You can't possibly believe there were WMD's in Iraq

[shmokes]

You're forgetting the 3000+ Americans that were killed in the world trade center.

Yes.  Yes.  But, he also forgot to include the 2400 Americans Iraq killed when they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941  

[fredster]

Shmokes,

You are forgetting another thing, the US is the only world superpower.  We are a big target, and we have a lot to loose.

The rest of the world is wrapped up into somekind of socialist coccon that they seem to think will protect them.  While we waited and passively let these terrrorist cells grow in the 90's they became very sophisticated with big targets in mind.

Once they hit us, we had to do something or suffer more civilian deaths.  We are just lucky so far that they haven't hit a school like in Russia.

The UN is a joke.  They haven't stopped any world aggression.  What could they do about this?  Saddam had gathered a huge fortune in the blunders of the UN's oil for food program.  The rest of the region shuned him, so he was making friends with outlaws.

It's clear when he got out of the sanction box he was going to build up his weapons again.  His type of regieme needs enemies to fight,  Iran, Kuwait, and now the evil USA.

What we did was nip this problem in the bud.  France & Russia & Germany were into Saddam for Billions.  High ranking UN officials were paid off.  There was a lot for them to lose and thing for them to gain.

Bush had the foresight to see he had the opportunity to crush Iraq before it got out of hand.  In doing so he kept the terrorists on the run and kept the war over there, not over here.

Now if I understand the other side, the best approach was to NOT fight them on their turf, but to solidify ours.  I haven't understood exactly what that is between the politics and distortions.  It's not clear exactly what Kerry or Gore would have done, but you can bet it would have been based on opinion polls.

Bush sees the broad war on terror as a struggle for freedom.  Fundamentalist Islam doesn't equal freedom. These people would create a society much like the Taliban's Afghanistan over the entire planet if they could.  When the people have nothing to look forward to and are trained to hate from a young age we have a lot to fear.

Bush's vision is to transform the area into at least a quasi democracy like Pakistan.  Develop trade and institute a core system that has the potential to mature into a full blown republic.  In that way he can soften the ideology that created the Taliban and Al-Queda in the first place.

It is a gamble, that's for sure. But if it pays off Bush will go down in history as the man who stopped terrorism.

Carter tried it, Reagan tried it, and Clinton worked very hard at stopping it.  But we either hole up in our homes or we fight it head on.  Because they were bringing the conflict here.  

Bush took the opportunity to clean up a very nasty zone before it could rise up and threaten us.  

Kerry knows the score.  He knew what he was voting for when he did it.  He knew that GWB would go on his own. Kerry isn't stupid, but he thinks you are to believe he did it to "support" Bush.  He did it in hopes that a very popular president (approval rating at the time 80+) would be given enough rope to hang himself and open up the office for the left.

If you don't believe that, then you must believe there is a vast right wing conspircy.  Sorry. If there was, I'd like to find those guys and we would have a few beers.

Kerry is a politician.  Bush is a politician with a vision.
Kerry is for Kerry.  Bush is a man fighting for what he believes is the best for the USA.

Everybody believe what they want, or whatever makes them feel better.  Fool yourself into believing that Bush is misguided, or that Kerry actually knows what poor people go through.  Fool yourself into a false sense of security that there is NO terror threat.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.  Warp yourself back to 9/10/01.  I'd like to too.  Too bad I wake up and have to live in the real world and deal with real problems everyday.  When I look at my son I know that we have to do something bold and something hard to fix this.  

[patrickl]

I guess one statistic says it all.


                        Americans Killed
Before Gulf II               36
After Gulf II               1000

From these two numbers it's really easy to see how the terrorism has dropped dramatically ... ehm no ... wait ... that can't be right  .....  uhhhhhm .... Hey that looks like it's risen

You're forgetting the 3000+ Americans that were killed in the world trade center.

Don't worry, the majority of us that will be voting to keep Bush in, haven't forgotten.

The only relation that the 911 attacks have with gulf war II is that Osam Bin Laden got so pissed off by the US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia during the fisrt gulf war that this resulted in him starting the offensive. I don't see how that is a point you'd wish to bring out in this case.

[fredster]

Patrickl,

It doesn't matter why OBL started it.  It doesn't matter what his reasons.

It doesn't matter if he agreed to the GW 1 or not, does it?

If somebody builds a bomb and sets it off because of a movie, is it the movie or the man that is responsible?  Is it some kind of reason or justification for slicing the necks of stewardesses with knives and flying a plane into a building?  Does it somehow justify killing all those people because the thought it was trespassing?

What kind of logic is that?

[Dartful Dodger]

The only relation that the 911 attacks have with gulf war II is that Osam Bin Laden got so pissed off by the US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia during the fisrt gulf war that this resulted in him starting the offensive. I don't see how that is a point you'd wish to bring out in this case.

You still didn't include the 3000+ Americans in your before or after, so you did forget about them, but now I understand your motives.
I thought you were trying to participate in an educated argument. But I see you're still mad about Bush beating Gore, and you just want to post anti Bush statements.

I got it, I wont argue with you, but again those of us that remember the 3000+ Americans killed will get Bush re-elected.

[DrewKaree]

So since they cannot be found now either:
A) they weren't there to begin with (zero left at the end of 1998)
B) they were destroyed between 1998 and 2003
C) they were moved out of Iraq (for example, taken away by the terrorists that flocked to Iraq)
D) they just have not been found yet

Personally I think A and B are most likely and C and D are getting less likely every day (and every million the US spent trying to find them before the elections are over) Since there is still a chance C or D will be true, you won't see me write they are not true.

--->LINKY Charles Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month he could not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria. LINKY<---

So I won't see you write that this is not true, as it may be possible, BUT when intelligence agencies other than American agencies such as Britain, Russia, Italy, et al said they believe Sadaam had WMD's, you COULD see your way fit to write about how it wasn't true.  

So to recap, the U.S. believed WMD's to be there.  Do you disagree that going in there for WMD's would have been a good reason? (oh, and that's not on the list of main reasons we went in there)

We thought it best to go in, surpise Sadaam, and boot him out for failing to comply with the U.N. resolution (take your pick of resolutions....didn't he violate EACH AND EVERY ONE?!?)

To recap THAT....let's not talk and talk and talk and pass 500 resolutions while he moves everything....dammit, if they aren't there, they'll hang me high....Mr Kerry, should we go to war?  Vote yes if we should, vote no if we shouldn't....Yes but we should see what the U.N. thinks?  Okey dokey......ahhh screw it, those (and I'll leave France out of it, according to this story) Russians and Syrians defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms

You seem to view the oil for food scandal as such a small point.  I can't help you if you can't wrap your mind around the fact that he was using the money from the program to buy and fund weapons and weapons programs.  I just can't help you.  The rose color you've painted on your glasses is permanent and the blinders on the sides only allow the pretty colors to come through

We went into Iraq for a myriad of reasons, and if  the list were numbered, WMD's were down somewhere in the high teens or low 20's.  Since the argument always seems to come back to WMD's and how wrong we are for going in since they don't have any, it's not a tiny point that the scandal (or SCAM, as I put it) was going on.  

I give you information about the program which you have either not deemed worthy of reading, or you dismiss it out of hand as "partisan reporting", and yet you seem to think I'm the "uninformed yank".  While you're not a yank, I think on the "uninformed" point you may want to pick up your telephone and call the Kettle....go ahead, tell him he's black  

Oh, and Dexter....patrickL is resorting to name-calling.  I can't tell my mommy on him, but seeing your thin skin prance around in your skirt complaining that "we're being mean"...you're the closest girl(y man) I can snitch to.  

Please, show us all your righteous indignation at patrick's mean-spirited attacks  

[patrickl]

Patrickl,

It doesn't matter why OBL started it.  It doesn't matter what his reasons.

It doesn't matter if he agreed to the GW 1 or not, does it?

If somebody builds a bomb and sets it off because of a movie, is it the movie or the man that is responsible?  Is it some kind of reason or justification for slicing the necks of stewardesses with knives and flying a plane into a building?  Does it somehow justify killing all those people because the thought it was trespassing?

What kind of logic is that?

Indeed, there was no logic to count the 3000 people who died from an incident unrelated to Iraq. I was just pointing that out. I'm glad you finally see how illogical it is to draw such conclusions.

[patrickl]

The only relation that the 911 attacks have with gulf war II is that Osam Bin Laden got so pissed off by the US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia during the fisrt gulf war that this resulted in him starting the offensive. I don't see how that is a point you'd wish to bring out in this case.

You still didn't include the 3000+ Americans in your before or after, so you did forget about them, but now I understand your motives.
I thought you were trying to participate in an educated argument. But I see you're still mad about Bush beating Gore, and you just want to post anti Bush statements.

I got it, I wont argue with you, but again those of us that remember the 3000+ Americans killed will get Bush re-elected.

That's more because people are too dumb to understand things rather than that it has any true relation to the matter at hand. Iraq has no relation to the 911 attacks. Again, other than that the Gulf War 1 started Osama Bin ladens rage.

Indeed I think bush is a threat to the world (the US included), but I don't see what Gor has to do with this.

[patrickl]

bla bla and bla bla

Drew,

Even if Iraq had these WMD than it still was not a threat to the US. However Hans Blix demonstrated that US intelligence didn't know anything so even before the war it was quite obvious (to the worl outside the US) that there most likely was no WMD threat at all.

I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective. Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions. Did you actually read the Duelffer report? Or did you just take a line from the abstract that sounded nice to you? If you read the whole thing then you see it states that Saddam's WMD program was completely dead (and in fact on most counts even pathetic while it was running). The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.

Now if you want to call me uninformed again, maybe you should make sure you actually read the reports you quote from.

[DrewKaree]

I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective.

Sadaam gives oil vouchers for food.  The countries turn around, hand the oil vouchers to the "cashier", then pay for the oil.  The "cashier" then gives the money to Sadaam, who in turn puts it into buying more weapons.

You somehow can't process that it has anything to do with the war.  Gotcha.  

You CAN see a "minor case" in the light of fighting terrorism.  Gotcha.  Minor.  Now we're starting to get somewhere.

Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions.

and I quote "The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad."  Maybe you'd like to explain, Mr Kerry.  Did you vote for or against the 87 billion?

The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.

Right, weak.  I'm just going to guess, but it was also ok for France Syria & Russia to supply Sadaam with weapons WHILE the sanctions were in place, right?  

Now if you want to call me uninformed again, maybe you should make sure you actually read the reports you quote from.

I just quoted directly from it.  Perhaps you might be better served by reading to the bottom of the page.....or better yet, try adding up:

Oil money paid to Sadaam + Sadaam purchasing weapons + Sadaam getting weapons while under sanctions = ?

So far, your answer is 0, or "minimal", guess it depends on the day and what was found out.  Perhaps throw a new battery in that calculator...the old one seems to be in backwards

[patrickl]

I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective.

Sadaam gives oil vouchers for food.  The countries turn around, hand the oil vouchers to the "cashier", then pay for the oil.  The "cashier" then gives the money to Sadaam, who in turn puts it into buying more weapons.

You somehow can't process that it has anything to do with the war.  Gotcha.  

Yes so? Saddam had plenty of cenventional arms anyway. Why would a few more be such a problem? Again, I don't see it's right (if it indeed happened as your source suspects), but it has nothing to do with why the war was started or why only the US can see why this war needs to be fought.

You CAN see a "minor case" in the light of fighting terrorism.  Gotcha.  Minor.  Now we're starting to get somewhere.

Don't lamely twist my words again.

Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions.

and I quote "The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad."  Maybe you'd like to explain, Mr Kerry.  Did you vote for or against the 87 billion?

I meant WMD of course

The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.

Right, weak.  I'm just going to guess, but it was also ok for France Syria & Russia to supply Sadaam with weapons WHILE the sanctions were in place, right?

Can you make the distinction between weapons of mass destruction and a handgun? Or bullets for the police?

Now if you want to call me uninformed again, maybe you should make sure you actually read the reports you quote from.

I just quoted directly from it.  Perhaps you might be better served by reading to the bottom of the page.....or better yet, try adding up:

Oil money paid to Sadaam + Sadaam purchasing weapons + Sadaam getting weapons while under sanctions = ?

So far, your answer is 0, or "minimal", guess it depends on the day and what was found out.  Perhaps throw a new battery in that calculator...the old one seems to be in backwards

I think I better not call you uninformed, but unintelligent. You get enough inormation, yet you are unable to understand what it means.

Again you go completely bananas over some meaningless point. So the now find that Saddam was indeed buying guns. So what? It again has no bearing on the reason why Bush wanted to fight this war or why everyon else was against it. Also it does not explain why Bush made such a mess of the war (or rather the post war)

You can try to find all the extraneous facts you want but it still remains that this is an ill begotten war and the Bush made a mess of it.

[Dartful Dodger]

huh? patricl is pointing out the bleeding obvious fact that the US DIDN'T go to war against Iraq because of what happened on september 11, 2001. not even dubya would be sily enough to say that...

You are right, the US didn't go after Sadam because of what happened on Sept 11th, the US went after him so it would not happen again.

If he had weapons of mass destruction we would have (if not already) sold them to guys that were willing to use them.  Now the rest of the world knows to leave us alone.

Sadam was a danger to the US.  Korea has the sense to leave us alone, and Bush has the sense to leave Korea alone.  Kerry on the other hand does not have that sense, so for everyone

[patrickl]

*screen waves and weird sound is heard*

Bush should nuke the whole planet. Then the US can finally be safe. Aaaaah bliss  ....  oho .... SNAP ... POP ... ah ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!--- woke from my wet dream again ...

* dream scene ends*

[DrewKaree]

[quoteYou can try to find all the extraneous facts you want but it still remains that this is an ill begotten war and the Bush made a mess of it.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.  

I'm asking you to be more clear in your replies.  Your words say one thing, and when I comment on them, your reply states that "when I said ____, I was referring to ____, of course", as if I could read your mind.  I'm simply readig your words and replying to them.  The fact that we are having this conversation at all SHOULD clue you in to the fact that, indeed, I DON'T know what you mean.  And you say I'm the "unintelligent" one  Are you claiming to know what it is that I mean when I say something?

You view my points as pedantic, that I've "gone bananas" over them, that they are insignificant in the "grand scope of things", and fail to be able to understand WHY these points are significant.  It's the same with me.  I can't understand how you miss it...it's as plain as the nose on your face....except to you.

Your view is that we made bad decisions in going to war, mine is that we made the exact right decision.  I am the type of person who believes you ask a child to do something, and if they don't do it, you explain the consequences, ask once again after that, and if that something is not done, you mete out the consequences previously laid out.  

This was done with Sadaam.  

You think differently.

This was done over a course of years, and Sadaam continued to act in a manner designed to provoke a response.  Bush 1 acted.  Clinton acted.  Bush 2 acted.  In each case, Sadaam was made aware of possible consequences.  In each case, he made a choice to demonstrate his willingness to see if the consequences would be dealt.

You seem intent on proving that Bush acted irresponsibly in going to war.  I see that the information available at that time made it clear that a decision needed to be made about Sadaam.  You are using hindsight when trying to argue against that information, and have claimed that everyone's intel said they might have WMD's.  To be precise, all reports and opinions given at that time, and in the past, said that he DID have WMD's.  Mr Blix, the man you state as saying Iraq didn't have WMD's, in fact, did NOT say such things when the U.S. went to war.  At THAT time they had found items that may or may not have led to bigger things, but he wasn't saying that Iraq did NOT have WMD's.  

The only thing that you have to bolster your argument about there not being WMD's in Iraq is opinion at that time.  And in Bush's OPINION, it was necessary to act in Iraq.  In the light of how Sadaam acted in the past, what his actions were in the past, and the potential for future actions, a decision was made probably based primarily on those three points.  While you don't think it was right, many think differently than you, and agree that it was the right thing to do.  As a welcome SIDE-EFFECT, the Iraqi people have been freed from the rule of a maniacal dictator.  

You are simply more willing to believe things from people I find to be utterly untrustworthy.  You are simply more willing to pass over the underhanded dealings discovered unless you feel you can tag the U.S. with that same accusation.  Your indignation shines through loud and clear when it concerns the U.S.  I don't read the same vitriol when you are referring to any other country.  

You're throwing out baseless claims with nothing to back them up, and are claiming I'm doing the same.  While clearly biased, I've given you things to look at regarding my "outrageous" claims.  You post lies, act as if you uttering them makes them fact, and hide behind a "I'm just showing you what you're doing" defense.  You're devolving into childish tactics and an "I know you are but what am I" mentality.  

I've become "unintelligent" only from reading your tripe.  Just say what you mean...you want to call me dumb.  It's ok.  I've got a thicker skin than Dexter...I can handle it, as it's just your opinion.  Just one more thing you and I disagree about.

[patrickl]

[quoteYou can try to find all the extraneous facts you want but it still remains that this is an ill begotten war and the Bush made a mess of it.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.  

I'm asking you to be more clear in your replies.  Your words say one thing, and when I comment on them, your reply states that "when I said ____, I was referring to ____, of course", as if I could read your mind.  

You should try to read what I say and not desperately try to find something in my replies that you can make fun of. It's almost like you deliberately misread my replies. For instance when I say Hans Blix couldn't find anything and in return Colin Powell says the stuff was moved, you triumphantly come up with some link "proving" that stuff was moved after the war. How on earth does after the war have something to do with before the war?

Bush went into this war ill prepared. Don't act like waiting a few months or maybe even a few years longer would have mattered. If you read the Duelfer report (which you seem fond of quoting from) it clearly states Saddam was not a threat and would not have been in the foreseeable future. It's pretty clear that Bush (and partners) only thought about invading Iraq and not about keeping Iraq stable. They went in, got rid of Saddam and said "OK the war is over". Then the mess really started. How is it not clear that that was a part of bad planning?

Hans Blix DID say there were no WMD (where the US said they would be) and that he thought the US intelligence was crap since the part he got was proven to be crap. How hard is it to find these quotes from Blix (in fact I gave links to these quotes)? How can you not remember the UN hearings on these matters when you are apparently so interested in this?

I'm not contending if it is a good idea to go to war with Iraq (do not try to pin the "you're for us or against us" crap on me) All I'm saying is that the war was rushed and the unfolding of events shows the world was right and Bush was wrong. For instance terrorism is at an all time high right now, the police force is set up in way that is almost sure to cause corruption. How hard is it to see these things? I admit it is in hindsight, but if someone plans these things ahead they don't go so awfully wrong.

I'm not believing things from people who are untrustworthy. Where the hell do I say that. I believe what I saw Hans Blix say on television. I hear from my nephew, see on the television and read in the newspapers what a mess it is in Iraq and how much trouble the US has to keep a country that basically should be happy to be freed under control. I see how our military is suffering from the poor way Bush is handling this war. I do not trust Bush no.

I trust myself since I have seen these events unfold. I get the strong feeling that you never were interested in this whole thing before and so you know nothing of how it all went. All your information seems to be coming from FOX news headlines or something. Or maybe even from google searches (with google you can "prove" every point right or wrong. But then the proof itself is usually crap).

I'm indeed claiming you come up with daft accusations that should somehow show you are right. You say there were surely WMD in Iraq (false) You say France and Russians defied the UN sanctions (false and has no bearing on the matter), You say Iraq bought conventional weapons during the sanctions (cannot check validity, but it doesn't have any bearing on the matter) I say one thing (Cheney is on the take) to provoke you and you immediately pick that up. Why can't you understand that your own false accusations are just as lame? How hard is it to see that all that nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand?

You claimed I called you uninformed so I correct that view to say that you are more like unintelligent since you cannot seem to be able to pick up on some very simple facts. You quote lines from a report that basically disproves your case and you try to use it to prove your case. Is that clever? In fact it shows you are unable to understand things for yourself and you can only copy headlines. Headlines are intended to draw viewers/readers they are almost by default wrong in what they say.

[DrewKaree]

ou should try to read what I say and not desperately try to find something in my replies that you can make fun of. It's almost like you deliberately misread my replies.

I'll have to inform you on your own words, as well, I guess.  I'll even quote them so you can read what you say, then let you explain how I was "deliberately misreading your replies"

ps So I don't need to waste any more of my time please be so kind as to use the Claim vs Fact database (or even Google) before coming out with more unsubstanciated claims. They have some really interesting Iraq items. Thanks!

My reply directly under this little bit was specific to your claim that we are wasting your time, in fact, I (again )quoted your exact words in order to show that was the part to which I was referring to.  When my reply focused specifically on "wasting time", you responded

Ok so now you are wasting my time too. Your reply is not based on the original statement. So in fact your reply is of no use, but I'll help you explain a bit further.

I was replying to TA pilot's statement that "they" KNEW there were WMD in Iraq in 1998. This is not a political issue (at least it isn't for me, but I'll concede that for TA Pilot it indeed seems to be a political issue). It's about facts and being able to use simple logic.

It should be apparent after reading my reply that you would understand that I was commenting on you requesting that we use your (COMPLETELY biased) source, but you aren't concerning yourself with such tricky subjects as "reading what was said"


To another of your posts.  Prior to this, I had posted a link stating that, while under sanctions, Iraq had been sold weapons.  None specific, but weapons, nonetheless  

Even if Iraq had these WMD than it still was not a threat to the US. However Hans Blix demonstrated that US intelligence didn't know anything so even before the war it was quite obvious (to the worl outside the US) that there most likely was no WMD threat at all.

I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective. Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions. Did you actually read the Duelffer report? Or did you just take a line from the abstract that sounded nice to you? If you read the whole thing then you see it states that Saddam's WMD program was completely dead (and in fact on most counts even pathetic while it was running). The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.

My reply was about your response that Sadaam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions.  All throughout your response, EXCEPT when referring to the point I initially addressed, you used the phrase WMD's.  You sought fit to amend your response to

I meant WMD of course

 That's fine.  It then makes your point that Sadaam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions untrue yet again.  Whatever way you want it, I don't care, as he DID get weapons during the sanctions, and it is as yet still unclear what exactly they were, so they may quite well be WMD's.

From your own words, you've said

You should try to read what I say and not desperately try to find something in my replies that you can make fun of. It's almost like you deliberately misread my replies. For instance when I say Hans Blix couldn't find anything and in return Colin Powell says the stuff was moved, you triumphantly come up with some link "proving" that stuff was moved after the war. How after the war have something to do with before the war?

nothing was done to make fun of you, I'm simply replying to the words you post.  It's funny, you started off "looking at this mathematically (logically)" and the more you get into it, the more incensed and illogical you become.  When I'm trying to make fun of something, brother, you'll know it.  I show a link where things were moved.  I show a link that shows a mobile weapons lab, I show a link of sanctions violations giving Iraq weapons, and the best that can be done is to state that my link s are from biased sources (from other biased sources), and that these were reported on after the war.  

You continue to flail away at "Hans Blix said there were no WMD's in Iraq".  I've tried to temper your enthusiasm for this report, while you continue to prattle on about interviews he gave AFTER the war started.  Sorry to use your own words yet again, but "How after the war have something to do with before the war?"

I'm not working to lamely twist your words, you just are saying the same things I am, but don't want to connect the dots and how it relates to the war

The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.

The sanctions were for disarmament by Sadaam.  Sadaam's actions were to invite suspicion that he indeed was NOT doing so.  Sadaam's actions invited belief that it could not be known whether or not he was telling the truth or not.  Hans Blix' own opinion was that Sadaam was making it difficult to inspect, and was making it impossible to know for sure that Sadaam did or did not possess WMD's.  The "smoking Blix" you point to was from an interview he gave after the war had started.  Blix obviously wanted to inspect more, Sadaam's actions invited a suspension of the inspections and action to remove him.

Especially after the "proof" your intelligence agency gave was so obviously shown to be flawed (Hans Blixx could find nothing at the sites where the CIA claimed the WMD might be found)

and yet Blix wanted to continue to search, because he himself could not say with certainty that Sadaam had shown himself to be in compliance with the resolutions

I'm sure you'll find this to be a twisting of your words, but

I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.

Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")

That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)

when you stated that you believe there is a chance that evidence will show they were moved to Syria (or something), I thought when there actually might be something to bolster your belief, you might have something to say other than

It says they have proof that trucks moved "things" to Syria. Wow  

I get to hear daily how we should be doing something NOW about everyone else developing nuclear weapons.  I also get to read about how Hans Blix found information on Iraq, and the possibility of them obtaining nuclear weapons....regarding all of these things, we are asked to believe that a dictator (like Sadaam) is telling us the truth, and whether or not we should do anything about it.  The response has been "act now, act now, act now", and you find no problem with waiting to act against Sadaam.  The actions of the President have been to act exactly as Kerry requested him to do, but now that we are in an election year, Bush is wrong, dead wrong.  You HAVE stated that Kerry would be considered right-wing in your country, so I DO have faith that you would be decrying the fact that Kerry acted wrongly too, but in stating your beliefs about WMD's, you argue vehemently against your beliefs when items are brought up.  

I don't think you believe your own words, and I believe you have such bitterness towards the U.S. for something OTHER than this war, and this has given you an opportunity to vent it  Somehow you're claiming I'm twising your words.  I think it's more a case of you don't know what you believe entirely, other than the U.S. is bad.

[patrickl]

nevermind

[shmokes]

nevermind

Exactly!  How is someone supposed to respond to a post like that.  I read about a quarter of it, and that's good for me...  

[DrewKaree]

highly unlikely, since they've never existed in the first place.

We were looking for the weapons of banned destruction(ist).  Since the ban has faded away, the Syrians and Russians came by and picked up whatever wasn't paid for.

 

[danny_galaga]

damn repo men are everywhere  

[danny_galaga]

(sound of penny dropping)

i finally made the connection. drewkaree and nerf hoffelwaffle are one and the same!! just look at the pic under nerfs banner. now look at drews avatar. in the right kind of light they could be identical twins!!

topical quote: ' we were identical twins. only sometimes he seemed more identical than i'- marty feldman (referring to michael york in 'the very last remake of beau geste').

 

[DrewKaree]

are you referring to the giant wafflehead?  That's all I could surmise, but DANG that's funny on the timing if that's the case!  

Oh, and Nerf is the write-in of choice