Fixed.

Looks more like some people are gloating because the administration isn't clairvoyant.

Seeing how so many people were just so sure they had WMD's, I think he has a right to gloat.

Because major military offences should be launched from a solid base of clairvoyancy, preminitions, and fabrications...

They are under my pillow....

But France, Russia and China are apparently

So am I apparently, someone give me a job in ASIO.

The one where the US supported the Panamanian rebels in order to gain control of the land necessary to build the Panama Canal.

Saddam was just a little dictator guy much in the same way Fidel was. Fidel hates America and HE ACTUALLY HAD WMDs in his country for a while. Why doesnt Bush attack him next? If Iraq was a threat, then Cuba IS a threat!

Because, at current time, everyone knows for certain that he doesn't have any WMDs since the Soviets removed them.

I was told that there has been WMD in iraq. Also saddam was executed.

I don't remember you or China declaring WMDs in Iraq but I do know that both France and Russia believed he had them. I'm not sure what your point is.

So guess what Bush is saying now to save face?

The war is justified because because there are no WMD's!!!!
Even though Saddam couldn't run a weapons program under sanctions, he was trying to weaken them so he could get a program going. Good thing we stopped him in time!!!!!

That's also what the latest UN report happens to say. Bush isn't pulling that out of his ***.

Morf, Wookie: The Bush administration hand-picked intelligence and advisors to support the conclusion that they had already settled on. There were more than a few people who actually mattered who argued violently that Iraq was already disarmed. In addition, many Americans and most of the world became suspicious when the White House was completely incapable of providing even a little bit of valid evidence to support their dire predictions.

That's their range? I thought it could reach Japan?

Japan isn't that far away from NK

I'll try to respond to this in a way that we can agree on while disagreeing on the core issue.

I think it's fair to say that much of the UN agreed that Iraq was in violation of many (if not all) of the resolutions against in. France and Russia are on record as having provided us intelligence that suggested Saddam was a threat. The main debate was what to do about it.

I believe that the president is being honest when he says that in the post-911 world the threat could not be ignored. He chose to believe the worst case intelligence or, at least, act as if the worst case intelligence could be true. Couple that with the fact that Iraq routinely frustrated the inspection process. Hard working people trying to do their job and it seems reasonable to believe the threat was real. Of course the debate still being what to do about it.

Bush made his choice. Disagree with the choice if you want. That's fine but it should be pointed out that both Kerry and Edwards are on record as having supported it. Edwards, not Bush nor Cheney, is on record as having said Iraq and Saddam was an imminent threat. I only bring that up because of the political talks here now.

Ictus, did you catch my post regarding the quote of me you posted?

Mort-Hog: I am not going to reply to your inane racist anti-democratic tripe for the umpteenth time except to answer one question:



The Middle East? Turkey. No other.

Africa? .. Nigeria, South Africa, Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Uganda, Ghana, Niger, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, etc

Asia? .. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Mongolia, Cambodia..and..god..there's one other. ****, I think it starts with an 'A'.

How many non-Western countries have to hold fair elections in order for you to shut the **** up about democracy being a Western concept? All of them? Jesus

The UN report says that the invasion is justified because there aren't WMD's? I find this hard to believe. Do you have a cite?


Wasn't democracy invented by the Greeks anyway? And then Rome took a lot of Greek culture and since Rome's influence spread pretty far, I guess you're right about it not being a western concept.

That's not what I said, chief. The UN report said that Saddam was waiting for the UN to lose interest/remove sanctions before starting WMD and nuclear research again

I don't think Bush has a chance anymore. There is just going to be overwhelming youth voter turn out, all in favor of Kerry... I really don't care anymore either.

I say the US is screwed either way

Okay, but I don't think that means we should have invaded them. We could have kept up the sanctions. They were obviously working, despite Bush's claims to the contrary.

I know I'll be doing my part on November 2nd.

So "planning to try and attempt to create a situation where it would be possible to create some sort of weapons of indeterminate sort" is now a valid casus belli?

The sanctions were preventing Iraq from developing weapons, so the USA attacks in case they ever decide to lighten up on the sanctions in the future?

And there are people actually standing up for it? Because 2000 or so people dying is enough to create a "post 9/11 world"? The amount of paranoia and desire to trade freedom for a false delusion of "security" that a freak accident caused (and could never cause again) is astounding. That people can think that the reduction of freedom inherent in the "Patriot" Act, and invading other countries who have, by their administration's own admission, done nothing to warrant it, is fighting for freedom; when other countries are criticised for deciding things by their own freedom, and then criticised for it when they are proven to have been right all along, is beyond belief.

If I ever go back in time, I'm gonna punch George Orwell in the face for coming up with the concept of doublespeak.