Ok who is still foolish enough to oppose war with Iraq after the case laid out in the State of the Union. I think he made a pretty good case for war now, and he promised more evidence to come on Feb. 5. Be ready for it.

Unfourtunatly, the people against the war don't watch the State of the Union Address so let me give you a preview of the evidence: Specifically, Bush said Saddam has not accounted for up to 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulism toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons.

What do you all think about this??


"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

quote:

Originally posted by tigercats12:
boy there are many people here that just don't get it... i have heard a lot of BS in some of these posts.. like the fact that bush secretly owns the federal land.. yeah ok..??... also who is this mysterious friend that has "seen" these deeds that professional investigators have not been able to find in years? cia? sure what ever...

iraq is in violation of several resolutions.. period... they have also helped terrorist groups with connections to bin laden.. another fact..

they have sworn that they don't have ANYTHING yet some how they keep remembering" oh yeah we do have some of that here that we "forgot" about but that is all of it.. then they "remember" a little more... can you say liars?

"Why to come up with far-fetched and baseless assumptions on Irak giving help to Al Qaeda? "

first it is iraq.. and second because they are true and very provable...

"What I don't see in any of this is convincing evidence that Iraq would ever use any of its weapons. "

well they ionvaded their neighbor and they have used them in the past... and have threatened to use them again.. funny if they don't have any like they say, how could they contemplate using them?
"Why cant we find a solution to recover the hazardous materials from Iraq by continuing the inspection"
because that apparently hasn't and won't work

"think that he should talk to Saddam first and get it together."

umm, your kidding right?

"They didn't "possess" them in any way that violates 1441."

yes they did, they were not destroyed.. also they still have much unaccounted for even after this new "find"..

"Iraq proactively looked for them"

sure believe that cr*p if you want too.. it just seems to me that there are some people here that really have no clue about what is going on with this.

I was so impressed with your post, I thought it appropriate for it to be on here twice, you absolutely nailed all that I wanted to say.

ok, this seems like a good website and all but its just so annoying when adults try way too hard to be teenagers phrases like, "Iraq's being shady." What is up with that? We're teenagers, not stupid, there is no need to try to dumb down the facts for us with ridiculus slang. thanks.

boy there are many people here that just don't get it... i have heard a lot of BS in some of these posts.. like the fact that bush secretly owns the federal land.. yeah ok..??... also who is this mysterious friend that has "seen" these deeds that professional investigators have not been able to find in years? cia? sure what ever...

iraq is in violation of several resolutions.. period... they have also helped terrorist groups with connections to bin laden.. another fact..

they have sworn that they don't have ANYTHING yet some how they keep remembering" oh yeah we do have some of that here that we "forgot" about but that is all of it.. then they "remember" a little more... can you say liars?

"Why to come up with far-fetched and baseless assumptions on Irak giving help to Al Qaeda? "

first it is iraq.. and second because they are true and very provable...

"What I don't see in any of this is convincing evidence that Iraq would ever use any of its weapons. "

well they ionvaded their neighbor and they have used them in the past... and have threatened to use them again.. funny if they don't have any like they say, how could they contemplate using them?
"Why cant we find a solution to recover the hazardous materials from Iraq by continuing the inspection"
because that apparently hasn't and won't work

"think that he should talk to Saddam first and get it together."

umm, your kidding right?

"They didn't "possess" them in any way that violates 1441."

yes they did, they were not destroyed.. also they still have much unaccounted for even after this new "find"..

"Iraq proactively looked for them"

sure believe that cr*p if you want too.. it just seems to me that there are some people here that really have no clue about what is going on with this.

They didn't "possess" them in any way that violates 1441. They were buried and not being stored or put to use. Iraq proactively looked for them, dug them up and is now destroying them.

"Baghdad reveals location of nerve agent and anthrax "

Too little too late. Even possesing these agents is in violation of multiple UN resulutions.

Wether or not they deystroy these agents is irrelevant because they have played that game before.

Iraq Releases Location of Chem/Bio-Weapons

March 03, 2003

Baghdad reveals location of nerve agent and anthrax

It also threatens to halt destruction of missiles, which it began on Saturday, if Washington signals that it will attack

BAGHDAD - Ongoing excavations have uncovered important quantities of anthrax and VX nerve agent, Iraqi presidential adviser Amer al-Saadi said yesterday.

United Nations inspectors have been seeking clarification of the whereabouts of such deadly agents for years.

Mr Saadi said excavations at the al-Aziziya air base, 104 km south-west of Baghdad, had uncovered nearly all bomb fragments filled with tonnes of toxic agents which Iraq insists it destroyed unilaterally in 1991.

He said that so far Iraq had not quite found all 157 tonnes of anthrax, 'but we are nearing it, there is work in progress', he told a news conference.

The material 'is in a site called al-Hakam, and this is what the meeting this evening is all about', he said, referring to talks between newly-arrived UN biological experts and Iraqi authorities.

He added that 1.5 tonnes of VX still to be accounted for 'was unilaterally destroyed in a dumping site near al-Muthanna State Establishment, and we have made analyses which strongly indicate that the total material was destroyed there'.

Previously, Iraqi officials had offered to hold talks with UN inspectors on VX and anthrax stocks that it says it has destroyed, in what seemed a new move to head off Washington's threat of military action.

Mr Saadi also indicated that Baghdad could cut off its destruction of banned Al-Samoud 2 missiles if the United States signals it will attack.

'If it turns out at an early stage during this month that America is not going a legal way, then why should we continue?' he asked.

Iraq complied with an order from UN weapons inspectors and began to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missile program on Saturday.

It destroyed four missiles Saturday and another six yesterday.

Meanwhile, US defence officials said they could quickly adjust their war plans after the Turkish Parliament dealt a severe blow to American plans by refusing to grant US troops access to the country's bases for a possible invasion.

'US military planners make their living by planning for contingencies,' a senior US defence official said. 'Our plans are flexible enough to meet any change.'

Though far from ideal, a strong option would be to insert thousands of troops into northern Iraq aboard air force cargo planes landing on existing primitive airstrips or highways, analysts say.

But the officials still held out hope that Turkey would come around, and have asked the Nato ally for 'clarification' after the Parliament first appeared to pass and then to reject Washington's request. - Reuters, AP, AFP

Whether there is war or whether the president wins this war without firing one shot, we are in the Middle East to say.

We have even built barracks there. "Hello Iraq!" So the people there don't want us there? Well so . . . we are aren't we? And no one, no country, has asked us to leave.

Personally I think we should have gone to war a long time ago and gotten this whole thing over with. I think that eveyone is reading way too much into this. Iraq is dangerous to the safety of the United States. They have weapons capable of mass destruction. Why are we waiting? There is a lot of support behind Bush and going to war. The media just plays up those who are against it. I feel sorry for the people who are going over to the Middle East to protect all those poor people because more than likely their government will blow them up or take them as a bargaining tool or something. The longer we wait the more complicated this is going to get. It should just be done already! There is only a very slim chance that war is going to be avoidable at this point, so why don't we just get it over with?

I still do not think we should go to war. I think that he should talk to Saddam first and get it together. War should be the last resort because killing people is not the answer.

I consider myself to be a peace loving hippie freak in most cases. In this case however, I say we should go over there and kick some butt. I know I am a hypocrite, but I'm sorry, when Powell presents document on document proving the fact that Iraq is shady, and the U.N. still isn't believing it or whatever, I say we need to do something on our own. Obviously the U.N. security council consists of a bunch of idiots, who can't see that either way, we're gonna have to fight Iraq. We either do it now, or wait until Saddam gets us. And a question for France and Germany....when Saddam starts using his weapons on your country...who are you going to ask for help? History shows it will be the U.S. who comes in to save your butts.

Again, my issue is not with Iraq's having WMDs...it's whether we'll manage to make the lives of those living in the region better by going to war.

I watched the state of the Union, and the end of War our outcome will not be Peace and Unity. Why cant we find a solution to recover the hazardous materials from Iraq by continuing the inspection, If we recover it properly then there would have to be no war but if we start a war and we did not recover this hazardous material they will just use it against us as anger. If we go to war what about all the innocent women and children caught in the crossfire, what kind of example are we setting. If we go to war we are not saving a child we are loosing a child, what about all the parents who kids are going off to war and do not make through this war then we are not saving there children.
Save one child
let one child dreams come true
save one child
the One child who was not invovled with terrorism
Save one child from the Crossfire
then we would be saving the Children
lets not let any child in iraq or any country be caught in the crossfire.
Because we want to save the children

Antiflagfreak I am confused did you mean we should go to war or we shouldnot?

I believe we as Americans should war with Iraq. We should not be in war with any country anyways, we are America not a country that fights all the time. We should be a neutral country and not fight with such terroristic anarchy!!! We are a democracy so America you should show it!!! And Iraq you should so how lovable your ppl are. We are ppl not bomb masters!!! Peace love Unity

i don't believe that america isn't going into war with iraq, bnot due to the oil, it's basically about the oil, the excuse is the weapons thing.

Why do you think america went to 'war' so they can have Kosovo so badly?

America in my opinion is more than a bully, didn't they train a terrorist [Osama Bin Laden] to kill people, u know to kill another human being?

The simple posession/presence of weapons is not sufficient evidence for war in Iraq- at least not for me. In that case, why doesn't Bolivia attack the United States, which possesses 10 times more weaponry than anything Iraq could unleash? What I don't see in any of this is convincing evidence that Iraq would ever use any of its weapons. I understand that Iraq's weapons are in direct violation of U. N. policies. In that case, 1: where does it say that the punishment for the violation is to engage in war with Iraq, and 2: the impending war is likewise in violation.

Only foolish enough to stop an international holocaust, foolish enough to stop this useless homesteading attitude of the USA towards anything else that is human and is sick and tired of being the victim of false testimony emanating from an ignorant, senseless and bigoting president; of corruption and oil scandals that is.

Why to come up with far-fetched and baseless assumptions on Irak giving help to Al Qaeda? Is it because his previous lies and foolhardy evidence on Irak having weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by weapons of mass facts and truth?

Besides, his state of the union was nothing more but another marvellous display of lies and baseless assumptions that can only seem real to an ignorant if the Sep. 11 incidents are exploited for selfish goals.

The empty warheads found not long ago: Most would think empty = good...no bad stuff. The warheads are filled with the agent right before launch.

Iraq cannot and will not get nuclear capabilities.

Iraq poses no threat to us. Their missiles will not be able to hit the US mainland. Only a few will be able to hit Alaska (maybe).

North Korea is a bigger threat to U.S. National Security than Iraq.

I DID watch the Union address, and I still appose to war. what will it solve?! explain this to me.