False.

False. Iraq did not refuse to do so, but spent the next six months destroying all the nuclear, chemical and biological programs that it had been working on in the 1980's. When the UN inspectors arrived, they complained that Iraq should not have destroyed the weapons, but should have waited for the inspectors to verify their existence and supervise their destruction. Several of the “gaps” in the inspection process that UNMOVIC says are still open involve this early snafu.

16. White House officials now insist U.S. policy toward Iraq changed from disarmament to “regime change” in the Clinton administration. True or False.

False. “Regime change” was the policy of the first Bush administration, which never intended to lift the sanctions on Iraq until Saddam Hussein had been deposed. It was, though, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who was the first official to say publicly in 1997 that the U.S. would oppose the lifting of sanctions as long as Saddam was in power, no matter what the inspectors found. But President Bush had said as much in 1991. Former President Nixon also urged his followers to oppose lifting of the sanctions as long as Saddam remained in power.

17. In early 1993, Saddam Hussein ordered the assassination of former President Bush while he was visiting Kuwait City, the assassin confessing he had been given a bomb by the Iraqi secret service. True or False.

False. At the time, the CIA reported the Iraqi secret service must have been involved, as the bomb found by the Kuwaiti police had the wiring “signature” of the Iraqis. In his December 5, 1993 investigative report in The New Yorker, “A Case Not Closed,” Seymour Hersh found the wiring was of the most common sort. It was more likely Kuwait was alarmed at the statements of the new President, Bill Clinton, who said he was open to negotiations with Baghdad and the lifting of the sanctions. The “assassination” report ended all possibility Clinton could do so, and left him with the “regime change” policy.

18. The “No-Flight” zones in Northern and Southern Iraq that have been since 1992 by the U.S. and British air forces were authorized by the United Nations to protect the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the Iraqi Shi’ites in the South. True or False.

False. There has been no UN authorization for “No-Flight” zones, which are the creations of the U.S. government on the rationale that they are needed to protect the Kurds and the southern Shi’ites. The policy was created when the U.S. encouraged the Kurds and Shi’ites to revolt against Baghdad after the Gulf War.

19. Saddam Hussein drove all the Jews out of Iraq after the 1967 Israeli war against Egypt. True or False.

False. It was the previous government of Abdul Karim Kassim that encouraged the some 200,000 Jews of Iraq to leave, given the hostile reaction to the ‘67 war among Iraqi Muslims. The Ba’ath Party government that followed did hang some Jews as Israeli spies, but there never has been persecution of Iraqi Jews by the Ba’ath government and there are still two functioning synagogues in Iraq. Seven percent of the population is Catholic.

20. In 1998, Saddam Hussein refused to permit the UN inspectors to come onto presidential palace sites and when they insisted, he kicked them out of Iraq. True or False.

False. The original 1991 UN resolutions the created the first inspection regime allowed Iraq to keep the palace grounds off limits. In 1998, though, faced with threats of bombing by the Clinton administration, Iraq opened all “sensitive sites” including the palaces to UNSCOM inspectors as long as certain modalities were followed. It was when the inspectors asked to inspect the Ba’ath Party headquarters in Baghdad for evidence of WMD without regard to the agreed-upon modalities that Iraq refused entry. This led the U.S. State Department to instruct the inspectors to leave Iraq as the incident was deemed sufficient for the U.S. to bomb Iraq. The fallout from the incident led the United Nations to dissolve UNSCOM and create UNMOVIC, which takes the inspectors out of control of the U.S. or any other government.

21. Even if Iraq now has no nuclear weapons program, it could start one up as soon as the UN inspectors leave and have a nuclear weapon within six months or a year. True or False.

False. Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s in violation of its agreement not seek nuclear weapons under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It could do so because it could import the materials needed to build a nuke and assemble them in places unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA in 1998 closed this loophole, which means that all materials that could conceivably be used to build a nuke or make fissile material have to be cleared through a Nuclear Suppliers Group. And even after the IAEA inspection team completes its work under UNSC 1441, it will retain the right to repeat inspections of Iraq under new protocols developed by the agency to make the process airtight

 

speech by President Bush 3/20/03: Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.”

The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by September 11, 2001.

Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.”

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...”

Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.

Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.”

According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: “[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”

Lie No. 5: “The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were concerned “about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems.” The article quoted “a senior intelligence analyst” who said the inspectors could not locate weapons caches “because there may not be much of a stockpile.”

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound “daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

Lie No. 6: “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”

No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks.

It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against Washington in the 1990s.

Lie No. 7: “America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.”

The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush’s most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.

Lie No. 8: “These governments [the Security Council majority] share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.”

This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries opposed to military action, which have repeatedly declared that they see no imminent threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the Security Council as cowards, as though they were afraid to take action against Saddam Hussein. These countries were, in fact, increasingly alarmed—by the United States, not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up resolve, to the shock of the Bush administration, it was to deny UN support for the war that Washington had already decided to wage.

Lie No. 9: “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.”

Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war: 250,000 from the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia. The other members of the “broad coalition” are those which have been bribed or browbeaten to allow the US to fly over their countries to bomb Iraq, to station troops, ships or warplanes on their territory, or provide technical assistance or other material aid to the war. None will do any fighting. All are acting against the expressed desire of their own population.

Lie No. 10: “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.”

Bush defines the UN body’s responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp for whatever action the United States government demands. In relation to the UN, however, the United States does have definite responsibilities, including refraining from waging war without Security Council authorization, except in the case of immediate self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is for the Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision to “enforce” its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the Security Council is a violation of international law.

 

speech cont: Lie No. 11: “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”



The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial bombardment of Iraq so devastating that it will “shock and awe” the Iraqi people and compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse. According to one press preview, US and British forces “plan to launch the deadliest first night of air strikes on a single country in the history of air power. Hundreds of targets in every region of Iraq will be hit simultaneously.” Estimates of likely Iraqi civilian casualties from the immediate impact of bombs and missiles range from thousands to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when the long-term effects are included.

Lie No. 12: “As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.”

This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which underwrites the feeding of 60 percent of Iraq’s population. As for medicine, the US has systematically deprived the Iraqi people of needed medicine for the past 12 years, insisting that even the most basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, be banned as “dual-use” items that could be used in a program of biological warfare.

Lie No. 13: “We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”

The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime in Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the US government has been the leading promoter of dictatorships around the world, from Pinochet of Chile to Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself, who, according to one recent report, got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.

A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles Times of March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was unlikely to arise from the devastation of war, it suggested that this was not even desirable from the standpoint of American interests, because “anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.”

Lie No. 14: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.”

This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has taken every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing the resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised hostility and directing its venom against those countries that have suggested a diplomatic settlement with Iraq is achievable. In prosecuting the war, the Bush administration is indeed prepared to use “every measure,” up to an including nuclear weapons, in order to win it.

Lie No. 15: “War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.”

There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices in blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But for Bush’s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of American society, there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the administration is seeking a tax cut package of over $700 billion, including the abolition of taxation on corporate dividends. Major US corporations are in line to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure shattered by the coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the Bush administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its payroll.

Lie No. 16: “[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.”

Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to blame the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is no different. His hypocritical statements of “concern” for the Iraqi people cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration apologists freely admit, this is “a war of choice”—deliberately sought by the US government to pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle East.

Lie No. 17: “The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”

No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said that a US conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands of Arabs and Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world and beyond, will spark more terrorism, not less.

Lie No. 18: “We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.”

This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen a steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never been a threat to any “free nation,” if that term has any meaning, only to the reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to neighboring Iran, all ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.

Lie No. 19: “As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.”

The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways—claiming to enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq (“the just demands of the world”), while flagrantly defying the will of the majority of the Security Council, the majority of the world’s governments, and the vast majority of the world’s people.

Lie No. 20: “Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.”

For “the Iraqi people,” substitute “the Egyptian people,” “the people of the Arabian peninsula,” “the Pakistani people” or those of other US-backed dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live under a brutal Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington. Does the US government believe that any of them are “deserving and capable of human liberty?” When the parliament of Turkey, under the pressure of popular opposition, voted to bar the US from using Turkish territory to invade Iraq, the Bush administration appealed to the Turkish military to pressure the government into overturning this democratic decision.

 

Where did you cut and paste that litany of crap from? I hope you realize the whole thing is a pack of lies...

 

this is the way I see it.

I understand the situation and know why America and its allies must remove Sadam in order to dis-arm Iraq, for all the people asking why Iraq and not others, plain and simple. After the last war he signed a document saying he would dis-arm and wouldnt build any new weapons. Then last year the UN passed a resolution saying that they must dis-arm, every member of the UN voted yes on that resolution. He has built new weapons, if you watched when Colin Powell addressed the UN a few weeks back you could have seen all the evidence, and how Iraq was getting tipped off on when the inspectors were comming and they were moving the weapons around one step ahead of the inspectors. There was also a taped convo of top military officialls talking about taking out any info about biological weapons out of the documents they had to hand over.

As far as other countries not supporting us, well we can start with the big ones.

France, Germany, Russia they are all supposed to be our allies, they all signed the UN resolution. But they all benefit from having Sadam in power ( I forget all the details but Bill Orielly layed them all out)
France has trillion dollar deals with Saddam to develope some of the Iraqi oil fields, thats why they want to keep him, and thats why they kept stalling to keep him there and in power. They get alot of money from having Saddam in power. They also supplied them with parts for fighter jets recently!

France will most likely let us fight the war then when it is time to re-build they will act like they are doing us a favor and offer to help so they can re-gain their peice of what they had and take credit, after all the dirty work is done.

Saddam doesnt care about the Iraqi people, if he did he could have left the country and he could have avoided all of this and there wouldnt be any damage to Iraq, plain and simple

Many people protesting are un-informed (or they sure sound like it when they speak their reasons)

We will provoke another 9-11 : really? what did we do to provoke the first one? If we do not strike first then we allow these terrorists to grow, Yeah Iraq is far away but what happens when Saddam gives some of his WMD's to terrorists???

its about oil : The US and its allies have set up a trust fund in the UN that will take all the money made from Iraq's oil and will make sure the people of Iraq get the money.

We are acting alone and we need the UN : We have the right to protect ourselves, for 11 year since the last war Saddam has been building up his weapons stock pile, if we dont act now who will feel the wrath of those weapons?

What happened to the war on terror?: we are still fighting that war, and this war in Iraq is part of that.

We have to learn fromt he past, what happened in WWII when no one put a stop to hitler when they had a chance? and no this situation isnt exactly the same but its close enough.

Also I just want to stress this. Yes its is a free country but there are laws and in order to protest in public you need a permit, if you stop traffic and cause problems you are doing your country a dis-service by taking police away from more important matters like protecting us from terrorists. Yes everyone has the right to their own opinion but there are right ways and wrong ways to express it.

We also need to support our troops regardless of how you feel about the war,

stay strong Tony and Steve USAF

 

Absolutely right. When you start breaking the law to make a point, you're wrong. Period.

Also, I've got to say... quansung2... if you honestly believe that load of crap you just typed out, you are quite possibly the most miguided person I've heard from yet on the subject of this war. I think 2 of the 20-odd points you made were valid. The rest are nothing more than half-truths or absolute lies. Saddam would love to have a person like you in his cabinet. You appear, to me, to be what my mother likes to call an "educated fool".

 

i hold no validity in those links...

the IP address article ANYONE can do. These sites don't appear to be well established websites that hold a stake in anything. I think i might go put one together now that says the opposite

 

Those 'anti war' liberal weenies out there should live under a dictator for a while. A dictator who uses violence on a daily basis to keep control of his people.

"Stop the violence" Yes, I agree.

The VAST majority out there are FOR the liberation of Iraq. The United Nations tried to make things better in Iraq for 12 years with sanctions and 'strong words'. For some reason, Hussein didn't listen. Now he is being forced to comply.

It's that simple. The country is being taken from Hussein, and given back to the people. They will be MUCH better off when this is all over.

I haven't heard a single intelligent alternative from these anti-war protesters. They just shout 'no blood for oil' ......without having a CLUE what they are talking about.

My $0.02

 

its was not 500000 but 800000, just found out that during 91 war, army killed 700000 iraqi troops,mostly of them were buried by army in mass graves,check Rollings Stones magazine (march 20 issue) for pictures.peace

 

x999999999 you should hear me yell at the tv when I hear some of these peoples comments.

one guy was like "what happened? last year we were looking for ussama now wee in iraq? uhhuc."

 

Damn...I heard their army was only 1.2-1.3 million people. That's a huge ratio of killed soldiers then...

 

Here we go...info on '91 Iraqi army size

1991 Iraq Army Size

 

I wonder if those 'liberal weenie' war protesters realize that without our army, they wouldn't have the freedom to go out in the streets and behave the way they do.

They just take their liberties and freedoms for granted.

The very same people they are protesting about are the same ones that give em' that freedom.

Try making anti-government protests in the streets of a dictatorship! I don't believe anyone who lived in Iraq would have gone out in the streets and said bad things about Hussein! They would be KILLED!

Freedom is not a god given right. It has to be earned and payed for... There have been MANY lives paid to maintain this freedom over the many years we have been a country. Some people need to think carefully about that before joining the crowds of blabbering idiots trash talking our government.

another $0.02

 

 

LOL...

 

 

Some restaurants/bars in Boston have been doing their own form of rebellion against France's decision to not support US-led campaign. For example, French Fries have been renamed "Freedom Fries", signs saying "We don't serve French Whine", and some peoples have outright stopped selling French wine.

On another note...I just want to say that it's really hard to make an educated opinion regarding the Iraqi situation as a common day citizen. We, as US citizens, have limited availability of valid information, and are subjected to constant one-sided arguments in the media. Most of the people here are making their decisions based on what CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, etc etc report. We do not have the facts and information that US intelligence has. We do not know the true intentions/motives behind this war. The US gov't has lied in the past about its motives in order to futher its agenda. President Bush does not instill confidence in me as the president of the world's superpower.

It seems to me like he just wants to finish what his father started, and wants to avenge Saddam's attempt to assassinate George Sr. The Bush administration failed to provide concrete evidence that Iraq has chemical/nuclear/biological weapons. The threat of such an attack was the initial cry from Bush and his administration as a reason to take action against Iraq. Several months of inspections failed to discover any such weapons. Don't forget about the satellites and other classified surveillance that US uses to monitor Iraq, and even those methods have failed to show anything.

Don't get me wrong--Iraq may indeed possess these weapons, but until we can tell FOR SURE, we cannot take action based on presumptions and assumptions. If that is the case, then the US will be fighting wars annually because there are a lot of rogue countries in this world, and many of them wish harm upon US.

I'm undecided whether I support the war or not, but I do support America, and pray for our troops to return safely and quickly. I am not a "dove", nor a "hawk", and would support military action where I feel it's justified, but in the case of Iraq, I do not feel like Bush and his administration made their case strong enough.

Again, I wanted to emphasize that nobody's opinion here is wrong. We, as US citizens, do not have access to all the information and intelligence that our gov't does, so we cannot say for sure what Saddam has or doesn't have. Just because Bush said that we need to take out Saddam and free Iraq from its oppressor doesn't mean that it's his true motive. We do not know what goes on in secret briefings, and behind closed doors. We are simply left with the option of either trusting that our gov't is doing the "right" thing, and representing the will of the American people, which is what a democratic gov't should do.

Let's just all pray for our troops and coalition troops, and hope this thing comes to a quick and "successful" end.

 

i dont know much about American history, but i do know that french people came here and fought British during American revolution around 1776, Lafayette plaza (D.C.), DuPont circle are named after french people to name a few.peace

 

yeah and we saved germany and france in wwII

 

Are you kidding? The french only supported us to advance their own causes. They HATED the english, so they sold us ammunition, gave us war loans, and sent over a few TOKEN troops to aid in our training. Mostly just teaching our soldiers how to march in line and keep their uniforms clean.

History is self-evident in regards to the frenchs' level of cowardice. In the last 100 years, the french have lost, capitulated, or outright surrendered in every single major conflict they have been involved in.

In WWI, they got rolled over by the germans, the americans and brits came and saved their cheese eating *****.

In WWII they had built the vaunted Maginot line to defend their border. A system of underground tunnels and fortifications along the french/german border. The germans simply waltzed around it through belgium, and the moment then crossed the french border, the sympathetic french government at the time welcomed the ***** into paris. Again, we saved their wine drinking *****.

Vietnam was THEIR mess. Who saved their asses? We did.

If it weren't for us, they'd all be speaking german. It's obvious that france has deep seated personal interests in iraq. I think their economy depends on the billions of dollars in white flags that the french are supplying the iraqi soldiers. No doubt the french were the ones who trained the iraqi soldiers in the fine art of surrender. Ingrates, screw em.

 

how are they half-truths or lies? you think politicians don't lie? ,those aren't even my points just verifiable facts ,look it up don't name call. the u.s has always supported dictators and tyrants until they were no longer usefull , if you don't no that you should'nt even be responding to my post. since i'm so misguided and foolish enlighten me . (any) leader who kills or oppresses people for money or political gain should be held accountable be it a iraqi leader or Israeli president.

 

Just some points from my view:

It's obviously not about oil.

It's obviously not about Bush

It is obviously about Saddam decepting and lying to the world. Threatening other countries, etc.

Saddam did not get the chemical weapons from the US Government. They ordered the chemicals from world stores before they were conidered a dangerous regime. Per a UN Treaty, all countries have the right to develop limited amounts of chemical and bio weapons for self defense and medical testing only. I think Iraq took it a bit far. Anyway, the weapons were taken from civilian companies wanting to make a buck, mostly in South America, and a few in the US.

North Korea has been talking like this for 50 years. The Korean war is actually not over - no treaty was signed, only a cease-fire.

They constantly badger the entire Asian region with their rhetoric. Noone takes them seriously. My family was stationed in Seoul for a year. In all the S Korean news for many many years they talk about N. Korea testing missles or developing new weapons. It's nothing new, and has always been contained via diplomacy, mostly with S. Korea and China. We're letting them take care of it themselves as a region, that's all. They pose no immediate threat to anyone but the US Economy if we give in to their blackmail.....They'll have their day anyway at some point in the future. If China doesn't ***** slap them to shut them up, someone else will.

The French have been angry since Napoleon was exiled to Italy, and they were no longer a world power. They also have many many ambitions to be the most powerful country, along with the Germans, in the EU. Unfortunately, they are angry because many of the smaller countries would rather be part of the NATO alliance instead, because the US can provide them far more money and security. That's why France is pizzed off. They're whining little bishes.

Resolution 1441 states that Iraq must account for ALL of their known weapons of mass destruction since they were well known back in 1990. They failed to account for enough Anthrax, Botulism, and VX to kill everyone on earth 10 times over. If they don't have it, where'd it go? Where's film or documents showing such? Where's the proof? And then every once in awhile they give the UN some little nugget trying to make them think inspections are working. BS. The point isn't whether or not they have them, but why they won't show us what was done with them. The logical conclusion is that they are hiding them. Makes sense to me.

Also, to make it VERY simple, the Declaration of Independance and the US Bill of RIghts both say that all people must be free. It's a mission we set out on over 200 years ago. It's our mission as a people and government, and always has been. Why deny people in Iraq those freedoms? They have as much right to protest and assemble and speak and think freely as any of us.

I think that's all I have for now...

Goodnight.

 

France ****es me off (well along with the 'educated fools'). Good term whoever said that. If you'll notice the most intelligent 'enlightened' people are always the most warped and just mentally off ones too. There does come a point where you can learn yourself into stupidity.

Anyways...

France is now saying that they'll make sure the US is NOT involved in the re-building of Iraq to make sure we wont 'screw up'....

WTF...

Who saw Michael Moore get BOOED at the Academy Awards? Ahhh that was GREAT

 

All of you who are against this war need only to watch the video of how the iraqi's are treating our soldiers. It makes me sick, and only reminds me of what we are really fighting for.

 

Ok, here goes... responding to the crap you typed two pages back:

1. Lie
2. Lie
3. Lie
4. Half-truth
5. Lie
6. Lie
7. Half-truth
8. Lie
9. TRUTH!!! Sorry, I must have missed that one the first time through. But... he still invaded a sovereign nation.
10. Half-truth
11. Lie
12. Lie
13. Lie
14. Lie
15. Lie
16. Half-truth
17. Half-truth
18. First sentence= Half-truth, Second sentence= Lie
19. Irrelevant
20. Half-truth
21. Hmmm... actually, that one is mostly truth as well. That's two, so far.

Now, for these alleged "lies" of yours:

1. Wrong
2. WRONG!!!
3. Wrong
4. Irrelevant. There's more to the story there.
5. Wrong
6. Mostly correct, with a hint of skewed opinion thrown in. I'll give it to ya though.
7. Wrong
8. Purely opinion.
9. Half-truth and again, a lot of opinion.
10. WRONG!!!
11. Wrong
12. The statements you make are true, but so are the statements the President made. We'll call it "irrelevant".
13. Hahaha... conspiracy theorist? BTW... Wrong!
14. Half-truth, and again... opinion.
15. Irrelevant
16. Wrong
17. Wrong
18. WRONG!
19. Wrong. Besides, almost half of the world's population is centered in two nations who are "unfriendly" to the US. Does that mean, every time citizens in India and China say they're against something, we have to stop? The truth is, the MAJORITY of the free world's citizens support this cause. Included in that number is 77% of the US population. 77%!!!!! Look at how the coalition grows every single day, with more and more nations wanting to help out in some way.
20. Wrong

So, quansung2, in my OPINION, you are the spitting image of the "educated fool". I'm not saying you can't believe what you want to believe, but next time you're going to spew sound-bites on an internet forum, you should really research them a little more deeply instead of cutting and pasting. Maybe try the Honda forums. Those guys believe in VTEC over VQ!!!!!

p.s.-- By the way... thank God for your right to come here and spew that sh*t. Kiss a Marine and thank him for your freedom of speech. And next time you're writing those speeches for Saddam (if he's not dead), tell him the .org (or about 77% of us anyway) says "hi".