Is this enough for the lefty's????

[Kilmer17]

Blix himself say Iraq isn't complying.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76626,00.html

or do we need even more?

[gbear]

Yeah, I just read the transcript on CNN. Wow, the jist seems to be "We haven't found evidence for the 'Iraq has weopens of mass destruction,' but we've sure found a lot of evidence that Iraq's story is false and full of holes."

To be honest, that was a far more damning report than I expected. All of the press leading up to this seemed to be saying the report would praise Iraq's cooperation. That's certainly not how the transcripts read from here.

Next question: Will there be any fallout from this? Is this enough to sway anyone in Europe?

[Tarhog]

My thoughts also gbear. Blix was fairly blistering in his assessment. Wasn't the mixed bag report the media had prepped us for. I doubt seriously its going to sway anyone. Unless Bush drops an intelligence bombshell when he announces we are going to war (which I think is quite possible), I doubt you'll see much change in the landscape as far as who is going to support us. The big question is whether or not we'll attempt to take a 2nd resolution to a vote. I'm betting we release our own intell in a few weeks, and use that as justification to bypass the Security Council entirely.

[codeorama]

Question..... (this is not a flame post, I am curious in hearing an honest answer)

Why are some of you so excited to go to war?

I'm not totally opposed at this point, but I would like nothing more than to avoid it. I look at it this way, I don't feel that we here are in danger of being invaded by Iraq and while I believe that they already have nukes or atleast are close, I doubt they have ICBM's that put the US at risk. We are always at risk from Terrorist attacks, regardless of who is involved so I don't really count that....

But honestly, I'd like to understand where some of you are coming from because my mind is not really totally made up.

[Kilmer17]

Im not excited. Im terrified.

But there comes a time when we (the US) must stand up to evil.

It's alos time that we let the world know that we mean what we say. If we let Saddam continue to thumb his nose at us, what does that say to the next terrorist leader? SUre the US talks a big talk, but it's empty rhetoric.

[@DCGoldPants]

my question is this. If we know where they are hiding certain weapons of mass destruction and want to destroy them. Why on Earth would you make that information public? If you know this then there should be a point where you have a huddle with your closer allies....maybe let one guy in who was on the fence and then go for it.

[Tarhog]

I haven't entirely made up my mind yet Code. I've thought a lot about the contrast between when we went in in 91 and the situation we see now. I'm reserving judgment, but I'm of the belief that we know far more than we are revealing publicly (not that we need more from an international law standpoint as Iraq has clearly breached its agreements multiple times and UN resolutions call for a military solution as a justified response if necessary). I think we'll see some substantive evidence of 'the threat' coming soon.

[gbear]

codeoramma,

IT's not excited by the prospect of going to war. IN fact, that terrifies me like few things in this world. However, one of the things that terrifies me more is these WMD in the hands of a terrorist. I'm not real comfortable with a government that has anti-US terrorism ties not only having WMD but also hiding the fact. Combine that with a proven willingness to use their WMD, as the did on the Kurds, and I can understand and even support taking them out.

The hiding part is an underappreciated danger. Think about the confussion after 9-11 as we tried to assertain who had done this to us. Unknown WMD allow for a long period of uncertainty if we are ever struck. The biggest deterent to being struck by WMD is the knowledge we will use them back. However, if a country thinks it has hidden the existance from us, they might think they can hide "who done it" and deny the outragous things the terrorists do. That's not a happy prospect.

Even if you take for granted that they won't be given to terrorists, you can't preclude Iraq developing a delivery system. In the Blix report, it does talk about them engineering rockets that go beyond the limits of what they were allowed to have. Some how, I don't find it particularly reassuring when they say, "Yes the rockets test range was too long, but don't worry because we're going to reengineer them to make them worse." The unsaid part of that statement is "untill we need them to go further." you can't undo technology easily.

The other side problem is that if you don't deal with it now, how do you deal with it when Iraq has ICBMs? At that point, isn't it too late?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I haven't entirely made up my mind yet Code. I've thought a lot about the contrast between when we went in in 91 and the situation we see now. I'm reserving judgment, but I'm of the belief that we know far more than we are revealing publicly (not that we need more from an international law standpoint as Iraq has clearly breached its agreements multiple times and UN resolutions call for a military solution as a justified response if necessary). I think we'll see some substantive evidence of 'the threat' coming soon.

I understand, I'm sure as well that there are alot of things that "we" don't or won't know about.

I guess, but I'm still not sure, but I guess that I feel like if we are going to send over young men and women to die, it should be for our country, not someone else's. I would like to know where the threat to the US is. I mean when you watch movies like the Patriot or Saving Private Ryan, you see these people dieing for a real cause, I'm just trying to understand the real cause here, I'm not saying there isn't one, I just may not be smart enough to see it...

[Tarhog]

I think you're verbalizing what a lot of folks have a desire for, a 'clear and present danger' we can easily identify as we could in WWI and WWII. But what if the Bush Administration had indisputable evidence that Saddam was trying to funnel nerve gas stores to terrorist groups? Or had tried to purchase suitcase nukes from the black market in former Soviet republics. Or had damning evidence Hussein sponsored or trained the 9/11 attackers. With weapons available recently in Iraq (many of which have never been confirmed destroyed), Hussein could be as big a threat to the US populace as an imperialist enemy such as Japan ever realistically was. I'm not saying I'm 100% sold yet, but I tend not to believe the political conspiracy theorists who think a US President is going to wage an expensive, de-stabilizing, deadly war to 'avenge Daddy' or to whip up his poll numbers prior to an election. I just don't believe that. So I'm left with the belief that we KNOW much more than we are willing to entrust the suspect UN leadership (who has Libya currently as chair of its Human Rights committee for God's sake!). As some pundits have said, if we do go in and find massive amounts of WOMD, there's going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces.

[fansince62]

putting aside the immediate what ifs, who has the right, etc..........for the sake of argument....suppose the powers that be finally decided "we're tired of this *rap going on in the Middle East. It is destablizing and no end is in sight. It is not conducive to our immediate or long term security. The long-term solution, based on certain assumptions (true or not) about the peoples themselves, is that democratic governments in that part of the world would not only be more just but less bellicose." Suppose this is just the first shot in an evolving notion of a multipartite plan/strategy for reshaping the Middle East.

I'm not saying that this is case, but it is possible that Iraq is actually just the first step. I know I'ld be thinking about it if I were in a position of power worried about genoicide, suicide bombers, global terrorism, biological warfare, nuclear proliferation, economic warfare, etc.

[tex]

The cost of war is paid with a nations treasure and in blood. Those wishing to rush to war should walk a mile in the boots of a soldier on the front line pumping a rifle to stay alive.

We pay our leaders to make these kinds of decisions for us so we can go about the affairs of daily living. Since this is the case our leaders have information not available to the majority of us which they use to make these kinds of decisions.

If our leaders say a new war with Iraq is needed to secure our nations security and the safety of it's citizens then I will support whatever action our leadership deems necessary.

[Art]

Code,

The question has been asked repeatedly. Since no one has answered it, I'll ask you. Was there clear and present danger five minutes before the planes hit the WTC on Sept. 11? You bet there was. We just weren't at a place, politically, that would allow us to act to provocations that merited action. We are there now.

We are no longer at a place, politically, where we have to wait for dead Americans to realize that not acting will simply lead to dead Americans and then have you (universal you) screaming for action and wondering why we didn't do anything after all the provocations we tolerated.

The U.S. has exceptional intelligence of Iraq at the present time. During the Gulf War, for example, we never knew where Saddam was. We couldn't track him. He had doubles and we never knew how to get to him. When the inspection process began, we told the inspectors to go look at a particular palace. When they got there they were surprised to discover Saddam's personal assistant because that meant Saddam was there. It was a message that we are tracking him now and we can.

Likewise, we know what they are doing with weapons, but given the sensitive nature of it, we can't reveal a lot of that info to the people because it would expose our intelligence assets and cause much of what we know to be dispersed in such a way as we may lose track.

No one is eager to go to war. Everyone should be eager to protect ourselves from the prospect of Iraq with devestating weapons they could give to terrorists though.

[Darth Tater]

Code,

Anyone who is actually excited (in a positive way) by the prospect of going to war is a socio-path but...

Saddam Hussien is a threat -- a clear an present danger. This threat MUST be neutralized. So far the best option presented having the highest probabilty to neutralize this threat , is war. If someone comes up with a better option for this neutralization (hey, you've probably got a couple of months), I'll listen.

[@DCGoldPants]

“There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill,” he said. “We gave the sausage machine all of the right ingredients; they have to churn. And I’m confident that when they turn that sausage out it’ll be the right kind of sausage for America.”

what the hell does that mean? hahahahahaha Sausage Machine!

[redman]

Even Colin Powell, who is supposedly more in favor of proceeding with international support rather than alone as a general matter came out strong today:

Secretary of State Powell's Iraq Remarks

2 hours, 40 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By The Associated Press

Text of Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites)'s remarks Monday at the State Department, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks, Inc.:

Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Earlier today, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 1441, Drs. Blix and ElBaradei provided the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council their 60-day reports on inspection activity in Iraq. We listened carefully as the inspectors reported that Iraq has not provided the active, immediate and unconditional cooperation that the council demanded in U.N. Resolution 1441.

As Dr. Blix said, quote, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," end quote.

Let me repeat, because this is the essence of the problem. Dr. Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

1441 is all about the disarmament demanded of Iraq. The inspectors' findings came as no surprise. For 11 years before 1441, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime refused to make the strategic decision, the political decision to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction and to comply with the world's demands.

To this day, the Iraq regime continues to defy the will of the United Nations. The Iraq regime has responded to 1441 with empty claims, empty declarations and empty gestures. It has not given the inspectors and the international community any concrete information in answer to a host of key questions.

Where is the missing anthrax? This is not just a question of historical curiosity, it is essential for us to know what happened — this deadly material.

Where is the VX? Also not just a trivial question. We must know what happened to this deadly material.

Where are the chemical and biological munitions?

Where are the mobile biological laboratories? If the Iraqi regime was truly committed to disarmament, we wouldn't be looking for these mobile labs, they'd drive them up and park them in front of UNMOVIC headquarters for inspection.

Why is Iraq violating the restrictions on ballistic missiles? Why is it violating the ban on missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers?

Where are the credible, verifiable answers to all of the other disarmament questions compiled by the previous inspectors?

Today, we heard that the inspectors have not been able to interview any Iraqi in private. We heard that the inspectors have not been allowed to employ aerial surveillance. Why not? If Iraq was committed to disarmament, if Iraq understood what 1441 was all about, they would willingly allow the kind of surveillance, they would willingly allow people to be interviewed without minders, without fear of retribution.

We have heard that they have still not received — the inspectors have still not received a full list of Iraqi personnel involved with weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction, they should willingly give the names of all who are involved in their previous programs to the inspectors for examination and interview.

The inspectors told us that their efforts have been impeded by a swarm of Iraqi minders. Why, if Iraq was committed to disarmament, would they be going to these efforts to deceive and to keep the inspectors from doing their work? Passive cooperation is not what was called for in 1441.

The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.

And the inspectors have caught the Iraqis concealing top secret information in the private residence. You all saw the pictures of that information being brought out. Why? Why, if Iraq was committed to disarmament as required under 1441, would be finding this kind of information squirreled away in private homes for any other reason than to keep it away from the inspectors?

The list of unanswered questions and the many ways Iraq has frustrating the work of the inspectors goes on and on.

Iraq's refusal to disarm in compliance with Resolution 1441 still threatens international peace and security. And Iraq's defiance continues to challenge the relevance and credibility of the Security Council.

The international community's goal was, is and remains Iraq's disarmament. The Security Council and the international community must stand behind Resolution 1441.

Iraq continues to conceal quantities — vast quantities of highly lethal materiel and weapons to deliver it. It could kill thousands upon thousands of men, women and children if Saddam Hussein decides to use these against those men, women and children or, just as frightening, to provide them to others who might use such weapons.

Iraq must not be allowed to keep weapons of mass terror and the capacity to produce more. The world community must send the clear message to Iraq that the will of the international community must be obeyed.

Last September the United Nations acted at the request of the United States. We acted through 1441 with the hope — the president had the hope, the other members of the Security Council who voted unanimously for this resolution had the hope, that Iraq would take this one last chance presented to it by the international community to disarm peacefully.

And remember the key elements of that resolution. Iraq has been and continues to be in material breach of all of its earlier obligations. We are giving, the resolution said, one more chance to Iraq.

We put a firm list of conditions for Iraq to meet and what they should allow the inspectors to do to assist them in that disarmament.

And let's not forget the vital part of the resolution that comes toward the end: There would be serious consequences for continued Iraqi violation of its obligation. Those serious consequences are the lever that was needed to get the inspectors in, to get the inspectors to be able to do their work, which was to assist Iraq in disarmament.

Iraqi intransigence brings us to a situation where we see that regime's continuing to confront the fundamental choice between compliance with 1441 and the consequences of its failure to disarm.

Even at this late date, the United States hopes for a peaceful solution. And a peaceful solution is possible only if Iraq disarms itself with the help of the inspectors.

The issue is not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark. It is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and to come clean. And the answer is not much more time. Iraq's time for choosing peaceful disarmament is fast coming to an end.

Thank you, and I'm prepared for your questions.

Q: General Powell, it is my understanding that although you guys believe, or are convinced that Iraq is neither cooperating nor complying with the resolution, you're not yet prepared to go to the Security Council with the serious consequences part. Is that correct? And if it is, can you explain why?

POWELL: Our plan is straightforward. We passed 1441 with a unanimous vote in the Security Council; 15 nations acted. Now that we have received this report from the two chief inspectors, I think it is important for us to ask questions of the inspectors.

That is happening this afternoon in New York, and it will also happen on Wednesday, as members of the Security Council pose questions to Dr. Blix and to Dr. ElBaradei. The president will be in touch with fellow heads of state and government about this matter. I will be in touch with my colleagues in the Security Council.

And after these consultations are completed — and you know Prime Minister Blair is coming on Friday. Mr. Berlusconi is coming this week as well to see President Bush (news - web sites). And after we have had these consultations and considered the entire situation and have a little time pass — Security Council members need time to consult with their capitals on what they have heard and seen today. And when those consultations are through and the president had a chance to discuss this with his fellow heads of state and government and I've done my consultations, we will determine what the next steps are.

Q: You, sort of, laid it out pretty clearly, but I wondered, does this report — which I'm sure you anticipated — does this move the administration closer to a showdown with Iraq? And if you care to — and I'd understand if you chose not to — have you got a response to the Iraqi foreign minister who doesn't think you tell the truth?

POWELL: With respect to the first part of your question, time is running out. We've made it clear from the very beginning that we could not allow the process of inspections to string us out forever.

There are some who would like to take months. Dr. ElBaradei made a reference today that he needed a few more months.

But make careful note of the context in which he was making that observation, and that is if there was active cooperation on the part of the Iraqis. If there isn't that kind of active cooperation, you could be sitting on the things you know and looking in the things you know about, but there may be many other things that you don't know about that that you're unable to get information on.

And so inspections only work in the presence of cooperation, active cooperation, and a willingness on the part of the side to participate in the disarmament. And we have examples of this in South Korea (news - web sites) and Kazakhstan, Ukraine and other nations that have gone down this road.

With respect to the Iraqi foreign minister calling me a liar, this will not cause me any distress or loss of sleep.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you've spoken, in Davos most recently, about a connection between Iraq and terrorist groups, including al-Qaida. Are you saying there's evidence that that has happened in the past or is there evidence currently that there's still a connection?

POWELL: I think we have said consistently all along, through last fall and into this year, that we have seen contacts and connections between the Iraqi regime and terrorist organizations, to include al-Qaida. As we've been able to focus on this more and look back in time, I think we're more confident of that assessment.

And we see no reason not to believe that such contacts and the presence of al-Qaida elements or individuals in Iraq is a reasonable assumption, and we have some basis for that assumption. And the information that we can divulge in greater detail, we will be divulging in the days ahead.

Q: Mr. Secretary, can you say whether you are willing — whether the U.S. is willing to give the inspectors a couple more of weeks, maybe a month, but no more than that in order to complete their work?

POWELL: We are going to do exactly what I described earlier: consult with leaders around the world. President Bush has been on the phone this morning with President Aznar. He'll be on the phone and he'll be meeting with others. I'll be doing likewise.

And when all those consultations are finished, we will let it be known what are next steps are going to be.

Q: Mr. Secretary, I have a two-part question for you, sir. Up until a week ago yesterday, you were a strong advocate for a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi situation.

POWELL: I still am.

Q: In fact, to the point where many of my brethren even labeled you a dove. But ...

POWELL: I've been labeled many things.

Q: As of the talk shows a week ago yesterday, last Sunday, you started talking tough and you've been talking very tough ever since, in Switzerland and again today. One, what changed your mind?

And then I have a follow-up question, if I may.

POWELL: It is has been clear from the very beginning — you know, I am one of the principal writers of 1441. And for better or worse, I can take some credit for having been one of its champions as we drove it through the United Nations Security Council process for a period of seven and a half weeks.

And we always insisted on three elements to that. One, Iraq is in material breach. Two, this is their last chance; there have to be serious consequences, and those serious consequences might be use of force. And you've heard me say that repeatedly, repeatedly. And I've also said that if the international community, through the U.N., when the time comes, does not wish to use force, the United States reserves its right, as a sovereign nation, to make a judgment, within this clear record of violation, to use force alongside like-minded nations who might wish to be part of such a coalition.

So I have been consistent throughout this entire process.

And as I've watched the process unfold, I have watched Iraq go by every exit ramp — diplomatic exit ramp that was put there for them. They could have made a full, complete and accurate declaration in December, which would have given us some confidence that they were serious about disarmament. Instead, they gave us 12,200 pages of nothing very useful.

The inspectors said that today. There was nothing new. They added nothing to the body of knowledge. They tried to deceive the inspectors, they tried to deceive us. One ramp gone by.

We have watched subsequently as they have kept our reconnaissance planes from doing the work that could be helpful to the inspectors. They have done all of the things that I have described and you have heard other of my colleagues describe — Deputy Secretary Armitage, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz — last week.

And so we are getting closer and closer to the point where the Security Council is going to have to look at the options that it anticipated it would have to look at when 1441 was originally passed.

And so hang any label you want on me. I'm a great believer in diplomacy and a great believer in finding a peaceful solution. But I also recognize that when somebody will not accept a peaceful solution by doing their part of creating a peaceful solution, one must never rule out the use of force to implement the will of the international community, but more importantly to protect our people and to protect the world.

Q: Whether it's a few weeks or it's a month, what do you think of the idea of one final deadline, one final exit ramp for Iraq to answer the questions that you laid out at this conference?

POWELL: Iraq could answer this this afternoon, if it chose to. Rather, the Iraqi foreign minister spent his time calling me a liar.

I'll stick with what I said earlier. We will have our discussions and consultations this week, and then we will announce next steps at an appropriate time.

Q: Regarding the Wednesday debate of the Security Council, what are the objectives of your delegation going to be going into the debate?

POWELL: It's a consultation, really, and it began to some extent this afternoon. But our delegation, Ambassador Negroponte and I think the other delegations, will be putting questions to the inspectors.

We have a number of issues that we want to raise with the inspectors that perhaps might indicate areas they want to look in and give us answers to questions we have about the work they've done so far.

That is really the purpose of these consultations. These consultations this week are not for the purpose of determining what the next steps should be. I think we'll need more work and heads of state and government talking to one another, and foreign ministers talking with each other, before one would make a judgment as to what those next steps should be.

So I think this is an opportunity for the 15 members of the council to learn more about what the inspectors have found out.

Keep in mind there are new members on the council, there's been some changeover since 1441 was passed, and it gives these new elected members an opportunity to learn more about the process, about the spirit and intent of 1441, and to ask questions of Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei.

Q: The Germans are calling — as the president next month, are calling for another report on February 14th. Do you think this is just a waste of time? Do you think it's another delaying tactic by the Germans, by the French to say that they're not ready to make a decision?

POWELL: I wouldn't characterize it that way.

It was always part of the process that Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei would report on a regular basis to the council. They reported in early December. They were there not too long ago. 27 January was the first report really required directly by 1441, and I think it's quite appropriate for the new president of the council — Germany, it takes over on the first of February — to call for reports as the presidency or other members of the council see fit.

But what we can't do is just keep kicking the can down the road in the absence of a change in policy and attitude, and go from passive to more than active cooperation — not cooperation alone, but a demonstrated willingness on the part of Iraq to participate in the disarmament and not try to frustrate the disarmament effort.

Q: Secretary Powell, as impassioned as you are, and as adamant as you are that you see in the inspectors' report examples of Iraqi noncompliance, many of your colleagues on the Security Council feel equally as strong that there are cases of compliance. The French, the Germans, the Russians have all come out today saying that they think the inspectors should be given more time.

How are you and the president planning to convince your colleagues and dissuade them — persuade them to ...

POWELL: What we're going to do is consult with our colleagues. And I'm sure that the president will be talking to leaders of all these countries, and I'll be talking to the ministers.

We will consult, just as we did when 1441 was put together in the first instance, and try to come to a collective judgment as to what should be the next steps. And as I say for about the fifth time, in due course those next steps will be announced.

Yes, there are disagreements. There are some who are satisfied with passive cooperation at this point.

Passive cooperation is not what 1441 was all about. Dr. Blix, it seems to me, made it rather clear today that he is not getting the kind of cooperation, and Iraq has not made the fundamental choice it has to make that it is going to be disarmed.

Thank you.

[codeorama]

Again, I'm definately not saying that I am totally against war, I would just like to know why. I'm not into blindly believing politicians. Knowing what you do now, if you could go back in time, would you support Vietnam? (it's apples and oranges, but it's still about americans going off to die)

9/11 is no comparison in my opinion. That was a terrorist attack, not an attack by any one nation like Pearl Harbor was. I doubt very seriously that there were many anti war protestors after Pearl Harbor. It was clearly Japan that attacked us. Bin Laden is not a represenative on anyone nation, and besides that, he has never even publically came out and said "I did it". Sure, we pretty much know he did, but we have known he was a terrorist for quite some time.. And no, I was not one of those people who was crying out after 9/11 about why we didn't do something beforehand... it was a cowardly act done by men who hide themselves. It could happen again tomorrow. But it's not the same as the situation with Iraq, yet... I agree, maybe there are things that we as the public don't know, but from what I read in the paper today, Maybe we will know tonight in the SotU address. I'm not going to sit here and say that I will still be against war if we are presented with good evidence. If I had a son going off to war, I'd at least like to know what he may die for.

I don't agree with the UN in principal. It seems like they use the US and it's military when they want and so on... I don't think they stand for our best interest.

I still however feel that the entire thing with Iraq is more about oil than anything else. Some have said that the US has their own oil and we don't rely on theirs...... hmmm, if that's true, than why are gas prices affected by what's going on in the middle east? IF we truly have our own, than it shouldn't affect us.

Bottom line for me.. I hope that the public is informed of what's really going on so that if we do go to war, at least the majority of people understand what it's for and can support it. We don't need a nation divided with anti war protests and hidden agendas.

I know that as the public, there are certain things that we can't know, but you would hope that if the evidence was show to members of both parties, that they would both support action if that's what was necessary. If the Dems didn't support action even though just cause was shown... than they suck.

[fansince62]

code....there has been evidence since at least the 70s about terrorism and nation state sponsors.....this is not something that just materialized. some of the actors have changed, but the problem and the threat has been around for a long time.

[redman]

The Iraq issue to me boils down to two issues so related that they must be considered one and the same: 1) we must ensure that Iraq no longer has WMD's, and 2) that they do not build them in the future. The second factor necessarily means to me that Saddam and his regime must be removed (which is why mere exile is inadequte). At this point, there is simply no reasonable alternative for us to achieve these goals than to forcibly go in and destroy the regime and its weapons. We've waited 12 years, and have not only not had any real cooperation from the regime, but can only conclude that despite "complying" with the various UN resolutions over the years, they've actually been aggressively furthering their WMD programs and their related delivery systems.

Originally posted by codeorama

Bin Laden is not a represenative on anyone nation, and besides that, he has never even publically came out and said "I did it".

I disagree with the spirit of this statement, even if it literally is true. Bin Laden and al Qaeda are not "Iraqi agents", however they are willing partners with the Iraqi's from time to time when it suits them.

Al Qaeda does not exist in a vacuum. They are supported by certain regimes, including (I believe) many in the Saudi royal family who are otherwise our traditional allies. To the extent that those regimes do this, they are justifiably inviting an attack from us that would destroy their support and protection of terrorism.

Iraq has traditionally supported terrorism. It was reported in the last 24 hours that they have supplied chemical weapons know-how to al Qaeda, and that they'd allowed an high-ranking al Qaeda operative in recent months to freely travel to Baghdad to receive medical treatment. Even if the Iraqi's had no direct link to 9/11, they may justifiably be said to be actively supporting our terrorist enemies in the Islamic world.

Fundamentally, the ties between Iraq and terrorism are secondary to me, and merely highlight the different ways in which Iraqi WMD's might visit evil upon our country. The basic fact is that after a dozen years of attempted cooperation on the issue, an intransigent regime who has demonstrated a willingness to utilize WMD's to achieve their political and military goals remains in place and continues to aggressively further their WMD-related programs.

[codeorama]

Redman, I agree with your assesment of my quote, what I was trying to get across is the difference in the general public's eyes between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. There is not a clearly defined enemy that is a direct threat to the US.

that's all I was saying.

Generally speaking, I would venture to say that the nation as a whole won't be 100% behind war unless we were attacked... (I'm not saying I feel that way, I just think we should be in it together with other nations rather than the US vs. Iraq)

There have long been conspiracy theories about WWII and FDR knowing about a pending Japaneese attack on Pearl Harbor, but that he felt the tragedy was needed to gain national support. Whether it's true or not is debateable, but the fact is, there are those schollarly people out there that have put forth a good case that it was true.