The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 5  

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
But for the UN to be satisfied that they have disarmed they have to prove they have destroyed certain things. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you really believe that? No, and neither do I. You're missing the point entirely.

Everyone here knows the documents say that Iraq has to have full disclosure. We've been discussing this for months. You can pretend I don't know this, why, so you can avoid discussing anything? I guess so.

You can say I'm ignorant of the fact that the U.N. requires Iraq to prove X,Y, & Z. I'm not. I'm just being realistic. I'm not arguing semantics, like yourself. I'm discussing what can really happen, what can really be expected, not what can be written down on paper.

So, lay off the semantics, and use your brain instead. Isolate yourself from your bias and think about the situation. You're discussing this like a computer. 'But the paper says "Z, Y, X"!' If you can't see past that, if you can't think for yourself, then your input is of no value here.

Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.

Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.

Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.

You're not some prophet with insight no one else can see. The U.N. has asked Iraq to prove things. No one expects them too. We'll get them to talk as much as possible and root out the rest. The U.N. has no intention of going to war if Iraq doesn't disclose 100% and they shouldn't.

You keep up with this charade asking for proof because you know it's impossible for Iraq to do. And being impossible you want it to be a trigger for war. Again, you're bias is that you have an agenda that's not the same as the U.N. You're looking for a reason to go to war while the U.N. is looking to disarm Iraq.

These are two distinctly differet agendas. So now you keep harping on 'proof of destruction'.

Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.

Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.

Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.

That's just the way it is. Everyone knew it before Resolution 1441. Everyone knew it as they wrote Resolution 1441. No one but the U.S. (and perhaps Britain) believes that this lack of proof from Saddam is a reason to go to war.

No one but the U.S. (and perhaps Britain) believes that this lack of proof from Saddam is a reason to go to war.

Sorry. So you can go back to whining about a lack of proof, and I'll just say 'who cares?'

Disarmament is the goal. It can be achieved without war. You haven't tried, simply because you can't, to show a shred of evidence that demonstrates that it's impossible to disarm Iraq without war.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>...
That's just the way it is. Everyone knew it before Resolution 1441. Everyone knew it as they wrote Resolution 1441. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

To use a commonly mistated NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". It isn't the weapons that are important or has everyone forgotten that two commercial planes took down the WTC and not WMD.

1441 was written knowing the solution was the removal of Saddam and not the removal of his weapons. Because lots of countries have WMD, it is what he will do with them that drives the war hysteria.

Hey, if US citizens can own full auto weapons, I think it's only far to let Saddam have a Few nukes. NOT

[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>...

Hey, if US citizens can own full auto weapons, I think it's only far to let Saddam have a Few nukes. NOT </strong><hr></blockquote>


Well they can't so ... start the war!

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>
Well they can't so ... start the war! </strong><hr></blockquote>

I should have used "Have" and not "Own".

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Do you really believe that? No, and neither do I. You're missing the point entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And the point is that the UN is wrong and you know what's going on. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]<strong>I'm just being realistic. I'm not arguing semantics, like yourself. I'm discussing what can really happen, what can really be expected, not what can be written down on paper.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you think Iraq can be fully disarmed without certain things being proven you're a fool. Even Iraq understands this, why do you think they sent letters on chemical weapons to Blix today?

[quote]<strong>Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then what's the point of dealing with them?

[quote]<strong>The U.N. has asked Iraq to prove things. No one expects them too. We'll get them to talk as much as possible and root out the rest. The U.N. has no intention of going to war if Iraq doesn't disclose 100% and they shouldn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you know what "the rest" is without full disclosure? How do you search for something that you don't even know whether or not it exists?

[quote]<strong>You keep up with this charade asking for proof because you know it's impossible for Iraq to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

UNMOVIC doesn't seem to think it's impossible. Blix says in his reports that it's possible for Iraq to satisfy him that the weapons were, in fact, destroyed.

You have no backing for your arguments.

[quote]<strong>Disarmament is the goal. It can be achieved without war. You haven't tried, simply because you can't, to show a shred of evidence that demonstrates that it's impossible to disarm Iraq without war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

12 years of history tell me that disarming Iraq is not possible without force. If you want to ignore history that's your business. It's the easiest way to remain willfully ignorant.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

12 years of history tell me that disarming Iraq is not possible without force. If you want to ignore history that's your business. It's the easiest way to remain willfully ignorant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

See, but you're blind enough, ignorant enough, or just simple enough to pretend that the previous years of sanctions and inspections are the same as they are now.

That's just not true.

Oh, and a snide <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> to you too.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

See, but you're blind enough, ignorant enough, or just simple enough to pretend that the previous years of sanctions and inspections are the same as they are now.

That's just not true.

Oh, and a snide <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> to you too. </strong><hr></blockquote>

When things here get worse because of the war and people start thinking it's a bad idea.

An expensive ( in more ways than one ) boondoggle.

These guys won't be saying much. Ether that or they'll still be blaming Clinton for everything.



[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>See, but you're blind enough, ignorant enough, or just simple enough to pretend that the previous years of sanctions and inspections are the same as they are now.

That's just not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How is it not true?

Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. - Hans Blix (Report to the UN Security Council 2/14/03)

But you know better than Blix and the UN. You are very smart.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

How is it not true?...But you know better than Blix and the UN. You are very smart.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm speaking realistically. The inspectors have also admitted to 'lying' about how much they know with the hope that it would spur Saddam into admitting more because he'd fear they knew about something that they actually didn't.

It IS a cat and mouse game. Quote as much doublespeak as you want, it doesn't change the truth. You would have to be very naive or simple minded to think otherwise. Like Bush.

How can we know that Iraq has fully disarmed when they can't prove that they destroyed weapons we knew they had?

Oh, so that is solely the realm of the Bush administration?

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[speaks in an Oliver North tone over a really, really bad digital communication link]

Ironically, this AO topic will probably last longer than it will take for the US to overrun Iraq. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>How can we know that Iraq has fully disarmed when they can't prove that they destroyed weapons we knew they had?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You probably don't know it, but that's a trick question. Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had. That doesn't mean we can go to war.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

You probably don't know it, but that's a trick question. Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had. That doesn't mean we can go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Russians, err, Soviets never had trouble with that. But then, following treaty protocol, they (like us) would destroy their weapons in the open, videotape the event, and invite observers from either the US military or a international mediator to confirm with their own eyes. You can't deny a Yankee missle sub is out of commission if you watched the Sovs pour concrete into all the missle tubes. Similarly, the South Africans (and numerous others) had little trouble proving they had destroyed their nuclear program materials. Saddam, however, did it in secret, without telling anyone at the time, and with no record of any kind except his own assertions. Or maybe, just maybe, he didn't actually do it at all?

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

Or maybe, just maybe, he didn't actually do it at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why don't we send inspectors in to find out?

Well, maybe we won't <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/16/wirq16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/16/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=14408 2" target="_blank">have</a> to go to war if the Iraqis can take care of it themselves.

Or (most likely) that will make the war very very quick (as if it wasn't going to be already).

[quote]<strong>Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But it can be proven by inspectors somehow?
Really, bunge, you're tripping over your own web of foolish logic.

As far as saying Iraq can't prove it, you're once again saying you know more than the UN & UNMOVIC. For what they can do to prove they destroyed the VX, look at pages 83 & 84 of the "Cluster" document I posted about earlier. You'll notice at the end of every weapon description there's a section entitled: "Actions that Iraq could take to help resolve the issue"

Blix is doing everything he can to avoid war, it's a shame Iraq won't help him.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Really, bunge, you're tripping over your own web of foolish logic. </strong><hr></blockquote>

No, you're just happy to settle on semantic games instead of an intelligent conversation.

If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
If he CAN...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure he CAN but he WON'T.

So if he can then you're right that he can't?

Amazing!

He can prove he has disarmed. He has had that ability for 12 years. This is not new.

I found this interesting.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2847929.stm" target="_blank">Legal experts scour old resolutions</a>

[quote]Resolution 687: "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities." <hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
Sure he CAN but he WON'T.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK. He can. The hawks (no offense intended Mr. Spiff) are now getting their signals crossed.

The question isn't if he can or can't disarm without war, because we all know he can even if some here refuse to admit it. The real question is will he do it or not.

Inch by inch over these past few months he has been doing what we need him to in order for us to disarm him peacefully, or at least without war. We're getting more and more access to the country, he actually destroyed some missles (!!), and we are going to be able to root this stuff out.

So will he do it or not? Not if we just ask him to do it, even if we ask really nicely. But we're putting a clamp around the country and the dam will ultimately burst without a war.

That's why Bush is in such a frenzy, because the need for war is evaporating. But evidently Bush's global plans (whatever they are) still need war in Iraq. So he's got to get his battle in now before the rest of the world can really see that there is no need for war.

[quote]<strong>Inch by inch over these past few months he has been doing what we need him to in order for us to disarm him peacefully, or at least without war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because war is worse than the slaughter by sanctions? I like that blind, head-in-the-sand logic. Killing hundreds of thousands MORE Iraqis by sanctions over an indefinite period of time in an inconclusive process that has little hope of really working is better than a quick military action that will replace the asshole who causes all this in the first place and remove all doubts and impediments for a positive future for the people of Iraq. That's some thinking!

[quote]<strong>We're getting more and more access to the country, he actually destroyed some missles (!!), and we are going to be able to root this stuff out.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you "root out" chemical weapons? If you figure it out you might want to inform Blix and Co., they've had a hell of a time finding it for the last 12 years.

Needless to say:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it.

Of course, Blix is just a war-mongering liar.

[quote]<strong>So will he do it or not? Not if we just ask him to do it, even if we ask really nicely. But we're putting a clamp around the country and the dam will ultimately burst without a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So we punish the people until *they* do our job for us? Fantastic!
"I will beat you until you overthrow the master that beats you!"

[quote]<strong>That's why Bush is in such a frenzy, because the need for war is evaporating. But evidently Bush's global plans (whatever they are) still need war in Iraq. So he's got to get his battle in now before the rest of the world can really see that there is no need for war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"global plans" for world domination, no doubt!
Just ignore the fact that he has, AT MOST, 5 more years in office.

I just heard Bush talking about the overthrow of Saddam bring the "swift end to economic sanctions."

Should the French be happy? Shouldn't those who actually give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people be happy?

"If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided."

And what is that way, bunge? If you honestly think that 100, 200, or 1500 inspectors (see the other thread) can disarm someone without cooperation, then you are truly not based in reality. It is totally impossible. We have tried every other option. Again, bunge, I ask you: How will the inspectors find everything without Saddam's cooperation?

Enough with the vague statements about how we can avoid war...tell us HOW. He will continue to deceive, and as long as he does that the inspections will fail. Oh sure, they might LOOK like their working...but he'll still have his weapons.

I say again:

Inspections have failed
Sanctions have failed
Limited military action has failed
Resolutions have failed

If you argue force is a last resort, then we are there.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>"If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided."

And what is that way, bunge? If you honestly think that 100, 200, or 1500 inspectors (see the other thread) can disarm someone without cooperation, then you are truly not based in reality. It is totally impossible. We have tried every other option. Again, bunge, I ask you: How will the inspectors find everything without Saddam's cooperation?

Enough with the vague statements about how we can avoid war...tell us HOW. He will continue to deceive, and as long as he does that the inspections will fail. Oh sure, they might LOOK like their working...but he'll still have his weapons.

I say again:

Inspections have failed
Sanctions have failed
Limited military action has failed
Resolutions have failed

If you argue force is a last resort, then we are there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>

But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?</strong><hr></blockquote>


They're in Iraq. Blix can't find them because 1) He's a boob 2) Iraq hasn't complied with 1441. Let me repeat that. Iraq has not compiled with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. <a href="http://www.Iraqhasnotcompliedwith1441.com" target="_blank">Iraq has not complied with 1441.</a>

Saddam is a murder, torture, rapist and ethnic cleanser. Nothing has worked on him. Except the first Gulf War. War is the only thing that works on him. Everything has been tried and not we are at the last resort.

[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


They're in Iraq. Blix can't find them because 1) He's a boob 2) Iraq hasn't complied with 1441. Let me repeat that. Iraq has not compiled with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. <a href="http://www.Iraqhasnotcompliedwith1441.com" target="_blank">Iraq has not complied with 1441.</a>

Saddam is a murder, torture, rapist and ethnic cleanser. Nothing has worked on him. Except the first Gulf War. War is the only thing that works on him. Everything has been tried and not we are at the last resort.

[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.

On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.

[quote]<strong>Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What does any of that mean?
The UN has been waging war on the Iraqi people for 12 years. Some pessimistic estimates say over one million Iraqi civilians dead from economic sanctions (that do nothing to Saddam). The UN's own numbers say 500,000+ from 1991-1996.

What does France propose to do to punish Saddam? Anything at all?

I say the only real chance Iraq's people has in this is a war that ousts Hussein. I can't believe there are so many people screaming for nothing to be done, nothing at all. I can understand disliking "war". I don't like "war" either. No one does.

Powerdoc: the point of forced disarmament is to punish Saddam. If the goal was just to punish the Iraqi people we'd continue toothless inspections and economic sanctions. People die by more than bombs.

[quote]<strong>On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not interested in that and none of the UN resolutions show that they are interested in partial disarmament or even majority disarmament.

Your president says Iraq is a threat to the region, I don't think anyone really disputes that.

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah, but the hawks want a war if they can't have 100% compliance. It doesn't matter if Saddam is an actual threat or not, they want war. At least, that's what groverat said. "Not 99% compliance. It's 100% or war." I believe that's pretty close to an exact quote.

I think my quote is "not 99.99%, but 100%".

At least get it right, come on!

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

What france proposed to punish Saddam ? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Nothing
The resolution 1441 do not speak of punishing Saddam but to disarm Iraq.

For the number of dead we will see, if there is more dead by sanctions than war.I speak here since the trade" food against oil". A trade where both EU and USA participate.

[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>For the number of dead we will see, if there is more dead by sanctions than war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Also take into account the following:
What is left for the Iraqi people in these two plans?

--France's plan would result in what realistically?--
I think we can all agree that Saddam will never fully cooperate and that as long as he is in power the UN will never fully lift the economic sanctions. To me this is reasonable (tell me where you disagree please).

Pro:
- No war
- Iraq "contained" and "mostly disarmed"

Con:
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths (by starvation and disease)
- Hussein still in power
- No self-determination for the Iraqi people

--The United States' plan would result in what realistically?--
Whether or not the US or the UN takes this action makes little real difference. It makes a lot of political difference, but it's essentially the difference of which flags fly over US tanks. The US plan is to oust Saddam Hussein and give Iraq back to the people, essentially.

Pro:
- Iraqi self-determination
- Hussein no longer in power
- "Swift removal of economic sanctions" (&lt;- words of Dubya)
- Iraq "fully disarmed"

Con:
- War
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (by bombs) (being pessimistic)

------------------------------------------------

My opinion is that France is making a power play. Don't take this as being hostile, powerdoc, because I would certainly hope that my nation's leaders would try to make my nation more important on the world stage than they rightfully deserve. One positive in my mind is that France is at least consistent in its apathy with regard to Saddam Hussein. They were gruding in '91, have fought against sanctions and action for the last 12 years. So at the very least France sticks to her guns. As Ali G would say, "Respect."
This is the reason they are receiving the brunt of angry pro-war sentiment (and why Bush gets the brunt of the angry anti-war sentiment). Resolve in one's stance pisses the opponent off greatly.

To me, Bush's plan is the best. I have never been pro-sanctions and to be honest the US plan is the best way to free the Iraqi people from them. I am also eager to see Saddam run out on a rail and possibly brought up before a war crimes tribunal.

It's very clear to me.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I think my quote is "not 99.99%, but 100%".

At least get it right, come on!</strong><hr></blockquote>

lol!!!

jimmac:

[quote] But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist? <hr></blockquote>

Yes, I can be sure. Anyone who is not an idiot can. And no, I don't think you are an idiot. I think your just being jimmac. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />

Powerdoc:

[quote]Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.

On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region. <hr></blockquote>

Huh? The Iraqi people are not ALLOWED to ask for a war...remember? And really Powerdoc "making war on the whole nation"...oh, how horrible. I suppose we are just going to indiscriminately attack? That's a common tactic in the anti-war movement. We will not target civilians. Yes, there will be short-term consequences for civilians...but in the the long term things will be vastly better. As goverat says, the'll be better off than they are now...even DURING a war.

And the last part on the inspections. Please, Powerdoc. you are arguing that we can prevent Saddam from having most of his weapons? This is seriously flawed. Even if you are right, and I don't thuink you are, the inspections can't go on forever. As soon as the UN turns its back, guess what Saddam is going to do? You can't cure the cancer by taking out most of the cells. As soon as you stop treating it, it will come back...stronger than ever.

[quote]Ah, but the hawks want a war if they can't have 100% compliance. It doesn't matter if Saddam is an actual threat or not, they want war. At least, that's what groverat said. "Not 99% compliance. It's 100% or war." I believe that's pretty close to an exact quote. <hr></blockquote>

First, anyone who "wants" war (whatever that means) isn't a hawk. Second, without total cooperation the whole inspection process is pointless. If Saddam wishes to pursue WOMD, then he will eventually get more. What a joke this is!!! The inspectors get to run around "disarming" Iraq while he tries to build more WOMD!

You just said "he isn't going to comply completely" (I believe THAT is an exact quote )....so therefore he WILL pursue more weapons....hmmm. So, let me get this: We'll keep looking for weapons that we know he is making and isn't supposed to have. How long? Forever? This is exactly what you (and France) are proposing. It is absurd.

Powerdoc again:

[quote]Nothing
The resolution 1441 do not speak of punishing Saddam but to disarm Iraq. <hr></blockquote>

Wrong. It says "serious consequences" will follow without disarmanment.

[quote]If Saddam wishes to pursue WOMD, then he will eventually get more. What a joke this is!!! The inspectors get to run around "disarming" Iraq while he tries to build more WOMD!<hr></blockquote>

This tired old emotionally charged WOMD mantra. On and on.
VX gas? That's really looking doubtful.
<a href="http://traprockpeace.org/vxclaims.html" target="_blank">http://traprockpeace.org/vxclaims.html</a>

<a href="http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html#cexistv" target="_blank">http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html#cexistv</a>

<a href="http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html" target="_blank">http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html</a>

And...Rumsfeld, Perle et al talking about....oil.
<a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/32185" target="_blank">http://www.sundayherald.com/32185</a>

The Bush mafia keeps on lying.

[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

From the "oil" article:
[quote] 'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.' <hr></blockquote>

This sounds like perfectly reasonable thinking to me. Can anyone honestly disagree that this would be a BadThing(tm)?

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

This sounds like perfectly reasonable thinking to me. Can anyone honestly disagree that this would be a BadThing(tm)?</strong><hr></blockquote>

"If it's our oil why is it under their soil?"

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
...without total cooperation the whole inspection process is pointless. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's what people call a 'sound bite'. It's meaningless drivel until it's backed up. It's an opinion stated as fact. It's not fact, and it's not even remotely true.