I agree with F_alk that if WMD HAVE been found, then the evidence has not been forthcoming, or it has been proven wrong. Of course just as before, we are being expected to find the evidence, and we who consider that war was unnecessary (and maybe even a little bit “wrong”) are considered anti-American even as the reasons for war are slowly shifting away from the enforcement of 1441 which has been clung to so viligently by others on this site, in addition to Blair Bush.
w.r.t. the site F_alk pointed to, i think that i am either:

1. More naive than F_alk, or
2. Less paranoid.
   I think that America has been “strutting it” a little too much around the world, and is on the razor edge when it comes to motives (i.e. i really hope that they at least continue to appear to be wanting to do the right thing). Although it appears to be the attitude of many Americans, i do not yet see the American agenda to be "lets make the rest of the world “America” - yet.

the opposite would mean that the intelligence given by the US was helpful and actually informing …
As you assure me of that, can you give me a report/quote which says so?

No, I’m sorry. I can’t. :(

I don’t doubt that the intelligence given by the US to the weapons inspectors was probably not all that “juicy.” I wouldn’t trust the UN as much as F_alk probably would, much less would I give them information that our spies risked their lives to get. Therefore, I don’t see the value of giving this information to UN inspectors, since they’ve already proved themselves incompetant in the past. Their hotel rooms are bugged, and there’s even talk of Saddam paying people off on the inside.

I think the information we did give them was more or less aimed at pleasing the rest of the world.

@Deviant:Scripter:

the opposite would mean that the intelligence given by the US was helpful and actually informing …
As you assure me of that, can you give me a report/quote which says so?

No, I’m sorry. I can’t. :(

I don’t doubt that the intelligence given by the US to the weapons inspectors was probably not all that “juicy.” I wouldn’t trust the UN as much as F_alk probably would, much less would I give them information that our spies risked their lives to get. Therefore, I don’t see the value of giving this information to UN inspectors, since they’ve already proved themselves incompetant in the past. Their hotel rooms are bugged, and there’s even talk of Saddam paying people off on the inside.

I think the information we did give them was more or less aimed at pleasing the rest of the world.

fortunately the “aim” of the American soldiers appears better than that of your information providers . . . .

A violation) Iraq fired missles that exceeded the range limitations, radar telemetry exists to prove this.

A violation) Weapons inspectors did find about a dozen shells that could be used for WMD and should have been destroyed.

A violation) Inspectors had minders that violated ‘unfetered access’ by monitoring their actions and forewarning possible target inspection sites.

Any one of those should be grounds for regime change. He was on probation and we should have zero tolerance for ‘convicted criminals’. Argue the miniscule nuainces of semantics but he was the leader of a country who invaded a neighbour country and ultimately lost the war. He was on probation and failed several tests.

He was a little guilty like young mothers were a little pregnant awhile ago. Guilty is as guilty does.

BB

@cystic:

… and we who consider that war was unnecessary (and maybe even a little bit “wrong”) are considered anti-American even as the reasons for war are slowly shifting away from the enforcement of 1441 which has been clung to so viligently by others on this site, in addition to Blair Bush.

very true. Humanitarian action and regime change (as needed as it was, and as good as it hopefully does to the people) was never a part of 1441. 1441 and disarmament was first used as the excuse for an attack, but somehow it changed to something that makes a better PR-campaign.
That makes the attack even more illegal (loosely speaking), but more “humane”.

w.r.t. the site F_alk pointed to, i think that i am either:

1. More naive than F_alk, or
2. Less paranoid.

Maybe both :)….
I mentioned that i often prepare for the worst and can be quite pessimistic (and you less paranoid), but then, the US rethorics have pointed that way a few years ago already (so, maybe you are a bit more naive).

(i.e. i really hope that they at least continue to appear to be wanting to do the right thing). Although it appears to be the attitude of many Americans, i do not yet see the American agenda to be "lets make the rest of the world “America” - yet.

grins i like that “continue to appear to be wanting” :)….
For the agenda, well, the world doesn’t need to be America. It can be anything as long as the US dominates the world’s markets and policy, as long as the US are the hegemon. Anyone who puts up any resistance though, well…

@Deviant:Scripter:

I don’t doubt that the intelligence given by the US to the weapons inspectors was probably not all that “juicy.” I wouldn’t trust the UN as much as F_alk probably would, much less would I give them information that our spies risked their lives to get.

Spies? Like satellite photos? That was most of the information the UN got, so you say the info gathered by “spies” was held back? I doubt that there was a lot of that kind of info.
For not trusting the UN:
If you don’t trust the UN, why should i trust the US?

Therefore, I don’t see the value of giving this information to UN inspectors, since they’ve already proved themselves incompetant in the past. Their hotel rooms are bugged, and there’s even talk of Saddam paying people off on the inside.

incompetent? When? The disarmament after ‘91 was not working (even with the sticks and stones thrown in the inspectors’ way)??? Bugged rooms cough cough … you mean “bugged” like the EU offices (with bugs that can be placed there by about 4 nations in the world technological-know-how-wise)? Or “bugged” like with the ECHOLON system that is used by the operating nations for industrial espionage??

I think the information we did give them was more or less aimed at pleasing the rest of the world.

And it failed to do that job. Try harder next time….

@BigBlocky:

Any one of those should be grounds for regime change. He was on probation and we should have zero tolerance for ‘convicted criminals’. Argue the miniscule nuainces of semantics but he was the leader of a country who invaded a neighbour country and ultimately lost the war. He was on probation and failed several tests.

So, it is the cops duty to decide what is right or wrong, and not the jurys?
Since when does the world need the judge, cop and executioner in one person/nation? How does that fit into the values that are claimed to be defended by that nation?
How would the US react if …
say another permament member of the security council masses troops next to Israel, givign them an ultimatum to (a) get rid of all their WMDs and (b) leave all palestine territory? There are standing resolutions against Israel (and about a zillion blocked by the US veto)…
How would think of that? Would that be “legal”? Where is the judicial difference between these two? (i only ask for the judicial difference, nothing else, this is not about who is “better” or religiously more “fundamentalist” etc etc)

And it failed to do that job. Try harder next time….

If I were the President, next time I’d tell ya to kiss my a-s-s.

So, it is the cops duty to decide what is right or wrong, and not the jurys?

The UN isn’t a jury. Sorry to disappoint you :(

Since when does the world need the judge, cop and executioner in one person/nation? How does that fit into the values that are claimed to be defended by that nation?

Since when does the world need an organization who’s aim is to become the single world government?

@Deviant:Scripter:

And it failed to do that job. Try harder next time….

If I were the President, next time I’d tell ya to kiss my a-s-s.?

well, he pretty much says that on a globel level anyway . . . .

So, it is the cops duty to decide what is right or wrong, and not the jurys?

The UN isn’t a jury. Sorry to disappoint you :( ?

i think the point is that the U.S. is acting both as cop and jury and is not a jury either . . . .

Since when does the world need the judge, cop and executioner in one person/nation? How does that fit into the values that are claimed to be defended by that nation?

Since when does the world need an organization who’s aim is to become the single world government?

well, the U.S. is more a nation than an organization, but i agree with you . . . .

The US Congress (House of Representatives and Senate)
writes the checks (har de har har!)
Balance? Nobody! (Republican or Democrat.)
–----------------------------------------
:lol: Sorry :lol: , I coildn’t resist. :roll:

@various:

Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?

Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT?

Putting up the US flag? Well, if you like it, then it must be something everybody likes, right?

I saw the live broadcast of the event. The Iraqi people cheered and gestured when the US flag was placed over SH’s statue face. Please, note how quickly the US soldier took the US flag down and placed an IRAQ FLAG of the former government of Iraq on the statue. The people continued cheering in a friendly fashion. The Iraqi standing on the pedestal reached for (and most likely asked for) the US flag and waved it to the crowd, which continued to cheer (as the Iraq flag was being placed over SH’s face.

What’s your problem? The 200 (low estimate) Iraqi people were elated. Go back and find a valid complaint.

RE: British berets … The US has purchased a large # of berets for the US Army … the problem is … they were made in China (PRC.) Nyuk, nyuk! :P

Name a country which is trying diplomacy, i.e. shipping food to Iraq (along with food distribution professionals [who I bet will make business contacts for future [i]diplomatic ,better read as economic, benefits]), and saying “Paris is America’s strongest ally in the war against terrorism.”
Did anyone say France? You guessed correctly.

Those who do not live in France …
If you don’t want to argue for France …
Don’t take the arguments personally.

Euro peoples … What’s the difference between the EU and EU region? does the second (EU region) include neighboring nations that are not in the EU?

@Xi:

Euro peoples … What’s the difference between the EU and EU region? does the second (EU region) include neighboring nations that are not in the EU?

No to the second. To the first, let me ask a counter-question:
What is the difference between the Nation “United States of America” and all (the sum of) its member-states?
“region” per se is only land(scape), it doesn’t necessarily include peoples, ideas, ideals, history etc., and sometimes the Union is more than the sum of its members (IMHO).

Perhaps the difference between a Texan and somebody who lives in San Francisco is not the same as the difference between somebody who lives in Ankara versus somebody who lives in Amsterdam. However, the average Texan and the average Californian have great differences in opinions. I have been to Texas and have been to California and have been to Amsterdam (not yet to Ankara however) so I know a bit first hand. There is probably more differences in average attitudes between those two ‘states’ and say France and Germany.

Most US southerners still don’t like the northerners that much, I’m not saying dislike but, the north east and west coasts are very liberal and the south is very conservative.

BB

That’s true, it seems like the rural areas seem to lay claim to more conseratives than do the more populated ones. (Of course there’s exceptions to this), but look at all the states that #43 won in his election against Gore.

Yeap! Most celebrities and many politicians seem to think of Middle America as ‘fly-over country.’ It is filled with ‘the poor, uneducated masses’, which need to be humored, but cared for by ‘those who know best.’ ‘Those who know best’ live, work and spend most of their time on the west coast (from LA to Seattle) and the east coast (from DC to MASS [though Vermont, NH and ME think that they are part of those who know best.'])
I’ve traveled (SE Asia, Japan and the Philippines, Mexico and Puerto Rico) and spent enough time listening to people from all over the US. I’d rather move to and hang with folks from Presque Isle, ME, Appalachia, VA(Yes, there is such a mined-out, side track town!), Montgomery or Mobile,AL, Palestine, TX(I was there decades before they got their own Wallymart), Salt Lake City, UT(nice people, different faith), Ravendale, CA(My dad was born there.), Clarkston, WA(on the Snake River, near the big city of Lewiston, ID), Billings, MO(which I like to call “The biggest little city in the biggest little state.”), Kansas City, KS or St. Louis, MO. This is not to say that the east and west coasts don’t have some positive, intelligent and friendly residents, but I find that more small town, non-west/east coasters are able to disagree agreeably.

DS, that’s right.

If you look closely at the same map you’ll see that Al Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee. No candidate has yet won the presidency without carrying his home state.

Of course, the argument over whether Tennessee or Washington, DC was his home state is another discussion altogther :P .

“George W. Bush is my president.” - Al Gore, 2001.

• taken from CBC newssite
  Banned weapons may never be found in Iraq: Bush
  Last Updated Fri, 25 Apr 2003 8:21:07
  WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush has hinted that chemical and biological weapons might not be found in Iraq, saying the arsenal could have been destroyed or moved out of the country.

INDEPTH: Iraq: Issues and Analysis

Bush said Thursday he’s certain Saddam Hussein’s regime had such weapons at one time, even though U.S. forces in Iraq have so far turned up nothing.
At a speech at an Ohio factory that makes parts for battle tanks, Bush for the first time hinted that Saddam’s weapons cache might never be found.

“It’s going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we’re going to find out the truth,” said Bush.

“One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

But much of the world is asking whether Saddam was ever a threat to the U.S., since no trace of the weapons that were the original justification for the war in Iraq has been found.

At an earlier stop in Ohio, Bush portrayed the war in Iraq as one of liberation, designed to remove a despot.

• which leads me to wonder “why should the world believe anything that Bush says”?

There’s no question about it, if we don’t find WMD, Bush will lose credibility in the world view. However, it would be a mistake to prejudge him a “liar,” only to turn up the WMD in Syria a year from now.

However, that outcome alone doesn’t neccessarily make the case for war against Iraq any less justifiable. WMD was only one precursor reason for invading Iraq. Add it to your list of: freeing the Iraqi people AND upholding UN resolutions.

DS, watch out! BB is trying to pass you in posts.
But really … who cares! I just noticed I had passed a big milestone recently. Those of us who do(or, as for me, did previously)care … what does it matter as many posts are one word, one phrase or poppycock.

After losing the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the government of Saddam Hussein admitted that Iraq had WMDs.

The UN has acknowledged that Iraq had WMDs.
Hans Blix has acknowledged that Iraq had WMDs.

Iraq’s documentation in response to UN Resolution 1441 did not address the existence nor destruction of the WMDs which Iraq had previously acknowledged.

Iraq is acknowledged by many national gov’ts. as being more fanatical about documentation than the Third Reich.

@Tariq:

“We were born in Iraq and we will die in Iraq, either as martyrs, which is a great honor, or naturally, if God’s will. Do you expect me, after all my history as a militant and as an Iraqi - one of the Iraqi leaders, to go to an American prison, to go to Guantanamo? Hmm? I would prefer to die.”

No Aziz, you wouldn’t, and no Aziz, you didn’t. He did not become a martyr, he did not commit suicide, and let there be no confusion - he had plenty of chances. The bottom line is he would gladly go to Guantanamo if that’s what it meant to stay alive. He’s just like all these other terrorist leaders. They’re all for martyrdom, until it’s their turn.

LOL. :P

They don’t mind dying…they just don’t want to be there when it happens. :wink: