USA has gone mad

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 15, 2003, 11:03 am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 96,00.html

Good article for those oppossed to the Bush agenda.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 15, 2003, 11:11 am

“But will we win, Daddy?”

“Of course, child. It will all be over while you’re still in bed.”

“Why?”

“Because otherwise Mr Bush’s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him.”

“But will people be killed, Daddy?”

“Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.”

“Can I watch it on television?”

“Only if Mr Bush says you can.”

“And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?”

“Hush child, and go to sleep.”

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also Patriotic”. It was gone by the time he’d finished shopping.

It's no wonder the artsy-fartsy types are usually liberals. What creativity. I am feeling guilty and ashamed at my past statements and opinions. I am a changed man now.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 15, 2003, 11:16 am

I considered it a ratehr "straight to the point" article. The pro-war cowboys will get very little out of the article other than perhaps an idea of how some British view the happenings of our government. You do realize there are other countries in the world, right?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 15, 2003, 11:19 am

Very much so. I don't find that opinion refreshing though. It's no different than what I see everyday on telelvision in America.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 15, 2003, 11:26 am

We must be watching different stations. All the news channels are hyping the war at every given opportunity. The anti-war press is virtually non-existant.

The fact that it does sound OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS like similar statements made by Americans that want a reason behind this war is very gratifying to me. The few simple facts that the article points out should be enough to make virtually evryone think beyond the propaganda.

Sometimes it's good to have input from someone not as involved with an issue in order to help put things in perspective.

Cotto · Post by **Cotto** » January 15, 2003, 11:29 am

The newspapers over here are quiet strong about how they feel on the war. At least most of the ones I've seen.

They mainly have the typical stuff like,

"There is a madman loose with millions of pounds worth of nuclear weapons. He must be stopped!" <<<insert G.W Bush's piccie here>>>

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 11:33 am

Even more bazarr than this campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_poin ... 654787.stm) is the person leading it.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 11:34 am

There is an inherant bias in American media.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 11:48 am

Yes, the American press normally reports quite a ways to the left.

You might want to take the fact that said bias is not now occuring as a hint.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 15, 2003, 11:54 am

Because the New York Times editorial page has a pretty dramatic and intentional political slant does not mean that the other 20-30 large media corporations competing for all 100% of the potential customers in the marketplace (not just the liberals) share that agenda.

but if it makes your simplified world view more comfortable to have "THE MEDIA" in the enemy camp, don't let me rock your boat.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 12:04 pm

Voronwë wrote:Because the New York Times editorial page has a pretty dramatic and intentional political slant does not mean that the other 20-30 large media corporations competing for all 100% of the potential customers in the marketplace (not just the liberals) share that agenda.

but if it makes your simplified world view more comfortable to have "THE MEDIA" in the enemy camp, don't let me rock your boat.

I didn't even consider editorials which are, by definition, biased.

I was pointing out that the actual news stories seem to show a 'pro-Bush' bias. CNN, AP, Reuters are some of the major sources for American news and I don't recall seeing much in the way of 'Anti Bush' stories that seem to be popping up in media from other countries.

They seem to be very selective on what they are 'reporting' with the potential conflict in Iraq.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 12:15 pm

I'm in the "give me proof" camp... if our government has this "indisputable evidence" that Iraq has WMD, then they need to let it loose. If they can present the world with that information and they want to go to war over it, fine. I'll back them and even serve if I must. If they continue down the present path with vague assertions and no concrete evidence, then I'll have a hard time believing it's not just for the oil and vendetta. To abuse your power like that would be inexcuseable.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 15, 2003, 12:22 pm

I agree X. If they did show this supposed proof, most of this anti-America anti-war sentiment around the globe would poof over night. But hey, what do I know.

Hiddukel · Post by **Hiddukel** » January 15, 2003, 12:25 pm

Don't you know? Big brother is forcing everyone's hand here.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 15, 2003, 12:25 pm

a good example of a story that maybe Miir is talking about.

In Hans Blix's interview with the BBC he suggested that the US and its Allies were not being forthcoming with intelligence data that could help the weapons inspection.

While i havent seen this picked up as a big story on BBC, it got some play there, and that has trickled into US media. a CNN commentator said something about it this morning. I wouldnt be surprised if several other networks have mentioned it as well. And when I say "said something about it", i mean:

"Hans Blix feels like the US could be more helpful with intelligence data"

not

"The US is WITHHOLDING intelligence data, OMG!!"

but yes, it isnt a headline story here, and i'm not sure it should be yet. It is an interview with one person, not a news story where several people have been asked about it.

It is curious, to me, only now that we are painting our U2 spy planes to fly under the UN banner and help the weapons inspectors, and at the same time acting like the Iraq deadline is in the 11th hour.

i think that one of the traits of this White House with their press statements is to really have a sort of blustery rhetoric. Maybe i'm cynical, but i kind of feel like the White House has been engaged in an "PR campaign" since late summer where they have been incrementally racheting up the intensity of talk regarding war. It really has all the feel to me of a total forgone conclusion about going to war with Iraq. Several allies are on board at this point, it is jsut a matter of finding a reason that will resonate with the various electorates.

in the end i dont know if that is necessarily bad to knock that regime out, i just think it kind of falls under the heading of "dont piss on my back and tell me it is raining."

Mort · Post by **Mort** » January 15, 2003, 12:45 pm

WTF.... I guess some of you arent from the same planet as me. We KNOW for a FACT that he had VX Gas and God knows what else when the inspections "Ended" in 98. We ask the lunatic for a list of the shit he has, and/or how he destroyed it. NO INFO about how he actually got rid of this stuff was in the report, hense the UN saying the report was found lacking.....

Do you honestly believe Mr. Hussein "I just got rid of it.... Dont worry about how". Give me a fucking break. Im not saying Im all Gung Ho about entering Iraq. I too would also like to see a little proof but in my mind, there is no doubt he is a liar and has nerve agents. I am possitive when we back him into a corner, he is going to use said agents.

Most of you would just prefer we wait until he has nukes to put a stop to this madness? Please explain? I apologize if I seem too far right, I'm just trying to unserstand where some of you are coming from, and dont quite seem to get it.

Please enlighten me.....

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 12:46 pm

Now, it's pretty obvious from my psots here that I am strongly anti-Saddam.

Having said that, I am curious as hell to see what comes of the suggestion made yesterday that Saddam is floating a proposal to accept exile from Iraq in return for a guarantee of safety.

It's going to be very difficult to explain ignoring that type of an opportunity.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 15, 2003, 12:51 pm

Mort, you're glossing over all the other issues that the above article brings up, such as the human rights violations of many countries in the region, which is suppossedly one of the main reasons behind our invasion. It's also a known fact that we turned a blind eye on Iraq's misdeeds in the past because they were a valuable allie in the Middle East.

Why are we so gung-ho all of a sudden? Something stinks.

I was also troubled by the survey about how many Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Have we slipped so far? Are so many people easily tricked?

This is slight of hand on a political and national level and it's disturbing to see Americans so easily fooled.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 15, 2003, 12:54 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Why are we so gung-ho all of a sudden? Something stinks.
.

We always were. The government is just using the 9/11 scare as an opportunity to act, because public sentiment is strong enough to support it at this time.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 12:55 pm

Mort, you are basing your opinions soley on the information that you read in the American media... which in turn is fed to them by the US government.

Why don't you entertain the possibility that US intelligence knows that Iraq no longer has the means to produce bio/chem 'weapons of mass destruction' and is witholding that info from the UN inspectors.

Dubya's agenda would have you believe that Iraq is a direct threat to the USA, but you can't ignore the possible ulterior motives.. namely OIL and revenge against the madman who tried to kill his dad.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 15, 2003, 1:00 pm

in my opinion the linked editorial is intentionally misleading in its use of some data.

for instance saying 88% of Americans are in favor of war.

Not according to any polls i've seen. Depending on the way the question is asked the answer is ~35-55%.

but it is obviously a commentary piece and certainly some of the questions are valid, particularly the manner in which so many key administration members have considerable financial ties to the oil industry.

as for Nukes in Iraq....how exactly would Saddam nuke us? the infamous Tom Clancy Briefcase nuke?

cause his missiles are shit.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 15, 2003, 1:01 pm

I read this op ed last night and I was going to post it here for discussion, but I knew I would just get shouted down by the gimp brigade accusing me of being anti-american because I don't lick the television screen every time Bush throws his stupid mug up on it. Personally I think the piece was overly dramatic and some of his points were a bit dubious, but overall it sums up mine and a lot of other's feelings on the Bush administration and how the states is treating Iraq.

I would also like to point out that the media in general, but more specifically the television news stations like CNN and Fox and even the major networks are absolutely fucking salivating over a major conflict in Iraq. Not even OJ drew the kind of ratings they got when Bush sr. rode his pearly white steed into Iraq to defend democracy the first time. Gulf War II: This Time It's Personal will probably draw even more people pack to the news on TV. Left and right politics have little to do with making more money when it comes to people like Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 1:07 pm

Voronwë wrote:as for Nukes in Iraq....how exactly would Saddam nuke us? the infamous Tom Clancy Briefcase nuke?

cause his missiles are shit.

I think the concern there is more that he might attack Israel or one of our other allies in the area. Suitcase nukes are (for now) still a thing of the future.. supposedly. The big concern should be Chemical and Biological weapons which could be delievered and used in the US much easier than a nuclear weapon.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » January 15, 2003, 1:18 pm

First off.... I'm not spoonfed anything by anyone. I concider myself and independent. To say this all is about Oil is straight up stupid. If we wanted to take over that entire region for Oil, we would have done so. Instead, we let the Saudies take back Kuwait City(For PR, to show that we were there to liberate, NOT TAKE OVER). We helped them put out all the oilwells and handed all of that lovely oil right back to it's owners after Mr. Saddam's insane Scorched Earth campaign.

Dont talk to me about Oil, if we wanted it... we would have taken it. I think we completely blew the first gulf war and I agree that Mr Bush fucked it up bigtime. We pulled out right when we had the last of the Republican Guard trapped in our noose. All because Mr Bush SR was trying to sidetrack the media from the "Highway of Death" where we obliterated all the fleeing forces.

What would all the people that disagree with going into Iraq propose we do?? I am FULLY for the idea of him banishing himself from the country as long as they can put someone trustable(SP?) into position. He is a madman and must be removed.

That is all

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 1:25 pm

Why don't you entertain the possibility that US intelligence knows that Iraq no longer has the means to produce bio/chem 'weapons of mass destruction' and is witholding that info from the UN inspectors.

You know what? I don't give a rats ass if they have the means to manufacture more weapons.

I want to know if they HAVE such weapons. They do, thus the conflict.

And the hints have been that the intelligence withheld from inspectors has to do with storage locations. Grats you research.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 15, 2003, 1:35 pm

he might attack Israel or one of our other allies in the area

In the gulf war his longest range missiles (Husseins - modified Scuds) could _barely_ reach Israel if he removed most the warhead and pumped more fuel in.
Which is why I don't by this "OMG THREAT TO CIVILISATED WORLD!!!11!1" line. His threat radius is about as far as you can drive a Trabant on a tank full of fermented turnip juice.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 1:37 pm

First off.... I'm not spoonfed anything by anyone. I concider myself and independent.

Unless you have a direct tap into the CIA and high level government agencies, you hear what the government wants you to hear.
I'm not implying that government has total control over the media, but in situations like this, they can easily control the flow of information to the media outlets.

To say this all is about Oil is straight up stupid. If we wanted to take over that entire region for Oil, we would have done so. Instead, we let the Saudies take back Kuwait City(For PR, to show that we were there to liberate, NOT TAKE OVER). We helped them put out all the oilwells and handed all of that lovely oil right back to it's owners after Mr. Saddam's insane Scorched Earth campaign

The sheer and utter ignorance displayed im that statement is scary.

Nobody has said this is all about oil, but the fact remains that Iraq has massive reserves of high grade crude. America is the worlds largest consumer of high grade crude. Making Iraqs oil reserves avialable is a huge motivation for Bush and the rest of the world.

To suggest that the US could have just 'taken over that entire region for oil' is incredibly naive. There are a few hundred million muslims who would do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. If the USA had a monopoly on all the oil in the middle east, they would have very few allies.

Lastly, you stupid fuck, the US helped liberate Kuwait because at the time they were one of Americas largest suppliers of crude oil. They helped rebuild the wells because they needed the fucking oil. Are you really that fucking ignorant? The mighty war machine doesn't run on patriotism alone.

Dont talk to me about Oil, if we wanted it... we would have taken it. I think we completely blew the first gulf war and I agree that Mr Bush fucked it up bigtime.

I actually think the US handled the Gulf War fairly well.
If the US had 'invaded' the middle east and taken all the oil they wanted, they would have an entire planet allied against them.

What would all the people that disagree with going into Iraq propose we do?? I am FULLY for the idea of him banishing himself from the country as long as they can put someone trustable(SP?) into position. He is a madman and must be removed.

I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks Saddam shouldn't be removed from power in Iraq. However, the means in which Dubya is handling the situation is questionable.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 1:37 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:In the gulf war his longest range missiles (Husseins - modified Scuds) could _barely_ reach Israel if he removed most the warhead and pumped more fuel in.
Which is why I don't by this "OMG THREAT TO CIVILISATED WORLD!!!11!1" line. His threat radius is about as far as you can drive a Trabant on a tank full of fermented turnip juice.

Yeah, but the Gulf war was 10 years ago. It's likely that he has some with a slightly increased range by now. But who knows, really... nobody does except apparently our government, and they sure as hell aren't telling us anything. =D

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 1:39 pm

Fallanthas wrote: You know what? I don't give a rats ass if they have the means to manufacture more weapons.

I want to know if they HAVE such weapons. They do, thus the conflict.

And the hints have been that the intelligence withheld from inspectors has to do with storage locations. Grats you research.

Grats you missing my point entirely

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 15, 2003, 1:45 pm

Xouqoa wrote:Yeah, but the Gulf war was 10 years ago. It's likely that he has some with a slightly increased range by now. But who knows, really... nobody does except apparently our government, and they sure as hell aren't telling us anything. =D

The best long range missiles from that class are the N. Korean version No Dong (teehee) rockets. It's remotely possible that Iraq has aquired the technology to upgrade missiles that he's somehow managed to hide from 24/7 sattelite surveillance and weapons inspectors, and that he has somehow upgraded them with the korean technology, but they are only slightly more accurate than the type Iraq was using in the early 90s.

He might have the capability of accidentally hitting a city in Israel with a missile. He also knows that if he pulled it off that Israel would glass the entire surface area of Iraq about 20 minutes later. The man isn't stupid, nor is he insane. Iraq has the international threat potential of American Samoa.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 1:47 pm

US intelligence knows that Iraq no longer has the means to produce bio/chem

Then you need to take a directed writing course or something.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 1:52 pm

Read it IN CONTEXT

entertain the possibility that US intelligence knows that Iraq no longer has the means to produce bio/chem 'weapons of mass destruction'

Do you understand what "entertain the possibility" means?
It suggests that you try to see other possibilities of an argument or discussion. Try to see all sides of the story.

Hiddukel · Post by **Hiddukel** » January 15, 2003, 1:52 pm

You don't have to have much range for nukes. If the weather is right (or wrong as the case might be), the fallout could cover half the globe.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 1:57 pm

Miir,

You cannot possibly be this dense. Read slowly.

It does not matter if Iraq has any capability, imagined, entertained, supposed or otherwise, to MANUFACTURE weapons.

What matters is do they have them. I don't really care where they came from.

Clear?

Mort · Post by **Mort** » January 15, 2003, 1:57 pm

miir wrote:First off.... I'm not spoonfed anything by anyone. I concider myself and independent.

Unless you have a direct tap into the CIA and high level government agencies, you hear what the government wants you to hear.
I'm not implying that government has total control over the media, but in situations like this, they can easily control the flow of information to the media outlets.

To say this all is about Oil is straight up stupid. If we wanted to take over that entire region for Oil, we would have done so. Instead, we let the Saudies take back Kuwait City(For PR, to show that we were there to liberate, NOT TAKE OVER). We helped them put out all the oilwells and handed all of that lovely oil right back to it's owners after Mr. Saddam's insane Scorched Earth campaign

The sheer and utter ignorance displayed im that statement is scary.

Nobody has said this is all about oil, but the fact remains that Iraq has massive reserves of high grade crude. America is the worlds largest consumer of high grade crude. Making Iraqs oil reserves avialable is a huge motivation for Bush and the rest of the world.

To suggest that the US could have just 'taken over that entire region for oil' is incredibly naive. There are a few hundred million muslims who would do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. If the USA had a monopoly on all the oil in the middle east, they would have very few allies.

Lastly, you stupid fuck, the US helped liberate Kuwait because at the time they were one of Americas largest suppliers of crude oil. They helped rebuild the wells because they needed the fucking oil. Are you really that fucking ignorant? The mighty war machine doesn't run on patriotism alone.

Dont talk to me about Oil, if we wanted it... we would have taken it. I think we completely blew the first gulf war and I agree that Mr Bush fucked it up bigtime.

I actually think the US handled the Gulf War fairly well.
If the US had 'invaded' the middle east and taken all the oil they wanted, they would have an entire planet allied against them.

What would all the people that disagree with going into Iraq propose we do?? I am FULLY for the idea of him banishing himself from the country as long as they can put someone trustable(SP?) into position. He is a madman and must be removed.

I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks Saddam shouldn't be removed from power in Iraq. However, the means in which Dubya is handling the situation is questionable.

Stupid Fuck? Eat a dick Miir, I am here expressing my opinions just like everyone else and enjoy reading these boards on slow days at work. If it takes insulting me for my opinions to make you feel better, then by all means..... flame your little liberal homo ass off you puss excreting rectal wart. Go take your face for a shit

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 2:02 pm

flame your little liberal homo ass off you puss excreting rectal wart.

Sorry, I don't live in your country, don't try to pin your political tags on me.

It's also nice to see that when you get called on your incredibly ignorant views that you can't back them up with a decent argument... resorting to profanity laden personal attacks is so ameteur.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 2:05 pm

It does not matter if Iraq has any capability, imagined, entertained, supposed or otherwise, to MANUFACTURE weapons.

What matters is do they have them. I don't really care where they came from.

Bah, that's just a technicality in the discussion.

My point was that it might be possible that the CIA has the information and is intentionally witholding it from the UN.

I'm not accusing them of it, I'm jsut exploring all the possibilities.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 15, 2003, 2:07 pm

well it may not matter to any of us individually, it may matter to the UN whether the weapons were manufactured in Iraq or elsewhere.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » January 15, 2003, 2:08 pm

Touche'

Peace Brother!

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 2:09 pm

Yeah Mort, you're bringing down the collective IQ of this thread.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 2:33 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:I agree X. If they did show this supposed proof, most of this anti-America anti-war sentiment around the globe would poof over night. But hey, what do I know.

That would be true for me.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 2:33 pm

Miir,

IMO< the CIA most definitely DOES have information they aren't giving the inspectors. Considering how close this is to conflict, I think it would be stupid to reveal that we know where these 'weapons' are.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 15, 2003, 3:06 pm

Xouqoa wrote:
Voronwë wrote:as for Nukes in Iraq....how exactly would Saddam nuke us? the infamous Tom Clancy Briefcase nuke?

cause his missiles are shit.
I think the concern there is more that he might attack Israel or one of our other allies in the area. Suitcase nukes are (for now) still a thing of the future.. supposedly. The big concern should be Chemical and Biological weapons which could be delievered and used in the US much easier than a nuclear weapon.

I hate to break the bad news to both of you but there are man portable nuclear weapons, one of the largest of the man portable nukes is the SADM (check out pics at http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/proj ... t/madm.htm ) the briefcase nuke is not a "Tom Clancy" thing or even a "future" thing.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » January 15, 2003, 3:18 pm

Newspapers and television stations are extremely liberal, and this article is completely biased with such comments as "complete disregard for the world's poor"... If anything Bush has portrayed a very moderate president, aside from his latest economic plan, he has done many liberal things. If you remember, when Reagan was president, the media constantly bashed the Reaganomics reporting on how poor the economy was (there was an actual study that determined there were 7 negitive stories to every positive one) despite much flourishing the country was undergoing.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 15, 2003, 3:20 pm

IMO< the CIA most definitely DOES have information they aren't giving the inspectors. Considering how close this is to conflict, I think it would be stupid to reveal that we know where these 'weapons' are.

I have a problem with this way of reasoning...

In essence you believe that the armed conflict (or war if you prefer) is inevitable, so you don't want to try to avert it. If thats the case, why not launch the cruise missiles tonight?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 15, 2003, 3:21 pm

Mort, you're glossing over all the other issues that the above article brings up, such as the human rights violations of many countries in the region, which is suppossedly one of the main reasons behind our invasion.

The reason is national security and actually enforcing UN resolutions.

Saddam has time and again ignored UN resolutions. To everyone saying "Let the inspectors do their jobs", guess what- SADDAM ISN'T LETTING THEM. He's NOT giving unfettered access and the UN inspectors are being held up. Whether you think us being in Iraq is immoral or whatever is irrelevant. The UN has made resolutions that Saddam is NOT complying with, nor will he comply with.

This leaves two clear cut options.

A. Allow Saddam to continue to not give UN inspectors full cooperation and access, and let these watered down inspections continue w/ Saddam dictating the terms, which would make the UN all talk and empty threats.

or

B. Enfore the resolutions. We've tried embargos, we can't assasinate him, the Iraqi people won't over throw him, and it's highly unlikely Saddam is going to go into voluntary exile. That leaves war to enforce resolutions that were passed.

That wasn't arguing the morality, that wasn't arguing that we're doing this to "liberate" people, and that's not mentioning the threat he is to our national security, those are clear cut facts. If you want the UN and all it stands for to become irrelevant and all talk, then hey, I guess that's your choice. But if you want the UN to actually mean something, the ONLY option left is B.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 3:35 pm

Brotha wrote:Saddam has time and again ignored UN resolutions. To everyone saying "Let the inspectors do their jobs", guess what- SADDAM ISN'T LETTING THEM. He's NOT giving unfettered access and the UN inspectors are being held up. Whether you think us being in Iraq is immoral or whatever is irrelevant. The UN has made resolutions that Saddam is NOT complying with, nor will he comply with.

Are you even attempting to have a clue about what you are talking about? The inspectors have been given complete access since they've been let back in.

You make me feel sorry for the intelligent right wingers.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 15, 2003, 3:38 pm

Do I need to start fucking quoting Blix and other inspectors? I know the popular thing on this board is to do google searches to look uber.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 3:43 pm

guess what- SADDAM ISN'T LETTING THEM. He's NOT giving unfettered access and the UN inspectors are being held up.

I seem to have read the opposite.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 3:44 pm

Brotha wrote:Do I need to start fucking quoting Blix and other inspectors? I know the popular thing on this board is to do google searches to look uber.

Please do so.