Ok, so why did it take a History Channel show to convince me when the Prez couldn't?


PDA






Justin
February 26, 2003, 02:49 AM
Ok, so it's my day off, which means I get to watch whatever I want on TV.
I land on a History Channel show titled 'Saddam's Arsenal' or something similar to it.
They showed a bunch of handheld video footage shot by the weapons inspectors in the 1990's, and it basically detailed a lot of the problems they had in getting access to sites and such.

Coupled with the video, they also interviewed a number of the inspectors (both US and international) who were on the original inspection teams and what they thought of the situation.

Not only did they list off the types and quantities of chemical and biological weapons they found and destroyed, they also aired a laundry list of stuff that the inspectors knew existed but was not destroyed.

Now, how freaking hard would it have been for Dubya to read off this list during one of his speeches?

How difficult would it have been for him to point out that at the time of the ousting of the inspectors, the Iraqis had 5.5 tons of VX nerve gas?

Instead of making vague allegations about possible WMD, why didn't Bush simply come out with the historical record that so obviously proves that Saddam is in violation of these agreements?

Why did I have to learn this from the History Channel, instead of from The Commander In Chief, or even CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News?:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Ok, so why did it take a History Channel show to convince me when the Prez couldn't?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CZ-75
February 26, 2003, 02:52 AM
I think Powell did mention this.

That it doesn't get press should say more about the sentiments of media types.

NewShooter78
February 26, 2003, 02:56 AM
Powell did mention a good bit of those quantities missing in his speach to the UN. The media was on it for a few days, but then glossed over it to get back to why we shouldn't be there. But the anti war protest have gotten the same amount of air time, if not less, so that makes me feel somewhat better.

jmbg29
February 26, 2003, 02:59 AM
Now, how freaking hard would it have been for Dubya to read off this list during one of his speeches?What would be the point?

For those that didn't already "get it", anything he said wasn't going to help.

Besides, Ms. Rice probably tasked someone with getting that stuff on the history channel in the first place. The surest way to the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans is straight through the ol' boob-toob. :rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf:

Lancel
February 26, 2003, 03:53 AM
At least you finally got it. Welcome to the enlightened side.

Larry

Tim Burke
February 26, 2003, 08:13 AM
Why did I have to learn this from the History Channel, instead of from The Commander In Chief, or even CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News?Because you haven't been paying attention. The media makes it easy not to pay attention, and the left counts on you not to pay attention.
Better late than never.

Waitone
February 26, 2003, 10:45 AM
The internet is the best source of news and information ever conceived by man. It takes a little work but you can find information broadcast media will not or can not touch. I notice the outlets you mentioned are all broadcast outlets.

Plenty of info is available on what Sadaam is up to.

Another problem: broadcast media (be it radio or television) are slave to the clock. They can not get into depth on any given topic on a routine basis due to constraints of the clock. The other problem is the presentation has to be simplistic, uncomplicated. In other words, broadcast media has to limit itself to essentially headlines only.

What you refer to is old news. There is a lot of information out there. You just gotta put it in your mind that you will explore for it.

Good luck.

Jeff Thomas
February 26, 2003, 11:13 AM
Justin, with respect, different folks draw their epiphany from different sources.

For some people, there is absolutely nothing GW can say that they will believe. Or, they hate watching politicians, so they don't listen to any of them. It can be the accumulation of lots of evidence from various sources for some folks. Whatever the case, perhaps you would have been swayed by having GW basically narrate the same History Channel information, while others might have just switched it off.

I don't disrespect any of those perspectives ... we are all wise to be very careful about trusting pronouncements from our governments. Anyone over the age of 5 has figured out that governments, all governments, lie when they feel the need.

Glad you're concerned, 'cause if this continues developing as it has so far, we may well have entered a very critical part of our U.S. history. And, we're going to need to hang together to defeat radical Islamists.

Regards from TX

ahenry
February 26, 2003, 11:25 AM
How difficult would it have been for him to point out that at the time of the ousting of the inspectors, the Iraqis had 5.5 tons of VX nerve gas? He, or his administration did. Many times. Most people just didn’t want to hear it.

Instead of making vague allegations about possible WMD, why didn't Bush simply come out with the historical record that so obviously proves that Saddam is in violation of these agreements? He, or his administration did. Many times. Most people just didn’t want to hear it.

Here are three speeches, I just went to the ones that I knew had information, but there are more out there. It is really simple to find an even greater litany of what Saddam has. You just have to look.
****************

“From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also reviewed that Iraq like maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.” George W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

“Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.” George W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

“In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount.” George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

“surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.” George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

“Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

“This one [satellite photo] 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...The truck you also see is a signature item. It’s a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.” Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

“Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters.” Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

“He [defected Iraqi chemical engineer] 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 [mobile biological production trucks] 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.” Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

“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.” Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

“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.” Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

"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...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." Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

And on and on it could go

Leatherneck
February 26, 2003, 12:22 PM
I think Justin's original query is right on the money. The Administration--for whatever reasons--hasn't been very effective in selling the President's case. Hell, they could have BOUGHT an hour-long presentation like THC showed and reached many, many middle-of-the-road citizens like Justin (and me:scrutiny: ) a long time ago. Then we could have been supporters in discussions around the world/'net instead of the silent majority. Oh well, it's a done deal; now LET'S ROLL!

TC
TFL Survivor

jmbg29
February 26, 2003, 01:51 PM
Hell, they could have BOUGHT an hour-long presentation like THC showed and reached many, many middle-of-the-road citizens like Justin (and me ) a long time ago.Like throwing money down a hole.

hksw
February 26, 2003, 01:56 PM
IMO, I think that the main reason that the points finally came across is that it was accompanied by visuals with the verbal data. I have found that most people, myself included, understand better when they have something to look at while being told.

Chris Rhines
February 26, 2003, 02:02 PM
Assume that clear, unambiguous proof exists that the Iraqi government has stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. Does this fact alone justify a US invasion? Why or why not? What other elements would be necessary to so justify an invasion?

Even if Iraq does have chemical weapon stockpiles, that's not the be-all-end-all of the argument.

- Chris

braindead0
February 26, 2003, 02:36 PM
Well, here's a question for you. Isreal has been in violation of U.N. Resolution 2.2 since the late 60's (not totally sure on the date). And yet, that's okay for them?

Most of the other 100's of resolutions were vetoed..by... the U.S. of course.

Blackhawk
February 26, 2003, 02:42 PM
Tim Burke said exactly what I was thinking, and hksw added a very perceptive point.

Justin, we're all in a war zone, and we have to pay better attention.

Sean Smith
February 26, 2003, 02:59 PM
But of course, using veto power in accordance with the UN's charter is not a violation of anything. :rolleyes:

braindead0
February 26, 2003, 03:35 PM
True, but AFAIK 2.2 was is still in affect, and Israel has been ignoring it for decades.

Drjones
February 26, 2003, 04:18 PM
You clearly didn't listen to or read Powell's speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4599500%2C00.html

It is positively frightening, and anyone who reads it and disagrees that Iraq is a danger to the entire world is an utter moron, plain and simple.

Drjones
February 26, 2003, 04:22 PM
Assume that clear, unambiguous proof exists that the Iraqi government has stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. Does this fact alone justify a US invasion? Why or why not? What other elements would be necessary to so justify an invasion?

Even if Iraq does have chemical weapon stockpiles, that's not the be-all-end-all of the argument.


You're wrong.

The fact that they do have bio/chem weapons IS a huge deal because they are not allowed to have any such weapons.

You also ignore the fact that they have taken every opportunity to decieve and ignore any and all US/UN inspections and disarmament resolutions.

Keith_Yorktown
February 26, 2003, 04:30 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79671,00.html

Blix said Saddam hadn't made a "fundamental decision to disarm," though Iraq had made greater efforts to release more documents and data about its weapons program to inspectors.

"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision (to disarm), but there is some evidence of some increased activity," said Blix, who is preparing another Security Council report this week. "There is certainly more activity now."

"Full cooperation or a breakthrough? No. I don't think you can say that," he told reporters. "We have a very long list of disarmament issues and it will require a big effort in order to clarify all of those."

Isn't the whole point of the exercise to disarm Iraq of chemical and bio weapons.

If Iraq can be shown to still have weapons, have the means to produce the weapons, and has no desire to disarm, isn't that enough to use force to disarm him, and change his regime.

I think we've met these requirments, and Saddam certainly doesn't act like a person who wants to cooperate.

One more opinion.

Would you lay all your cards on the table before you were ready to act? I know I wouldn't, I'd wait until the eve before you wanted to start the war, and say, look here's all the evidence we can present. We believe that it makes a clear and convincing case that Saddam still posseses these weapons, the means to manufacture them, he has no desire to disarm, and he has been decieving the world from the start of this "FINAL opportunity" to cooperate. Saddam has 24 hours to decide the fate of Iraq and his regime.

I would expect a chemical missle attack on our troops shortly after this pronouncement...

Thumper
February 26, 2003, 04:59 PM
Even if Iraq does have chemical weapon stockpiles, that's not the be-all-end-all of the argument.

:confused:

Look, Neville, the resolutions were meant to be a second chance "line in the sand" so we could cease stomping on Saddam's forces.

Here's text from Resolution 687, adopted in 1991.

8. Decides that [Iraq] shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
a. All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

b. All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;


They signed it...saying that, within 15 days, they'd have a list of everything they had and that within 45 days, they'd be ready for inspections. How long's it been now?

They signed it...so they could avoid the above mentioned stomping. I don't believe they ever intended to comply.

They signed it. With the full understanding that if they were caught again, said stomping would resume.

Plenty of chances. Plenty of resolutions. It's time to go to war.

Thumper
February 26, 2003, 05:06 PM
I would expect a chemical missle attack on our troops shortly after this pronouncement...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I was on the ground the last time we played this little game. We were worried about the same thing. In fact, we couldn't get out of our MOPP gear much 'til the second day of the ground war.

Ol' Bushie (Jr. and Sr.) don't seem the weak kneed types. Our stated position on the use of WMD against U.S. forces is to retaliate with WMD.

dairycreek
February 26, 2003, 05:44 PM
And, it was IMHO quite well done. But I did not learn anything new from it. Everything that was stated in the program was also stated elsewhere. I learned some from listening to the speeches. I learned some from information gleaned from the internet. I learned some (although not a great deal) from the main line media sourses e.g. newspapers, television, radio, and magazines. So, the information is all out there but mainline media with its generally liberal orientation tends to put a lot of "spin" on the issues. Even straightforward reporting is often the subject of the "spin doctors". Politicians? Even the President will tend to do his own kind of spin. Ain't easy to stay well informed these days. But, it can be done. Good shooting;)

telewinz
February 26, 2003, 07:07 PM
I believe Bush is taking the long approach, once we go into Iraq there will be all the proof anyone could wish for, even the French:barf:

Blackhawk
February 26, 2003, 07:24 PM
dairycreek,And, it was IMHO quite well done. But I did not learn anything new from it. Agree that it was well done, but I did learn something new from it.

I couldn't believe that it was actually being broadcast! :neener:

I learned that I had a new heightened respect for THC (not that I didn't respect it before). It was a gutsy (for a media member) program to put together and broadcast.

THC has been my favorite channel for a long time with Fox News a distant second.

Even so, I was surprised at my heightened respect for it.

Zander
February 26, 2003, 08:16 PM
...there will be all the proof anyone could wish for, even the French.The cheese-eating surrender-monkeys don't need any proof; they've been aiding and abetting Hussein [Chirac is a best buddy with Hussein] for more than three decades in their own self-interest. They care little if anything for his CBN capabilities as long as their contracts are fulfilled.

Nothing short of an Aerobus flying into the Eiffel Tower is likely to change their perverse and amoral stance.

firestar
February 26, 2003, 08:36 PM
I bet Bush will never be called "The great Communicator". :neener: I don't understand what his problem is but he just ain't right in the head. I swear its like listening to a crackhead.:barf:

Bush is a national and international embarassment. I only hope that he doesn't get us in too much trouble before we kick his cocain snorting rich boy butt out of the White House.

I like Bush Senior and I LOVED Reagan but this young Bush a moron. For the first time in my life, I wish a Democrat got elected instead. I don't Gore would have been too bad, I hear he is pro-gun. At least that is what he tells us until he gets elected.

I guess I'll just vote Libertarian and throw my vote away.

ahadams
February 26, 2003, 10:25 PM
uh folks, there's another element here:

The prez, veep, secstate, secdef, and so forth have this information it's a bunch of photos, transcriptions of conversations, stuff put together by analysts explaining it all, and some long lists of stuff that *telling* anybody about it will compromise.

It's nice to say "they have 5.5 tons of VX" or whatever (which is a boatload of nervegas, btw) but if the govt says it and *proves* it both the bad guys, AND every other nation and non-national group who might be worried about us watching are looking at exactly how it's proved and then working countermeasures to prevent anything even vaguely similar (like, say, insecticide) that they might have from being similarly proven.

It's nice to say "here's one of the major league terrs talking to iraq, and here's what they're saying to each other" but if the govt says it and then proves it, not only iraq and the terrs, but every other country and group that might be using anything similar in their comms immediately scrambles (pun intended) to change what they're doing in order to prevent any more from being heard the same way.

It's nice to say "here's a nuke weapons facility they built out in the middle of nowhere underground where they think we can't see it." but if the govt says it and proves it then every other country, and every terr group, in the world is looking at that imagery, trying to figure out how it was made and what it would take to defeat the imaging systems.

Now go back and look at Sec. Powell's dog and pony show in front of the UN, and think about the risks they felt they had to take. Then go back and look at the HC show, and think about how maybe sometimes it's better for a nongovernmental entity to do the really fancy public dog and pony show, no?

Monkeyleg
February 26, 2003, 11:44 PM
Firestar, you're wrong on so many points that it's impossible to even begin to debate you.

Would you care to settle for just one point and take it from there?

Blackhawk
February 27, 2003, 12:21 AM
Well said, ahadams. :D

Freedspeak
February 27, 2003, 12:36 AM
True, but AFAIK 2.2 was is still in affect, and Israel has been ignoring it for decades.

Seems to indicate the UN has been nonfunctional for longer than most filks figure, we're just at a nexus now.

Justin
February 27, 2003, 03:27 AM
There's an old, and now very hackneyed joke that goes 'How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.'

I have what can be considerded to be nothing less than an ardent, built-in distrust of every politician. Powell, and maybe even Bush had mentioned these things in the past, but to my eye, it seemed only tagentially so, and for the most part without backing up their claims. (How does one give footnotes to a speech?)

However, the documentary on The History Channel gave meat to such claims. They interviewed a number of weapons inspectors, and backed it up with video shot during the inspections. So, given that, I'd say it's pretty much a sure thing that Saddam has bio/chem weapons, and that if he didn't he'd be doing anything in his power to try to get them.

Which satisfies part A of my questions about the Iraq situation. (Does he, in fact, have such weapons?)

Now, normally, I couldn't care less if some tin-pot dictator in a 3rd world hellhole were torturing his people, irritating his neighbors, and stockpiling WMD. American military might is such that no nation state would dare to attempt to use such weapons on the US because it would result in said country swiftly becoming nothing more than a glassed-over smoking crater.

Which brings me to:
Even if Iraq does have chemical weapon stockpiles, that's not the be-all-end-all of the argument.
Agreed, it isn't. However, at the end of Gulf War I, part of the agreement Saddam signed said he would no longer stockpile WMD's. He signed the agreement, but has continued to stockpile WMD's. That's an obvious breach of contract, one which, in order for it to be effective, must make it obvious that military force can and will be used to enforce it.
Whether or not going to war with Iraq is a good thing is really quite immaterial, we're really nothing more than the repo man in this whole deal. I suppose if anything, it's an object lesson in the idiocy of entangling alliances.

But in the end, whether or not I agree with going to war with Iraq is a good thing or not is really quite immaterial. There's going to be a fight, regardless of how I feel about it, so in the end, the whole thing is a moot point.

rick458
February 27, 2003, 04:18 AM
250,000 more inspectors and not in Toyotas and Range Rovers but in Humvees and M1A2 Abrams and F15Es and FA18s with a bunch of EA6Bs , and not carrying note books but M4s and M249s
with Apaches and Blackhawks thrown in for good measure.
and when we find all the french and german made Bio terror equipment we know who to send the bill to
BTW that Cheese eating surrender monkey thing is truly hillarious:evil:

moa
February 27, 2003, 02:19 PM
I have to agree that the Administration has done a rather poor job of listing specific, outlawed WMDs.

As an example, Bush's crew of Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc., are regular features on the Sunday morning talk shows like Meet The Press, Face The Nation, etc., but they rarely ever go into any detail about known Iraqi WMDs.

gk1
February 27, 2003, 02:45 PM
Like throwing money down a hole.

Exactly how much do you think THC spent producing this, as opposed to, say, the cost of the bombs/missiles we used just the other day to take out Iraqi SAM and SSM sites? Why not spend, say (as an outrageously high estimate) $30 million to make a blockbuster propaganda series and broadcast it on whatever channels will accept it? That's probably about 5 minutes worth of low-level military deployment, which is, without domestic and international support, truly throwing money down a hole. If spending some money is necessary to accomplish the goal NOW, then why not do it. We're spending the same money X1000 just WAITING to get to the point where the "international community" will accept the use of force. Here's an alternate aphorism for your reasoning: Penny wise but pound foolish.

George

Chris Rhines
February 27, 2003, 03:25 PM
DrJones -
...they are not allowed to have any such weapons. By whose authority?

You also ignore the fact that they have taken every opportunity to decieve and ignore any and all US/UN inspections and disarmament resolutions. I'm not ignoring that, I just know that were I in a similar situation I would attempt to lie to and decieve the US/UN too.

As long as the US.gov maintains stockpiles of NBC weapons, they don't have any ethical standing to demand that other governments disarm.

Thumper - Grow up.

Justin - We come to the crux of the argument. Is the Iraqi government in breach of contract? I'd have to say that if the Iraqi gov entered into a contract under threat of force, then the contract can't be considered valid. It would be tantamount to me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to sign over your AR-15 to me. A simplification, but an accurate one I think.

You are right that there's going to be a war, irregardless of what Iraq turns out to have or not have. The administration is too committed to back down now. But as long as we peons are footing the bill, it's still a relevant topic for discussion.

There's a point I never thought of. If Iraq is violating UN resolutions, then why isn't the UN sending in troops? Or at least footing the bill for them?

- Chris

Destructo6
February 27, 2003, 04:03 PM
Is the Iraqi government in breach of contract? I'd have to say that if the Iraqi gov entered into a contract under threat of force, then the contract can't be considered valid. It would be tantamount to me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to sign over your AR-15 to me. A simplification, but an accurate one I think.
False analogy. First of all, a country is not an individual.

All cease-fires are signed under threat of violence or they wouldn't call them cease-fires. It's legally binding and enforceable if those tasked with the enforcing have the will.

We know why the UN isn't sending troops and you do, too.

Desert Dog
February 27, 2003, 04:13 PM
I will never be an advocate of war, now or in the future. Now with that being said, I also do not want to live in a country where random occurances/explosions/incidents begin to happen on a regular basis as part of a "terrorists" agenda to destroy what they consider to be infidels or devils.

High explosives, be in jet fuel, nitrate bombs or the like are one thing, WMD's; chemical, nuclear, whatever, is a whole different avenue.

If disarming Iraq stops even one WMD event in America, it will be worth it. Sodamn is way too close to the terrorist extreme, and it will only be a matter of time before he gives WMD to these splinter groups for use against us...

But then that is MO....

Mike

Thumper
February 27, 2003, 05:13 PM
Chris Rhines
Thumper - Grow up.

As far as I can tell, I merely quoted and stated my opinions on Resolution 687. Perhaps you can explain what you mean?

Oh wait...You quote www.LewRockwell.com in your sigline. Nice sigline BTW. :barf:

Anyway, the "anti-state/pro-market site" reference, combined with your badly misinformed (I'm trying to be polite) views on how a cease fire works tells me all I need to know about your credibility.

thaddeus
February 27, 2003, 08:32 PM
No offense intended to the original post, but I think this is an example of how most American perceive things.

A false 10-second soundbyte like "no war for oil" will win over a one hour speech any day.

Most Americans do not have attention spans long enough to soak in a speech from our President. And the media does not outline his speeches favorably, to point out the details to those that want it summed up.
So, it takes a show with pictures and entertainment to deliver the message. Most of us have become spoon-fed TV idiots.

beemerb
February 27, 2003, 09:57 PM
Well, here's a question for you. Isreal has been in violation of U.N. Resolution 2.2 since the late 60's (not totally sure on the date). And yet, that's okay for them?


When was the last time that Isreal gave aid or materials to someone to attact the US. You are ignoring the factor of who is going to use what on whom.
Saddam has been supplying weapons money training areas for terrorists.Isreal hasn't.
Think on it for a while
Bob

ahadams
February 27, 2003, 10:23 PM
Beemerb - you're arguing against antisemitism here with someone who may not realize he's being antisemitic.

Thaddeus - I think you are making an important point about the *need* for dog and pony shows. Sometimes I wonder if that isn't part of the attempts by the DOD to integrate reporters into forward military units now, prior to the actual official start of the festivities, so to speak. I just have to wonder how many of those reporters will actually be worth anything once the shooting starts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ok, so why did it take a History Channel show to convince me when the Prez couldn't?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!