duh!

we can see it coming from 20 miles away!

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Good points Vesa. Not to mention that if and when the inspectors over there find something, it's not going to be covered by the media right away. It's not like Fox has a news crew over there with all of the inspectors ready to broadcast the second they find something--it's very sensitive material that will likely be very guarded until investigations and tests are completed. I'm sure that there will be a comprehensive report published at some point that shows one way or another what they've found. The timing of the publishing of such a report would be a different issue.

And let's not forget that Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of UN resolution 1441, which IMO, was reason enough to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and hopefully replace him with someone else who can be held more accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Many Anti-War people think that they can use the missing WMD to prove that Bush's administration was misleading the public. Unfortunately, non-existence is much harder to prove than existence. In my opinion, Anti-War people have overemphasized the WMD issue, and thereby risked their Anti-War cause. After all, Bush's administration is not a threat to world peace because of their WMD claims, but because of their hostile future plans.

Im one of those anti-war people. missing wdms is nothing, bush said iraq was a threat to my country. even if saddam did have wdms, he was and never would of been a threat to the US. this war was basicly for bush's corporate buddies, and the protection of israel. i dont why bother protecting israel, they can do their own terrorism with out americans getting killed. Its all there if you read PNAC. Im actually amazed we didnt find any wdms (or biological weapons so far, especially since we gave him so much in the 80s). i guess iraq did destroyed them or were given to terorist or got stolen, seeing how all we did was protect the oil fields once we got into iraq. we should of secured these wdm places that colon powell presented to the UN, he did say we knew exsactly where they were at, now we cant find them? WTF?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And let's not forget that Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of UN resolution 1441, which IMO, was reason enough to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and hopefully replace him with someone else who can be held more accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

yeah but the UN didnt go in, the US and this joke so called coalition of the willing went in. we pretty much did an illegal invasion seeing how iraq never declared war, attacked or was even a threat to my country. you want to know who should be forcibly removed? that ass ally of ours from uzbekistan, his far worse than saddam.

oh and trust me, if we find wdms, Fox and every other right wing echo machine will be all over this in a second.

I read this very interesting article of why o some people hate bush so much.. I should post it

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

saddam himself is a weapon of mass destruction, just how many people, his own people he killed...

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM saddam himself is a weapon of mass destruction, just how many people, his own people he killed... >JM<

and killing 100,000 people (directly or indirectly) is a perfect solution to get rid of him

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Unless you were there it's all hearsay and innuendo.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/trilling.php

It's hard to know how informed or misinformed we really are about the whole thing.

Here's our military's view of it. Of course they wouldn't be in any way biased.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan..._200301234.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm

I do like the coincidence of how George Bush Sr. was once the head of the CIA. I'm sure that the CIA would never lie to or decieve anyone *cough* Nicaragua *cough* Honduras *cough* Iran-Contra Affair *cough* Operation Condor *cough* Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War *cough* Air America *cough*

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0141/gray.php

This one really doesn't fit but I thought I'd throw it on anyway:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/print/iz.html

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King and killing 100,000 people (directly or indirectly) is a perfect solution to get rid of him

And what about all the people that Saddam has killed already and would undoubtedly kill in the future. Can anyone argue that the world is not a better place after this war. Even if Saddam is not dead he is no longer in a position to seriously endanger anybody again, a positive thing by anyones outlook!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I read this very interesting article of why o some people hate bush so much.. I should post it

post it then.

anyways if someone asked bush about the wmd's in a few years it would probably sound like this:

person: so what exactly did happend to those wmd's?
bush: what wmds?
person: you know, the ones used for supporting terror and anti-americanism
bush: oh! those wmds! well there... uh... somewhere...

___________________

[ Romans Chapter 1, Verse 6: And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. ]

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less post it then. anyways if someone asked bush about the wmd's in a few years it would probably sound like this: person: so what exactly did happend to those wmd's? bush: what wmds? person: you know, the ones used for supporting terror and anti-americanism bush: oh! those wmds! well there... uh... somewhere...

Sprryy.. forgot bout it, here it is. From times.com

quote:

What makes the Bush-haters so mad? By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER First, it was how he got the job. Now it's how much he's doing with it Bill Moyers may have his politics, but his deferential demeanor and almost avuncular television style made him the Mr. Rogers of American politics. So when he leaves his neighborhood to go to a "Take Back America" rally and denounces George W. Bush's "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class," leading a "right-wing wrecking crew" engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing," you know that something is going on. That something is the unhinging of the Democratic Party. Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man, Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush's staffing his Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a 3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous President in all of American history — his only rival being Jefferson Davis. The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush's manner is not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals, Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat — a fury and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it. Whence the anger? It begins of course with the "stolen" election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy. But that is only half the story. An illegitimate President winning a stolen election would be tolerable if he were just a figurehead, a placeholder, the kind of weak, moderate Republican that Democrats (and indeed many Republicans) thought George Bush would be, judging from his undistinguished record and tepid 2000 campaign. Bush's great crime is that he is the illegitimate President who became consequential — revolutionizing American foreign policy, reshaping economic policy and dominating the political scene ever since his emergence as the post-9/11 war President. Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will. That will, like it or not, has remade American foreign policy. The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy is the subtitle of a new book by two not very sympathetic scholars, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. The book is titled America Unbound. The story of the past two years could just as well be titled Bush Unbound. The President's unilateral assertion of U.S. power has redefined America's role in the world. Here was Bush breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community." It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor. On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come. Add to that the Patriot Act and its (perceived) assault on fundamental American civil liberties, and Bush the Usurper becomes more than just consequential. He becomes demonic. The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for. Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the country and make himself a President of note. Which is why the Democratic candidates are scrambling desperately to out-Dean Dean. Their constituency is seized with a fever, and will nominate whichever candidate feeds it best. Political fevers are a dangerous thing, however. The Democrats last came down with one in 1972--and lost 49 states. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2003 Time Inc.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)