War: Express Your Views Here

[jbm32206]

There seems to be a need for a thread in of itself for expressing opinions as to the war. Throughout the various threads, many expressing their views seem to head in this direction. Although I've suggested to those that have ended up taking their stance on their personal views of the war, that they start a new thread...nobody has bothered...so I will. My intent is to offer a place for expressing personal views of the war, and to help keep the other threads more on topic. Hope this helps...and please, let's remember to respect the fact that we will differ in opinions and views.;)

[red_thropy]

Thanx

I guess I'll get the ball rolling here then.

I oppose the war....I have since before we even invaded. I even thought that Saddam probably did have WMD's and even so still thought the war to be a bad move.

I honestly don't think any country in the world has ever done anything nearly as stupid as we just did with the invasion of Iraq. I mean, this was an extremely dumb move. As far as I can tell, other than Saddam, the only people who were able to effectively govern that area were the Turks....and they only did it through controlled effort at ignoring the region (Calphinates....send us money and troops and we'll leave you alone). Saddam then did it by being the most brutal bastard on the block.

Make no mistake about it....we cannot win in Iraq. Hell, we don't even seem to know what we mean when we say "win." What would constitute victory there anyway? Thus far I haven't heard a single straight answer from anyone in the govt. And don't give me that crap about "building a democracy" or "standing down as Iraqi's stand up." It's hogwash. First Democracy comes from within...not imposed by bayonet or cluster bomb from without. Second....the Iraqi's seem to be doing pretty well at "stepping up".....only it's against our troops and not with them. So I ask again, how can we win when we don't even know what we mean by "win?"

Also....I don't give a crap about Iraq. Why should American troops go and die and kill there? For what? WMD? nope.....Terrorism? nope (Bin Ladden was probably the one person who hated Saddam MORE than Bush...any idiot who knows anything about the region should've been able to figure that one out!) Oil? Maybe.....but, that's not working out well for us now is it?

Why should we even care about the Middle East anyway? I mean read your bible...these bastards have been killing eachother for some time! It's like the ultimate cosmic pratical joke going on over there....God: "I know! I'll put a bunch of religious nuts in the most inhospitable climate on Earth! Then I'll put oil under the ground and then when it becomes the most valuable resource I'll sit back and watch with some popcorn as everyone in the world dukes it out and gets caught in these crazy guy's little internal desputes! Even better! I'll send Moses, Jesus, and Mohammud to the same High School!"

The whole damn thing is so idiotic that it makes me want to wretch! And to top it off....we are being ruled and led by the village idiot!

and meanwhile...while we are over there doing who knows what for no clearlyt defined reason....what happened to New Orleans? I am not one of these blame Bush for Katrina folks...but I am ashamed that I live in a country that can fire a smart bomb down a chimney and up some Arabs ass on the other side of the world, but can't seem to get CLEAN WATER to AMERICANS in a timely fasion during a disaster. OUR PRIORITIES ARE SCREWED UP! Those were AMERICANS in the 9th ward! AMERICANS! How can we have let that happen? I was in NoLa a few months ago...IT IS STILL SCREWED UP! How can we continue to let it happen? Why should I give a rat's ass what goes on in Iraq when THAT is going on in AMERICA?

[OceanCowboy]

Was the point of this thread to be able to post independant thoughts and not discuss other people's, or was it to respond to other peoples opinions and debate them?

Red,
I respect your opinion.. you just dont want war at all. I hear you when it comes to taking care of our own people FIRST... good points.

My view on the war is that i am nto willing to stand for anybody that directly OR indirectly threatens our country. I wish we lived in a world where nobody hated america because of the way we govern our citizens.. but the fact is we do and we have to defend ourselves.

Better planned? yes!!!! mistake? NO!

[red_thropy]

Ocean

I ain't a pacifist....War is often necessary. I supported the Invasion of Afganistan. But how were we directly or inderectly threatened by Iraq?

[Ufrh4]

This is where my "liberal" side rears its ugly head. I opposed the war from Day 1. I thought it was a rash decision that should never have been made. I was incredibly disappointed at the time with the leadership of both parties in Congress, who basically served as a rubber stamp for whatever the President wanted. (Which is why--with the exception of Russ Feingold--I don't want to hear any of what they have to say today about "If I knew then what I know now..." Guess what? It was your damn job to know then. If you didn't do a better job with your homework, I don't want to hear your backtracking now that it hasn't gone well. IMHO, they failed--miserably.)

I was very much in the minority at the start of the war--particularly with active Republicans. Our ranks are beginning to grow, but I guess I'm just pessimistic as this point--I don't see it being salvaged. In 30 years, we will still be arguing these points--much like Vietnam today.

All of this aside, I will not make my 2008 decision based on a candidate's position on the war. Why not? Because they all supported it when it was popular. Sure, Obama may claim that the didn't, but he wasn't in Congress to allow for an "on the record" vote. It's pretty damn easy to say anything you want to say in retrospect. I'd like to see some speeches he gave (or articles he wrote) from that time period in which he condemned the impending (popular) war. Then, maybe I'd listen. Otherwise, they are all the same.

[BostechComputers]

OceanCowboy and rest of "warriors"...unfortunatly in your mind you don't understand why are we there in first place.
You keep talking like we are fighting "terrorism" but that is NOT TRUE.

Before invasion there were no terrorists,no WMDS and no significant threat from Saddam Husein to USA.
Even today only reason Al Qaida is in Iraq buecause we are there and Iraq is good place for them to attack us.
US soldiers are only target practice for Al qaida and rest of clans in Iraq.

And like Red Thropy said how do you know when you win?
It's a lost war with no end in sight....that will drain US for money,millitary strenght,lives of soldiers and waste of time and energy.

[OceanCowboy]

Thanks for your opinion.

[jbm32206]

And like JBM said how do you know when you win?It's a lost war with no end in sight....that will drain US for money,millitary strenght,lives of soldiers and waste of time and energy.

:confused: I didn't say that....all I've done is open the thread to allow for anyone to post their views, opinions...discuss, etc...I haven't given my thoughts or views as of yet.

[red_thropy]

:confused: I didn't say that....all I've done is open the thread to allow for anyone to post their views, opinions...discuss, etc...I haven't given my thoughts or views as of yet.

I did

[Claude91098]

The possibility that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. – Abraham Lincoln


That is a great quote!:)

Since I'm not the Commander in Chief I suppose what I think doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. But since you asked:
War sucks! Always has, always will.:(
When this thing started, I wasn't 100% convinced that it was a good move, but then again, waiting for Saddam to use, or supply, some OTHER nation with a WMD to start something even BIGGER than the war in Iraq, just didn't seem prudent either.:(

I'm not a Bush supporter nor basher. He IS the President and Congress DID authorize his actions. NONE of US, if we agree or not, can go back in time and change what has begun!:( All anyone can do is spout piss and vinegar about the current administration if they happen to hate them anyway.:rolleyes:

This is a war against facist Islam. It is not against Iraq nor Al Qeida or any other singular group(s). This has been coming for a long, long time. The rest of the world would GLADLY leave these people alone if they wouldn't interfere with the world's commerce...YES...the "world's"...not "just the US's". However, they have chosen to be the thorn in the lion's paw, so to speak.:mad:

Bush merely took the fight to them rather than sitting on his thumbs and waiting for it to migrate HERE on our soil...AGAIN...as it did on 9/11/01.:mad:

I'm a realist, and as such I would LOVE to believe that we could all "just get along"...but like those Martians in Mars Attacks...I know that if we tried to do that...our enemies would just fein peace until they had enough of us in one spot and an opportunity to kill as many of us as they possibly could...with NO regard for their own lives....NO MATTER WHAT WE DID TO APPEASE THEM!:rolleyes: :mad:

The hornet's nest has been poked not....we can run from the swarm or we can continue to kill as many of them as we can until they leave us alone or they are all dead.....poor metaphor I know....deal with it.;)

[BostechComputers]

Sorry I fixed it,lol.
I need to get 22 inch widescreen so I can see everybodys opinion clearly.

No offense OceanCowboy but calling for fight endless war costs lives on soldiers for nothing.
YES I said it they are WASTED.

[BostechComputers]

Saddam Husein if he had WMD's would use or give it to someone else to use it against USA???
Iran if it had nukes would use or give it to someone else to use against USA???


Incorrect.

Neither Saddam or Iran would EVER DARE to do something like that (unless they could overpower US which currently is more like fiction).
If they did this we would find out and then nuke hell out of them.
Russians didn't dare to attack US with all their nukes why should these nations.

There were NEVER WARS when there was balance of power.

Claude there were no FASCIST ISLAMISTS in Iraq BEFORE invasion.None that mattered to US.
So obviously TRUTH is something else we don't know,actuall reason we went into Iraq we don't know or it is not clearly shown.

[red_thropy]

First....Is a baseball bat an effective remedy against a beehive? Cuz that is EXACTLY what we did in Iraq!

Second there is NO relation to Iraq and 9/11, NONE! Not one! On 9/11 we were attacked by Saudi's who opporated out of Afganistan (2 countries that happen to NOT BE Iraq)! Basically, invading Iraq in response to 9/11 made about as much sense as invading Canada.

Third...EVERY AMERICAN WHO IS OPPOSED TO THIS WAR HAS A DUTY TO STAND UP AND SAY HELL NO!!!! Your an American....American's bitch out their government when it steps out of line! DO YOUR DUTY AND BITCH!

Fourth...Fascist Islam? WTF is that anyway? That term wasn't even coined till we realized their were no WMD and we needed a new excuse!

[Claude91098]

Fourth...Fascist Islam? WTF is that anyway? That term wasn't even coined till we realized their were no WMD and we needed a new excuse!


Discussion is the last thing you want to have. Hence...seeeee yaaa!:p

[BostechComputers]

In Bosnia 150,000 INNOCENT people die and nobody gives crap about it.
NOBODY.
Then Serbia walks away for FREE from Tribunal.
EVEN Serbs were SHOCKED they walked away from murder.

Then you hear on TV "How in Iraq we are fighting for FREEDOM,DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE".

Why so much care for Iraq???

Bosnia= NO OIL (well there might be a ancient pyramid :-)

Iraq= LOT'S OF OIL (posible largest fields in world)

Afghanistan=IMPORTANT OIL PIPELINES (back in 1990-91' I remember people back in Europe talking how CIA wanted to take control of Afghanistan and entire region for those pipelines....yes back early 1990's when it was tabu to say US could control any of those regions close or under former Soviet Union control-today it came true all that talk)


Saudia Arabia=Nobody got a problem with them even they are one of harshes societies based on super extreeme version of Islam

[jbm32206]

Okay, here's my few cents....First, the intel information was wrong, and that was finally admitted. Second, there were no WMD and nothing found to indicate they had any stored. Third, we're now in the middle of someone else's civil war.

The reason congress and the American people were supportive of the war, we were told lies, we were clearly mis-informed and then lead to believe that this is related to 9-11, which it isn't. Our hunt for Osma continues, in another country!

Not supporting this war (that was started under false information) has absolutely nothing to do with being patriotic or supportive of our troops. Yet the President continues to pressure people into believing they're of the same...trying to make us feel that we're not patriotic or don't support our troops if we're not on his side and support the war.

There are far more serious threats against the US than Iraq was, such as North Korea and Iran...both having nuc power. There's also other countries in which horrific crimes are being committed against it's people, but we simply turn our backs. I'm sorry, but I've seen this as GWB going in to finish what some say his father didn't....and worked on the fears and anger of Americans after 9-11 to muster support for it.

[OceanCowboy]

At the time we went into Iraq the evidence was monumental. i seriously doubt that we went to war on false pretenses. It is fact that Saddam had at one point had chemical weapons.. we found traces of them, we just didn't actually find them.

looking back, knowing hten what i know now i would still support what we did. i think it is important that we stand up to those who defy the world. The UN is supposed to stand up FOR us, but it was clear they wouldn't. i have no problem, even looking at our situation today, saying we did the right thing.

sure it's not great over there, but i think we are in a better place because of it.

[jbm32206]

Sorry, but GW already admitted that the information was wrong.

If that's your stance, then why aren't we pushing to invade other countries that are clearly defying the world?

[red_thropy]

Yeah Saddam had Chemical weapons.....we KNOW he did, because WE were holding onto the reciept! Just like we were for half the arms the Taliban carried!

But as far as ridding the world of threats, bad guys and evil doers goes....Saddam was not the worst or the most threatening...hell he didn't even make the top 10. Saddam a true ruthless bastard? Yes....does Saddam compare to Kim Jung Il? No....not even close. Hell in my opinion he doesn't even compare to our own frat boy commander in thief!

[jbm32206]

In fact, he was actually more of a threat to his own people, than he was to the world

[JohnCocktosen]

Sorry, but GW already admitted that the information was wrong.

If that's your stance, then why aren't we pushing to invade other countries that are clearly defying the world?

There is a wide gap between wrong information and as some claim, being told lies to get us in to this war. We do know that Saddam used chemical weapons (WMD's) to murder 50,000 Kurds, we do know that over 2 million Iraqi's were killed or disappeared while Saddam was in power we do know that the Iraqi oil has never been seen in the good ole US of A.

And we also know that if we leave now we leave the place worse that we found it and leave a situation perfect for either the Turks, Pakistani's or most likely the Iraninans to come and take over. No good exit there.

So until someone comes up with an argument for leaving other the "Bush Lied, Peope Died" then we need to stay there. And if the left in Washington want us out so bad, then they need to offer legislation pulling all funding from our efforts over there. If not then they are beating a straw dog in hopes that it will bark.

[Blaine McDonald]

As a school teacher, I used to belong to the Democratic party and questioned the Vietnam War. I no longer vote as Democrat and no longer think we did the right thing by getting out of Vietnam.

When we pulled out of Vietnam, that emboldened Pol Pot, who went on to murder 3 million people in Cambodia. LBJ was right to make a stand in Vietnam and Nixon was wrong to get out before we could win.

Granted, we waited way too long from stopping the genocide in Iraq. Just like we waited too long to go into Bosnia and Somalia. We also need to be in Darfur. People claim that we shouldn't be in Iraq because its a civil war, but many of those same people want us in Darfur. But Darfur is a civil war, too. What's the logic there?

If genocide is taking place, we have an obligation to step in when the UN won't. Its wrong to let women and children die in Iraq because they belong to a certain ethnic group. I'm glad we're there.

And I was there in the first Gulf War when hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the country to avoid Sadam's genocide campaign. We should have taken him out then.

[Gone North]

Before you address an issue or take an action you must do the following:

Have a full grasp of the problem or issue

withdraw and purify yourself to be sure you are going forward for the right reasons

exhaust all other alternative forms to action to achieve the goal

when you do these things then go forward with full resolve.

Well guess what ol buddies, GWB on Iraq, did none of these steps.
Even his father did those steps in Operation Desert Storm.

This is the wrong war in the wrong place and the outcome will means years of resentment toward the United States.

[Blaine McDonald]

Its racist to believe its alright for genocide to take place, when the people being exterminated don't look like you.

I would gladly re-enlist if they would waive the age requirements. I know that good things are happening in Iraq because I have a son and nephew over there.

[jbm32206]

Genicide is happening in many countries, and that wasn't the reason we were given for attacking Iraq. We were told of WMD, we were shown these photos...all of which were untrue and unfounded. I'm not saying it should be an immediate retreat, but we sure as hell need to start working on getting our men and women out of there, instead of sending more in.

[red_thropy]

As for the Genocide argument....we waved all rights to that when we didn't go into Rawanda.

As for Iraq....if we leave....yes it falls apart, if we stay...it falls apart. C'mon people Humpty Dumpty has fallen and he ain't getting put back together, nothing short of nuking the entire country would do that...and what would be the point of that? Pasify the area by effectively exterminating it? Who is committing genocide then? I'm sorry, the sooner we are out of there the better. This war has been nothing but one bad idea piled on top of another....call it lies, call it bad intel, whatever....it doesn't change the fact that our reasons for going in WERE WRONG! Now, NOTHING we can do can make it right.

As for Vietnam and Pol Pot...Dude, it was the Vietnamese who finally took out Pol Pot! We didn't lift a finger to stop him, and in fact we winked at him because he hated the Vietnamese more than anyone else in the region. I would argue that if we had just said "Tough Shit Froggy!" After Dem Bien Phu than you never would have seen Pol Pot at all.

[red_thropy]

From Wikipedia

In late 1978, in response to threats to its borders and the Vietnamese people, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge. While Vietnam could justify the invasion on the basis of self-defense, it quickly became clear that Vietnam intended to stay in Cambodia and turn it into a dependent state similar to Laos.

The Cambodian army was defeated, and Pol Pot fled to the Thai border area. In January 1979, Vietnam installed a new government under Heng Samrin, composed of Khmer Rouge who had fled to Vietnam to avoid the purges. Pol Pot eventually regrouped with his core supporters in the Thai border area where he received shelter and assistance. At different times during this period, he was located on both sides of the border. The military government of Thailand used the Khmer Rouge as a buffer force to keep the Vietnamese away from the border. The Thai military also made money from the shipment of weapons from China to the Khmer Rouge. Eventually Pol Pot was able to rebuild a small military force in the west of the country with the help of the People's Republic of China. The PRC also initiated the Sino-Vietnamese War around this time.

[Blaine McDonald]

Genicide is happening in many countries...

And we should have either U.N or American forces wherever genocide is taking place. I would bet every dollar I have that a single battalion of Rangers could end the genocide in Darfur. But there's nothing in it for Republicans and Democrats are opposed to getting in the middle of a civil war, or so they argue with regard to Iraq.

And anyone who doesn't believe that the Iraqi government has access to WMD's is dull-minded. I was in northern Turkey when thousands of Kurds fled Iraq in 1991. They fled because they remembered that Saddam gased thousands in 1988. Canisters of gas have been recovered and many more are probably still buried.

[red_thropy]

And where were we in 1988? Who were we supporting then?

[jbm32206]

And we should have either U.N or American forces wherever genocide is taking place. I would bet every dollar I have that a single battalion of Rangers could end the genocide in Darfur. But there's nothing in it for Republicans and Democrats are opposed to getting in the middle of a civil war, or so they argue with regard to Iraq.

And anyone who doesn't believe that the Iraqi government has access to WMD's is dull-minded. I was in northern Turkey when thousands of Kurds fled Iraq in 1991. They fled because they remembered that Saddam gased thousands in 1988. Canisters of gas have been recovered and many more are probably still buried.

I'm certainly not dull-minded, nor ignorant to the very well known fact that Saddam used scuds and chemical warefare during his invasion of Iran, as well as testing and using them on the curds....The facts still remain and Bush admitted this the intel was wrong and that WMD have not been found.

There's no denying that he was a horrific, sick bastard and I've lost not a second of sleep knowing he's dead, or even how....I'm glad he's no longer in power...but none of this justifies our invading the country. We didn't even wait to take all the appropriate steps first...no, this enronious intel was forced down the throats of frightened Americans that just experienced the worst attack upon our people! So hell yeah, when told this was part of it...we backed it...only to find out we were seriously mislead!

[jbm32206]

I knew this would be a good...get your blood racing through your veins kind of thread!

[Blaine McDonald]

There's no denying that he was a horrific, sick bastard and I've lost not a second of sleep knowing he's dead, or even how....I'm glad he's no longer in power...but none of this justifies our invading the country.

Many people made the same argument during WWII when Hitler was killing Jews. But I disagree. I believe that we have a moral obligation to stop genocide wherever it is happening.

We can point to both Democrats and Republicans for dropping the ball when it comes to stopping genocide around the world.

[red_thropy]

But....we haven't stopped Genocide...infact Genocide had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. More folks are dying over there now than ever under Saddam. And I wouldn't call gassing an uprising genocide....war crime...YES! Horrible, Of course....wrong? By all means...genocide, no. ANd once again...that happened in 1988 and we didn't seem to care too much about it then.

[red_thropy]

and comparing Saddam to Hitler is like comparing Darth Vadar to Rick Moranis's Vadaresqe counterpart in Space Balls!

[JohnCocktosen]

But....we haven't stopped Genocide...infact Genocide had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. More folks are dying over there now than ever under Saddam. And I wouldn't call gassing an uprising genocide....war crime...YES! Horrible, Of course....wrong? By all means...genocide, no. ANd once again...that happened in 1988 and we didn't seem to care too much about it then.

FIFTY THOUSAND DIED due to that gassing.

TWO MILLION dead and missing during Saddam's reign of terror.

We had a moral obligation to remove him no matter what the justification used.

[johnmeeks1974]

that happened in 1988 and we didn't seem to care too much about it then.

Iraq was our 'friend' back then! :D

[RiversideGator]

First, the reason we went into Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein. The reasons for deposing Saddam were as follows:
1) His continual violation of UN resolutions regarding inspection of his facilities;
2) His close ties to terrorist networks including harboring a large number of known terrorists;
3) His demonstrated desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear) and the threat that these may be passed on to terrorists;
4) His tyrannical rule over his citizens who were murdered by the hundreds of thousands by him;
5) His attempts to kill a former US President; and
6) His prior unprovoked invasions of 2 neighboring countries.

[RiversideGator]

As for what the Bush administration said at the time, I suggest that everyone reads the primary documents rather than The Nation and crooksandliars.com. For example, here is the text of the speech Colin Powell gave to the UN on the issue 4 years ago:

'A Policy of Evasion and Deception'

Wednesday, February 5, 2003

Following is the full text of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations on Iraq.

POWELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks for the special effort that each of you made to be here today.

This is important day for us all as we review the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.

Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.

And to assist in its disarmament, we called on Iraq to cooperate with returning inspectors from UNMOVIC and IAEA.

We laid down tough standards for Iraq to meet to allow the inspectors to do their job. This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives.

I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it,'' unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.'' My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.

I might add at this point that we are providing all relevant information we can to the inspection teams for them to do their work.

The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling. What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior--Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort--no effort--to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.

Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard. Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he's coming for, and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.

But they're worried. ``We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?''

What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.

The general is incredulous: ``You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?''

``I have one.''

``Which, from where?''

``From the workshop, from the Al Kendi (ph) Company?''

``What?''

``From Al Kendi (ph).''

``I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left.''

``We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left.''

Note what he says: ``We evacuated everything.''

We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up.

``I will come to you tomorrow.''

The Al Kendi (ph) Company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity. Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16. On January 20, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week on January 30.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

1/8Speaking in Arabic. 3/8

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message.

``They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.''

``Yes.''

``For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.''

``For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?''

``Yes.''

``And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.'' Remember the first message, evacuated.This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

If you go a little further into this message, and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: ``After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message.''

``OK, OK.''

Why? Why?

This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things. But they don't want that message seen, because they were trying to clean up the area to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there. And the inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing.

This effort to hide things from the inspectors is not one or two isolated events, quite the contrary. This is part and parcel of a policy of evasion and deception that goes back 12 years, a policy set at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime.

We know that Saddam Hussein has what is called quote, ``a higher committee for monitoring the inspections teams,'' unquote. Think about that. Iraq has a high-level committee to monitor the inspectors who were sent in to monitor Iraq's disarmament. Not to cooperate with them, not to assist them, but to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs.

The committee reports directly to Saddam Hussein. It is headed by Iraq's vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan. Its members include Saddam Hussein's son Qusay.

This committee also includes Lieutenant General Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to Saddam. In case that name isn't immediately familiar to you, General Saadi has been the Iraqi regime's primary point of contact for Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. It was General Saadi who last fall publicly pledged that Iraq was prepared to cooperate unconditionally with inspectors. Quite the contrary, Saadi's job is not to cooperate, it is to deceive; not to disarm, but to undermine the inspectors; not to support them, but to frustrate them and to make sure they learn nothing.

We have learned a lot about the work of this special committee. We learned that just prior to the return of inspectors last November the regime had decided to resume what we heard called, quote, ``the old game of cat and mouse,'' unquote.

For example, let me focus on the now famous declaration that Iraq submitted to this council on December 7. Iraq never had any intention of complying with this council's mandate. Instead, Iraq planned to use the declaration, overwhelm us and to overwhelm the inspectors with useless information about Iraq's permitted weapons so that we would not have time to pursue Iraq's prohibited weapons. Iraq's goal was to give us, in this room, to give those us on this council the false impression that the inspection process was working.

You saw the result. Dr. Blix pronounced the 12,200-page declaration, rich in volume, but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence.

Could any member of this council honestly rise in defense of this false declaration?

Everything we have seen and heard indicates that, instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

Orders were issued to Iraq's security organizations, as well as to Saddam Hussein's own office, to hide all correspondence with the Organization of Military Industrialization. This is the organization that oversees Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. Make sure there are no documents left which could connect you to the OMI.

We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes. We know that Iraqi government officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists have hidden prohibited items in their homes. Other key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.

Thanks to intelligence they were provided, the inspectors recently found dramatic confirmation of these reports. When they searched the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist, they uncovered roughly 2,000 pages of documents. You see them here being brought out of the home and placed in U.N. hands. Some of the material is classified and related to Iraq's nuclear program.

Tell me, answer me, are the inspectors to search the house of every government official, every Baath Party member and every scientist in the country to find the truth, to get the information they need, to satisfy the demands of our council?

Our sources tell us that, in some cases, the hard drives of computers at Iraqi weapons facilities were replaced. Who took the hard drives. Where did they go? What's being hidden? Why? There's only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide, to keep from the inspectors.

Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors. While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.

We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.

Let me say a word about satellite images before I show a couple. The photos that I am about to show you are sometimes hard for the average person to interpret, hard for me. The painstaking work of photo analysis takes experts with years and years of experience, pouring for hours and hours over light tables. But as I show you these images, I will try to capture and explain what they mean, what they indicate to our imagery specialists.

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.

Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says security points to a facility that is the signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker. The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.

This is characteristic of those four bunkers. The special security facility and the decontamination vehicle will be in the area, if not at any one of them or one of the other, it is moving around those four, and it moves as it needed to move, as people are working in the different bunkers.

Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone, it's been cleaned up, and it was done on the 22nd of December, as the U.N. inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.

The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing.

This sequence of events raises the worrisome suspicion that Iraq had been tipped off to the forthcoming inspections at Taji (ph). As it did throughout the 1990s, we know that Iraq today is actively using its considerable intelligence capabilities to hide its illicit activities. From our sources, we know that inspectors are under constant surveillance by an army of Iraqi intelligence operatives. Iraq is relentlessly attempting to tap all of their communications, both voice and electronics. I would call my colleagues attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

In this next example, you will see the type of concealment activity Iraq has undertaken in response to the resumption of inspections. Indeed, in November 2002, just when the inspections were about to resume this type of activity spiked. Here are three examples.

At this ballistic missile site, on November 10, we saw a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components. At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly.

At this ballistic missile facility, again, two days before inspections began, five large cargo trucks appeared along with the truck-mounted crane to move missiles. We saw this kind of house cleaning at close to 30 sites.

Days after this activity, the vehicles and the equipment that I've just highlighted disappear and the site returns to patterns of normalcy. We don't know precisely what Iraq was moving, but the inspectors already knew about these sites, so Iraq knew that they would be coming.

We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what they had or did not have?

Remember the first intercept in which two Iraqis talked about the need to hide a modified vehicle from the inspectors. Where did Iraq take all of this equipment? Why wasn't it presented to the inspectors?

Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspectors.

This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441.

Saddam Hussein and his regime are not just trying to conceal weapons, they're also trying to hide people. You know the basic facts. Iraq has not complied with its obligation to allow immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons as required by Resolution 1441.

The regime only allows interviews with inspectors in the presence of an Iraqi official, a minder. The official Iraqi organization charged with facilitating inspections announced, announced publicly and announced ominously that, quote, ``Nobody is ready to leave Iraq to be interviewed.''

Iraqi Vice President Ramadan accused the inspectors of conducting espionage, a veiled threat that anyone cooperating with U.N. inspectors was committing treason.

Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq's list was out of date and contained only about 500 names, despite the fact that UNSCOM had earlier put together a list of about 3,500 names.

Let me just tell you what a number of human sources have told us.

Saddam Hussein has directly participated in the effort to prevent interviews. In early December, Saddam Hussein had all Iraqi scientists warned of the serious consequences that they and their families would face if they revealed any sensitive information to the inspectors. They were forced to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information is punishable by death.

Saddam Hussein also said that scientists should be told not to agree to leave Iraq; anyone who agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq would be treated as a spy. This violates 1441.

In mid-November, just before the inspectors returned, Iraqi experts were ordered to report to the headquarters of the special security organization to receive counterintelligence training. The training focused on evasion methods, interrogation resistance techniques, and how to mislead inspectors.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.

For example, in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there. On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding.

In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who'd been sent home. A dozen experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses. It goes on and on and on.

As the examples I have just presented show, the information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work.

My colleagues, operative paragraph four of U.N. Resolution 1441, which we lingered over so long last fall, clearly states that false statements and omissions in the declaration and a failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute--the facts speak for themselves--shall constitute a further material breach of its obligation. We wrote it this way to give Iraq an early test--to give Iraq an early test. Would they give an honest declaration and would they early on indicate a willingness to cooperate with the inspectors? It was designed to be an early test.

They failed that test. By this standard, the standard of this operative paragraph, I believe that Iraq is now in further material breach of its obligations. I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable.

Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.

The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction. But how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: ``Enough. Enough.''

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

First, biological weapons. We have talked frequently here about biological weapons. By way of introduction and history, I think there are just three quick points I need to make.

First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry--to pry--an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons.

Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount--this is just about the amount of a teaspoon--less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope. Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.

And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.

Dr. Blix told this council that Iraq has provided little evidence to verify anthrax production and no convincing evidence of its destruction. It should come as no shock then, that since Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998, we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons.

One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eye witness accounts. We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.

The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.

Although Iraq's mobile production program began in the mid-1990s, U.N. inspectors at the time only had vague hints of such programs. Confirmation came later, in the year 2000.

The source was an eye witness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents.

He reported that when UNSCOM was in country and inspecting, the biological weapons agent production always began on Thursdays at midnight because Iraq thought UNSCOM would not inspect on the Muslim Holy Day, Thursday night through Friday. He added that this was important because the units could not be broken down in the middle of a production run, which had to be completed by Friday evening before the inspectors might arrive again.

This defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that Saddam Hussein will kill him if he finds him. His eye-witness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources.

A second source, an Iraqi civil engineer in a position to know the details of the program, confirmed the existence of transportable facilities moving on trailers.

A third source, also in a position to know, reported in summer 2002 that Iraq had manufactured mobile production systems mounted on road trailer units and on rail cars.

Finally, a fourth source, an Iraqi major, who defected, confirmed that Iraq has mobile biological research laboratories, in addition to the production facilities I mentioned earlier. We have diagrammed what our sources reported about these mobile facilities. Here you see both truck and rail car-mounted mobile factories. The description our sources gave us of the technical features required by such facilities are highly detailed and extremely accurate. As these drawings based on their description show, we know what the fermenters look like, we know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like. We know how they fit together. We know how they work. And we know a great deal about the platforms on which they are mounted.

As shown in this diagram, these factories can be concealed easily, either by moving ordinary-looking trucks and rail cars along Iraq's thousands of miles of highway or track, or by parking them in a garage or warehouse or somewhere in Iraq's extensive system of underground tunnels and bunkers.

We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few, perhaps 18 trucks that we know of--there may be more--but perhaps 18 that we know of. Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands of trucks that travel the roads of Iraq every single day.

It took the inspectors four years to find out that Iraq was making biological agents. How long do you think it will take the inspectors to find even one of these 18 trucks without Iraq coming forward, as they are supposed to, with the information about these kinds of capabilities?

Ladies and gentlemen, these are sophisticated facilities. For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. And dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings.

By 1998, U.N. experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs. Now, Iraq has incorporated this drying expertise into these mobile production facilities.

We know from Iraq's past admissions that it has successfully weaponized not only anthrax, but also other biological agents, including botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.

But Iraq's research efforts did not stop there. Saddam Hussein has investigated dozens of biological agents causing diseases such as gas gangrene, plague, typhus (ph), tetanus, cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever, and he also has the wherewithal to develop smallpox.

The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air. For example, Iraq had a program to modify aerial fuel tanks for Mirage jets. This video of an Iraqi test flight obtained by UNSCOM some years ago shows an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet aircraft. Note the spray coming from beneath the Mirage; that is 2,000 liters of simulated anthrax that a jet is spraying.

In 1995, an Iraqi military officer, Mujahid Sali Abdul Latif (ph), told inspectors that Iraq intended the spray tanks to be mounted onto a MiG-21 that had been converted into an unmanned aerial vehicle, or a UAV. UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons. Iraq admitted to producing four spray tanks. But to this day, it has provided no credible evidence that they were destroyed, evidence that was required by the international community.

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.

UNMOVIC already laid out much of this, and it is documented for all of us to read in UNSCOM's 1999 report on the subject.

Let me set the stage with three key points that all of us need to keep in mind: First, Saddam Hussein has used these horrific weapons on another country and on his own people. In fact, in the history of chemical warfare, no country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html

[RiversideGator]

Conclusion Of Powell's Speech:

Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry--6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war--UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.

Dr. Blix has quipped that, quote, ``Mustard gas is not (inaudible) You are supposed to know what you did with it.''

We believe Saddam Hussein knows what he did with it, and he has not come clean with the international community. We have evidence these weapons existed. What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. That is what we are still waiting for.

Third point, Iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons.

The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law. UNSCOM also gained forensic evidence that Iraq had produced VX and put it into weapons for delivery. Yet, to this day, Iraq denies it had ever weaponized VX. And on January 27, UNMOVIC told this council that it has information that conflicts with the Iraqi account of its VX program.

We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again.

These inspections would be unlikely, any inspections of such facilities would be unlikely to turn up anything prohibited, especially if there is any warning that the inspections are coming. Call it ingenuous or evil genius, but the Iraqis deliberately designed their chemical weapons programs to be inspected. It is infrastructure with a built-in ally.

Under the guise of dual-use infrastructure, Iraq has undertaken an effort to reconstitute facilities that were closely associated with its past program to develop and produce chemical weapons.

For example, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of the Tariq (ph) state establishment. Tariq (ph) includes facilities designed specifically for Iraq's chemical weapons program and employs key figures from past programs.

That's the production end of Saddam's chemical weapons business. What about the delivery end?

I'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called al-Moussaid (ph), a site that Iraq has used for at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field.

In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture. Here we see cargo vehicles are again at this transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or chemical weapons activity. What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case.

This photograph of the site taken two months later in July shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity.

To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, Iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network. What we know comes largely from intercepted communications and human sources who are in a position to know the facts.

Iraq's procurement efforts include equipment that can filter and separate micro-organisms and toxins involved in biological weapons, equipment that can be used to concentrate the agent, growth media that can be used to continue producing anthrax and botulinum toxin, sterilization equipment for laboratories, glass-lined reactors and specialty pumps that can handle corrosive chemical weapons agents and precursors, large amounts of vinyl chloride, a precursor for nerve and blister agents, and other chemicals such as sodium sulfide, an important mustard agent precursor.

Now, of course, Iraq will argue that these items can also be used for legitimate purposes. But if that is true, why do we have to learn about them by intercepting communications and risking the lives of human agents? With Iraq's well documented history on biological and chemical weapons, why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt? I don't, and I don't think you will either after you hear this next intercept.

Just a few weeks ago, we intercepted communications between two commanders in Iraq's Second Republican Guard Corps. One commander is going to be giving an instruction to the other. You will hear as this unfolds that what he wants to communicate to the other guy, he wants to make sure the other guy hears clearly, to the point of repeating it so that it gets written down and completely understood. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

1/8Speaking in Foreign Language. 3/8

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let's review a few selected items of this conversation. Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood:

``Remove. Remove.''

The expression, the expression, ``I got it.''

``Nerve agents. Nerve agents. Wherever it comes up.''

``Got it.''

``Wherever it comes up.''

``In the wireless instructions, in the instructions.''

``Correction. No. In the wireless instructions.''

``Wireless. I got it.''

Why does he repeat it that way? Why is he so forceful in making sure this is understood? And why did he focus on wireless instructions? Because the senior officer is concerned that somebody might be listening.

Well, somebody was.

``Nerve agents. Stop talking about it. They are listening to us. Don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents.''

Well, we know that they do. And this kind of conversation confirms it.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan.

Let me remind you that, of the 122 millimeter chemical warheads, that the U.N. inspectors found recently, this discovery could very well be, as has been noted, the tip of the submerged iceberg. The question before us, all my friends, is when will we see the rest of the submerged iceberg?

Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people.

And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them. He wouldn't be passing out the orders if he didn't have the weapons or the intent to use them.

We also have sources who tell us that, since the 1980s, Saddam's regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons.

A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eye witness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victim's mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners. Saddam Hussein's humanity--inhumanity has no limits.

Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program.

On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

To fully appreciate the challenge that we face today, remember that, in 1991, the inspectors searched Iraq's primary nuclear weapons facilities for the first time. And they found nothing to conclude that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

But based on defector information in May of 1991, Saddam Hussein's lie was exposed. In truth, Saddam Hussein had a massive clandestine nuclear weapons program that covered several different techniques to enrich uranium, including electromagnetic isotope separation, gas centrifuge, and gas diffusion. We estimate that this elicit program cost the Iraqis several billion dollars. Nonetheless, Iraq continued to tell the IAEA that it had no nuclear weapons program. If Saddam had not been stopped, Iraq could have produced a nuclear bomb by 1993, years earlier than most worse-case assessments that had been made before the war.

In 1995, as a result of another defector, we find out that, after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein had initiated a crash program to build a crude nuclear weapon in violation of Iraq's U.N. obligations.

Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb. He has a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise, and he has a bomb design.

Since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program have been focused on acquiring the third and last component, sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion. To make the fissile material, he needs to develop an ability to enrich uranium.

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so. Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors. One of these companies also had been involved in a failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into Iraq.

People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind, these elicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material. He also has been busy trying to maintain the other key parts of his nuclear program, particularly his cadre of key nuclear scientists.

It is noteworthy that, over the last 18 months, Saddam Hussein has paid increasing personal attention to Iraqi's top nuclear scientists, a group that the governmental-controlled press calls openly, his nuclear mujahedeen. He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress. Progress toward what end?

Long ago, the Security Council, this council, required Iraq to halt all nuclear activities of any kind. Let me talk now about the systems Iraq is developing to deliver weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq's ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

First, missiles. We all remember that before the Gulf War Saddam Hussein's goal was missiles that flew not just hundreds, but thousands of kilometers. He wanted to strike not only his neighbors, but also nations far beyond his borders.

While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers.

We know from intelligence and Iraq's own admissions that Iraq's alleged permitted ballistic missiles, the al-Samud II (ph) and the al-Fatah (ph), violate the 150-kilometer limit established by this council in Resolution 687. These are prohibited systems.

UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally important 380 SA-2 (ph) rocket engines. These are likely for use in the al-Samud II (ph). Their import was illegal on three counts. Resolution 687 prohibited all military shipments into Iraq. UNSCOM specifically prohibited use of these engines in surface-to-surface missiles. And finally, as we have just noted, they are for a system that exceeds the 150-kilometer range limit.

Worst of all, some of these engines were acquired as late as December--after this council passed Resolution 1441.

What I want you to know today is that Iraq has programs that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly of 1,000 kilometers. One program is pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers. And you can see from this map, as well as I can, who will be in danger of these missiles.

As part of this effort, another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine comes out. The exhaust on the right test stand is five times longer than the one on the left. The one on the left was used for short-range missile. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometers.

This photograph was taken in April of 2002. Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath the test stand.

Saddam Hussein's intentions have never changed. He is not developing the missiles for self-defense. These are missiles that Iraq wants in order to project power, to threaten, and to deliver chemical, biological and, if we let him, nuclear warheads.

Now, unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

Iraq has been working on a variety of UAVs for more than a decade. This is just illustrative of what a UAV would look like. This effort has included attempts to modify for unmanned flight the MiG-21 (ph) and with greater success an aircraft called the L-29 (ph). However, Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes, but on developing and testing smaller UAVs, such as this.

UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons. There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year.

According to Iraq's December 7 declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq's newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot in the race track pattern depicted here.

Not only is this test well in excess of the 150 kilometers that the United Nations permits, the test was left out of Iraq's December 7th declaration. The UAV was flown around and around and around in a circle. And so, that its 80 kilometer limit really was 500 kilometers unrefueled and on autopilot, violative of all of its obligations under 1441.

The linkages over the past 10 years between Iraq's UAV program and biological and chemical warfare agents are of deep concern to us. Iraq could use these small UAVs which have a wingspan of only a few meters to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States.

My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq's continued flaunting of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on. And that has to do with terrorism.

Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It's the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ``good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain even today in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters, and they are involved in moving more than money and materiale.

Last year, two suspected Al Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond.

We, in the United States, all of us at the State Department, and the Agency for International Development--we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October, a despicable act was committed that day. The assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder. After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

And now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.

As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.

According to detainee Abuwatia (ph), who graduated from Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasks at least nine North African extremists from 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks.

Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested.

The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe. We know about this European network, and we know about its links to Zarqawi, because the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network.

Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.

The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence, again, proved him right. When the British unearthed a cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the disruption of the cell.

We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida. Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida.

Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

My friends, this has been a long and a detailed presentation. And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights.

Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died. His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shi'a Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he most hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach. Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continued defiance of this council.

My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens, we have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance.

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body.

Thank you, Mr. President.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...xt_020503.html

[BostechComputers]

It's not 50 but 5000 people,not sure about "2 million" people.
Saddam Hussein wasn't killing people just because but when they opposed him...so that figure is just as wrong as WMD intel.
Got to make things sound BAD to invade.
Saddam was mostly bad to his own people but like we said he was US friend for long time before we decided he wasn't needed anymore.

[RiversideGator]

In fact, he was actually more of a threat to his own people, than he was to the world

Are you aware that Saddam invaded 2 neighboring countries, Iran and Kuwait?

[RiversideGator]

Iraq was our 'friend' back then! :D

The enemy of our enemy (Iran then, as now) is our friend in many cases. Why have no liberals ever heard of realpolitik? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

[BostechComputers]

What amazes me is people desperatly trying to prove we are in Iraq fighting war on terror while young men and women loose THEIR LIVES every day.

[jbm32206]

Are you aware that Saddam invaded 2 neighboring countries, Iran and Kuwait?

That's what I referred to when I said that GWB was going back to finish what his father did not. So yes, I'm well aware that desert storm was to defend Kuwait.

As for what CP said when he addressed the UN, that's what, in part is referring to the intel information that was later admitted, as wrong. I very much recall the fact that Saddam refused to allow the UN in to inspect, although he eventually did...to a limited degree.

Trust me, I'm not a fan of the man and I'm glad he's dead. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that our country was seriously mislead and that GWB rushed into a war by playing on the fear and anger of the US people still horrified by 9-11.

[jbm32206]

What amazes me is people desperatly trying to prove we are in Iraq fighting war on terror while young men and women loose THEIR LIVES every day.

Debate is healthy...sharing opinions is healthy...one can actually learn something.

:confused: Are you saying that this shouldn't be debated because our men and women are losing their lives there? That we should just blindly accept it? I think not. We raise our voice in concern, because we're losing our men and women over there!

[red_thropy]

The enemy of our enemy (Iran then, as now) is our friend in many cases. Why have no liberals ever heard of realpolitik? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Yeah...how'd that work out for us in Afganistan? GREAT idea to assist Bin Laden eh?

How'd that work out in Iraq/Iran?

How'd that work out for us in Vietnam?

Columbia? Chilie? The "Patriot Invasion" of Florida in 1811?

How long will it take before y'all realize what a bad idea it is to work with psychos just because they hate the same dude?

[red_thropy]

Are you aware that Saddam invaded 2 neighboring countries, Iran and Kuwait?

Are you aware that I don't give a crap about the Iranians or the Kuwaitis? Yeah....those are great democracies aren't they? Freedom just rules supreme in Iran and Kuwait!

Three nations ruled by true bastards beating the tar out of one another, while the biggest bastard of em all (the Saudi Royals) are left to their own devices because of their relationship with "Bandar Bush." Forgive me...I can feel the bile rising in the back of my throat, I have to go vomit now.....:eek:

[Rampant]

Yeah...how'd that work out for us in Afganistan? GREAT idea to assist Bin Laden eh?

Actually we NEVER assisted Bin Laden. Atleast according to US and Bin Laden. There were more than one group fighting the Russians. Funding was mostly coming from Arab states.

This is one of the most common misconceptions.

Also, the Bush family isnt the only ones in bed with the Saudi gov. Try a mister Bill Clinton.

Knowing or stating only half the facts create misconceptions.

[red_thropy]

Knowing or stating only half the facts create misconceptions.

Misconceptions suck....they get you into wars you can't get out of

[BostechComputers]

You create Frankenstein then he turns against creator.
Ah the Talibans,CIA and Rambo....those were good 'ol days.
CIA,Saddam and chemical weapons...once upon time.
CIA,Slobodan Milosevic and against breaking up of Yugoslavia.
CIA,Saudi Arabia and 70 thiefs anyone?

[Rampant]

Misconceptions suck....they get you into wars you can't get out of

Now your onto something. The misconception that the mujahadeen fighters would be given a way back home after the war. That is the reason the Afghan/Russian war was a war the Arab fighters weren't able to get out. Because once the Russians left all funding was cut off, leaving the Arab fighters with no way home. Cut funding and people get stuck, and some just look at it as an oppurtunity to start a caliphate.

Oh but I'll guess you were talking about Iraq, and the three different wars that are going on inside of the Iraqi borders.

[JohnCocktosen]

From the Media Research Center:

NBC: Iraqis Want U.S. to Stay, Anti-War
Effort Helping Insurgents

Visiting Iraq, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams learned from Army officers that Iraqis want U.S. forces to remain in their country, from NBC News Baghdad reporter Richard Engel that Al-Sadr's insurgents have stepped down and are counting on pressure from anti-war opponents to provide them with victory, and from retired General and NBC News military analyst Wayne Downey that U.S. troops are proud of their mission. Traveling with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno for stories on his Monday newscast, Williams ran a clip of Army Colonel John Charlton proclaiming that Iraqis "do not want us to leave" and a soundbite from Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry who asserted: "The people here are very glad to see us." Williams marveled: "You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place.'"

To explain the decreased violence in Baghdad, Engel noted how "the militia decided they fought the U.S. two-and-a-half years ago, didn't have a lot of success. They decided this time they're going to wait it out, see if political pressure in the U.S. can help them win this time." Downey related how "every soldier that I ran across today I asked him: 'How do you feel about what's going on,'" and "without exception -- this was spontaneous, especially when you start talking to PFCs and Spec 4s, they're going to tell you the truth, no party line. Very proud of what they're doing. Very, very dedicated."

[This item was posted Monday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

During his first story on his trip, as aired on the March 5 NBC Nightly News, Williams related:
"This is what the General heard today about how warmly the locals now view the Americans."
U.S. Army Colonel John Charlton: "They do not want us to leave. They want to see the police come through."
U. S. Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry: "The people here are very glad to see us. They are very hesitant still because they're not sure if we're going to stay. They want us to stay."
Voice of Odierno?: "That's the issue."
Ferry: "That's the whole deal. If we stay down here and to keep beating down the insurgents."
Brian Williams, to one or more of the officers: "You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place.'"
Odierno: "They can talk about policy, okay, and that's what they have to do back there. My mission right now is to provide protection for the Iraqi people so this government can grow."

The MSNBC.com online version of the Williams story: www.msnbc.msn.com

At the end of his newscast, Williams stood at an outside location with Engel and Downey, as he noted how they felt safe enough to remove their bullet-proof vests. Engel explained the decrease in violence from Al-Sadr's insurgents in Sadr City:
"Some say they are just waiting to see how long the U.S. will stay and how long this surge will continue. It was obvious, the U.S. announced the surge, they said where the U.S. troops were going and the militia decided they fought the U.S. two-and-a-half years ago, didn't have a lot of success. They decided this time they're going to wait it out, see if political pressure in the U.S. can help them win this time."
Brian Williams: "And General, you and I heard sentiments we don't often hear today, the U.S. commanders quoting the Iraqis: 'please don't leave us.' And a lot of the U.S. fighters there today said they didn't want to leave this fight, they are dedicated to it."
Retired General Wayne Downing: "Brian, every single one of them, I ran into a lot of officers and NCOs that I served with -- every soldier that I ran across today I asked him: 'How do you feel about what's going on, what do you know about what is going on back in the states?' And without exception -- this was spontaneous, especially when you start talking to PFCs and Spec 4s, they're going to tell you the truth, no party line. Very proud of what they're doing. Very, very dedicated. Many of these guys, Brian, are back here on their second and third tours. These are one-year tours. Extremely well trained and very professional."

Does anyone think that the troops that we all agree we "support" may have a better idea as to what is going on over there than us pajamadim?

[AJCORDON]

Disention on the homefront is a troop-killer on the battlefield. The men and women who are laying it on the line are not anywhere near as divided as the armchair civilians.

[BostechComputers]

Sounds like another BS article to me.
Insurgents are WAITING to see how political situation in US develops so they are not attacking???
Who writes this crap???
When they say Iraqies wants us to stay who are they talkign about?
1 men,100,1 million..did they do survey or just random person on street??


I don't for a second belive why most Iraqies care about american troops staying,it's not like they are BETTER TODAY then during Saddam Regime.
FOR THEM american troops don't make any difference,they are getting killed today more then ever.

This article is just poor propaganda trick to convince american people to keep fighting lost war and give stamp of approval to Bush policies.

[BostechComputers]

Disention on the homefront is a troop-killer on the battlefield. The men and women who are laying it on the line are not anywhere near as divided as the armchair civilians.

Every soldier in every millitary in any part of worls will say same thing.
Even those former Nazis German soldiers you watch on History Channel after all these years speak about fighting to the end.
That is SOLDIERS MIND,you always push forward and fight no matter what.
You are always RIGHT.
99% will NEVER ADMIT they are figthing for lost cause or wrong war.

[JohnCocktosen]

Sounds like another BS article to me.
Insurgents are WAITING to see how political situation in US develops so they are not attacking???
Who writes this crap???

That would be MSNBC

When they say Iraqies wants us to stay who are they talkign about?
1 men,100,1 million..did they do survey or just random person on street??

Have you? If so please post the results.

I don't for a second belive why most Iraqies care about american troops staying,it's not like they are BETTER TODAY then during Saddam Regime.
FOR THEM american troops don't make any difference,they are getting killed today more then ever.

You are probably right about that. The avarage Iraqi citizen no longer fears, rape rooms, hunger, midnight home raids, etc. I can certainly see how they would think things are no different now than under the rule of an insane dictator who had no problem brutally killing his own people on a whim.

This article is just poor propaganda trick to convince american people to keep fighting lost war and give stamp of approval to Bush policies.

Correct, MSNBC is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bush White House. Thanks for pointing that out.

[BostechComputers]

No but I don't post article claiming Iraqies don't want us there.
That is 100% unprofesional article to say things without any evidence.....isn't how we get there in first place???


Under Saddam ONLY time you will get in trouble is WHEN YOU OPPOSE Saddam regime,as long you kept your mouth shut you would be fine and live normal life....It's same like in communist countries that is how I know how that works.

Today people get killed just for going to market to buy bread.
Today killing civilians is part of game,creates anarchy and sends messages.
Today in Iraq worst thing is to BE civilian.


Isn't MSNBC on channel 180 or something????

[OceanCowboy]

Once again... praise those articles that back up your point of view and dismiss those articles that dont as propeganda of the Bush Administration... This is getting OLD.

[OceanCowboy]

Under Saddam ONLY time you will get in trouble is WHEN YOU OPPOSE Saddam regime,as long you kept your mouth shut you would be fine and live normal life....It's same like in communist countries that is how I know how that works.


Thats a way to live your life!! live in your house in FEAR because you dont want to speak up to your "master". we faught the American Revolution so we could speak out against those who tried to dictate us. This is exactly what America stands for. Apparently as long as you are here and not repressed the rest of the world can be.... Nice.

[JohnCocktosen]

Under Saddam ONLY time you will get in trouble is WHEN YOU OPPOSE Saddam regime,as long you kept your mouth shut you would be fine and live normal life....It's same like in communist countries that is how I know how that works.

The surviving members of the Iraq World Cup team that were tortured unmercifally for not winning would disagree with you. The women who were raped repeatedly for no reason other than sport would take issue with your statement. The children who are orphans may want to try and sway your opinion.

[BostechComputers]

They didn't live in fear,they just lived...but when they spoke against Saddam then they would live in fear.
Hell of lot better then GETTING KILLED on daily base today.
Today those people live in fear EVERY DAY,going out to do daily things is dangerous.

Can you see difference????
BEFORE-dangerous only when you spoke against Saddam
TODAY-dangerous any day at any time


Oh no,don't tell me US will bring them freedom of speach.US is in Iraq for own intrest not for concern about iraqi civilians....well except when they are needed for articles and stories.

[JohnCocktosen]

So are you saying they they were NOT afraid to speak ill of Saddam but WERE afraid once they had done so?

Please explain.

[OceanCowboy]

Oh no,don't tell me US will bring them freedom of speach.US is in Iraq for own intrest not for concern about iraqi civilians....well except when they are needed for articles and stories.


that is your opinion and you have your right to it... we dont suppress you here... why should they be suppressed there? come on. you're all about equality..

[BostechComputers]

John you are selling me those stories shown on TV to paint Saddam Husein as ultimate evil...it's called propaganda.
Truth is there are many countries and tyrans who treat people a lot worse then Saddam....heck our ally Saudi Arabia is 100 times worse then Saddam regime yet no US media ever say anything about it.

[BostechComputers]

Well people in Iraq lived their lives normally,most people don't care abotu politics just like in US...as long they didn't get involved in politics they would be fine.
Pay your taxes and don't speak against Saddam and you will be fine.
That is how Saddam stayed in power for 30 years.
You can say anything but against Saddam...that's how tyranies work.
Most people get use to living like that and even find it normal.

[OceanCowboy]

I like your thinking Bostech... practice what you preach.. pay your taxes and stay out of politics...

[BostechComputers]

I am pointing DIFFERENCE between now and then in Iraq.
All I am saying Iraqies are much worse today then before.


There are no cheering crowds in Iraq waiting for Americans to save them,throwing flowers and kissing american soldiers.
We are not liberators just another party in a war where most of casulties are THEM.


US,Al Qaida and Iraq clans are fighting war over their heads.
Before they were screwed by only one person now by 3 ...and even more.

Which one would you choose???

[OceanCowboy]

All a matter of opinion. I would rather live in a world where i haev the right to choose and not live in fear of my government, than live underneath a suppressive governing body..

[Stephendare]

Bostech

You are a hundred percent right about our 'allies', the Sauds.

Totally brutal, and 100 percent totalitarian.

They still keep american slave girls and boys in their private palaces, (btw Sadaam outlawed slavery) and have public beheadings for defaming the Prince.

You never hear a word of it from our state department though.

[red_thropy]

What's all this talk I here about Iraqis no longert being afraid of rape rooms and torture...

Y'all been living under a rock? Abu Grahib anyone....hasn't there been this like whole battle raging in the halls of congress for how long now over OUR use of torture?

MEET THE NEW BOSS!!! SAME AS THE OLD BOSS!!!

I tip my hat to the new constitution.......

[BostechComputers]

All a matter of opinion. I would rather live in a world where i haev the right to choose and not live in fear of my government, than live underneath a suppressive governing body..


Yes in perfect world everyone would..but in REALITY people often have to choose between what they got.
Usually it is lesser evil,in Iraq getting killed on market or living under Saddam...tough choice.

There is no 3rd choice.US media makes it belive like there is some sort of democracy.
With such chaos and corruption democracy is only word on paper.

[red_thropy]

Or....did y'all get fooled again?

[BostechComputers]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/06/iraq.main/index.html

120 people got killed today...and this is only what media reports.Small casulties usually don't make news.
Daily routine..this is their life,you go out and you can get killed regardless of who you are.
9 US soldiers got killed too.
Some mother will be crying tonight for them.

For what????

[JohnCocktosen]

Saddam's Iraq, paradise in the middle east where all God's children live free of fear, unless they open their mouths.

USA Today:

Ask most Iraqis how they feel about Saddam Hussein and they'll probably refuse to answer. "Even now, I am advised by friends not to speak about Saddam because maybe he'll appear and cut my throat," says Zena Jassim Mohammed, 22, a former English student at Baghdad University. "His Baath Party goons are everywhere."
Although U.S. forces have overthrown his regime, Saddam continues to haunt many of Iraq's 26 million people. Most say they won't talk about him, even in private settings, until he has been caught or killed.

They fear that the Iraqi leader, who tortured or killed tens of thousands of people during his more than three decades of rule, could somehow return to power. They also believe his Baath Party officials, who arrested and beat anyone who spoke badly about Saddam, may still be seeking out dissenters.

Even Iraqi police, who are patrolling Baghdad's streets for the first time since the coalition gained control of the country, are refusing to talk about Saddam. They won't even mention his name. Dozens of officers walked away when asked about the Iraqi leader. Several passed their fingers across the base of their throat as if to imply their throats would be slit if they discussed the Iraqi leader


US New and World Report:

The culture of fear was so complete that Saddam's underlings routinely lied to him about almost everything, including the capabilities of his own military forces. Advisers would deliver reports of exaggerated military prowess and fanciful technological innovation, rather than face the potential consequences of failure.

Noted propagana outlet ESPN:

Human rights monitors for the United Nations have amply documented the savagery of Saddam Hussein. His eldest son and a possible successor, Uday, reportedly grew up watching his father punish political opponents as a way to control a large, diverse country. Uday, now 38, has earned his own reputation for violent behavior. In an Amnesty International report, Uday reportedly ordered that the hand of an Olympic committee security guard, accused of stealing sports equipment, be cut off. The missing equipment was later found. Similar incidents tied to Uday later became part of a United Nations report on human rights in Iraq.

New York Times:

The hanging of Saddam Hussein ended the life of one of the most brutal tyrants in recent history and negated the fiction that he himself maintained even as the gallows loomed — that he remained president of Iraq despite being toppled by the United States military and that his power and his palaces would be restored to him in time.

Saddam Hussein received the death sentence on Nov. 5 for his role in the killing in 1982 of nearly 150 people in the mainly Shiite village of Dujail.

The despot, known as Saddam, had oppressed Iraq for more than 30 years, unleashing devastating regional wars and reducing his once promising, oil-rich nation to a claustrophobic police state.

more NYT


No other Arab despot matched the savagery of Mr. Hussein as he went about bending all state institutions to his whim. His opening act, in January 1969, was hanging around 17 so-called spies for Israel in a downtown Baghdad square. Hundreds of arrests and executions followed as the civilian wing of the Baath Party gradually eclipsed the Iraqi military.

Mr. Hussein staged perhaps his most macabre purge in 1979, when at age 42 he consolidated his hold on Iraq. Having pushed aside President Bakr, he called a gathering of several hundred top Baathists.

One senior official stepped forward to confess to having been part of a widespread plot to allow a Syrian takeover. After guards dragged the man away, Mr. Hussein took to the podium, weeping at first as he began reading a list of dozens implicated. Guards dragged away each of the accused. Mr. Hussein paused from reading occasionally to light his cigar, while the room erupted in almost hysterical chanting demanding death to traitors. The entire dark spectacle, designed to leave no doubt as to who controlled Iraq, was filmed and copies distributed around the country.

Firing squads consisting of cabinet members and other top officials initially gunned down 21 men, including five ministers. Iraq’s state radio said the officials executed their colleagues while “cheering for the long life of the Party, the Revolution and the Leader, President, Struggler, Saddam Hussein.”


and more from the Gray Lady

There were widespread reports that Mr. Hussein himself periodically carried out the torture or even execution of those he felt had crossed him. In the summer of 1982, for example, Riyadh Ibrahim Hussein, the health minister, suggested during a cabinet meeting that Mr. Hussein step down to ease the negotiation of a cease-fire with Iran. Mr. Hussein recommended that the two retire to another room to discuss the proposal. When they did, a shot rang out. Mr. Hussein returned to the cabinet meeting alone, although in later interviews he denied killing anyone. The minister’s widow was sent his dismembered corpse.

You did get one thing right Bostech, it reminds me of some of the former communist countries.

[OceanCowboy]

For oil and revenge.

[BostechComputers]

Read the text AGAIN,I actually got every single one right.
Let me repeat one part from text :

"who spoke badly about Saddam"

Those who spoke AGAINST Saddam.

100% correct.

Thank you for providing evidence to my text.

[JohnCocktosen]

So I can see how you would want to live there.

[BostechComputers]

Who said I wanted to live there???

Go back and read my posts again and pay attention to what I said.
You are coming up to wrong conclusions.
I am describing REALITY not what people wish would happen or be like.

[Claude91098]

No Bosnian should ever trust UN,EU,US and Al Qaida

But YOU live IN THE US.....hummmm....You don't "trust" the US, but YET, you choose to LIVE in the US! And you gave me shit for saying that I don't trust Muslims? Yeah....hypocrit!
What goes around...it comes around.
You remember your own words there Bos!!!

[jbm32206]

But....we haven't stopped Genocide...infact Genocide had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. More folks are dying over there now than ever under Saddam. And I wouldn't call gassing an uprising genocide....war crime...YES! Horrible, Of course....wrong? By all means...genocide, no. ANd once again...that happened in 1988 and we didn't seem to care too much about it then.

Thank you...people seem to be having a hard time getting this point.

And thanks John...for pointing out that it happened almost 20 years ago!

By the way, 'Red_thropy' I totally love your avatar!!!

[JohnCocktosen]

Thank you...people seem to be having a hard time getting this point.

And thanks John...for pointing out that it happened almost 10 years ago!

By the way, 'Red_thropy' I totally love your avatar!!!

The numbers don't add up to support red's statement. And you are welcome as it is important to understand the totality of the exceptionaly viciousness of Saddam's regime.

It is impossible to argue with any level of credibility that things are the same as they were under him. You cannot and have not.

[BostechComputers]

US like us....just kidding.
No I mean US as government not Americans.

They did SOLD Bosnia and Bosnians,so I don't see why Bosnians should trust.
Just like UN (also called United Nothing),European Union and yes Al Qaida.
I didn't refer to entire religion or nation or people or race like you did.

I don't think why anyone normal should trust any of these governments,they sell you like a hotcake to couple of pints of oil.

Belive in yourself only.

Many Bosnians BELIVED US will stand for justice and freedom only to be sold for a Kosovo.

[JohnCocktosen]

^Please use English.

[BostechComputers]

No my typing sucks....I type way faster then I think.

[Stephendare]

Bostech, Im not sure why they are aguing with you.

Perhaps you are acquainted with the term "Red Herring"?

Every credible news source in the entire world says and reports the same thing.

There is no government outside of the administration of Pol Pots Khmer Rougians which could possible be less safe than current conditions in Iraq.

Stepping outside the home is a liscense to get blown to bits.

Staying inside the home makes you a sitting duck.

Almost a million civilians have been killed over the past four years, with bullets flying at them from every side.

What is happening right now is not even remotely 'government'. It is chaos. A civil war where people are dying every day. Some of the militias are far more bloody and cruel and fanatical than the worst days of Saddam, and even the alleged good guys (*us) are drilling holes in the joints of women during interrogations and getting busted for widespread torture at places like abu ghraib.

Hows that for a daily life?

And what retard in this room thinks that this situation would be preferable to any government at all, including the soviet occupations of eastern europe?

[jbm32206]

Especially since these people find it perfectly acceptable to kill innocent victims...it's not like they're trying to participate in a war where you know the enemy. To them, everyone, including themselves, are expendable. What a sad, pathetic way to live...if you can call it that!

[red_thropy]

I am often amused by how some seem to think that not supporting the war equals support of Saddam or support of his actions....

What numbers don't add up? That gassing the Kurds, while still a war crime, is not genocide? That it's stupid about us to bitch about that nearly 20 years after the fact? I mean, if this were 1988 I could see your point....but it's not. It's 2007...we didn't lift a finger in 1988. Why was it ok for Saddam to gas Kurds in 1988 but it is not ok in 2007 that he gassed Kurds in 1988?

Even IF Saddam had WMD (by the way....have we found any yet?) I still would think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq. In fact....I don't think we should have any involvement in the Middle East what-so-ever! How many times and for how long were the Brits bogged down in Iraq from 1919-1950? Not much seems to have changed since then. Saddam wasn't the ONLY bastard in the world with dangerous weapons....and while were on that subject why the hell do we have nukes for that matter? We can't use em....even if someone used em against us first, it's just suicide!

Saddam was a grade A son-of-a-bitch, for sure. But he ain't the only one or the worst. However, one thing that was too his credit though was that at least he wasn't a religious nut. I mean, he didn't give a damn what religion you practiced so long as you were his buddy. If you wern't his buddy, than yeah you were dead. BUT when compared to his wonderful Saudi and Iranian neighbors I would call him a breath of fresh air in that regaurd. That's why Bin Ladden wanted him overthrown. Bin Ladden is a Islamic right wing nut ball! He wants a Fundamentalist Islamic state spread accross the region. Someone like Saddam doesn't fit that well in that vision and must go. So basically ol' W did him a huge favor by removing Saddam and creating a climate that would allow for such folks as Al Sadr to rise to such prominence.

BIN LADDEN and a bunch of SAUDIS attacked us on September 11th 2001! Not a single Iraqi was involved in that....I really don't see how this could be more simple.

And once again, I am no pacifist! Wars are often necessary....but not this one. This one is just plane stupid.

[Stephendare]

actually it was two planes.

Neither of which carried iraqis.

[Rampant]

actually it was two planes.

Neither of which carried iraqis.
Oh so we should go after the Saudi's because it was mostly Saudi's on the plane?:confused:

[OceanCowboy]

Goodness gracious people. I think it is safe to say that we all disagree on what degree we agree with how we conduct national security in this country. How long are we going to go in circles?

All you anti war people: i heard your arguments, points of views, and opinions. I dont agree with them.

You all heard mine and dont agree with them.. YIIPPPEEEE...

I think im done with this one.. its getting boring.

[linebacker]

Iraq Watch

April 2003


In Iraq, Civilian Deaths Have Fallen Since the Start of the War

by Stephen Cass
At church last Sunday, I watched as the priest, recently returned from Europe, unrolled a rainbow peace banner from the pulpit and explained that it was a surprise to be back in the US where "the vast majority" support the war. Glancing down at the "NO WAR" scrawled in marking pen on the pew in front of me, I wondered which country I was living in.

In San Francisco, my support for the disarmament of Saddam makes me a pariah among my peers. My sixteen years of study of Iraq, doctoral work on Saddam, and time spent in the Middle East make no difference. I am daily condemned by the mantra that the US is taking "hundreds of thousands" of civilian lives in Iraq-- and that my support makes me an accomplice to murder.

For my own part, I am embarrassed to watch the daily "Showdown with Iraq" news graphics that turn human suffering into a Steven Segal movie. I know that what is at stake are precious human lives. I know that many who oppose the war do so out of deep respect and concern for human life.

Let me say that there are those supporting the disarmament of Saddam who do so for the same reason.

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

By contrast, taking at face value Iraq's Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf's recent claims of 500 Iraqi civilian deaths since the start of the campaign we are left with the tragedy of 38 civilian deaths daily since the start of the war.

In other words, even accepting the Iraqis own numbers and the highly-suspect assertion that all were caused by US weapons, and discounting the numbers of humanitarian organizations, the civilian death toll has, in fact, fallen since the start of the war. Indeed, it has fallen precipitously.

One civilian death is rightfully a tragedy-- not only for the Iraqis, but for Anglo-American efforts to disarm and remove Saddam with minimal loss of life. Yet it is more of a tragedy that a hundred thousand civilian deaths under Saddam are treated as a rounding error-- or worse, a politicized, uncomfortable, and therefore ignorable fact.

For those who would question my math, I point out that at least I have tried to apply math to the claims made for and against the war. I agree that lives cannot be treated as numbers in a balance, but it is the protestors who have moved the argument on to that playing field. For indeed, they accept that Saddam is evil, but believe that his disarmament is more evil because-- in the now familiar phrase-- it will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.

When protestors say "Yes, Saddam is bad, but..." I wonder how many of them have really thought through their Plan B for ending the suffering, after 12 years of a "peace for oil" in which French and Russian companies got the lion's share of Iraqi contracts in exchange for arming Iraq during the 1980s, cheap oil, and making sure sanctions and inspections would be only a mild inconvenience, if not public relations bonanza, for Saddam? Meanwhile, Iraqis continued to die.

Where were the protestors when those verifiable "hundred of thousands" were being slaughtered during the past two decades?

Nor do I buy the argument that the use of these numbers to justify action against Saddam is a "cynical manipulation." Are the deaths real or not? If US policy to this point has been flawed for allegedly tolerating these deaths, what is cynical about changing that policy? One would have the wrong policy with the right intentions, rather than the right and moral one with suspect intentions?

Then there are those who claim that the war is not "really" about helping the Iraqi people. This sounds like someone who while watching his house burn down prevents the neighbors from using the garden hose to put out the fire because it is not "really" for fighting fires, but only watering plants. Do you think the dead and suffering care about Bush's "real" purpose?

The repeated assertion that the US is killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is a dangerous lie perhaps most offensive to the memory of innocent Iraqis who have indeed died in the hundreds of thousands while those for "peace"-- a peace of death-- stood by silently. It is also deeply offensive to the families of the 13 US soldiers killed while accepting the false surrender of Iraqi soldiers or coming to the aid of Iraqi taxi drivers.

If the US really cared as little about civilians as some say, those soldiers might still be alive. They are most certainly dead because we have gone to such lengths to spare non-combatants-- to save the hundreds of thousands that Saddam could care less about.

Stephen Cass received his Ph.D. in Iraqi history from Oxford University and is the author of a forthcoming book on Iraq. A former GBN consultant, Stephen co-authored the 1990 GBN Scenario Book "On the Plains of Babylon." He is the cofounder of AgentArts, a P2P analytics and entertainment CRM technology company.

[red_thropy]

This article makes too many assumptions about the moral viewpoint of the anti war movement.

The author definately has a point, and it is more clearly thought out and presented than any I have ever heard from the pro-war movement.

However, my central beef with the war centers around 3 points 1) Iraq was not involved in 9/11 2) The lies that led up to the war to goad the American people into accepting it and most importantly 3) While Saddam was nasty, this war is never going to solve anything

[Claude91098]

US like us....just kidding.
No I mean US as government not Americans.

Fine...I can accept THAT...just clarify from now on. When you say the "US", that includes ALL of us, not "just the government".:p

Hell, I don't implicily "trust" our government either, but I do believe that they try to do the right thing more often than not. (Pay particular attention to the "more often than not" part...ok!);)

[JohnCocktosen]

This article makes too many assumptions about the moral viewpoint of the anti war movement.

The author definately has a point, and it is more clearly thought out and presented than any I have ever heard from the pro-war movement.

However, my central beef with the war centers around 3 points 1) Iraq was not involved in 9/11 2) The lies that led up to the war to goad the American people into accepting it and most importantly 3) While Saddam was nasty, this war is never going to solve anything

Please expand on the notion of the "lies that led up to the war." What lies were told? Who told them? When were they told?

[red_thropy]

"The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example." -George Bush June 2003 26[26][27]

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- State of the Union Address (1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." -- State of the Union Address (1/28/2003).

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com
-this one is not EXACTLY a lie...but is extremely misleading

Bush Remarks on Saddam
(Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.)

OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."

OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
"This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."

NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
"He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
"We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
"He's had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
"This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda."


You want me to go on?

[JohnCocktosen]

Not a lie amongst them, bad intel, yes and admitted by the Prez and others, but no lies.

Please try again.

[red_thropy]

bad intel...I don't buy it. These are LIES!

Even if they are "bad intel" He is still responsible.

[red_thropy]

Lie: an inaccurate or false statement

[Rampant]

Red..
You should read the independent 9/11 Commission report. Thats says Saddam DID have contacts with Al Qaeda, but never led to an operational relationship. The Senate Select Committe on Intelligence came up with the same conclusion.

However, I would like to suggest you read a book. America's Secret War. It will dispell some of your misconceptions and refortify some of your arguments. Its really a great book on the real story not the jigsaw puzzle pieces that almost everyone is arguing with in this forum (by both sides).

[JohnCocktosen]

Lie: an inaccurate or false statement

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object) 7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.

9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.

[Stephendare]

In other words, Lies.

Btw, are you related to the Pet Food Ralstons?

[JohnCocktosen]

Not unless they have a different last name.

[Stephendare]

noted.

[Rampant]

9/11 Commission Report
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship"

[BostechComputers]

My fax machine makes reports when you press Reports button.

[Rampant]

My fax machine makes reports when you press Reports button.

I wont even ask why your still using an extremely out dated form of communication.

[Rampant]

My fax machine makes reports when you press Reports button.

I guess a witty joke, will make the facts disappear.

[BostechComputers]

My point is anyone can make "report" but where is EVIDENCE?

[Rampant]

My point is anyone can make "report" but where is EVIDENCE?
you mean the actual documents... well this came out after the commission report

ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.

Thats to mention the actual accounts and interviews of a Saddam body guard who claims to have actually guarded Bin Laden in Iraq at one time. (maybe he was lying, maybe he wasn't)

The commission also said this
Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994.

So far ive given you evidence (that you question the credibility of).
So I now ask you where is the evidence that there was no contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

[Claude91098]

Red..
You should read the independent 9/11 Commission report. Thats says Saddam DID have contacts with Al Qaeda, but never led to an operational relationship. The Senate Select Committe on Intelligence came up with the same conclusion.

However, I would like to suggest you read a book. America's Secret War. It will dispell some of your misconceptions and refortify some of your arguments. Its really a great book on the real story not the jigsaw puzzle pieces that almost everyone is arguing with in this forum (by both sides).

There's no "discussing" anything with someone, anyone, that is on the "I hate Bush bandwagon".....:rolleyes:
Hence....I've stopped trying.:p

[jbm32206]

The book, as any book, is merely another persons interpretation of what and how they view something or events. As with anyone, we're all entitled to our opinions and views. Reading someone's views, is no more than reading them here on the forum. If you've not been able to change someone's view, then I seriously doubt that reading a book with views that also differ, would make much difference. I know that it won't change mine on what I believe and/or feel about the events that lead up to the war, or what's been happening since.

[Rampant]

The book, as any book, is merely another persons interpretation of what and how they view something or events. As with anyone, we're all entitled to our opinions and views. Reading someone's views, is no more than reading them here on the forum. If you've not been able to change someone's view, then I seriously doubt that reading a book with views that also differ, would make much difference. I know that it won't change mine on what I believe and/or feel about the events that lead up to the war, or what's been happening since.

While true in some form. I find a Security Consulting Intelligence Agency's researched opinion a bit more informed than any of the blowhards on here that get their information from the media. A media that gives you only a few jigsaw pieces in a puzzle that contains thousands if not millions.

And your correct.. It will not change the mind of CLOSE MINDED INDIVIDUALS.

[jbm32206]

Have you changed your mind about anything you've read in this forum? If not, then why start the name calling or assuming that one must be close minded, because they're not taking on your views? That's not fair, nor right. The book may be supported and or written by a security consulting intelligence agency's research, but who is to say that's the one and only truth? You're clearly against the media in that you feel it's opinion is swayed or one sided...who's to say what's in the book isn't also?

This thread was intended to allow everyone a place to express their views, it's not meant as a forum in which anyone should insult someone because of a different view.

[Ufrh4]

This thread was intended to allow everyone a place to express their views, it's not meant as a forum in which anyone should insult someone because of a different view.

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes it's simply about having a public forum to state your opinion. There's no need to insult, call names or belittle someone with an opinion different than our own. I've always felt that those most secure in their own beliefs are the one who have the confidence to grant others the right to hold views that differed with their own.

[jbm32206]

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes it's simply about having a public forum to state your opinion. There's no need to insult, call names or belittle someone with an opinion different than our own. I've always felt that those most secure in their own beliefs are the one who have the confidence to grant others the right to hold views that differed with their own.

:) Thanks....I'd just rather see this stay friendly and fair. I find it very interesting, to say the least, reading how others feel, even debating issues...which is healthy. I'm just not wanting this to turn ugly, we just need to respect the views of others...and maybe even learn a thing or two along the way. And if nothing else, we've got an opportunity to just express ourselves in a healthy manner.

[Rampant]

Have you changed your mind about anything you've read in this forum? If not, then why start the name calling or assuming that one must be close minded, because they're not taking on your views? That's not fair, nor right. The book may be supported and or written by a security consulting intelligence agency's research, but who is to say that's the one and only truth? You're clearly against the media in that you feel it's opinion is swayed or one sided...who's to say what's in the book isn't also?

This thread was intended to allow everyone a place to express their views, it's not meant as a forum in which anyone should insult someone because of a different view.

I'm sorry if you took offense to the close-minded comment. It actually wasn't directed at you or anyone else, just in response to your comment about not changing opinions. Maybe I should have made it bold and not capitalized to emphasis the statement. So if you assumed that I assumed you were close-minded, well you’re mistaken. (Ok that was just bad dry humor) It was not intended to be an assumption on anyone.

Far as name calling, ok "blowhard" is name-calling. ::smack:: There I slapped my wrist. Lets go have a beer and sing, "We are the world"
:)

[jbm32206]

That's cool....I just want for this to remain a healthy and fair means for all of us to express our views. Thanks for taking the time to clear things up.:)

[BostechComputers]

you mean the actual documents... well this came out after the commission report



Thats to mention the actual accounts and interviews of a Saddam body guard who claims to have actually guarded Bin Laden in Iraq at one time. (maybe he was lying, maybe he wasn't)

The commission also said this


So far ive given you evidence (that you question the credibility of).
So I now ask you where is the evidence that there was no contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda?


Enemy of my enemy is my friend.....what Rg said earlier.
Adn that what sounds like Osama was doing with Saddam,EXCEPT nothing ever happend.

BUT if this is evidence for invading another country and bombing it then we should bomb ourself for being FRIENDS with Saddam and mujahedins (todays al qaida) back in 1980's.


Nice try.

[Rampant]

Enemy of my enemy is my friend.....what Rg said earlier.
Adn that what sounds like Osama was doing with Saddam,EXCEPT nothing ever happend.

BUT if this is evidence for invading another country and bombing it then we should bomb ourself for being FRIENDS with Saddam and mujahedins (todays al qaida) back in 1980's.


Nice try.
Do I think its evidence enough to invade, gosh no!
My only point was to dispell, "bush lied."

Call it technical, but contact appears to be true, which is what was said. If they had said "working together", well then I might agree with the statement, "bush lied."

Oddly enough almost every "bush lied" as panned out with some evidence that says technically no lie was told. Including WMD (500 old bio warheads were discovered and parts dug up that could be used in a nuke program). Does that mean we were not mislead? My opinion is that we were mislead, because the american public would not understand the larger picture of why we went. (I would explain, but I doubt anyone wants to read a 10 page semi complex post) If we ever meet over beers, then maybe.

[red_thropy]

Do I think its evidence enough to invade, gosh no!
My only point was to dispell, "bush lied."

Call it technical, but contact appears to be true, which is what was said. If they had said "working together", well then I might agree with the statement, "bush lied."

Oddly enough almost every "bush lied" as panned out with some evidence that says technically no lie was told. Including WMD (500 old bio warheads were discovered and parts dug up that could be used in a nuke program). Does that mean we were not mislead? My opinion is that we were mislead, because the american public would not understand the larger picture of why we went. (I would explain, but I doubt anyone wants to read a 10 page semi complex post) If we ever meet over beers, then maybe.

So.....then by that rational Clinton really didn't have sex with Monica then right? I mean...a blow job isn't "technically" sex...and neither are hijinks involving cigars and bodily orifaces for that matter...

....sorry, no one went there so I just HAD too:D

[red_thropy]

ANd for the record I am not a Clinton fan

But I don't like him cuz of NAFTA, not any of the stuff I think most folks in here wouldn't approve of

[BostechComputers]

Technically my fax machine makes reports,but does that make my fax machine CIA agent???
Technically there were no terrorists in Iraq when we went in.
Technically Osama is in Pakistan not Iraq.
Technically last years Oscar was better then this years.

[Diane Melendez]

The thread is War express your views here, right? Okay then...

I will not even begin this post without first saying that, I support our troops! No ifs, ands or buts about it. I honor them, their bravery and patriotism. God Bless and Keep them all.

My view is of the temperament of the American people at this time in history with regard to this war. The American people through majority polls have shown that they are not in favor of this war and do not want to stay in this war. The American people have shown they do not favor GW Bush or his presidency. They backed up that view with votes, that ultimately changed the balance of power in Washington. So debate about the value of this war, what it did or did not do is no longer the question in the minds and eyes of the majority of citizens. It is simply one majority sentiment "Get Out"!

While some continue to argue fiercely for this war, the consensus of the majority of Americans is that this war cannot be won.

While I think we can all express opinions about the war in Iraq, speaking from a position of fact is a very, very difficult task, if not an impossible task. You see facts often are matter of interpretation, as we have seen many times over on this board for example. A piece of information may be construed as fact by one person and amount to nothing more than speculation by another.

The reason that G.W. Bush actually got us into this war will only ever be known by him and his closest confidants. I suspect his reasons have little or nothing to do with what he told the the world, the potential threats, humanitarian action, the whole bit. This was about an agenda that served one mans ego and lack of vision and it has cost far to many lives, troops and innocent victims. I feel that one aspect of starting this war for ole GW was payback for daddy and the vision he had of himself as a "hero". This speculation of mine became real when he blasted onto the deck of that air carrier and hopped out of a jet cockpit and swaggered up to a microphone to announce Mission Accomplished!!!!!. The reality of a egomaniac and the creation of the mind of an out of control fundamentalist took us into a war that cannot be won.

Fact, facts, facts were lacking and are still lacking. We have statements and reports but no clear facts. We have media and opinions but no clear facts. We have a war that is a war with no clear enemy. We have several war's within this war, the biggest being a civil war. Another one a religious war, And another situation that is not war but simply acts of terrorism on the part of Iraq's against their own people. What will happen? No one on this God's green earth knows. No one. We have now and have had a world full of opinions and experts whose input in this situation fell on the deaf ears of an egotistical president and his war mongering friends and supporters.

Is the world safer now that we went to war with Iraq? Short answer...NO. In fact we are likely less safe as this war has blurred the lines so badly that now terrorists have free reign to do their will while our troops are distracted and exhausted by a war that cannot be won.

[BostechComputers]

We could have sent those 100,000 + troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan and actually find Osama,put him in rocket and send him to Mars ( I think I've seen it done in Austin Powers).
And then in free time rebuild entire New Orleans.

[Diane Melendez]

That sounds like a plan!:D

[BostechComputers]

Yeah I put both Democrats and Republicans to shame.
I got a PLAN.

[BostechComputers]

I should sell it on Ebay.

[Diane Melendez]

Actually they have a Plan Bos. The plan is to pretend they have a plan.

[Ufrh4]

I feel that one aspect of starting this war for ole GW was payback for daddy and the vision he had of himself as a "hero".

I partially agree with you. I don't think it was payback for Poppy. Now if had been the Silver Fox that Saddam had tried to kill, yes, but he wouldn't go to war to avenge Poppy. What it was (IMHO) was to prove to Poppy that he could finish the job that many viewed Poppy as failing to finish. Kind of a "I'll show you, Dad" moment.

Worked out great, didn't it?

[BostechComputers]

So whats is next?
G.W will try to grab Terry Hatcher's or Eva Longoria's ass???

[Rampant]

Technically my fax machine makes reports,but does that make my fax machine CIA agent???
Technically there were no terrorists in Iraq when we went in.
Technically Osama is in Pakistan not Iraq.
Technically last years Oscar was better then this years.

If your fax machine is in a CIA building and receives an income then yes. By the way, are those reports accurate, when you hit the button?

Technically there were terrorists in Iraq when we went in. Would you like the names of those terrorists’ organizations? One of which was lead by a now infamous Al-Zarqawi. Yes he was there before the US went into Iraq, as head of al-Tawhid which in 2004 became known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Another terrorist group, the PKK was/is based in northern Iraq previous to the US going into Iraq. Saddam was also funding Palestinian suicide bombers by sending the family $25,000 after the terrorist completed their mission. So to say, no terrorists were in Iraq when we went in, well that is a lie.

Osama may be in Pakistan or at least along the border. Which is why the CIA is in Pakistan, and reports that Task Force 145 may also be there.

No idea on Oscars, to boring to watch.

[Diane Melendez]

Ufrh4,

You may be right about that motivation for GW. It fits!

In anycase I doubt the world would be comforted by his reasoning on this.

[Iway Eadlay]

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant citizens to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."

Robert E. Lee, 1863

[linebacker]

Great post Iway!!

Civilian Cooperation Leads to Raids on Terrorist Bomb Factories
By Mark Finkelstein
CNSNews.com Correspondent
March 14, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - In what the military said was a sign of growing cooperation from Iraqi civilians, multi-national forces in Iraq recently uncovered and destroyed a terrorist bomb factory and a large cache of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The raids in Mosul and Baqubah came after tip-offs from local residents.

A senior military official in Iraq told Cybercast News Service that information from area residents had led coalition forces to believe that terrorists were accumulating weapons and producing IEDs at a building in the Mosul area.

American and Iraqi forces arriving at the building were confronted by two individuals who pulled out weapons. In an ensuing skirmish, the two were killed.

The soldiers then searched the building and uncovered two underground rooms being used to store some 50 completed IEDs and materiel including grenades, end caps, blasting caps, welding equipment, 20 lbs. of bulk explosives, 200 bags of fertilizer and more than 1000 lbs. of urea, used with fertilizer in the production of car bombs. The rooms also contained shackles, apparently for restraining prisoners.

Aircraft were called in and destroyed the building, the official said.

In another incident, an informant's tip led Iraqi police officers U.S. forces to a large cache of IEDs, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft rounds and other weaponry in the Baqubah area.

A senior U.S. military official said the mortars and rockets found near Baqubah were made in Iran, although he said this does not indicate who was responsible for getting them into the area.

"These are certainly positive developments for several reasons," MND-North spokesman Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly told Cybercast News Service. "First, we eliminated what was potentially a very dangerous set of materials used for constructing IEDs. This helps safeguard our soldiers and takes away from a ruthless enemy who takes innocent lives.

"The cache in Mosul was significant because it took away from the enemy literally tons of home made explosives used in constructing various lethal IEDs including vehicle-borne IEDs," Donnelly said.

"Second, the fact that the information leading to the raids was provided by local residents is an encouraging sign of the success of our efforts, based on increased presence of coalition forces in local neighborhoods, to build relationships and ties of confidence with Iraqi citizens," he said.



I wonder if "G" called Poppy to see if he was proud.

I can see why so many people find it a waste of time to discuss the subject constructively.