I find it hard to believe that anyone can still be defending this war. Early on in this thread the point was brought up that Democrats (namely Kerry) have a most annoying habit of “flip-flopping” and changing their mind on certain issues. In my eyes, Bush and his constituents are the biggest flip-floppers of all. Not in the same manner as a Dem. but in a much more devious way. I couldn’t believe it when the weapons inspectors officially declared that there were indeed no WMD’s or the facilities in which they could be constructed in Iraq. Shortly after, the media deemed the war “operation Iraqi freedom” (that has a nice ring to it). That is the single most drastic flip-flop that I can recall in my lifetime.
(Bush and company - oh crap, there’s no nukes, no bombs, no missiles, no mines, ahh hell what do they have? knives, sharpened rocks, really strong throwing arms? how do we explain this to the American public? Operation Iraqi freedom!!!)
It’s also been stated that we’ve (America) done the right thing in helping those poor suppressed people “get free”. Freedom cannot be given out or delegated by anyone. “I now declare you…FREE” haha lol. Ridiculous. The Iraqis are experiencing the weirdest form of freedom I’ve ever heard of. Their country gets bombed into ashes, many civilians loose their lives, the country on a whole probably now despises America, and now America is going to tell them how the country is going to be run from now on. Seems about as far away from the definition of freedom as you can get.
We were all mislead into this war. I was against it from the start, but that may be because I don’t watch enough TV. It is my belief that Bush and his compadres used the tragedy of 9-11 to carry out an agenda that was more backed by financial and personal gain than a desire to do what is best for this country. After 9-11 we were all infuriated, scared, and most importantly, easy to manipulate. Most people would’ve backed the president on any plan he could have fashioned. In the eyes of the public, something had to be done.
“After all, we’re talking about a man who tried to kill my daddy”
-Bush in reference to Saddam.
If we reelect Bush, we will allow the downward spiral to continue. I am truly scared to think of what the next four years will bring if Bush is given another term in the Whitehouse. Who knows, reinstate the draft, spread democracy, take over some more countries (hell we did it once with no cause, let’s try it again).
I just might move to Canada.
Right Kirupa, but during the official report, he never said that he did not beleive Iraq possesed WMD’s. He could have just said “No enough evidence to make a dicision” or he could have said “that he didn’t know”
but that didn’t happened, he said that he did not beleive Iraq possesed WMD’s and there was no evidence to indicate otherwise.
[size=1][color=darkred]**** snippet [/color][/size]
[size=1][color=black]He [Mr. Bush] said Powell would present information and intelligence about Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. [/color][/size]
[size=1][color=darkred][color=black]“If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him,” he vowed.[/color] [/color][/size]
[size=1][color=darkred] end of snippet ****[/color][/size]
[size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size]
[color=black]hu-hu-hu.[/color]
[So very out of topic]
reading the article, I realized something gone awfully wrong. The journalist only cites official sources. How can he write an objective article with government press coverage?? How can the journalist not think even a second that those informations might greatly be subjective and fallacious… Because it comes out of the mouth of some official, it does not, in any way, mean that it is true…
[/So very out of topic - will start a thread someday…]
RB - I thought Blix also said that there is enough evidence to show that we need more inspectors with respect so some of the biological substances that weren’t documented. He also did say that force wasn’t necessary though.
Pomme - yeah, I noticed that also. Crazy wnd!
EDIT:
The inspections chief said a matter “of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for,” including stocks of anthrax and VX nerve gas.
“One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded,” he said. size=1[/size]
Your source is from February 2003, he had made the official report before secruity council much later, in June I beleive.
Chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix said today he had found no evidence Iraq had resumed its weapons of mass destruction programme before the outbreak of war.
The report to the UN Security Council was a potentially devastating blow to British and American claims WMDs would be unearthed in Iraq.
Dr Blix told the council his team: “Has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later.”
Here is something that seems to be from June 5, 2003 according to the article’s URL:
Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said in a report released June 2 that, despite more than 730 inspections covering 411 sites and numerous conferences with Iraqi officials, “little progress” was made in the effort to certify that Iraq no longer had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or long-range missiles or programs to produce such weapons. size=1[/size]
While he does not approve of military action, I am not sure that even now he will state that he believed that Iraq disclosed all of its weapons during his time there.
Also, the war started sometime in March. Kofi Annan told the inspectors to leave a day or so before the actual fighting.
No, it was on that date because of the following quote in that same source…
Blix will give an oral report to the council on June 6
And despite that… its a source from a US embassy, I think we should agree to stick to non-goverment sources, because I bet you can find a source of GW Bush saying everything you want to hear.
But apart from that, my source is from the actual report.
Chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix said today he had found no evidence Iraq had resumed its weapons of mass destruction programme before the outbreak of war.
The report to the UN Security Council was a potentially devastating blow to British and American claims WMDs would be unearthed in Iraq.
Dr Blix told the council his team: “Has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later.”
on the same note your quote from the source doesn’t hold water either - not to support what you are saying at least.
because if you take what kirupa has been saying, and the citations of Blix from that, then compare them with what you are presenting - it actually says the same thing.
if I am given a job to find an error in some machine logic code at work and a deadline of 2 weeks, and i go about my job but run into problems with my outsource company and i don’t get the job done because of that - then at the end of two weeks when my boss asks me what the status is, i have to tell him no matter what “that i didn’t find anything.”
now that doesn’t mean that the problem went away - it just means i didn’t have time to get to it…
so effectively Blix saying that he didn’t find anything - does not support the view that there are no WMD’s.
In the period during which it performed inspection and monitoring in Iraq, UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991).
Point 11, in the same report, is what I and the above US Embassy article refer to:
Inspections and declarations and documents submitted by Iraq, not least during
the period under review, contributed to a better understanding of previous weapons programmes. However, the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation. From the end of January 2003, the Iraqi side, which until then had been cooperative in terms of process but not equally cooperative in terms of subsistence, devoted much effort to providing explanations and proposing methods of inquiry into such issues as the production and destruction of anthrax, VX and long-range missiles. Despite those efforts, little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues during the time of UNMOVIC operations in Iraq.
Part of the justification for the war came from what I boldened above. Colin Powell stated firmly that the US would not tolerate any more delays, for Saddam had about 10 or 11 years to disarm.
but also - doesn’t matter when he does it - he still did it…and it is to his credit whether it was 2 months ago, or if it does come in october/november. hehe.
People sure do believe what mass media says. Can a man in a cave without electricity rule the world ?
People are over estimating this man. I actually felt glad Saddam was imprisoned, but Osama to me is just a pawn.
Screw that anyway, it’s not my country’s elections, I just feel bad for some of the people in the us, after having read and seen stuff about bush and his administration.
He was able to turn a portion of the world upside down for a few days. I think he is a very smart guy (most heads of criminal organizations are ) - imagine how much more damage he could have done if had access to more advanced technology
imagine how much more damage he could have done if had access to more advanced technology
Sadly I think they do possess more advanced technology, but are stockpiling in advanced strategic positions to use it. 9-11 was only a warning and the BIG war is sure to come.
I don’t know, the way I see it, Bin Laden probably wanted to avoid using high-tech tools because modern technology leaves behind a trail. Using traditional methods of communication from a remote location, most modern surveillance and tracing won’t work. The day Bin Laden goes high-tech is the day, that I think, he will be caught. Right now, if he as much as uses a cell phone, his location can be easily confirmed.
?
) - imagine how much more damage he could have done if had access to more advanced technology 
