Colin Powell makes the case

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 5, 2003, 5:17 pm

Acies,

You can't forget the terrorist connection. Very easy to hand someone a suitcase full of nastiness and send them on their way. No missiles needed.

Also, we have allies that are well within missile range, and more that can be reached with nothing more complicated than a delivery truck.

It's not just about the United States.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 5, 2003, 5:19 pm

What terrorist connection?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » February 5, 2003, 5:21 pm

True enough.
Really all this talk, while very entertaining, is semantical.
It boils down to the age old question:
Is one ounce of prevention really worth more than a pound of cure?

(For the slower readers, that is: Is it really better to get him now and prevent the possiblity outright, or should we react to his action if they are bad?)

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 5, 2003, 5:26 pm

It's a sad day that even if the US had film of Saddam admitting to all this, I would still have serious doubts about it's authenticity. As if it's somehow my fault I don't trust our governmet.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 5, 2003, 5:27 pm

Lalanae,

The connection of Al Quaeda members receiving medical treatment in Bagdad, as well as support from groups in Northern Iraq.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » February 5, 2003, 5:30 pm

I am left with a few questions though...

1. Is Hussein a larger threat now than he was before? Are his weapons a larger threat now?

2. Why hasn't the US cooperated more with the wepaons instructors and helped them guide them since they obviously strongly believe in their own evidence?

3. Is Hussein honestly a big threat to the USA?

4. Why did Bush so quickly turn from the War on Terrorism to War on Iraq? I have my own personal belief but that's a different story.

5. And maybe the one I struggle the most with.. what right has a country to pick and chose which countries are allowed to have WMDs? Especially when they provided them with the WMDs in the first place.

Probably going to be flamed but oh well..

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 5, 2003, 5:37 pm

There is no proof that Saddam & Bin Laden are bed fellows in any regard. In FACT Bin Laden has strong issue with Saddam over Saddam's treatment of fundamentalist Muslims. They have an extreme difference in opinion regarding religion, something that Bin Laden is not just going to brush aside to align with one of the other few true US enemies.

Both are bad guys, but I think its inappropriate to assume that Iraq & Al Quaeda are working together.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 5, 2003, 5:41 pm

Fallanthas wrote:You can't forget the terrorist connection. Very easy to hand someone a suitcase full of nastiness and send them on their way. No missiles needed.

Which country is more likely to do this. Iraq or the US?

Mawafu · Post by **Mawafu** » February 5, 2003, 5:41 pm

Who said Bin Laden? Here's the link to the part of the transcript about terrorist (including al Qaeda) ties: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.i ... index.html

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 5, 2003, 5:43 pm

Mort wrote:[I only wish there was a way to strap all these fucking un-patriotic liberal moron's to our missles before we send them in. You guys could be martyr's. Wake up!

**EDIT** I hope they round all you people up and intern your asses when the shit hits the fan.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html

wow internment camps. how ultra patriotic of you.

congratulations of entirely missing the point of being an american.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 5, 2003, 5:46 pm

Ogbar wrote:
Remeber that time Hitler liberated Poland?
Remember the world waiting and waiting and waiting for Germany to comply and cease thier aggression, giving them chance after chance? You sure picked a strange analogy to try and make your point.

actually Hitler's Germany blitzed most of Europe before most of the world even knew what was going on. So.. sorry.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 5, 2003, 5:49 pm

He said Al Qaeda. Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda.

A quote from your link:

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq.

The key phrase is "outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq." It is more likely that the fundamentalists in Iraq, persecuted by Saddam, are supporting them.

Edit: I also take anything coming out of the mouth of a US official with a big grain of salt.

Mawafu · Post by **Mawafu** » February 5, 2003, 5:52 pm

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

Read it all, just don't stop when you get to a point that supports your argument.

Edit: Agree with not believing everything the gov't has to say. Just posted to show where the previous poster was coming from as far as terrorist links go.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 5, 2003, 5:52 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Mort wrote:[I only wish there was a way to strap all these fucking un-patriotic liberal moron's to our missles before we send them in. You guys could be martyr's. Wake up!

**EDIT** I hope they round all you people up and intern your asses when the shit hits the fan.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html
wow internment camps. how ultra patriotic of you.

congratulations of entirely missing the point of being an american.

I'd have to agree with Kyo one this one. While it can be frustrating when you think you see things much clearer than the liberals, they have the right to be ignorant. It's what freedom is all about.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » February 5, 2003, 5:55 pm

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

LOL, I would LOVE to see someone try to bring this before a superior court so it can be reamed as a breech of the 1st amedment of the Constitution.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 5, 2003, 5:57 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:actually Hitler's Germany blitzed most of Europe before most of the world even knew what was going on. So.. sorry.

Europe was well aware of what he was doing in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland, and looked the other way. Even Britain wasn't against Germany at the begining. Most of labor even supported the Nazis, there was a lot of worry about that at the begining of the war.

I don't think Hitler-Hussein is a very good analogy regardless.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » February 5, 2003, 5:58 pm

What the fuck is a liberal anyway? Can someone Non-Liberal define it for me? Mind you, only bother defining it if you are a right wing conservative.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 5, 2003, 6:01 pm

Mawafu wrote:
During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
Read it all, just don't stop when you get to a point that supports your argument.

We had terrorists living in Florida. Does that make Jeb Bush a supporter? The "operating freely" comment is merely an editorialization.

The bottom line is there is no proof that Saddam & al qaeda work together. Just speculation that doesn't jive with the extreme differences between the two factions.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 5, 2003, 6:08 pm

Acies wrote:What the fuck is a liberal anyway? Can someone Non-Liberal define it for me? Mind you, only bother defining it if you are a right wing conservative.

Passive, anti-establishment, treehugger, over-empathetic, etc.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 5, 2003, 6:08 pm

Lets blindly accept that the US Iraq\Al Qaeda claims are true (something I do not do).

How does an Al Qaeda cell in Baghdad mean Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda? Does the fact that there was a cell in Buffalo, N.Y mean that Buffalo is connected to Al Qaeda?

The other point is a Al Qaeda base in northern Iraq outside Saddam's control. In fact it is controlled by his enemies. But we are to believe that Saddam secretly controls these folks that want to overthrow him via a secret agent he has placed there. Via this secret agent Sadam has twisted his opposition to support Al Qaeda.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 5, 2003, 6:08 pm

One of the U.S.'s assertions is this "freely" operating terrorist cell was with the blessing of Baghdad. Moreover, supposedly a key figure in the administration of the camp was also part of the intelligence agency in Iraq (whatever they call it).

so according to our government, it is something that the Iraqi government does not directly administrate, which is convenient to both parties, but it is something they do not only condone, but encourage.

Jugata · Post by **Jugata** » February 5, 2003, 6:11 pm

First off let me say 9-11 was possibly the worst thing I have ever seen.

That said....

1)Did Iraq do 9-11? I dunno
2)Does Iraq have nukes? I dunno
3)Does Iraq have chem weapons? I dunno
4)Does the estimated range of 1200km for Iraqs missles threaten the US? no

Don't you guys sit back and ponder this? At this point in human "evolution" any country is capable of massive murdering. Don't you think Iraq would have started a terrorist campaign on the US already?

Do you think killing all those innocent Iraqis is going to solve anything? Ooops I just pissed off the muslims even more. Ask Israel how good convention war works against guerilla extremists. Anyways, I think you guys are fucked in the head wanting this war and I'm so glad I am as detached as I am. Just hope the dust doesnt float north after your cock waving is over.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 5, 2003, 6:15 pm

Aabidano wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:actually Hitler's Germany blitzed most of Europe before most of the world even knew what was going on. So.. sorry.
Europe was well aware of what he was doing in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland, and looked the other way. Even Britain wasn't against Germany at the begining. Most of labor even supported the Nazis, there was a lot of worry about that at the begining of the war.

I guess. It's difficult to gain the perspective of the European climate in the 1930s without having actually lived through it. I mean historically there was almost 4 years between the time when Hitler first broke the treaty of versailles and when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, but most of the his military buildup and actions (including concentration camps etc.) were done fairly in secret.

You have to look at the big picture at the time. The spainairds were involved in a civil war, Austria and Italy were fucking around with their neighbors, Stalin was killing everyone he could get his hands on. NOBODY in Europe was getting along aside from the UK and Poland. There was nothing close to anything resembling the UN at the time.. The League of Nations was a fucking joke.

There was only six months between the time he started mobilizing his military and when he took the Czechs, and it was only six months after that he had Poland (it took the nazis 2 days to take the czechs and less than a month to take Poland). And this was in the late 30s where you couldn't just load up armor and troops on transport planes and move them around. Marching convoys around Europe took a significant amount of time.

It wasn't until he invaded Poland that the commonwealth and France declared war on Germany. Even then the US declared themselves neutral. There was just no one getting along. That is the reason Hitler pulled off what he did, and that is the reason why something like that could never happen again.

The very idea of Saddam acting aggresively towards another country again is laughable.. especially a western country. He isn't suicidal.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 5, 2003, 6:16 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:The very idea of Saddam acting aggresively towards another country again is laughable.. especially a western country. He isn't suicidal.

I'd agree with that, and while Iraq is a dictatorship, it isn't a police state. Movement is easy, especially along the borders. Terrorist and other criminal organizations funnel people and millions of dollars worldwide, even in the US. The world is still a very large place.

Getting a stable local government in place is a good first step. For at least the first couple years it's going to be a breeding ground for the things we're trying to stop. Look at Afghanistan, it's currently in significantly worse shape overall than it was 2 years ago.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » February 5, 2003, 6:32 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:What the fuck is a liberal anyway? Can someone Non-Liberal define it for me? Mind you, only bother defining it if you are a right wing conservative.
Passive, anti-establishment, treehugger, over-empathetic, etc.

Passive, anti-establishment, treehugger, over epathetic...

Okay, so lets take this by in order, since I was called a liberal previous (though perhaps not on this thread, I cannot remember).

Passive: I have hand virtually every bone in my hands broken at one point in time defending myself/taking preemptive prevenative measures, so I can throw that out the window. However, please note that war changes people.
Just because concservatives try to potray themselves as uncaring, gung ho John Wayne types who all know everything about war and it's rues there of, and are so bad ass and hardcore they can "take it like a man". does not mean they are. In fact, my grandfather was very conservative until he served in WW2 on D-day, and after that he has had a huge voice for peace. So I will take his example rather than some stranger who knows nothing but shelter concearning war.

Anti-establishment: I am very for america myself, but very anti Bush and self-serving politicians who use war and death as a pedastal for re-election. Fuck him, and his whole damned cabnet.
As for America, I love my home. I love the priciples we are founded on, and the freedoms we all enjoy. I do NOT love those who would abuse those freedoms, presidents included.

Tree-Hugger: I have never "hugged" a tree, excepting one time I fell and tried to grab a branch, but slapped the trunk and rid it down. Cut up my body pretty bad on it's bark.
That tree made very nice fire wood later in the year.

Over-empathic: What the fuck is wrong with you people. So, are you saying that by feeling to much, and desiring to understand to much, that is a point of contempt? I laugh at you arrogant, ignorant, gun-totting, elitist, money-hording Scrouge McDuck wannabies. Read Sun Tzu, good author. Look up things along the lines of: Know the Enemy
Try here: http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
kthx

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 5, 2003, 6:38 pm

Aabidano wrote:Getting a stable local government in place is a good first step. For at least the first couple years it's going to be a breeding ground for the things we're trying to stop. Look at Afghanistan, it's currently in significantly worse shape overall than it was 2 years ago.

The problem with that is forcibly installing a "stable government" by the US's definition in Iraq is basically imperialism.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » February 5, 2003, 6:50 pm

Gung wrote:How about this. Bush/Powell will invade and conquer Iraq for much the same reason as Saddam invaded Kuwait -- for control of the oil.

Yeah. Like the reason we invaded Afghanistan was so we could place that oil pipeline through the country!

Add : ------end of sarcasm

Pilsburry · Post by **Pilsburry** » February 5, 2003, 6:58 pm

I don't want war.
I don't trust our Gov't.
I don't think we can prove that that iraq fuckhead is doing much.
I am pro-staying out of most actions as I feel thinks like 9/11 come from interferring too much.

I don't think people should blame bush for this, he didn't make 9/11 he didn't make Sadam hide weapons. Why someone would be ignorant enough to say something like "look how he turned our heads from this ti this" I don't know. I don't like bush but bush has little to do with it. All he is is a guy sitting in a magic chair, wel look at him whenever someone else tells us shit and we point our fingers.....I could replace president bush with a trained chimp and we would still have had that UN conference today.

---------------------------
I do think that Iraq is hiding weapons.
I do think Iraq has further plans.
I do think UN 1441 only stated that Sadam had to prove he destroyed the weapons, he is in direct violation of that.
I do think Colin stated some of his information came from the UK...and if he put words in thier mouths I expect someone from UK to come forward and say that's false...
I do think it's very possible people can put aside thier differences to take on a larger goal. Like terrorists and iraq.
I do think Sadam is a bad mother fucker and he should have been dead years ago.
I do think the middle east will never be in peace. I'm tired of fucking dealing with the god damned middle east, we should either nuke it to hell or just turn the other way and let them nuke eachother. But I don't want to get mixed up in thier shit anymore unless I can say this is the last time we need to fucking deal with them.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » February 5, 2003, 7:03 pm

It would appear that Saddam is not a stupid man. I wonder what his exit plan will be? His days are truly numbered at this point and even he has to acknowledge it! Will he be defiant and go down with the ship? Or will he be a coward? I'm sure Canada would take him if he would leave Iraq in exile. He could go on the talk-show circuit and rub elbows with Bill Clinton, Phil Donahue, Sean Penn and their type...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 5, 2003, 7:09 pm

Metanis wrote:I'm sure Canada would take him if he would leave Iraq in exile. He could go on the talk-show circuit and rub elbows with Bill Clinton, Phil Donahue, Sean Penn and their type...

LOL

He's a looney so I expect he'll stay till the end.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 5, 2003, 7:11 pm

I say the exact opposite. He'll flee and hide somewhere while 6 of his "clones" die instead.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » February 5, 2003, 7:13 pm

I dunno, I would be happy if Iraq would show proof that they disarmed at least the stuff the UN knew about way back when they wrote it up. It was not up to the UN to go see if they could find the stuff again.

Maybe I misunderstood it the whole time, but thats what I thought was supposed to happen and as of yet, has not.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » February 5, 2003, 7:57 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:What the fuck is a liberal anyway? Can someone Non-Liberal define it for me? Mind you, only bother defining it if you are a right wing conservative.
Passive, anti-establishment, treehugger, over-empathetic, etc.

I'm 50% liberal then... anti-establishment... of course... sheep are boring and the establishment loves you sheep. Treehugger... yep... used to U-lock myself to the underside of logging trucks... and know what... Headwaters stands still, we won, take the time to walk it sometime... your jaw will hit the forest floor. Passive, heh, not likely, over-anything is over-kill, empathy is beautiful, but you gotta use your mind to balance it all out. If people want to NOT agree with the war, that is their right as AMERICAN CITIZINS, flaming them only shows your ignorance of their freedoms, the right to disagree with your leaders... great thing about a democracy, if enough disagree, we get new leaders every couple/4 years. I personally think Saddam must go, not gonna be clean like 1st time there, or Afganistan, but our Marines will get the job done. But if someone beleives we should not go to war... that is their right... but we will go, and many people will die on both sides, we have not seen that in decades, I pray I am wrong.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 5, 2003, 9:56 pm

About every thread we have like this, someone always has to remind people about the history of what's going on for the few ignorant people. I'll make it brief. Part of the agreement to end the Gulf War, you know the war where Iraq invaded Kuwait?, Saddam agreed to "the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of its chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km, and their associated programmes, stocks, components, research and facilities. President Bush isn't coming out of the blue asking for Iraq to disarm: this is an agreement that Iraq made. The UN isn't debating whether Iraq has the right to has these weapons, this was settled 12 years ago. They're trying to enforce the treaties that Saddam agreed to.

The debate isn't whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. No one on the security council but Syria maybe disagrees with this. China, France, Russia, Germany all agree on this fact. NO credible country is contradicting this. No one who looks at everything Powell said, everything Iraq has done, and everything that has been factually documented could possibly logically argue that Iraq doesn't have WMD.

The debate is how to enforce the resolutions that have been passed. Inspectors throughout the 90's were mislead and decieved by Iraq until in 1998 they were forced to leave. It's a fact that Iraq had a large system to hide documents, components, production equipment and, possibly, biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN. I'm not going to list out every single thing Iraq did to hinder inspectors, but here's a link to a site that has them: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6122.asp.

Then two months ago, after all that Iraq had done to fool and intimidate inspectors, and all the lying that Iraq has done, we decided to give them one last chance to settle this peacefully. So we passed Resolution 1441 and sent the inspectors back in. Since then Iraq has not fully complied with resolution 1441.

Iraq did not list all of their WMD and other prohibited weapons/programs. The weapons that we know they have aren't even listed, and who knows how many more weapons Iraq has made in the years inspectors have been gone?

Iraq is not letting Iraqi scientists talk to UN inspectors without minders. Yes, publically they say they encourage it, but there are credible sources saying that any scientist who reveals information to the inspectors will be executed along with their families. We've asked to question atleast 30 scientists to my knowledge: all have either refused to talk with inspectors or asked to have minders present. I know to some people it comes as a bit of a suprise that such a nice guy as Saddam would do this, but just look at what Saddam has done in the past to his own people and family members and it won't shock you quite as much. Also, if you think this is some petty violation, you're wrong. Much of the information that we got in the 1990's leading to the destruction of weaponry came from interviews with scientists.

Iraq, just as it did in the 90's, is not allowing overflights by U2 planes. These are much more reliable than sattelite photographs and can be taken much more often.

I don't know why I'm actually writing all this crap out, just listen to what Powell said for the many violations Iraq is committing.

So what's the answer? Continue inspections? Blix and El Baradei (sp) already said that unless Iraq starts fully cooperating, more inspections would be a waste of time. If we did continue inspections, how long would it take to find all these mobile labs Iraq has? As Powell pointed out, it took Iraq 4 years just to admit having biological weaponry. I ask you, what would continuing inspections accomplish?

Without a doubt, Iraq is in material breach and still playing the same hide and seek game it played through the 90's, and there's no reason to believe Iraq is going to change. It's time for the Security Council to back up its resolutions.

I also liked how in the state of the union address, Bush tried to emphasize that his administration would be liberating the people of Iraq from opression, and would "restore their God-given freedom".

LoL. Yeah liberate them from an opression of UN sanctions, in the name of a god they don't even recognize.

You don't think we will be liberating the Iraqi people? I'm not saying a big reason for this war is to liberate Iraq, but could anyone be worse than Saddam? He imposed these sanctions on his country by blatantly ignoring treaties that were made because of his aggression. He spends billions of dollars on weapon programs while many of his people starve. Under someone elses rule w/o sanctions and w/ oil pouring out freely the Iraqi economy will boom. That's right, contrary to what you think, no one's going to be "taking" Iraqi oil, it will be a free market and they will be paid for it. If we wanted to "take" Iraqi's oil we could have fucking done it in the Gulf War. Also, we could have easily "taken" Kuwait's oil (Kuwait produces more oil than the entire US by the way), but we didn't.

There is no proof that Saddam & Bin Laden are bed fellows in any regard. In FACT Bin Laden has strong issue with Saddam over Saddam's treatment of fundamentalist Muslims. They have an extreme difference in opinion regarding religion, something that Bin Laden is not just going to brush aside to align with one of the other few true US enemies.

Yes, obviously the two hate each other since Saddam is letting Zarqawi's (a top Al Qaeda official) network remain in Baghdad after being tipped off twice to their whereabouts.

Zeilya · Post by **Zeilya** » February 6, 2003, 12:52 am

="kyoukan type-R
I guess. It's difficult to gain the perspective of the European climate in the 1930s without having actually lived through it.

There are tons of books written by people who lived through it, and you can still go talk to many people in person who lived through it. Perhaps you may investigate some of those rescources so you don't have to keep speculating.

Hitler got such a jump on folks because none of them were prepared to endure another war, because WWI basically had crippled and destroyed Europe. They were frightened, everyone was FRIGHTENED of another war and so they conceded and conceded until there was nothing left to concede.

Over my EQ vacation I read tons of books, all history... leading up to WWII itself. Troop transportation was not the huge issue in World War II, Troop Transportation was a WWI issue because at the time, only railways could transport soldiers. Hence the Schliffen plan that basically committed Germany to war even when they did not necessarily want to go to war. In WWI "Cavalry" was still horse divisions, believe it or not, but in WWI "Cavalry" was mobile armor, the advent of various fueled vehicles made troop transporation much easier. Germany and The Soviets did not "sneak" up on anyone in WWII... another thing that most people did no remember, is that Hitler and Stalin were allies at the onset of the WWII and were not enemies until Hilter double crossed Stalin. Had Hitler not done that, the entire world would be divided up between National Socialist Germany and Soviet Socialist Russia right now.

Furthermore the issue at hand is really not about Saddam invading with a military campaign is it? The issue seems to be that he is a freaking nutcase who has already commited genocide on hordes of his own countrymen, and almost certainly would like to do so to his neighboors and enemies.

Finally I get sick of Europeans blasting the U.S. over this whole mess when YOU are the ones who caused all of this with YOUR damn Imperial Colonialism. Iraq and all those other countries are screwed up and overrun by religious fanatics because the English (including CANADA), the Dutch, the French, and the Germans all had to go down there and take it over to exploit it's lands and peoples to feed their little empires.

The world has been stuck dealing with your colonial messes for far too long. Don't stick your hands in the air now and claim you have no blood on them.

Fear is never a good reason to go to war.

Fear is also never a good reason not to go to war.

I think Fear is the driving force in both sides of this attack Iraq or not attack Iraq argument, and that is always a bad thing.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » February 6, 2003, 1:24 am

Finally I get sick of Europeans blasting the U.S. over this whole mess when YOU are the ones who caused all of this with YOUR damn Imperial Colonialism. Iraq and all those other countries are screwed up and overrun by religious fanatics because the English (including CANADA), the Dutch, the French, and the Germans all had to go down there and take it over to exploit it's lands and peoples to feed their little empires.

The world has been stuck dealing with your colonial messes for far too long. Don't stick your hands in the air now and claim you have no blood on them.

Couple of points here that you may not agree with, but I think the above was unmitigated bullshit too.

1) The problems in the middle east go back before the British, Dutch, French German or Spanish attempts at empires, or even the creation of Islam. While I am not in the habit of quoting the bible as a historical text, it does give evidence that the area has been a trouble spot for several thousand years.

2) As far as Saddam goes, he rose to power during the days of the Cold War, where the Soviet controlled Warsaw Pact and NATO (of whom the USA is the strongest member) played political spy games all over the damned globe.

Does the USA deserve its share of "credit" for whats going on over there? Yes.
Are they the sole cause, guilty party? No.

But thanks for the simplistic attempt to whitewash it all.

Oh and FYI while CANADA is still a member of the British Commonwealth, it was a colony and never did more than supply resources to the Empire, it never had any colonies of its own. Kind of similar to another North American country, except Canadians never fought rebellions for independence: they negotiated their powers of governance and autonomy away from Britain. Whose way was better? Who cares: citizens of both countries are reasonably happy with the results and have the ability to change them on election days.

I do agree with a lot of the rest of what you said though. I think fear is a great influencing factor in the whole situation: fear of looking weak and passive in many cases, as much as the actual consequences of what a war may mean to everyone involved.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 6, 2003, 1:26 am

Brotha wrote:About every thread we have like this, someone always has to remind people about the history of what's going on for the few ignorant people. I'll make it brief. Part of the agreement to end the Gulf War, you know the war where Iraq invaded Kuwait?, Saddam agreed to "the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of its chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km, and their associated programmes, stocks, components, research and facilities. President Bush isn't coming out of the blue asking for Iraq to disarm: this is an agreement that Iraq made. The UN isn't debating whether Iraq has the right to has these weapons, this was settled 12 years ago. They're trying to enforce the treaties that Saddam agreed to.

The agreement didn't include any "no fly zones" or perpetual sanctions. The US put down any attempt to lift or even ease the sanctions. Even after the vast majority of Iraqs weapons had been destroyed they would not ease the sanctions at all. The US wanted to use the sanctions as a means to force regime change in Iraq, starve the people so they will rise up etc etc.

This has caused major friction between the UN and Iraq from the mid 90s onwards.

Brotha wrote:The debate isn't whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. No one on the security council but Syria maybe disagrees with this. China, France, Russia, Germany all agree on this fact. NO credible country is contradicting this. No one who looks at everything Powell said, everything Iraq has done, and everything that has been factually documented could possibly logically argue that Iraq doesn't have WMD.

This is where Brotha takes the stupid pill every time. Where he tries to explain that nobody in their right mind would question the 100%-for sure-honest to god-swear to die KNOWN FACTS. You really need to read more than republican press releases. All the countries you stated disagree. Each one of them asked for proof. Russia asked on the record for "undeniable proof".
Anyone smarter than drift wood could argue that Iraq doesn't have WMD. You can't disprove that argument as it now stands. You need real proof to disprove something. Go figure.

Brotha wrote:The debate is how to enforce the resolutions that have been passed. Inspectors throughout the 90's were mislead and decieved by Iraq until in 1998 they were forced to leave.

Wrong again. They were never forced to leave. The US pulled them out, then the US\UK proceeded to do a unsanctioned and illegal bombing of Iraq, *then* Iraq refused to left them back in afterwards. Can't say I blame them after you killed some folks to draw attention away from your blowjob scandel.

Brotha wrote:It's a fact that Iraq had a large system to hide documents, components, production equipment and, possibly, biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN.

There he goes again. You forgot to capitalise "fact", capitalization makes it more true.

Brotha wrote:Iraq is not letting Iraqi scientists talk to UN inspectors without minders. Yes, publically they say they encourage it, but there are credible sources saying that any scientist who reveals information to the inspectors will be executed along with their families. We've asked to question atleast 30 scientists to my knowledge: all have either refused to talk with inspectors or asked to have minders present. I know to some people it comes as a bit of a suprise that such a nice guy as Saddam would do this, but just look at what Saddam has done in the past to his own people and family members and it won't shock you quite as much. Also, if you think this is some petty violation, you're wrong. Much of the information that we got in the 1990's leading to the destruction of weaponry came from interviews with scientists.

Here you assume that the scientists WANT to be interrogated alone. One of the dumbest assumptions I've seen used so far in this argument. Think about it for a minute. Of course they don't, hell I wouldn't.

They have probably heard of the "suspected" terrorists being held in cuba with no charges against them. No human rights according the US. And the US won't even release their names.

Or maybe they have heard about the 1000+ muslims you have pulled off your own streets and detained without ever laying charges against them. Again the US won't even release their names. These aren't even "suspected" terrorists.

Or maybe they have heard of the muslims crossing into Canada after the US started making all muslims register. I'm wondering when they will start making them wear a muslim version of a star of david.

When I hear the US say they want them interrogated outside Iraq it makes me laugh. These scientists would have to be seriously fucked in the head to trust the US.

Brotha wrote:Iraq, just as it did in the 90's, is not allowing overflights by U2 planes. These are much more reliable than sattelite photographs and can be taken much more often.

Did Iraq agree to let them US spy on them forever. These aren't UN planes. Nor are the unmaned aircraft you send in there. Believe it or not Iraq is still a sovereign nation. They did not agree to give up their airspace.

Brotha wrote:You don't think we will be liberating the Iraqi people? I'm not saying a big reason for this war is to liberate Iraq, but could anyone be worse than Saddam? He imposed these sanctions on his country by blatantly ignoring treaties that were made because of his aggression.

It didn't matter what Iraq did. They could have bent over and fucked themselves and the sanctions would not have been lifted or let up in any way.

As to liberating Iraq. Ask some of the muslims living in the US that question. If you can get a name that is.

Brotha wrote:
There is no proof that Saddam & Bin Laden are bed fellows in any regard. In FACT Bin Laden has strong issue with Saddam over Saddam's treatment of fundamentalist Muslims. They have an extreme difference in opinion regarding religion, something that Bin Laden is not just going to brush aside to align with one of the other few true US enemies.
Yes, obviously the two hate each other since Saddam is letting Zarqawi's (a top Al Qaeda official) network remain in Baghdad after being tipped off twice to their whereabouts.

What? You are not going to claim this link to be 100% PROVEN FACT? That in itself shows how weak this argument is.

And if you think about it why would Iraq hunt these guys down anyway unless they commit some crime in Iraq. Does Iraq have an extradition agreement with the US? I'm sure they aren't going to go out of their way to help the US.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » February 6, 2003, 1:42 am

Mort wrote:**EDIT** I hope they round all you people up and intern your asses when the shit hits the fan.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html

Mort, I dunno you from Adam, but if you attend the university whose library you linked, I'm gonna chortle madly until I'm forced to wipe the spittle from my monitor just to continue to treasure your elegantly conceived posts.

Love, Mplor

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 6, 2003, 1:42 am

Forthe:

Wrong again. They were never forced to leave. The US pulled them out, then the US\UK proceeded to do a unsanctioned and illegal bombing of Iraq, *then* Iraq refused to left them back in afterwards. Can't say I blame them after you killed some folks to draw attention away from your blowjob scandel.

By the end of 1998 UNSCOM was in direct confrontation with the Iraqi Government which was refusing to co-operate. The US and the UK had made clear that anything short of full co-operation would make military action unavoidable. Richard Butler was requested to report to the UN Security Council in December 1998 and stated that, following a series of direct confrontations, coupled with the systematic refusal by Iraq to co-operate, UNSCOM was no longer able to perform its disarmament mandate. As a direct result, on December 16 the weapons inspectors were withdrawn and Operation Desert Fox was launched by the US and the UK a few hours afterwards.

I'm sorry, I equate that to being basically forced out.

There he goes again. You forgot to capitalise "fact", capitalization makes it more true.

Quote from the source I linked:

Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM having a large, effective, system for hiding proscribed material including documentation, components, production equipment and, possibly, biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN.

Please read the shit that I link, k?

Here you assume that the scientists WANT to be interrogated alone. One of the dumbest assumptions I've seen used so far in this argument. Think about it for a minute. Of course they don't, hell I wouldn't.

They have probably heard of the "suspected" terrorists being held in cuba with no charges against them. No human rights according the US. And the US won't even release their names.

Or maybe they have heard about the 1000+ muslims you have pulled off your own streets and detained without ever laying charges against them. Again the US won't even release their names. These aren't even "suspected" terrorists.

Or maybe they have heard of the muslims crossing into Canada after the US started making all muslims register. I'm wondering when they will start making them wear a muslim version of a star of david.

When I hear the US say they want them interrogated outside Iraq it makes me laugh. These scientists would have to be seriously fucked in the head to trust the US.

The US isn't interrogating them dumbass, the inspectors are. Are you trying to say that the scientists are afraid Blix is going to haul them away to some prison camp? You can't be serious.

EDIT, forgot about this:

This is where Brotha takes the stupid pill every time. Where he tries to explain that nobody in their right mind would question the 100%-for sure-honest to god-swear to die KNOWN FACTS. You really need to read more than republican press releases. All the countries you stated disagree. Each one of them asked for proof. Russia asked on the record for "undeniable proof".
Anyone smarter than drift wood could argue that Iraq doesn't have WMD. You can't disprove that argument as it now stands. You need real proof to disprove something. Go figure.

I think they got their "undeniable proof" from Colin Powell today, no? And I'd like to see you argue the case that Iraq doesn't have any WMD.

Zeilya · Post by **Zeilya** » February 6, 2003, 2:11 am

Wulfran wrote: Couple of points here that you may not agree with, but I think the above was unmitigated bullshit too.

1) The problems in the middle east go back before the British, Dutch, French German or Spanish attempts at empires, or even the creation of Islam. While I am not in the habit of quoting the bible as a historical text, it does give evidence that the area has been a trouble spot for several thousand years.

2) As far as Saddam goes, he rose to power during the days of the Cold War, where the Soviet controlled Warsaw Pact and NATO (of whom the USA is the strongest member) played political spy games all over the damned globe.

Does the USA deserve its share of "credit" for whats going on over there? Yes.
Are they the sole cause, guilty party? No.

But thanks for the simplistic attempt to whitewash it all.

Oh and FYI while CANADA is still a member of the British Commonwealth, it was a colony and never did more than supply resources to the Empire, it never had any colonies of its own.

There is no whitewashing here.

The current political climate in the Middle East is a direct result of European Colonial policies, spiced up heavily with Cold War policies. Saying that Europe should not bear the brunt of that blame is like saying that the U.S. shouldn't take sole responsible for what happened with the Native American's because it was a trouble spot before and the natives were always warring with each other blah blah.

With all due respect Waran... really, you should really take a close look at what went on there in the 1800's and early 1900's, if you want to talk about whitewashing that is where you will find it, because it is a period of history that most europeans would like to sweep under the rug.

I simplify nothing, and I only mentioned Canada because they reaped tremendous financial rewards in their private sector from Britains colonialism, and Canadian troops played a large role in Britains warfare in Africa and the Middle East.

My point was, Europeans are really quick to point the finger these days and make us out to be the bad guys in black hats, when in fact Europe has a larger black hat stuffed in the closet.

As far as I am concerned, I am not too happy about U.S. soldiers dying in battle down there, if there are no French, Germans, or British to die beside them. Because if this truly is an issue, then everyone involved in this whole sordid affair should jump in with both feet. But then the whole world being down in the Mideast fighting and taking sides sounds painfully close to the scenario of armageddon in that Bible you mentioned, doesn't it?

A very sobering thought.

On a personal level, if I had a vote right now wether to attack or not attack, my vote would be no attack, but I reserve the priviledge of not knowing everything, and possibily being incorrect in my decision. That's not exactly a stance I see most people on this board taking, and that is always troublesome.

Flaming and ranting about EQ loots and mobs is one thing, but taking similar simplified stances and spewing right or left wing propoganda when war is brewing and folks, some of them our friends that we have played with before, could be going into battle to die, is a little bit out of line in my opinion.

When you can never back down, when you can never admit you are wrong, when the possibility that you might be wrong stops occuring to you and you believe your cause and beliefs are "just" and "right" without having to carefully examine them, then you are no longer reasonable human being, you are a fanatic. Fanatics cannot reason or discuss, they can only enforce their point of view by wit, charisma, influence, and intimidation. I see far to much of that everywhere in the world, in my country, on my television, in my town, on internet boards, and even within my own friends and family these days.

Half of everything that the average person knows is wrong, and a tenth of everything a very old and wise person knows is wrong. Meaning that even if you are a very old and wise person, you will be wrong 1 out of 10 times. I often think about that everytime I start to argue furiously with someone.

In any case I only butted in here because Kyo posted on an issue that I had just spent an inordinate amount of time reading about, meaning Europe in the early 20th century.

I will now butt back out, and leave you all to your "discussion".

I don't really have the knack for this stuff.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 6, 2003, 2:15 am

Zeilya wrote:There are tons of books written by people who lived through it, and you can still go talk to many people in person who lived through it. Perhaps you may investigate some of those rescources so you don't have to keep speculating.

I could. Or I could read about the actual factual historical account of the time and try to form my own opinion instead of taking one of the 8 billion confliting opinion texts on the subject as some sort of biblical text.

Hitler got such a jump on folks because none of them were prepared to endure another war, because WWI basically had crippled and destroyed Europe. They were frightened, everyone was FRIGHTENED of another war and so they conceded and conceded until there was nothing left to concede.

Not really. Most of Europe was still fighting amongst themselves in various other stupid little wars and border disputes and revolutions at the time.

Over my EQ vacation I read tons of books, all history... leading up to WWII itself. Troop transportation was not the huge issue in World War II, Troop Transportation was a WWI issue because at the time, only railways could transport soldiers. Hence the Schliffen plan that basically committed Germany to war even when they did not necessarily want to go to war. In WWI "Cavalry" was still horse divisions, believe it or not, but in WWI "Cavalry" was mobile armor, the advent of various fueled vehicles made troop transporation much easier. Germany and The Soviets did not "sneak" up on anyone in WWII...

Read better books then. The entire early German campaign was based around surprise invasions. And no, unfortunately the 3rd Reich didn't have the luxury of riding the trains into Czech or Poland. The rails and generally trucks were only good inside Germany itself. From then on it was marching.

another thing that most people did no remember, is that Hitler and Stalin were allies at the onset of the WWII and were not enemies until Hilter double crossed Stalin. Had Hitler not done that, the entire world would be divided up between National Socialist Germany and Soviet Socialist Russia right now.

Hitler and Stalin both hated each other immensely. Stalin thought Germany were imperialist fuckwads and Hitler thought Russians were inferior and stupid. Neither expected any sort of long term relationship with each other, although Stalin wasn't expecting to be invaded by him either. Stalin was already talking to Churchill when Hitler "double crossed" him anyway.

Furthermore the issue at hand is really not about Saddam invading with a military campaign is it? The issue seems to be that he is a freaking nutcase who has already commited genocide on hordes of his own countrymen, and almost certainly would like to do so to his neighboors and enemies.

Well no, the issue at hand really is about Saddam being aggresive. The entire basis of the Bush administration's claims is that Saddam Hussein and Iraq are a direct threat the security if the US and it's allies.

There are a lot worse dictators in the world than Saddam Hussein when it comes to how he treats his people and in pure bodycount. They are basically ignored by the US. Christ some are even trading partners.

Finally I get sick of Europeans blasting the U.S. over this whole mess when YOU are the ones who caused all of this with YOUR damn Imperial Colonialism. Iraq and all those other countries are screwed up and overrun by religious fanatics because the English (including CANADA), the Dutch, the French, and the Germans all had to go down there and take it over to exploit it's lands and peoples to feed their little empires.

Huh? What the hell are you going on about? Prior to WW1 nobody from Europe went anywhere's near the middle east for centuries. The Ottoman Empire would have sent their asses packing if they dared. The Islamic revolution was CENTURIES before. Are you thinking of Africa?

The world has been stuck dealing with your colonial messes for far too long. Don't stick your hands in the air now and claim you have no blood on them.

Are you an idiot? Who is "your"? I'm Canadian. Canada _IS_ a colonial mess.

But if you really want to start some finger pointing pissing war, the only countries that went south into the middle east aggresively was the Axis, which they shouldn't have been able to do had the US not declared neutrality and sat back swing dancing and listening to little orphan annie on the norelco.

Fear is never a good reason to go to war.

Fear is also never a good reason not to go to war.

I think Fear is the driving force in both sides of this attack Iraq or not attack Iraq argument, and that is always a bad thing.

I don't even know what that means.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 6, 2003, 2:25 am

Brotha wrote:
By the end of 1998 UNSCOM was in direct confrontation with the Iraqi Government which was refusing to co-operate. The US and the UK had made clear that anything short of full co-operation would make military action unavoidable. Richard Butler was requested to report to the UN Security Council in December 1998 and stated that, following a series of direct confrontations, coupled with the systematic refusal by Iraq to co-operate, UNSCOM was no longer able to perform its disarmament mandate. As a direct result, on December 16 the weapons inspectors were withdrawn and Operation Desert Fox was launched by the US and the UK a few hours afterwards.
I'm sorry, I equate that to being basically forced out.

You don't mention how Richard Butler sucks OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of US cock. How he hauled out the inspectors after getting a call from the US. And he hauled them out without making the Security Council aware of the situation. Richard Butler forgot who he was working for.

Operation Desert Fox was also the result of sucking US cock. The presidents.

Brotha wrote: Quote from the source I linked:

Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM having a large, effective, system for hiding proscribed material including documentation, components, production equipment and, possibly, biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN.
Please read the shit that I link, k?

You linked shit alright. Next time link something from http://www.whitehouse.gov. Are you even aware what 10 Downing Street is?

Brotha wrote:The US isn't interrogating them dumbass, the inspectors are. Are you trying to say that the scientists are afraid Blix is going to haul them away to some prison camp? You can't be serious.

Here you assume they distinguish between the two. The general perception in iraq is the UN is just a puppet for the US. And the first round of inspectors had largely become a US intelligence operation.

And the way Blix seems to pickup the buzzwords and demands ~2 weeks after the US starts the rhetoric it isn't a huge leap. I don't really blame him, he is trying and doing fairly well with the pressure he is under.

We'll see how the rest of the UN deals with the pressure from the US, which likes to deal out the "UN relevence test" card whenever it doesn't do as the US pleases.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 6, 2003, 10:09 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:The problem with that is forcibly installing a "stable government" by the US's definition in Iraq is basically imperialism.

I can't think of any recent examples of externally appllied governments that have lasted 20+ years. Dictatorships, democracies, whatever.

Imperialism can work, the Romans were the best at it. Followed by the British. The areas they colonized that didn't have resources to be exploited by commercial interests (i.e. East India Co.) did very well over long periods of time.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 11:48 am

The very idea of Saddam acting aggresively towards another country again is laughable.. especially a western country. He isn't suicidal.

Right. Because we all know Saddam has never attacked another country in his region.

Right?

What planet do you live on again?

miir · Post by **miir** » February 6, 2003, 12:14 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
The very idea of Saddam acting aggresively towards another country again is laughable.. especially a western country. He isn't suicidal.
Right. Because we all know Saddam has never attacked another country in his region.

I find it funny that the US was helping fund Iraq's war against Iran in the 80s. America didn't consider Iraq any sort of threat, so they were given weapons to fight their enemies....

A few years later when Iraq invaded Kuwait (a country with a high concentration of radical muslims) because of alleged slant drilling, the UN and the USA liberated Kuwait and stomped out the Iraqi forces (swiftly and decisively).

It's been over a decade since Iraq has made any aggressive movements toward any country (middle eastern or western) and thier economy is so crippled they are unable to retain any sort of significant military force....

I am having a hard time understanding why Bush has deemed Iraq a global threat.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 6, 2003, 12:14 pm

Quote:
The very idea of Saddam acting aggresively towards another country again is laughable.. especially a western country. He isn't suicidal.

Right. Because we all know Saddam has never attacked another country in his region.

Right?

What planet do you live on again?

Notice the AGAIN part here:

acting aggresively towards another country again

English, motherfucker. . .

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 12:30 pm

I am having a hard time understanding why Bush has deemed Iraq a global threat.

Ask the UN.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 6, 2003, 1:11 pm

Just one question:

You guys argue this over and over and over again because you're just bored right?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 1:20 pm

Pretty much, yeah.

Saddam is going to be removed from power because he is a sadistic motherfucker that the world community cannot trust with a fly-swatter, much less a WoMD.

The only question now is if certain European nations are going to grow balls and carry their share of the load or if the U.S. and Great Britan are going to have to do this alone.

Again.

The arguing here won't mean shit in the end.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 6, 2003, 5:40 pm

I hate to resuscitate a dying thread, but I thought this piece was relevant to the discussions we've been having lately.

The Right of the Citizen to Oppose War and the Right of Congress to
Shape the War Policy

BY [Senator] ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE SR.

IN these days whenever an American citizen presumes to question the
justification, either in law or morals, of our participation in the
European war, he is at once denounced by the war party and the war press
as disloyal to the country.

The war party in the United States seeks to justify our entrance into
the bloody conflict on the ground that it is in the interest of
democracy. But every man and every woman knows that there is a struggle
going on today in every civilized nation between democracy and
autocracy.

Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is
the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is
commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is
just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in
Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker.

In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war.
As soon as prepared for war, it insists on making war. If there is no
sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext,
then invent another, possibly more effective, pretext after war is on.

Before war is declared, the war party assumes the divine right to
denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.

After Congress has been bullied into a declaration of war, the
politicians, the press, and the mercenaries of the war party assume
authority to deny the right of American citizens to discuss the
necessity for the war, or the ultimate object and purpose of the
declaration of war.

Today Secret Service men, United States District Attorneys, United
States Marshals, United States Court Commissioners, and other federal
officials are rankly abusing their authority on every hand. People are
being unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, denied the right to employ
counsel, or to communicate with their friends, or even to inform their
families of their whereabouts, subjected to unlawful search, threatened,
intimidated, examined, and cross-examined. The most sacred constitutional
rights guaranteed to every American citizen are violated in the name of
democracy.

It appears to be the purpose of those conducting this procedure to throw
the country into a state of terror, to coerce public opinion, stifle
criticism, suppress discussion of the issues of the war, and put a
quietus on all opposition. . . .

It is time for the American people to assert and maintain their rights.

June 1917

VeeshanVault

Colin Powell makes the case

So long Saddam

Re: So long Saddam