Another Iraq thread... don't read it if politics offend you!

[lessthanjakejohn]

We aren't going to posses Iraq anyway, we are getting out as soon as the country is stable

[AZhitman]

AZ, I think you have to review the history of Islam. Islam is not a sort of benign "Ring You Door Bell Have You Read the Watchtower?" type of religion. This is a radical religion that considers all non believers to be infidels that must be destroyed, conquered, erased, converted, whatever....

Vimster, I'm certainly not defending Islam (radical or moderate). Matter of fact, one of my favorite areas of study is the scientific and anthropologic study of many of the world's non-Christian religions and how they crumble under the weight of serious scrutiny. But that's a different subject for a different time (and forum). Call me a "combative and confrontational Christian":D.

Anyway, you may have helped me make my point if it is as you say. But I certainly don't percieve it as being as radical as you do, as I have several Muslim acquantances who have spent FAR less time trying to critique/convert me than I have them. If you are right, then so be it - I feel even more comfortable engaging in such a conflict with that being the case.

p.s. The Watchtower-slingers you speak of are not as benign as you'd like to think. There is a war going on for the hearts and minds of impressionable non-believers, and half-truths are as dangerous (if not more so) than a misguided WMD in the wrong hands - But again, that's another topic for another forum.

Sorry again about your post Mike - Maine, that was my fault for hitting the wrong button.

[VimyJ]

We aren't going to posses Iraq anyway, we are getting out as soon as the country is stable

[VimyJ]

[quote=" big jon's 240 We have plenty of credible evidence, Just cause you hav'nt seen it, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. The United States intelligence apparatus is too large to be able to make up a "story" about Iraq's WMD.[/quote]How the heck can you say there is credible evidence if no one has seen it? That's ridiculous. All the evidence so far trotted out doesn't hold water. Evidence that's been faked, artist's renderings, obvious spins of inconclusive statellite photos and no evidence of WMD's found by inspectors. Nothing. None. Nada.

Quote »Right, and how much are countries going for these days? I'll have to look into picking one up[/quote]Looks like $30 billion wasn't quite enough for Turkey.

Quote »Latvia=Free democratic countryChina=Communist regime.....Enough said.Does a country's size and population make its opinion more or less important? In that case lets put all the most populous countries in charge of the UN.[/quote]Most of the world is not in favour of US invasion plans. Last I counted thre were slightly over 200 missions at the UN. The most populus or at least the old atomic club countries are permanent members of the Security Council.

Quote »I would beg to differ about that. If the entire world knew the truth, it would be overwhelmingly in support of ousting saddam.[/quote]Are you implying that the countries already going along with W don't know the truth either but have decided to go along with this folly on faith alone? No evidence? Or are these nations doing it for money or favour from the US?

Quote »I always like the "imperialism" approach. Do you honestly think we are going to go into Iraq, take over the country, and keep all their oil and money for ourself? Give me a break, it would never happen.[/quote]I honestly think that W is going to take over Iraq which is what an invasion is. Do you want proof? It is generally well known that the US has amassed over 200,000 troops in the gulf region to invade Iraq and attempt set up a puppet government in order to attampt to secure reliable oil reserves to be exploited by American oil companies in a manner against the wishes of her traditional allies and other world powers and religions.

Human rights and freedom? Hey, I've got some land in Florida you might be interested in.

[lessthanjakejohn]

sarcasm dude

I mean when was the last time you trusted a guy with a silvia conversion on his s14

[VimyJ]

[quote=" AZhitman Call me a "combative and confrontational Christian":D.[/quote]Like Islamic countries have never had run ins with combative Christians before. I believe they were and are called crusaders.

Quote »Anyway, you may have helped me make my point if it is as you say. But I certainly don't percieve it as being as radical as you do, as I have several Muslim acquantances who have spent FAR less time trying to critique/convert me than I have them. If you are right, then so be it - I feel even more comfortable engaging in such a conflict with that being the case.[/quote]My point was to underline that Islam is a very dangerous force and that a US unilateral attack upon a Muslim country will create a very sick mess that will cost the US tax payer multi billions of dollars. Firthermore, the way W is ineptly lining up support amongst the traditional allies is going to isolate the US diplomatically and damage seriously the UN.

Currently, I don't think there are too many Muslims out looking for converts in the US these days. That would be a good way to get shot. You have a law enforcment background so you know that you wouldn't have to ask around at the Mosque for too long before you started to find out who the hot heads are and then having the hot heads (if you could get info from them) providing solid leads as to how to go about jioning an extremist group. No doubt the FBI is working this angle like crazy but it would be a tough nut to crack. Money laundering, religious meetings, money to charities or to "poor relatives" as methods for financing terror groups. Here in Chicago, there was an outfit providing material to the Muslim side in Yugoslavia.

And if you don't think it is going on then all you have to do is realize that large amounts of money came from the US to sponser the IRA and its terrorlst atrocities for years. (Actually, I have read that some think the UK is joining this escapade in order to get real action from the US in tracking down powerful IRA sympathizers in the US. Nobody is really going along with the US out of freedom and the greatness of the "American Way". They all want something. Money or influence.)

[VimyJ]

sarcasm dude

I mean when was the last time you trusted a guy with a silvia conversion on his s14

If that's sarcasm then we really do live in dangerous times because there are lots of well meaning US citizens that actually believe W's BS.

[MaineExport]

there are lots of well meaning US citizens that actually believe W's BS.

I am a well meaning US citizen, and I believe what President Bush has told me. I also believe that whatever information they have withheld, is in the best interest of our nation and the world for that matter. There are things we shouln't know for the sake of national security (no that's not just some conservative excuse and popular catch phrase... we all know it is the truth).

I think it is insulting that you should imply one's agreement with Bush's actions to be somehow falling for BS. That is an insult to our intelligence and a character attack on our president. You are allowed your opinions... but you said you'd like to stay away from flame wars... then please watch how you phrase yourself.

[VimyJ]

I alpologize for coming on strong regarding W's case for war. However, it is often mentioned that the administration is keeping some of its cards close to the vest for our own protection. Unfortunately, that just isn't a reasonable postion to take.

The US has always shared pertinent sensitive information with traditional allies and vice versa. It's how things get done. This is done at the highest levels and has always been such. That W & Co.'s position is little supported outside of one major ally should make one wonder if there is any decent evidence or if the administration is purposely keeping some very close freinds out of the loop at a time when the US could use material and moral support from friends and ligitamacy from the UN. Reason draws me to the former position as the latter is illogical.

Why wouldn't the president inform the UN inspectors on the "QT" about some solid intelligence about locations of WMD or, if they are providing intel, why aren't the inspectors finding anything?

Hey, I've read lots of high quality spy novels (John Le Carre is the best when it comes to understanding the world of intelligence and counter intelligence) and have gained a pretty good appreciation of the sensibilities of secrecy. If the US has compelling "smoking gun" evidence, then why not produce it at least at the very highest levels? Because most key allied support is not forthcoming, I conclude there is no compelling evidence that justifies an immediate unilateral invasion of Iraq.

I don't think that W & Co. is stupid enough to paint itself into a corner by mobilizing thousands of troops and then having the whole thing fizzle out so he obviously has the intention of launching war evidence backed or not. Be aware, too, that the only way W can justify this attack an Iraq to the US congress is to say the war is part of the "War on Terror" legislation that was passed shortly after 9/11. Informed of this, one can easily see why W builds up flimsy evidence into a case for premptive self defence. Otherwise, he would have to get the permission of Congress to attack a nation that has no demonstrable ties to Al Qaeda.

Man, this was supposed to be a short apology but it turned out to be a proof for the original crude or at least"folksy" sentiment.

[MaineExport]

Looks like another familiar face has joined the table! Evidence (that I personally haven't seen... yet I still believe) has been collected that shows Iran has developed the means to produce enriched uranium (for the purposes of nuclear weapons). Several gas centrifuges have been installed within a nuclear energy facility in Iran. These are apparently what they use to process the uranium for weapons use. Damn, seems this chess game has turned into a tournament.

[big jon's 240]

I alpologize for coming on strong regarding W's case for war.

There is nothing wrong with a little friendly debate amongst a couple of car enthusiasts. Im sure your a good guy and i wont hold your misguided belief's against you! And im sure no matter what we all say to eachother, its not going to change the others mind.(but its still fun to argue!)

I can assure you that whatever you have read in a novel is completely fabricated and has nothing to do with real intelligence. We do not share our real secret stuff with but a handful of countries, and that does not include the french.

Time will tell, and if and when we go into iraq and are wrong about the WMD (which we are not), then the whole world will know the truth. Either way we will have accomplished something great, by liberating the people of iraq.

As far as the "buying of countries", yes we offered to give 30 bil. to turkey for their help, however that pales to the amount of economic aid we've given to Russia since the fall of the USSR. Guess we should ask for our money back.....

Oh and Bush has already gotten permission from congress to wage war on iraq without the UN's permission, they voted on it at the end of last year.

And maineimport, one thing at a time man, one thing at a time.

Regards,Jon

[VimyJ]

[quote=" big jon's 240 I can assure you that whatever you have read in a novel is completely fabricated and has nothing to do with real intelligence. We do not share our real secret stuff with but a handful of countries, and that does not include the french.[/quote]I can tell you've never read anything by John Le Carre who was a member of MI6 (counter intelligence in the UK) during the height of the cold war. Of course what he wrote was fiction but if you want to get a good understanding of how intelligence agencies work then you should give him a read. Actually, the case of the famous mole that almost destroyed British intelligence operations during the 60's was the basis of a series of novels. Very complicated stuff.

Quote »Time will tell, and if and when we go into iraq and are wrong about the WMD (which we are not), then the whole world will know the truth. Either way we will have accomplished something great, by liberating the people of iraq.[/quote]How do you know about WMD or not? There is no evidence. Not that it really matters anyway because it is merely a trumped up excuse to grab power in the mideast. I'm sure Muslims will welcome the crusaders with open arms.

Quote »Oh and Bush has already gotten permission from congress to wage war on iraq without the UN's permission, they voted on it at the end of last year.[/quote]That's right. This is why he keeps harping on the "threat to Amurica" self defence malarky. Otherwise, he'd have to go to congress for permission. He's really walking a fine line. It is legal under international law and the UN to act in self defence. Funny how W is going to the UN for their approval to launch an invasion. That is a tacet admission that his invasion is not for self defence.Hmmm....

[VimyJ]

I watched the president's news conference the other night. He handled himself better than I thought he would and though he never really gave any definitive answers to the journalist's questions, he did define his justification for immediate war.

Sipping my scotch, I began to try to imagine why W is so anxious to get this invasion underway. Well, moving as quickly as they have, the W admin. has got the jump on Saddam's forces. OK, I think but strategic surprise is not totally necessary given the US's tactical supremacy. (Did you hear the about the recent case of Iraqi soldiers giving up to a British squad doing mortar practice? :pface ). So, there's no compelling military reason to move in Blitzkrieg fashion over the modern equivalent of WW II Poland.

Launching an invasion would enable the US to disrupt the Iraq regime's efforts to spread terrorism given the recent advances in the true war on terror Al Qaeda-wise. However, there is no evidence that Saddam has links to Al Qaeda or anyother terrorlst groups bent on the immediate destruction of the US. None.

Then I start thinking election. Wrapping himself in the flag and starting a war that the "W administration must see through to the end, for the good of Amurica" could pay off well at the ballot box in 19 months. However, a war could go badly and backfire. There is an element of risk to this strategy. Too much risk to be the main goal.

There has to be a for sure payoff. Otherwise why the haste? Saddam's not going anywhere. Let's send in 5,000 more inspectors. Hell, I would love to get a nice Nissan 4x4 and drive around the deserts and mountains looking for what now is starting to seem like Don Quixote's windmills. "Vimy to base. Vimy to UN base. I think I have found an old outhouse that could contain hazardous materials. Requesting an expert to check it out. Also requesting more ice as my beer is getting warm. Over."

So what could W assuredly gain from hasty invasion without the traditional allies or legitamacy from the UN? One thing the war would absolutely do is give access to rich oil fields. Now matter how bad the occupation goes, the US can hang in there for 10 years while Anglo/American oil companies pump the bejeezus out of Iraq. Once the oil can is empty the occupation is over and the oil companies move on after gorging themselves. The best case snenario would see Iraq use the royalties they would recieve to build a thriving industrial democracy but that's almost wishful thinking considering Iraq's serious ethnic divions and no democratic tradition.

Oil is the one for sure thing that could come of invasion. All the rest contain some degree of risk or speculation. Oil is the one thing the W & Co. administration know well and W would love to prove to his dad that he can too make a profit at the family business.

Of course, W can't go around just launching an invasion of this size without the backing of congress or the general public. That would be political suicide. This isn't the takeover of an isolated Carribean Island. Now's the time. The congress is Republican and the US is still somewhat reeling from 9/11 enough to lash out at anything "Middleast" or "Arab" or "WMD" or "Dictator" or "terrorlst". The reason W is acting so quickly are the polls. Opinion polls. Now's the time to move on this oil and power opportunity. For oilmen like W and Cheeney, this is the chance of a lifetime.

[BIONICQ45]

off topic but the topic stinks anyway..

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ------------- Norman Schwartzkopf

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." ---- Marge Simpson

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and he wears a beret. He is French, people."----------Conan O'Brien

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." ----------David Letterman

[VimyJ]

Oh Boy! Things are getting rough in the "Alliance of the Willing". A new poll in Britain indicates that only 19% in the UK support a war without UN approval. Ouch! And, a high ranking cabinet minister resigned her portfolio over Blair's "foolish warmongering". Looks like the Canadian proposal is going ahead in deed if not in name.

[89sxRCR]

"The french deny michael jackson has had plastic surgery, and demand further inspections"

"what do you call 1000 french men with thier hands up? the army"

Interesting how much weight you put in polls vimyj. Polls have been proven to be easily biased to show what the poller wants. Polls mean very little. Quote »However, there is no evidence that Saddam has links to Al Qaeda or anyother terrorlst groups bent on the immediate destruction of the US. None.[/quote] funny, i didnt know you had access to all military intelligence on the matter. Analysts say there is a very possible connection, and im betting they have more information than an ocasional article in your local newspaper. Quote »There has to be a for sure payoff. Otherwise why the haste? Saddam's not going anywhere. Let's send in 5,000 more inspectors. Hell, I would love to get a nice Nissan 4x4 and drive around the deserts and mountains looking for what now is starting to seem like Don Quixote's windmills. "Vimy to base. Vimy to UN base. I think I have found an old outhouse that could contain hazardous materials. Requesting an expert to check it out. Also requesting more ice as my beer is getting warm. Over." [/quote] like the missiles saddam claimed he didnt have, then refused to disarm, then disarmed (still not completely) under numerous threats? like the newly discovered drone? right.....they dont exist... Quote »Oil is the one for sure thing that could come of invasion. All the rest contain some degree of risk or speculation. Oil is the one thing the W & Co. administration know well and W would love to prove to his dad that he can too make a profit at the family business.[/quote] With the cost of this war, it would be cheaper to BUY all the oil we need from iraq...its clearly not the reason for our readyness to go to war.

[VimyJ]

[quote=" 89sxRCR Interesting how much weight you put in polls vimyj. Polls have been proven to be easily biased to show what the poller wants. Polls mean very little.[/quote]

It doesn't matter how much weight I put on polls, it's how much weight politicians put on polls. The polls tell W that now is the time to strike. The propaganda machine through its organs, the neo conservative electronic media, is working with polls consistantly favouring invasion of Iraq 60/40. I would be really interested in a poll that asked respondents why they thought they were going to war. Hmmm.....

Quote »funny, i didnt know you had access to all military intelligence on the matter. Analysts say there is a very possible connection, and im betting they have more information than an ocasional article in your local newspaper.[/quote]Don't you know that this is the information age? Who reads only the local paper anymore? Some analysts say there is a possible connection. Sure that could be possible, anything is, but there is no solid evidence presented at a level that seems convincing to the Security Council, is there? W had poor Powell present artists' renderings, etc. as "evidence" for war. Embarrassing. I'll admit that I'm probably not the first guy W runs to with damning info on Iraq but you'd think he would bring out something halfway convincing for the Security Council at least!

Quote »like the missiles saddam claimed he didnt have, then refused to disarm, then disarmed (still not completely) under numerous threats? like the newly discovered drone? right.....they dont exist... With the cost of this war, it would be cheaper to BUY all the oil we need from iraq...its clearly not the reason for our readyness to go to war.[/quote]Yep, I'll agree with you there. The inspections seem to be working. He's coughing up the weapons slowly but surely. Well, I guess the drones have been discovered as well now. Looks as if we're finding everything slowly but surely. I'm still available for inspection duty in my UN provided FX45 with the GPS navigation package. Roam around for a year 4x4ing. Yeehaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With the cost of this war, you're exactly right that it would be cheaper just to buy the oil from Saddam but you're looking at it the wrong way around. It would be cheaper for the consumer but the well being of consumers isn't what this invasion is all about. This invasion is a taxpayer subsidized expansion of the Anglo/American oil industry of which W & Cheeney are proud, card carrying members. The rich get richer.

This isn't the only thing W & Co. want to have happen by taking this course of action but I bet dollars to doughnuts that they wouldn't do it this way if there was no guaranteed immediate payoff. My evidence? N. Korea.

[MaineExport]

This isn't the only thing W & Co. want to have happen by taking this course of action but I bet dollars to doughnuts that they wouldn't do it this way if there was no guaranteed immediate payoff. My evidence? N. Korea.

The bridge you constructed to connect those two situations couldn't support the hot air used to present the theory (and yes... hot air actually rises)! North Korea and Saddam are apples and oranges.. you would have us handle the situations similarly?

[89sxRCR]

Quote »Yep, I'll agree with you there. The inspections seem to be working. He's coughing up the weapons slowly but surely[/quote] It is impossible for the inspectors to probe all of Iraq for banned weapons/mass destruction.. The fact that he has said he doesnt have any banned arms yet we find all of this makes clear the fact that he is a liar and we cannot trust what he says...even when he says they have no weapons of mass destruction. Heard the news lately? Saddam just opened a camp for suicide atackers. a threat? I think so, a threat to national security. Quote »Don't you know that this is the information age? Who reads only the local paper anymore? Some analysts say there is a possible connection. Sure that could be possible, anything is, but there is no solid evidence presented at a level that seems convincing to the Security Council, is there?[/quote] you know i was being sarcastic as to your just reading the local paper...my point being that some (actually a lot) information is classified and is not released to the public. It is not strategically smart to reveal EVERYTHING we know. Convincing to the security council? Remember when hitler marched into the demiliterized Rhineland in 1936? All the french did was wring thier hands and look at the "cost benefit analysis" of a possible war to stop him....had the french showed courage and leadership in 1936 there may not have been a ww2. Yet again they stand in the way of what should be done. Let us not be doomed to repeat history.

[89sxRCR]

Quote »The bridge you constructed to connect those two situations couldn't support the hot air used to present the theory (and yes... hot air actually rises)! North Korea and Saddam are apples and oranges.. you would have us handle the situations similarly?[/quote] good point main...its funny that they always bring up n korea, and why arent we doing anything about that if we are acting on iraq. Truth is if we were confronting n korea militarily right now they would be crying about that as well....they dont want that either. isolationism doesnt work.

[big jon's 240]

"funny, i didnt know you had access to all military intelligence on the matter. Analysts say there is a very possible connection, and im betting they have more information than an ocasional article in your local newspaper.

I would doubt this has anything to do with an election. The last time i remember a president getting re-elected after a major conflict was WWII. War is not a politicly smart thing to do for re-election.As far as the "neo conservative electronic media", i thought common opinion was that the media has a liberal bias? Could it be that the media just knows whats up? I dont believe in polls myself, but the majority of the country seems to be ebhind going into iraq. I meet very few people who tell me they are opposed to it (besides you :pface ) We are not in this for france or any other of the "axis of weasels", and could give a rats *** about what they think. Its not about oil, there are plenty of other placs to get oil, and im sure you know we get a very small precentage of oil for the iraqi's. Either way, if we got to vaporize a few iraqi's to save a dime, im all for it! (thats a joke)Ive never heard of the author you mentioned, ill have to check him out, i love a good spy thriller.And one last thing on polls. I had a college professor tell me once: "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics"Im starting not to like you, everytime i respond to you i end up typing a book, and i hate typing!:D I could agree more with you about more inspections, we've got a 1/4 million "inspectors" ready to go, lets send them in.....

Jon

[big jon's 240]

good point main...its funny that they always bring up n korea, and why arent we doing anything about that if we are acting on iraq. Truth is if we were confronting n korea militarily right now they would be crying about that as well....they dont want that either. isolationism doesnt work.

True. Im sure NK will get theirs eventually. Kim jong il, that little fat bastards gonna go. Its just a matter of hwo gets to him first, us, or the people he is starving.

[s14=pimpin']

I have no doubt that Iraq has weapons they shouldn't have, and there are billions of people who agree with me I am sure. We have waited long and hard for Saddam to comply with ultimatums: he never does, and we never back up our word on it so that those against war don't get pissed off at us. We have given him plenty of time, he has responded by insulting our intelligence with lies and other farces. Enough is enough. I support our choice, whether it is war or not, because I have confidence that we are doing everything we can to avoid conflict. If there is war, don't blame the USA, blame Saddam. Remember, there are many countries standing by us in this.

To think... all Saddam has to do is follow a friggin treaty and we're done. Disarm a few bombs and we leave him alone... he's the bad guy, not Bush. Bush is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If Saddam doesn't cooperate then Bush either has to sit back and watch Saddam terrorize the world (he will) or lose the support of millions by doing what he know must be done: disarm or dethrone Saddam.

War is not a desirable ends by any means, but if it comes down to it, I have no qualms going in there. Sorry if my post is incoherent at all

why is it that Bush goes around bullying Iraq and not the rest of the world? Why is it the past 2 American wars have been under the bush family? Oil, money, power, greed, all of the above??

I'm sure the US has many more weapons than other other nation. Weapons NO country should have, but who goes into the states demanding that they destroy all their weapons? No one! Leave the world alone, and mind your own damn business, if you ask me.

True, i don't want to hear the whole story, from your point of view. The crap i read in here makes me pretty close to vomiting, sorry if that comes off as ignorant, but its my choice. Again, I'm from the outside looking in, and our Canadian TV's don't have half the propaganda crap that your televisions have, so for some misinformed civilian, I can't blame you.

War is horrible. If you were affected by the terrorlst attack at the WTC, then you should be the last to wish the pain you felt, on someone else, regardless of where they live. War helps no one but the wealthy politicians, and please tell me why the rest of the world isn't targeted?

I'm in no way saying saddam is better than bush or vice versa. In fact, I too wish Saddam would fall out of power, almost as much as I wish Bush wasn't in power. My point is, war is NOT the solution that is needed at the moment.

Man, I miss Clinton. The us was a happy place to live in, everyone was making money, no one was watching their backs, and Clinton is about the closest to a black president the US is ever gonna get.

sorry if my opinions offend any of you, but again, its just my opinion. I hope your country does well, and hopefully thousands of innocent lives will not be lost, one life isn't worth all the oil in the world, if you ask me.

your friendly neighborhood canuck

PauL

p.s, - a Canadian is an unarmed American with health care

[Tino]

GWRhijk WHAT!? I can't evgweyvm geez. No I'm not getting into this but damn your wrong! Argh please pay no attention to me.

[lessthanjakejohn]

Man, I miss Clinton. The us was a happy place to live in, everyone was making money, no one was watching their backs, and Clinton is about the closest to a black president the US is ever gonna get.

You just invalidated your entire argument... Clinton wasn't that good...id consider him pretty bad actually

[VimyJ]

It is impossible for the inspectors to probe all of Iraq for banned weapons/mass destruction.. The fact that he has said he doesnt have any banned arms yet we find all of this makes clear the fact that he is a liar and we cannot trust what he says...even when he says they have no weapons of mass destruction.

All the more reason for more inspefors and more time. What's the rush? Is W afraid the public may just start to wise up to the half truths they're being served. Blix should demand a thousand more inspectors. The guy is a *****. Still there's no need to rush. It's better to take his stuff nice and easy like pardner. Kind of like the joke about the old bull and the young bull sitting on the hill looking at the heifers. The inexperienced younger bull says to the older one, "Let's run down and screw all those heifers all at once!" The old bull says "Why don't we just walk down there and screw 'em one at a time." What's the rush except for fear of the polls slipping?

Quote » Heard the news lately? Saddam just opened a camp for suicide atackers. a threat? I think so, a threat to national security.[/quote]I saw that and it was speculation that Saddam might be doing that. Specualtion. Which is probably OK with most US citizens right now because they're already still believing artist's conceptions and vials of icing sugar are evidence. Sheesh...

Quote »you know i was being sarcastic as to your just reading the local paper...my point being that some (actually a lot) information is classified and is not released to the public. It is not strategically smart to reveal EVERYTHING we know.[/quote]

How about the fact that NO information has been forthcoming? Satelite photos of semi's suddenly become artist's conception of what a mobile biochemical lab might look like if Iraq maybe had one which we're really not that sure that he does. No evidence linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. None. "We think that an Iraqi guy that has a boil of his butt was treated at an Iraqi hospital". that's the evidence for a connection? Please..... C'mon, give me a break! What's the rush. How about a 100 more inspectors? Let's get the inspections going and the UN in step.

Quote »....had the french showed courage and leadership in 1936 there may not have been a ww2. Yet again they stand in the way of what should be done. Let us not be doomed to repeat history.[/quote]Don't get me started on the French. The Quebecois who proudly wear their gaulic roots on their sleeves want to separate from the best country in the world in order to set up a second rate backwater. Gaulic pride is unfathomable

[MaineExport]

Clinton is about the closest to a black president the US is ever gonna get.

Well, that is an insult to black people all over the world, he sure doesn't play sax like most black blues musicians! Well, to drag the stereotypes out... he did like fat white women!!!

[MaineExport]

I saw that and it was speculation that Saddam might be doing that. Specualtion. Which is probably OK with most US citizens right now because they're already still believing artist's conceptions and vials of icing sugar are evidence. Sheesh...

Vimy, Vimy, Vimy!!! Pot calling kettle black if I have ever heard it. Your entire argument about why "W. and co." are going to war is precisely that.... SPECULATION!!!! I guess if it's good for us it's good for you. You are the KING of speculation. The artist's renderings were more convincing and better thought out than most of your rants. Yes, you make some interesting points and shed new perspective on some issues.... but to discount these findings as 'speculation' when 99% of your posts are far less founded... is more than a little hypocritical.

[VimyJ]

sorry if my opinions offend any of you,

Why are you apologising for posting your opinion? You have as much right to say what's on your mind as anyone else here. At least that's how we're brought up in Canada. Free country.

Can anyone translate "Department of Homeland Security" into German? I'd just like to see how it looks.

[VimyJ]

Vimy, Vimy, Vimy!!! Pot calling kettle black if I have ever heard it. Your entire argument about why "W. and co." are going to war is precisely that.... SPECULATION!!!! I guess if it's good for us it's good for you. You are the KING of speculation. The artist's renderings were more convincing and better thought out than most of your rants. Yes, you make some interesting points and shed new perspective on some issues.... but to discount these findings as 'speculation' when 99% of your posts are far less founded... is more than a little hypocritical.

maine, Maine, Maine... If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times, my arguments are based upon facts and my reasoning based upon logical deduction.

Maine, I believe you are studying an empiracle science. Engineering, right? If so you must be familiar with the scientific method. The scientific method often uses models to test hypothesis. For instance, the model of the universe constructed using Newtonian physics couldn't handle the observed affects of Einstien's theories of relativity and therefore the model had to be changed.

My "speculation" as you refer to it, came as a result of looking at the model W would have me believe and then trying to see if his model could support and/or sustain tests put upon it. W's model's biggest flaw is the haste that he feels he has to launch this invasion of a country that provides no immediate threat on any level and UN be damned. Why the rush? Give me my FX45 and expences and I'll inspect Iraq for a year.

N. Korea? Crap, (which reminds me to check Strong Bad's latest opus) those are the dangerous SOB's. They'll have credible deliverable nukes in a couple of months.

Save us from W!