A critical revelation re: WMD


PDA






Drjones
April 24, 2003, 01:11 AM
"Deaf Smith" over on GT posted this in a thread of mine. (http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1534637#post1534637)

I think it is such a crucial point that should be obvious, but isn't obvious to most.

Times like these make me love the internet and these forums the most.

What most people don't see is the reason Bush invaded Iraq was SADDAM WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE UN RESOLUTIONS. It was not an Easter Egg hunt for WMD. For many years he was supposed to PROVE he had destroyed stocks of WMD that HE SAID HE HAD after Desert Storm. He failed to do this. He stonewalled. He kicked inspectors out. Bush does not and did not have to find or prove a thing.

I'll translate for the few who will surely misinterpret this:

We don't have to "prove" in order to "justify" this war that Saddam has WMD.

The entire frickin' world already knows that he DOES in fact have WMD.

Saddam himself has admitted it.

What do you think the 14 UN resolutions were about?

I know I went "duh" when I read this. :o

If you enjoyed reading about "A critical revelation re: WMD" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JitsuGuy
April 24, 2003, 02:20 AM
So now it's about UN Resolutions? Let's say the war is about UN Resolutions and Iraq's failure comply. If this is the case, Israel has broken WAY more UN Resolutions then Iraq has.

So again, what's this war about?

Jits

Azrael256
April 24, 2003, 02:28 AM
Israel has "broken" resolutions that seek to destroy its soverignty as a nation. Iraq has broken resolutions imposed on it after it repeatedly displayed its willingness to violate the soverignty of other nations. Furthermore, which of the resolutions against Israel included the threat of force?

HBK
April 24, 2003, 02:34 AM
Israel is a very small country. Their very existence rests on the edge of a knife. Iraq should have been dealt with in the early 90s, but Clinton didn't have the balls, or just didn't care. What would you expects from a president who "loathes the military"?

Justin Moore
April 24, 2003, 07:14 AM
What most people don't see is the reason Bush invaded Iraq was SADDAM WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE UN RESOLUTIONS

Okay, I'll bite. The administration's position was that the UN was basically irrelevant (which it is), but on the other hand uses non-compliance of the UN RESOLUTIONS as justification to go in? How's that for twisted logic?

Ron Paul puts it better than I can:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst031703.htm


Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.

The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!

Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

BigG
April 24, 2003, 08:05 AM
You can go around the bush (ha ha) as many times as you want trying to figure a justification for this war. In Georgia we have a simpler way of looking at it: "He needed killin." :p

Thumper
April 24, 2003, 08:41 AM
So again, what's this war about?

What's it about? It's about over. :D

OF
April 24, 2003, 09:04 AM
The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.It's more like when our interests coincide with the UN's position, we may use them as a tool to assist us politically. The US is not going to go to war for the UN. If the UN wants to enforce their sanctions, let 'em enforce them. We do what we do because we need it done. If the UN happens to agree, fine. If they don't screw 'em. Which is exactly what happened.

It should be obvious that the UN is irrelevant at this point. It may have been UN resolutions that were being violated, but the UN opposed our actions in the end. The UN is irrelevant. And when the whole story comes out about Kofi and his band of Thugs siphoning billions off of the oil for Food program and rubber-stamping Iraq's use of it's portion of the funds to build propaganda broadcasting stations and sport stadiums then the UN will be unmasked as not only irrelevant, but totally corrupt as well. By showing some massive cojones and showing the candy-arse Democrats what real leadership looks like, Bush (and Blair) have managed to not only oust Hussein and set the stage for radically altering the face of the middle east, but he's managed to put another nail in the UN's coffin at the same time. Every one of our enemies is shaking in their shoes. 8 years of inexcusable weakness under the 'leadership' of the Democrats and Clinton has been shown to have been nothing but a temporary reprieve for our enemies. Clinton emboldened our enemies as he weakened us. Bush has reversed that damage and then some in less than a month. Playing Mr. Nice Guy got us killed by the thousands. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

This war is going to go down in history as one of the most brilliant geo-political gambles of our time. If it works out in the long-term, and we end up with something resembling a capitalist republic in Iraq, it'll be one for the history books. If not, and we end up with another theocracy over there, there is plenty of other positives this war has brought about to have made it well worth it anyway.

- Gabe

Thumper
April 24, 2003, 09:13 AM
The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.

Precisely. The U.N. is a tool, not a diety. Why do some want to see it as such?

CMichael
April 24, 2003, 12:27 PM
So now it's about UN Resolutions? Let's say the war is about UN Resolutions and Iraq's failure comply. If this is the case, Israel has broken WAY more UN Resolutions then Iraq has.

First the resolutions are different. The UN's regarding Israel were only recommendations.

Second they should Israel should give away the land and at the same time the "Palestinians" were to give peace. They didn't comply either.

Third I don't care about the UN. Hussein had to go because he was a direct threat to the US by its aggresive sponsorship of terrorism and it's WMD that it can use by giving it to a terrorist and attacking the US by proxy.

CMichael
April 24, 2003, 12:30 PM
GRD Excellent post!

longeyes
April 24, 2003, 12:34 PM
This war was and is about projecting national power.

You either like that or you don't, depending on your temperament and hormone level. The rest is polspeak and fancy dancing.

Derek Zeanah
April 24, 2003, 02:02 PM
This war was and is about projecting national power.

You either like that or you don't, depending on your temperament and hormone level. The rest is polspeak and fancy dancing.
Exactly. The rest is justification for the action (which Bush was pushing for back when he was still campaigning for president, btw), and the justification changes based on what looks to go over best this week.

It could be because:

Hussein tried to assassinate Bush Sr, or because Hussein was a "huge" threat to the US (having done nothing to us in the previous decade),
or because terrorist training camps were in (Kurd-controlled) northern Iraq, or because we're taking the moral position that only we and our allies are allowed to have nukes and bio/chem weapons, and we knew with 100% certainty that there was ongoing wnd production in IRAQ as we were promised (though such has yet to be proven),
or because we've finally decided to make him pay for gassing his own people (as we couldn't when we did it because he was our pawn against Iran),
or because he called Bush one day and said "neener neener neener -- can't catch me!",
or because Halliburton and the like make money building oil infrastructure and needed a few billion in new contracts in order to fund Bush's next election campaign,
or because he "just needed killin'" (makes it hard to justify North Korea being untouched though...)

Lots of likely (and unlikely) justifications. Who cares? Our leadership decided to "proactively defend" the country against someone who had taken no overt act against us, against the wishes of the rest of the international community. Right or wrong, we have to suffer the consequences now. (Though I wonder, under that doctrine, would Hussein have been justified by attacking CONUS with nukes/chems/bugs first as he knew we were going to attack him?)

Personally, I think lots of folks in the US want us to throw our weight around and make the rest of the world comply with our desires/morals/government system/whatever. People want to see an American Empire (for lack of a better word), and justify actions like this in a number of ways, none of which address the base issue (damn it, we're right to do this and the rest of the world should thank us for doing them this favor!)

Regardless, the rest of the world is starting to see us this way -- the rogue nation that acts in its own self-interest regardless of the norms of international law or anything else that seems contrary to our desired course of action. Whether the perception is right or wrong, others will have that in the backs of their minds for the next 50 years or so.

My own personal fear is that we haven't learned from the last 5 decades, and the results of this conflict in the long run will be no better than financing and training Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were, even though those looked like good bets a few decades ago. Unintended consequences in effect. :(

KMKeller
April 24, 2003, 02:14 PM
I believe now, and always have that there is much more to this than we're seeing and that the true agenda for everything that's going on politically or has gone on politically for the last 50 years in the US has yet to be seen. I think we can all safely say that each government in this world has an agenda they follow and we can only sit here and guess as to what it is. But I think Iraq was the most recent in a number of stepping stones that will involve a pretty fundamental shift in world politics including but not limited to dissolution of UN (or tremendous weakening), modification of NATO structures and the foundation of an American or Western alliance akin to the EU consisting of countries around the world. I believe Iraq was the line in the sand to bring the fundamental "illicit" structures currently in place (France, Germany, China, NK, Iraq) to the world view and we will, in the next couple of decades, see more clear lines drawn between socialist and republic states and their agenda for mankind. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO and the UN become opposing structures that have mutually exclusive memberships. You're one or you're the other... now where did I put my tinfoil hat?


:D

bountyhunter
April 24, 2003, 02:39 PM
But, the simplistic statement in the first post was clearly understood by all and repeating it does nothing to address the issues raised by the invasion:

1) Bush himself (or even the US) does not have the authority to unilaterally decide at which point a country's "non compliance" with a resolution merits invasion and destruction of a country's government. We all know that was personal, and the discussion can proceed intelligently if we all admit it.

2) Bush 9and the US) came off as a hypocrite waving the "UN sanction" banner as an excuse to invade, since he had publicly (and repeatedly) declared that the UN was "irrelevant" because they would not support his war. Out of one side of his mouth, he was saying that failure to comply with the UN required an invasion. Out of the other side, he was saying he did not need to heed the UN because they didn't agree with him. That dog never did hunt.

3) Colin Powell (and Bush) cut and ran at the end when they were about to request a new resolution to enable them to act with Un sanction because they knew it would be voted down. Again, they showed complete disregard for the UN. So, waving the "not complying with a resolution" flag doesn't work.

4) Bush CHOSE to justify his invasion to the American people by using WMD's. He said that Iraq was near detonation of a nuclear weapon and that required us to invade immediately. All that is a matter of public record, and was stated more than once publicly. he can't cut and run from what he said, or try to fall back on the "resolution" excuse. He did change later to a "we need to bring freedom to Iraq" theme when he was hedging his bets, but the WMD issue was raised first by Bush in speeches that go all the way back to his inauguration (If you don't believe me, check it out). Don't blame the public for expecting Bush to deliver.

I agree Saddam was a ba$**** and had chem weapons. I just don't agree it rated an invasion and all the problems we have now inherited. I also think Bush lied through his teeth about having Intel on Iraq's nuclear program to justify a war whose primary objective was to asassinate the guy who tried to kill his daddy. Time will tell. If there is proof, let him put up or shut up.

OF
April 24, 2003, 02:55 PM
"Doctrine of Pre-emption/American Imperialism":

Name me one war since World War II, excepting possibly Afghanistan, that was not pre-emptive. This is nothing new.


"Hussein was not a threat to the United States" / "taken no overt act against us":

Just a few thoughts while I have a minute here at work: There is significant evidence that Iraq was the state sponsor of the first WTC bombing (which was supposed to topple the first tower into the second while simultaneously releasing cyanide gas) and that Clinton ignored this to keep from getting embroiled in a mess he didn't have the stomach for. Instead, the Clinton administration pushed the 'lone radical' theory of terrorism and sent the justice dept. to take care of it. Hussein is an animal whose sole purpose in life is/was to hurt the US in the most destructive way possible. Since Gulf War I he has lived for nothing else. He has spent the last decade in an extremely effective game of cat-and-mouse thwarting the UN-led inspections, getting Clinton to do exactly what he wanted him to do and defying every possible aspect of the cease-fire. Why? To get the means to hit the US as hard as he can. It is/was his mission in life. He was on the verge of aquiring the means. To justify Hussein's WMD programs because we have them is what I'd have to call more than a little superficial. To be nice about it. Trying to justify your sitting by and doing nothing while someone cocks the hammer on the pistol pointed at your head is more to the point.

Hussein tried to assasinate an American President. Why is this laughed off? Yes, it was GW's father. So what? He was still a president of this nation, and that is an act of war, last time I checked.

The fact that the Iraqi people no longer have to fear being dragged to the torture chamber (of which there was one in every town just to increase efficiency) is a bonus, as far as I can tell. If they take to freedom, fantastic, if they screw it up...well that's the middle east isn't it. Clinton ignored the problem of Hussein until it was about to boil over. Bush and Blair had the stones to step up and deal with it. We were fully justified in our correct and proper action. It is a good thing on so many levels it is almost impossible to understand how the war has the opposition it does.

About the rest of your list, Derek, try replacing 'or' with 'and' and see how it sits.

"We played the UN like a fiddle":

Good. We used them to simultaneously try to get those who didn't get it onboard and show the UN to be the ineffective, worthless and outright dangerous institution it is. Totally devoid of leadership. Corrupt. Explain to me again how trashing the UN is a bad thing? We payed lip-service to those morons waaaaay longer than we should have, and now we're getting static for not paying more.

- Gabe

Delmar
April 24, 2003, 03:06 PM
It's good to see all the conspiracy theorists are alive and well.

The UN did not vote 100% against the US and our allies in going to battle against Saddam. The idiots who put the UN together made sure, or at least thought they made sure that the major powers of the world would have control of the leading issues of the day. That is no longer so, and of course, the UN has never been a democratic style body.

The only statement Bush made which made any sense to me is that we have the right to self defense, with or without the UN's approval. All this hue and cry about our invading Iraq-and some of the arguements having some pretty good points if you factor in some maybe's, but I have yet to hear anyone say Saddam was a nice guy, nor am I likely to.
Fact is, the moron invaded Iran, Kuwait, and tried Saudi Arabia too. I am glad we did not wait around for that fool to come up with nuclear weapons or a military big enough to do real damage to the world.
If that means he gets a lickin if he does not play nice with the other chillens, than so be it.

North Korea? They just might be next if they don't back off. Same goes for Libya and a few other places. If you want to get these strongarm dictators to back off, you have to let them know you mean business, and that means a couple of them get the business.

Bottom line? Don't wait for dangerous people with an open hostility towards you to get strong enough to do you harm-hit them when it is easy to do so-it saves lives on both sides. No-we are not the world's policemen, but if it comes down to either that or wait until they are strong enough to slaughter Americans wholesale, then its time to whack them really good.

Zak Smith
April 24, 2003, 03:15 PM
Suggest the following reading: The Liberty Doctrine By Michael McFaul (http://www.policyreview.org/APR02/mcfaul.html) from Policy Review.

Intro paragraph:

The immediate response of President Bush and his administration to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States was superb, both purposeful and principled — a military, political, and diplomatic success. But what comes next? In his State of the Union address, Bush suggested specific targets of future phases of the war — the “axis of evil” of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. But what has been missing in the discussion of the second stage (and perhaps the third, fourth, and fifth stages) of the war on terrorism is an articulation of the general principles that will guide policy in difficult times ahead. The new threat to American national security and the American way of life is no less threatening than such earlier challenges as the defeat of fascism in Europe and imperialism in Japan during World War II, or the containment and ultimate destruction of world communism during the Cold War. A grand vision of the purposes of American power is needed not only to shape strategy, but also to sustain support from the American people and America’s allies.


This is a long, but very worthwhile article.

-z

tech
April 24, 2003, 03:16 PM
I think GWB saw Iraq as a valid threat to the security of the USA. He acted on his assumption of threat. It is his JOB.

I remember all the whining at the goverment after 9-11. How could our goverment let this happen?

Are these the same people who are whining about proactive action?

You have a pedifile move in next door and see him watching your child. Do you wait for him to act or take care of the situation before something terrible happens? This might be a hard line vigilanteism but you have kept your family safe. At the end of the day this is whats important.

It is a hard mean world out there...


I just wanted to say that I am proud that there are Americans who are not afraid of being politicaly incorect in the eyes of the world. We took out the trash and have plans to clean up the block. They don't have to like us... But they will have to deal with us.... Or play nice.

Mike

CMichael
April 24, 2003, 03:26 PM
We did have about 60 countries in our coalition.

To me the most significant part of the Bush Administration's war against terrorism is that during the Clinton Administration, the terrorists and their sponsors saw how weak the US can be, i.e. the cruise missiles at the empty tents and pulling out of Somalia because of terrorist acts. UBL and Hussein used this in their rhetoric.

The Bush Administration is showing the whole world how strong the US response can be. We invaded using ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What I find very fascinating is that the Bush Administration IMHO banked that Hussein thought that the US was made up of whimps.

In the first Perisan Gulf War there was a month long bombing campaign first.

In this war we used a very fast ground invasion. I doubt Hussein expected it. I think the shock and awe wasn't so much the air campaign as it was the ground one.

In any case hopefully the US' enemies will gain valuable insight in what waking up the sleeping giant can do.

Derek Zeanah
April 24, 2003, 03:31 PM
Name me one war since World War II, excepting possibly Afghanistan, that was not pre-emptive. This is nothing new.Grenada might qualify, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. "We's gonna kill 'im 'cause we think he'll try to kill us later" isn't a legitimate basis for the initiation of force, on any level. Does legitimacy matter in the world nowadays? The American public doesn't seem to think so. But I do.

There is significant evidence that Iraq was the state sponsor of the first WTC bombingYet, that was never used as a justification for action now. I agree that Hussein was a bad guy, and I think he should have been taken out of power. I just think it should have been a Kurd or a Shiite with a scoped '50 cal that should have done it, rather than 3d ID. The former have clear cause to take him out. We don't, and we're still trying to justify the action.
Hussein is an animal whose sole purpose in life is/was to hurt the US in the most destructive way possible. I'd say that Hussein is a thug whose sole purpose was to increase his (and his family's) personal power. Al lof his actions seem based on increasing his personal standing, including calling himself an ally of the US back when Iran was higher on our list of enemies.

OBL -- you may be closer. But I haven't seen Hussein's actions as anti-US so much as pro-Hussein.

Since Gulf War I he has lived for nothing else...
I understand that you believe that, but belief doesn't equal justification to start a war; at least, not since the early part of the last century.

He was on the verge of aquiring the means.That's the claim we've been hearing, and I have 2 issues with it:
It's hypocritical for the US to take the stand that development of technology that we and our allies possess (and have no intention of eliminating) is justification for us to invade and assume control of another nation.
Our leaders were "100% sure" he had these weapons, and we were assured they knew exactly where they were. Now, it's a stretch to come up with any convincing collaborating evidence. I think the credibility of those claims is in question.


To justify Hussein's WMD programs because we have them is what I'd have to call more than a little superficial.

Let me try a different justification:

Many believe that man's future lies in space -- that until we get off this particular planet and begin to colonize others, out potential as a race will remain unrealized.
Chemical fuels like we've been using up until this point aren't effective for such colonization efforts. They don't have enough energy per unit weight.
Nuclear power is the most powerful, compact energy source we have. We can use it reliably for power generation, but its use as a propulsion system is as yet theoretical.
If nuclear propulsion is ever going to become a reality, research will need to be done on it. The US and its allies have shown no interest in such research, which means that someone else is going to have to do it. This can be a private corporation, or another nation, or (most likely) someone like China who has a less-than-favorable view of our nation.
Limiting research of nuclear technology is going to keep us "grounded," as it were, and strikes me as similar to the feudal Japanese approach of outlawing firearms in order to keep Samurai the top ranking class in society. That policy didn't work out so well in the long run, either.


And that's avoiding the basic ethical issue: are nuclear/bio/chemical weapons so powerful and destabilizing that they must be outlawed on a global scale? If so, we have no right to maintain our stockpiles; if not, then we have no right to limit the access to them to other nations. Research into nukes means less money dumped into economic development, so it's a trade-off few would make...

Trying to justify your sitting by and doing nothing while someone cocks the hammer on the pistol pointed at your head is more to the point.If it's as simple as looking over your shoulder and seeing a gun aimed in your direction, then that's correct. In this case, however all we have is the assertion of our administration that such a gun exists, and that it might be aimed in our direction. To date, they've refused to support this assertion with any objective, provable facts.

They're running out of excuses for providing proof, so some of us are assuming there's some other reason for going to war. Seems to be a reasonable assumption, if you're at all cynical about government based on our past experiences.

Hussein tried to assasinate an American President. Why is this laughed off? Yes, it was GW's father. So what? He was still a president of this nation, and that is an act of war, last time I checked.
Actually, he was a civilian consultant at the time, but that doesn't matter much. Bush would have (more of) my support if he stepped up to the mike and said "I ain't gonna tolerate that sort of behavior -- first off, it was my daddy, and second, it creates friction in leaders by exposing them to unfair risks for doing their jobs. I will see to it that any state that supports assassination is toppled, whether the rest of the world agrees with me or not."

No problem there, dude. But two problems surrounding it: this wasn't used as justification for the war effort, and taking such a stand would put the government of Israel in our crosshairs.

Lord knows we can't drop our support of Israel, even when our support of them, Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Shah in Iran, and others is what's caused such intense hatred of us in the middle east in the first place...

:rolleyes:

We were fully justified in our correct and proper action. It is a good thing on so many levels it is almost impossible to understand how the war has the opposition it does.Believe me when I say some of us feel we're being lied to, and that there's a whole lot going on behind the scenes. This implies that what's going on is something we wouldn't agree with and support, hence the secrecy.

About the rest of your list, Derek, try replacing 'or' with 'and' and see how it sits.It still doesn't add up to enough in my book. Sorry.

Derek Zeanah
April 24, 2003, 03:40 PM
Are these the same people who are whining about proactive action?Some may be; on this board they're more likely to be those pushing for repeal of the rules that keep civilians from carrying arms on aircraft.

You have a pedifile (sic) move in next door and see him watching your child. Do you wait for him to act or take care of the situation before something terrible happens?In other words, "I believe in the assassination of those I believe to be a threat to those that I love."

No wonder my arguments about legality and legitimacy are so ineffective. :(

I just wanted to say that I am proud that there are Americans who are not afraid of being politicaly incorect in the eyes of the world. We took out the trash and have plans to clean up the block. They don't have to like us... But they will have to deal with us.... Or play nice.Exactly. "Kick butt because we can." American Imperialism.

CMichael
April 24, 2003, 03:47 PM
Derek if you want a legal argument it's very simple.

In 1991 Hussein signed off to the terms of the cease fire agreement. According to that agreement he had to destroy his WMD AND show proof that he did it.

Hussein didn't comply with that agreement therefore the cease fire agreement is no longer in effect, hence war.

Al Norris
April 24, 2003, 03:48 PM
In this war we used a very fast ground invasion. I doubt Hussein expected it. I think the shock and awe wasn't so much the air campaign as it was the ground one.

Does give the real meaning of blitzkrieg, doesn't it?

Regardless of what happens after this, the strategy and tactics of this war will be studied in all the worlds war colleges for decades to come.

Mike Irwin
April 24, 2003, 03:53 PM
Moot point now, wouldn't you say?

bountyhunter
April 24, 2003, 04:21 PM
You wrote:

"We don't have to "prove" in order to "justify" this war that Saddam has WMD."

Now I know why this bothers me so much. Bush stated dozens of times publicly that Iraq had a program that was near completion of a nuclear device. He sent Colin Powell before the UN to say the same thing and he had "proof" which was aluminum tubes and satellite photos of square building structures. Every body saw that, and everybody heard it. The white house spokesperson ridiculed a reporter who asked if there was actual proof by saying: "The only proof you people are going to accept is a mushroom cloud." I heard it and I saw it. I also remember Bush repeatedly said that he had absolute proof, but that he couldn't reveal it because of security reasons. That's all public record.


Now, the war supporters have fallen back to the position that it doesn't matter if anything is found... really? doesn't matter to whom? I think it matters a WHOLE lot!

Where I was raised, I was taught a man is only a good as his word. And Bush said loud and often that Saddam was lying and had a nuclear bomb under development... and Bush used that to justify the urgency of an immediate invasion. I heard it loud and clear, that the inspectors wouldn't find it in time and then Iraq would have nuclear weapons. So, we invaded and now we own the place.

Well, now it's time to put up or shut up: if there is no evidence and it turns out Bush was just blowing smoke, his credibility (and ours) will be vaporware. So, I respectfully disagree with the original posters position that it doesn't matter whether the promised weapons are delivered. In fact, I would say US credibility hangs by it. If not, the Arab states will just say: Saddam was right... it was just an excuse to invade Iraq and set up a puppet government that will pump cheap oil.

OF
April 24, 2003, 04:29 PM
"Kurds with .50 cals"

Sounds nice and tidy, but it wouldn't have solved the problem in Iraq, nor would have it given us any of the associated bonuses. Like weakening the UN, the opportunity to oversee the creation of the new gov't, a shot at basing rights, the begrudging respect of the middle east and PRNK, re-establishing who our friends are in preperation for freedom and democracy moving forward on earth as opposed to stagnating while tyranies grow more powerful.


"Not enough justification"

Just to be clear, we have a frothing animal in Saddam Hussein. A family of animals surrounded by subordinate animals all presiding over one of, if not the, most horrificly disgusting regimes since Adolf. This regime has sponsored acts directly attacking the United States. Before Gulf War I, I would agree that Hussein's overarching desire was to rule the middle east. After Gulf War I, his desire was to hurt the US as badly as he possibly could. This is not just my 'belief', there is evidence out the wazoo. Read his speeches. Put the timeline together. Everything he did since Gulf I is maneuvering in order to position himself to be able to strike the US. He constantly risked his entire regime for that cause. His desire to strike the US ultimately cost him his regime and possibly his life.


"Bush et al. didn't get the word out / chose the wrong justification"

The first WTC bombing was not used for justification previously because Clinton is scum. But be assured that Bush's people know what happened there and it's in the file of reasons for giving the thumbs up to whack this animal.


"we have nukes / they have nukes what's the big deal":

If you realize that what Hussein wanted was to hit us hard then it takes on a little different meaning. There is simply no comparison between the United States and the, now ancient history, "gov't" of Iraq. Do I have a pistol in my holster? Yes. Am I perfect? Not by a long shot. But the rabid murderous animal standing in front of me is reaching for a new-found pistol of his own and for years has been screaming that all he wants is me dead. And he's tried over and over again. he spends all his time plotting to kill me, maneuvering himself into a position where he can finally take a shot. He talks to other people who want me dead. They all sit around and talk about how they'd like to gut my family out on the lawn. He has been gutting his own family for years and everyone knows it. He's shoots his neighbors. He shoots people in his own house. Are he and I equivalent? There is no comparison.

None.


"It's all about oil"

I've heard it all, and I ain't buying it.

Derek Zeanah
April 24, 2003, 04:43 PM
I've heard it all, and I ain't buying it.
So we agree to disagree.

Thumper
April 24, 2003, 04:59 PM
Just to clarify your position, Derek...

Are you:

a.) One of those who believe that we should have again deferred to the UN regarding how to handle the Iraq issue or

b.) Trust in Hussein's benevolence toward the U.S. or

c.) Some other option I must've failed to consider?

OF
April 24, 2003, 05:07 PM
So we agree to disagree.Looks that way. :)

Derek Zeanah
April 24, 2003, 05:23 PM
Are you:

a.) One of those who believe that we should have again deferred to the UN regarding how to handle the Iraq issue or

b.) Trust in Hussein's benevolence toward the U.S. or

c.) Some other option I must've failed to consider?I'm one of those who thinks it's morally reprehensible to initiate force without just cause. In this case, I didn't see any reason to initiate force against Iraq, and I still don't.

I believe that Hussein didn't like us, but that he wasn't going to take any action that would threaten his well-being or power base. I believe that initiating force against him increased the likelihood that he would give chem/bio weapons to terrorists, if he had these substances in any serious quantity (still not proven).

I don't believe the UN was going to do anything either -- they watched hundreds of thousands of civilians die in a genocide in their own back yard and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it -- why would they screw around in the Middle East?

I also don't believe that Hussein is the primary threat against us in the middle east. There's a lot of hate for the US coming from Saudi Arabia, whose monarchs are hated by the people, and who only stay in power because of our support. Egypt is sort of the same, and Lord knows Israel's handling of the palestine/west bank issue is making matters worse with each Muslim death (which is very well publicised in the Middle East, and no, the Israelis aren't saints in the way they deal with their opposition).

If I wanted Hussein gone, I'd suggest that a bullet through the head, followed by a press release that simply states "those who attempt to assassinate American political targets make themselves valid targets for retaliatory assassinations" would have solved the Hussein problem.

If you want to see a situation that's simply screaming for US intervention, where they hate the US, are known to have nuclear weapons, and are actively thumbing their noses at us and issuing threats, look to North Korea. I'd probably get behind that effort, but that's not going to be a casualty-free war that increases support for the incumbant president, either.

TallPine
April 24, 2003, 05:26 PM
Well, we did catch old Abu Whats-is-Name in Bagdad, the one who hijacked the cruise ship in the Med back in '85 and rolled that American guy off the deck in his wheelchair.

Now somewhere back shortly after 09-11-01, I remember Bush saying that any country that harbored terrorists was going to be on our hit list - "you are either with us or against us" etc.

So it looks like Iraq was against us and it cost them big time.

Now ... anybody else want to play rough? No ...? I didn't think so.

Derek Zeanah
April 24, 2003, 05:43 PM
any country that harbored terrorists was going to be on our hit list - "you are either with us or against us" etcBut that's not it. The UK is "harboring terrorists" (or at least has failed to control them over the last few decades). Saudi Arabia is harboring a bunch of mean bastards who are actively encouraging hatred of the US, and whose citizens made up the vast majority of the participants in the 9-11 collisions.

No plans to go after either of them, though. And no requests that Iraq expel "Abu Whats-is-Name" from Baghdad either -- supposedly, if Saddam had stepped down from power and surrendered, we would have left Iraq alone and not bothered with any terrorists in Bagdhad. Supposedly, this was about "a cocked gun being pointed at the head of the united states" (paraphrased from an earlier post) in the form of nuke/chem/bio weapons that were about to be used against us.

Do what you want to justify these actions now that it's over, but be honest enough to admit that the reasons we cited for going in there look highly suspect. You might agree with the action enough to not care about appearances, but others certainly do care.

Thumper
April 24, 2003, 07:25 PM
Regardless, the rest of the world is starting to see us this way -- the rogue nation that acts in its own self-interest regardless of the norms of international law or anything else that seems contrary to our desired course of action.

Ah...so we should cease to act in our "own self-interest" and kowtow to world opinion? Do you honestly think that letting others decide your actions is in your own best interest?

My own personal fear is that we haven't learned from the last 5 decades, and the results of this conflict in the long run will be no better than financing and training Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were, even though those looked like good bets a few decades ago. Unintended consequences in effect.

Good Lord...you don't mean they might attack us here!?

For those of you basking in the calm SINCE 9/11/2001, we are already fighting here. Pulling your punches for fear of what the other guy will do if you hurt him is a GREAT way to lose a fight.

We ARE in a fight...please try to remember.

So...to your average militant fundamentalist, would you rather appear:

Strong and determined

or

Weak and timid?

Wonder how many Syrian fighters decided to take their AKs and go home when they realized the fight was for real?

Our position is inarguably stronger today than it was two months ago...whether you like it or not, folks listen to the big guy.

Gordon Fink
April 24, 2003, 07:37 PM
Posted by GRD:

“It’s all about oil”

I’ve heard it all, and I ain’t buying it.

But you will be, soon enough. Oil money and U.S. taxpayer dollars will fund the reconstruction of Iraq.

~G. Fink

OF
April 24, 2003, 09:17 PM
You know, I'm starting to think we just might find enough right in the walls of some of those palaces! :)U.S. taxpayer dollars will fund the reconstruction of IraqAnd it'll be some of the best money we've spent. I can think of few things we can get for our money that will be more worth the asking price than a former-toruture-chamber turned wealthy, capitalist secular democracy right smack dab in the middle of the big sand box from hell.

- Gabe

edamon
April 25, 2003, 04:56 AM
If I recall, the "cease-fire" from the gulf war was based on saddam disarming and destroying all his wmd.

failure to comply over the last 12 years nulls the cease-fire, so technically, we were still at war anyhow.

-d

Monkeyleg
April 25, 2003, 06:45 PM
GW has denounced regimes that: a) sponsor terrorism; b) possess weapons of mass destruction in violation of existing treaties or international agreements; c) commit genocide upon their own people; d) invade other countries.

Iran meets a couple of criteria, as does North Korea, Syria, Libya, to name just a few.

But Iraq met all the criteria. If you're going to go after someone, go after someone who's broken all the rules.

And, as much as I distrust any politician, I do not believe that Bush did this for political reasons. Come the 2004 elections, this war will be an afterthought; the economy will be front and center, and the war will have contributed to the economy's weakness. In other words, Bush has made his own re-election that much more difficult by going to war.

With Clinton, you had to evaluate his decisions by looking around (usually in his pockets or his shorts) to figure out his motives. With Bush, agree with him or not, he's made his motives very clear with regard to Iraq.

Drjones
April 25, 2003, 07:33 PM
if he had these substances in any serious quantity

That's the problem I see over and over with anti-war types:

NO quantity is ever "serious."

We could find literally hundreds of thousands of gallons of chem/bio weapons stockpiled INSIDE A FACTORY capable of producing MILLIONS of gallons, and you'd write it off as "insufficient quantities."

:rolleyes:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Gordon Fink
April 25, 2003, 09:04 PM
And it’ll be some of the best money we’ve spent. I can think of few things we can get for our money that will be more worth the asking price.…

I’m sure the money would be better spent rebuilding the U.S. Spending the money on Iraq will further enrich a few well-placed Americans and possibly a few wealthy Iraqis. The common Iraqi may also get a few crumbs, but the common American taxpayer will get only the bill.

Nevertheless, we are now honor-bound to act as the dutiful conqueror. We must rebuild Iraq and ensure that a stable, friendly government is installed, though the Iraqi people will come to hate us for this and slowly but steadily kill members of our occupation force.

~G. Fink

Derek Zeanah
April 25, 2003, 10:13 PM
We could find literally hundreds of thousands of gallons of chem/bio weapons stockpiled INSIDE A FACTORY capable of producing MILLIONS of gallons, and you'd write it off as "insufficient quantities."Dude, we started a friggin war on the premise that if we didn't act NOW, then we'd find we'd waited too long and Saddam would have attacked us with the huge quantities that our leaders swore to us existed. Hell, they had actual, accurate, 100% reliable proof that these evil nasty weapons existed, and the intelligence was so good that they knew exactly where significant qualtities were stored/being manufactured/whatever.

Of course, the UN inspectors couldn't be guided to them, and our allies couldn't be shown any evidence even in confidence, and documents that were released did nothing but embarrass the administration, and now that Iraq's rolled over we can't find anything that represents a significant threat to anyone, other than the "secret, underground, hidden nuke research facility" you mentioned in another thread which had already been inventoried and signed off on by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I don't doubt that we're going to find something in Iraq that's damning, even if it's 3 barrels of decade-old VX that's no longer active. There's gotta be something there, because that regime doesn't seem to be that good about cleaning up after themselves.

All that aside, the evidence we've been shown so far strongly suggests that we've all been lied to about why we entered this war. You can argue that it was the "right" thing to do from a dozen different angles, but you're missing the point that none of those (possibly very legitimate) reasons were cited as our justification for entering the war. The justification was (as someone else so aptly put it) that Saddam was pointing a cocked gun at the collective head of the United States, and the immediate threat he posed was enough reason to eliminate him.

Now not only can we not find a gun, we can't find any ammunition. And no-one on the "conservative" side of the fence sees anything wrong with this situation.

Having said that, a swimming pool full of chemical agent (whether we're talking blister or nerve agent -- doesn't matter) certainly qualifies as a damning amount, especially if it were being actively produced. But it looks to me that people who supported the war effort (either because they believed the Bush administration or because they were happy to see Saddam get what he deserved) seem to be grasping at anything to justify it.

tyme
April 26, 2003, 10:59 AM
Now not only can we not find a gun, we can't find any ammunition. And no-one on the "conservative" side of the fence sees anything wrong with this situation.
Clever rhetorical trick, but that means nothing. In this case, real-life proscribed weapons would be a "smoking gun" in the expression. There is no equivalent to "ammunition" in the expression, so using that analogy, while it appeals to the "why oh why did we have to go to war" crowd, is useless as a rational argument.

Dude, we started a friggin war on the premise that if we didn't act NOW, then we'd find we'd waited too long and Saddam would have attacked us with the huge quantities that our leaders swore to us existed.
...
The justification was (as someone else so aptly put it) that Saddam was pointing a cocked gun at the collective head of the United States, and the immediate threat he posed was enough reason to eliminate him.
I disagree. The entire point was that we could not afford to wait until there was a known, large amount of WoMD or other proscribed weapons that would in essence be a "cocked gun" (using that phrase is misleading in any situation when referring to military capability) pointed at the U.S., Israel, or at Iraq's neighbors. Saddam had many chances to try to assure us that this threat was not building. Saddam failed. Saddam, if he's alive, is going to have a quite difficult time returning to power somewhere, and word is at least one of his "children" is dead.

As to the first portion of the quotation, "NOW" is not really accurate. It was not so much a matter of "NOW or else..." but "NOW or when?"

Derek Zeanah
April 26, 2003, 02:46 PM
I disagree. The entire point was that we could not afford to wait until there was a known, large amount of WoMD or other proscribed weapons that would in essence be a "cocked gun" The problem with that line of thinking in matters like international relations is that it can be used to justify anything with a little bit of fore-thought.

"That guy over there isn't our friend, and we're afraid that if we sit around, then eventually he may design weapons that can be used against us, decide that he's going to risk everything to attack us, and make concrete plans to do so. To alleviate that risk, we're going to 'proactively defend ourselves' against him by attacking him now."

That's the same as another posted above (or in the other thread) used to justify the assassination of a pedophile who lives next door -- the risk he poses to my family is too much, so I'm justified in initiating the use of lethal force. Not "I'm going to build a big wall," or "I'm going to install security cameras," or "I'm going to get other people in my neighborhood on-board and hire an investigator to keep his eye on the guy," or "I'm going to ask the cops to drive by a few times a night," or "I'm going to watch my kids closely." Nope, the reaction was "I'm gonna kill that MoFo, law be damned, because the risks as I evaluate them are too great to let him live."

(Not my metaphor, but seems applicable.)

Your argument boils down to "My country is justified in attacking any nation that our current leaders label as a threat, and no proof will be required from my leaders." Isn't it? Is that OK to you? Would it be OK if for instance the USSR was making the claim, unstead of US? We know that we're always the good guys, and that the US can do no wrong; are you going to somehow prevent other nations from taking such unilateral actions? Or would you argue that we'd be obligated to stomp our foot down on another nation if they tried something comparable, without UN approval, without proof, and potentially against our interests?

Slippery slope arguments are weak, but we're talking about crossing a line here. In general, it's been considered justifiable to use force against another nation in retaliation to that nation's use of force; that means you can strike back, or you can go out of your way to defend an ally. Been like that forever.

Previously, if you want the legitimacy to step into a country that's not being a bad neighbor (say to stop the genocide going on in the Balkans, which they labelled an internal "civil war") then you went to the international community and made a case for stepping in. The legitimacy of interfering on another nation's internal affairs is a little questionable, but preventing a few hundred thousand more civilian deaths was enough of a motivation to go in anyway.

Now, your argument is that it's ok for a nation (in our case the US) to attack another based solely on its desire to do so. There's no compelling proof that Saddam Hussein:
Had large stockpiles of WMD's
Had a delivery method figured out for deploying them in the US
Was planning on such an actionWe've got a bunch of assertions that this was the case, but as yet no proof. Yeah, Bush and crew stated that they knew with 100% certainty that WMD's were in place in Iraq, were being actively developed and manufactured, and our intelligence was so good that we even knew the location of large qualtities of it.

Now, we had UN inspections going on at the time, and the inspectors asked for any help in finding these substances that the Bush administration was willing to give. Instead of picking up a team of inspectors on a Pave Low and flying to the site at 150 mph to remove the possibility of the evil stuff being moved, the administration said no help could be given, as doing so would risk our intelligence assets in the area. When asked by allies to share some of this intelligence privately, we still refused to do so.

OK, a lot of people thought the assertion was enough, and that we'd see the proof once Saddam was out of power. Well, we're there now, and there's a lot of hype any time something might test positive as a prohibited substance, but nothing concrete yet.

I'm asserting a couple of things in these arguments:
I don't believe that the evidence we claimed we had of Saddam's WMD arsenal existed. If the administration's information on WMD locations and such actually existed, they'd go ahead and take something to show the world they they weren't making it all up. The knew the location of a dozen mobile labs, tracked via satellite? Great. Show us one. Nukes being researched secretly? Cool -- that's got to be hard to dismantle and move quickly. Show it to us. If the Bush administration can't show us that this stuff existed, and do so quickly, then that's suggestive that the arguments and super-secret intelligence used to justify the action was a bunch of hooey. I don't like going to war over false premises.
We acted in a way that can't be justified under international law. Nations are supposed to behave in civilized ways. You don't invade another country simply because you don't like them. You certainly don't attack another neighbor because doing so lessens some potential future risk from that nation. If something was going to be done in Iraq, IMHO we should have waited for the UN inspectors to find the stuff that proved Saddam was no longer in compliance with the terms of his surrender, and then acted. We could have helped them find this stuff in less than an hour if we'd wanted to (assuming intelligence claims weren't BS), but we didn't see the need. That seems to set an awful precident -- international law isn't as important as the power we weild, which allows us to do whatever we want. I don't like where that's heading, as it sounds awfully close to "individual rights don't matter because we have the power to take them away..."


If my assertions are correct, then we're looking at a situation where the US Government lied to us and to the rest of the world in order to justify an illegal act against another nation.

Yeah, Saddam was an evil guy who deserved to be put in the company of Satan, the sooner the better. That this is so doesn't address the points I'm trying to make at all.

tyme
April 26, 2003, 05:56 PM
Yeah, that's more or less the argument. In considering it, though, you have to consider that "the risk is too great" doesn't just come from various assertions such as "Bush wanted oil" or because "Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr."

Sadly, this is what the world has become. It's looking more and more like we will not (and I would say should not and cannot afford to) simply sit around while Iran builds nukes, North Korea builds more nukes, and Pakistan and India get ready to nuke each other every few years. This is not a matter of simply not wanting other countries to have nukes or other WoMD. That alone does not represent a security threat of the proportions necessary to justify preemptive action. The threat comes from certain types of weapons in certain environments comprised of a less-than-responsible undemocratic governments with recent histories of ethic- or religion-based conflicts, and a variety of other lesser factors. Certainly the fact that the ex-Baath ruling party of Iraq considered violence, specifically ethnic-based violence, a cleansing of the soul, did not help tilt the balance in their favor. I don't simply dole out such aspersions to try to make an emotional case for the war on Iraq. This was simply an evil regime, and it ought to have been expelled long before it was. If we had to use a bunch of tricky legal and political manuevering to put the ball in Saddam's court and then declare a foul, so be it.

Each such dangerous country presents a new situation and must be dealt with in a different way. Do you see us gearing up to go into Syria? Iran? North Korea? No. Even beyond the criteria I mentioned above, of course we have to recognize the consequences. When the consequences include liberating the Iraqi people and do not include getting San Francisco, LA, or whatever other cities nuked, as they might if the topic of consideration were North Korea, those consequences are acceptable, if not desirable, and we ought to take action given sufficient support from the American people.

1. I think you overestimate our intelligence capabilities if you think we can track an 18-wheeler around a country. I don't like going to war over false premises either, and I hope we find some evidence of WoMD, but I have to say I don't consider it beyond the realm of possibility that Saddam would have exported his weapons to, say, Syria, knowing they'd be destroyed if he left them around for us to find. I'm not sure at what point I could say "darn, I've been misled. Bush lied and went to war to free Iraq from a terrible regime that did all sorts of terrible things nationally and internationally."

2. UN SC Res. 1441. *giggle*. I wonder if that'll become something of an historical argument-killer much like Hitler is today. :) It certainly has the makings of a U.S. v Miller.

Drjones
April 26, 2003, 08:11 PM
Ok, WHO the HECK said anything here about assasinating the "pedophile"?

All I remember that initial post asking was "how long do you wait until you do something."

Does SOMETHING to you mean "kill"?

Interesting dictionary you've got there...

You could call the cops, make a media circus out of it, etc.

You are building up a huge straw-man based on that example.

Derek Zeanah
April 26, 2003, 08:49 PM
Do you wait for him to act or take care of the situation before something terrible happens? This might be a hard line vigilanteism but you have kept your family safe.

Does SOMETHING to you mean "kill"?

Interesting dictionary you've got there...
My apologies mr Jones. I assumed the tone of the post, plus invocation of the term vigilante suggested more than causing a media circus.

Naturally, your interpretation is a more accurate rephrasing of the original poster's meaning. :rolleyes:

Now, do you disagree with the rest of the post as well, including my 2 assertions? Or did that comment negate the rest of my argument?

Sergeant Bob
April 26, 2003, 11:17 PM
Previously, if you want the legitimacy to step into a country that's not being a bad neighbor (say to stop the genocide going on in the Balkans, which they labelled an internal "civil war") then you went to the international community and made a case for stepping in. The legitimacy of interfering on another nation's internal affairs is a little questionable, but preventing a few hundred thousand more civilian deaths was enough of a motivation to go in anyway.

I heard Clinton talk alot about "genocide and ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs (our allies in WWII) against the "Ethnic Albanians" but never saw any real proof. Oh, I think they found a couple thousand bodies (mass graves?), although it was unclear who killed them or when. That's bad, but hardly genocide, and the refugees didn't start leaving the county till we started bombing the snot out of them and destroying their infrstructure. So did we go to war to prevent what might happen (as in a few hundred thousand more deaths than the few thousand that already happened) in what many considered a civil war? He talked alot about World War I starting there (like it was bound to happen again). :rolleyes:

Saddam reportedly killed, tortured, jailed, gassed, maimed, raped hundreds of thousands of people in his own country. That alone is reason enough to go in. As for WMD's, it's kind of early to tell, we're just finishing a war there. It's a pretty big place and he had lots of time to hide things. The hiding spots probably won't be as easy to spot as the Baby Milk Plants . The troops have better things to do right now than just look for WMD's right now. As for giving Top Secret intelligence information to UN Inspectors, I trust Hans Blix no more than I would Scott Ritter.

Don't really care what the "International Community" thinks. Any that were worth a hoot were already with us. The rest are just a bunch of tinpots pushing their own agenda's which happen to be against the U.S. on anything that is proposed by a non Socialist President.

If you enjoyed reading about "A critical revelation re: WMD" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!