Iraq poses no viable threat to American citizens. The spotlight of Iraq by the Bush administration is merely a diversionary tactic to avoid real domestic problems like the economy. Even if Iraq has nuclear weapons(he has had chemical and biological weapons since the 80s while backed by the U.S.)does he pose a threat? He cannot gain anything from attacking the U.S. except for his guaranteed removal. He is a brutal dictator, but he is not a fool. Hussein knows his country's state, he will not launch weapons of mass destruction unless he believes he will be swept from power any way. The Bush administration has done a great job of declaring that Saddamm must be removed no matter what he does. If Hussein has no incentive to cooperate with the UN or the US than the recipe for a nuclear or biological weapon launched at Israel, one of his neighbors, and possibly the U.S. is created. The true motives for the looming attack on Iraq are obvious. OIL, is the reason for American interest in the Near East (Middle) period. The belief that we are "liberating" the people of Iraq is merely a ploy to influence Americans through their conscience to justify an attack. If the U.S. was really interested in the Iraqi people the history shows other wise. War with Iraq is only modern imperialism, and will cause more hatred for the U.S. and increase the risk of another terrorist attack.

I just want to throw something out there that I have heard as an arguement against what you are saying about North Korea. First off, the Clinton Administration gave North Korea millions of dollars to disarm...so North Korea might just be trying to get more money by threatening the U.S. The other arguement against dealing with North Korea is the fact that maybe North Korea will see that if they don't disarm we will go in there and kick their butts. North Korea might see that if they do not disarm they will be like Saddam. Anyway its just one of the arguements for dealing w/ Iraq first. I agree w/ these ideas and another one. This one is that it this is part of pre-emption. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction but he doesn't have the technology to hurt us from there, but that is the point. Get rid of him before he can. Anyway that's my opinion.

Well, I think you just proved my point, with listing all of the wars and battles that Iraq has gotten into over the many, many years. Though, I think you also missed my point, when I said I don't think Iraq is an immient threat, that's what I meant. I still think Iraq and Hussien are a big threat to the United States, I just don't feel that they are priority. North Korea, maybe is immient, [it does have missles that reach the coast of Californa, Iraq doesn't].

quote:

---

If history as showed us anything it's that Iraq, and it's awful leader, Hussien, are a threat to the surrounding areas in the Middle East. Remember when Iraq attacked Kuwait

---

Err lets not forget the 8 year war with Iran!!! Shooting missles into Saudi Arabi, Turkey and I think even Jordan....ehhhm "NOT A THREAT"

Your right in saying that Iraq is no imminent threat to the USA, I believe so too. But, you are completely wrong in saying that Iraq is no threat to it's neighbors, and you even used the old line, "if history has showed us..." Well, sir [or mam, for that matter] you're wrong. If history as showed us anything it's that Iraq, and it's awful leader, Hussien, are a threat to the surrounding areas in the Middle East. Remember when Iraq attacked Kuwait, I'm mean, hello! Not a threat, that's a joke. Plus, on top of being a threat to other countries, he is more of a threat to his own Iraqi people, who, as we know [and the world knows] he has used Chemical and Biological Weapons on them, and wiped out many. And I believe, as do many Americans, that since America is the richest and most powerful[-est] country in the world it is our obligation to help those in need, and the Iraqi people are in need. I'm all for peace. But after waiting for ten to twelve years, passing many, many a resolutions, peace has a limit, and because of Hussien [and his Russian, Chinese, German, and French (all of whom we've beaten in wars) supporters] the time for peace is gone and the time for action is now.

Hmm...whoever started this board...forget your name...you sound so sure but offered no proff. I didn't read through the rest of the pointless rambling on here, so maybe you mentioned something and I just didn't read it. But who are you to say if Iraq is bad or not in the first place? Do you know everything about Iraq and it's standings? Do you believe everything you hear? Do you honeestly think that the media, the books, the encyclopedias whatever know everything? Intelligence can't tell the whole world what they know.

This thread is pointless. We're already in the war anyways, no backing out now. What is needed right now is support so the country can get through the war.


Btw...If saddam isn't a fool then why does he neglect to care for the rest of his country?

I am not pro war. I do not think anyone is 100 percent pro war. But I do support the war in Iraq. I think it is the US's responsibility as one of the best nations in the world to protect others and make sure no one is abused or treated inhumanely by their government or leader. So I think we need to go to war and liberate the people of Iraq. I do not want civilian casualties though. As the daughter of a 20 year veteran of the Green Berets, US Army Special Forces, I know that in all wars some civilians will probably die. That does not make it right. I just hope that very few get hurt and we can rid the world of a terrorizing leader like Saddam as soon as possible.

First off, I would like to say that this war is a diplomatic tragedy. If the French and others had put pressure on Saddam, this war could have been completely avoided and the inspections could have been successful instead of the shams they were. But, instead the French and others indulged in what was ironically far more unilateral than what they accused america of doing. Perhaps we can shift the blame of this further to the Carter adminstration, which mishandled Iran and forced american depedence on Iraq to do our dirty work with the Iranians. The Iraqis of course manipulated the government and ended up merely another rogue state in the world's most theocratic and dictatorial region. Bush I and Clinton of course are equally to blame in this, due to their short-sided foreign policies, but I degress.

With that said, I can say to you emperor bush that your statement that the United States has no business disarming Saddam is utter nonsense. Saddam agreed to disarm, but evaded and lied to the world for the next twelve years. He then proceeded to get bombed by Clinton (in yet another one of that president's failed wars and military actions) and caused the starvation and oppression of countless Iraqis. Why do we have WMDS while the Iraqis aren't allowed to? Because the Iraqi government is a vicious third world totalitarian state that assured the world that it would not pursue re-armement. Guess what, emperor? They lied, and they taunted the free world with endless fake negotiations and blatant violations of international law.

You insist that this war is for oil still. Why is that, Emperor? Lets examine the facts:

1) The United States does NOT depend on Iraqi oil for its petroleum needs. Currently under the UN food for oil program US companies are purchasing 100,000-200,000 bbd of the 2,000,000 bbd the Iraqi government is allowed to sell. US oil companies have NEVER bought Iraqi oil directly from the Iraqi government. The Iraqi oil purchased normally goes through an oil broker, often one of the Russian oil brokerage companies.

2) The US imports less than 20% of its imported oil use from the Middle East. Primarily that oil is supplied by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Sources of American oil by amount and chart:

3) An estimated 30% of Iraqi oil is sold initially to Russian firms (i.e., Emerkom, Kalymneftegas, Machinoimport, Rosnefteimpex, Sidanco, Slavneft, Soyuzneftegaz, Tatneft, and Zarubzhneft). The remaining 70% of Iraq's oil is first purchased by companies from many countries, including Cyprus, Sudan, Pakistan, China, Vietnam, Egypt, Italy, Ukraine, and others. Iraqi oil is normally then resold to a variety of oil companies and middlemen before being purchased by end users.

4) US purchases of Iraqi sourced oil was used primarily for foreign aid. Little if any was processed in the US. The bulk of the oil was for countries in Asia requiring US foreign energy assistance. Energy assistance nations include North Korea, the Philippines, and several South Asian nations.

5) US refineries are not optimized to refine Iraqi oil. Iraqi oil reserves vary widely in quality, with API gravities in the 24o to 42o range. Iraq's main export crudes come from the country's two largest active fields: Rumaila and Kirkuk. The southern Rumaila field produces three streams: Basra Regular (normally 34o API, 2.1% sulfur, but apparently deteriorating); Basra Medium (30o API, 2.6% sulfur); and Basra Heavy (22o-24o API, 3.4% sulfur). The northern Kirkuk field, first discovered in 1927, normally produces 37o API, 2% sulfur crude, although the API gravity reportedly has fallen in recent years. An additional export crude, known as "Fao Blend," is heavier and more sour, with a 27o API and 2.9% sulfur.

6) Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during the first nine months of 2002 were Canada (1.9 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.5 MMBD), Mexico (1.5 MMBD), and Venezuela (1.4 MMBD).

7) Iraq’s oil supply is NOT vital to global energy supplies. While Iraq has the world’s second largest “known” petroleum reserves it does not export enough to be a major player. Removing Iraq’s oil exports will not hurt the global economy. This was proven in 1990-91 when Iraqi oil exports were cut off during their invasion of Kuwait. It was proven again after the war when Iraqi oil was sanctioned by the UN for several months. It was proven yet again in 1999 when Iraq cut off its oil exports in protest to UN actions.

8.) Iraq DOES have the ability to threaten global energy supplies. Their WMD capability threatens energy supplies from other Middle Eastern nations. The use of a bio, chemical, or nuclear weapon against a oil field, refinery, pipeline, port facility will have global and long term affects on the global economy.

9) The use of WMDs on an oil facility will result in long term clean up and maybe months to years to return production to acceptable levels.

10) The use of WMDs on these facilities will cause global insecurity concerning energy supplies.

11) The use of WMDs against these facilities will cause a MASSIVE increase in global energy prices. This increase isn’t in terms of adding one or two US dollars to the cost of barrel of oil, but we are talking price increase from 500-2000%.

12) The use of WMDs on these supplies will result in a massive global shortage of energy. This will result in the cost of daily life to increase on a proportional matter. Food, clothing, electricity, gas, and transportation costs will increase 500-2000%.
13) That will cause a world wide economic depression that makes the 1930’s look like an economic boom.

14) Unemployment and loss of economic security will be at levels never before witnessed by the modern human race.

15) The US have never taken a nation’s wealth after a nation is defeated in war by the US. Take for example the cases of Germany and Japan during WW2, the US spent billions of dollars to rebuild those nations and did not take reparations.

16) The US will spend billions on rebuilding Iraq, much more than the oil that Iraq can export to the US alone.

17) The US has returned self government to all the nations the US has defeated in War.

1 (Cool) The projected cost of a war against Saddam will cost US taxpayers approximately US$60-80 Billion plus US$20-40 Billion to rebuild Iraq, with a potential total cost of US$80-120 Billion. Anyone who thinks this war is for economic gain needs to go back to school to learn basic math.


19) If we wanted the oil from Iraq, we could have taken it in 1991.

20) If we wanted more oil, we would have been already drilling for it on our own land, despite the fact that a large portion of the same enviornmentalists that still think this is a "war on oil" don't want us to do that either.

21) If we wanted more oil we could simply deal with Saddam himself right now instead of plugging a proposed 120 billion dollars to into dealing with a conflict that will garner us no oil.

I could go on about the economic stupidity of "war for oil" as you and the leftist-rhetoric driven anti-war in this country claim, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. What about Venzuela, Emperor? If this is a war for oil, why do we not attack them when it would for one please our ally Colombia (my mother's country by the way, as well as largest illegal drug supplier). Attacking Venzuela by that logic would be the next step, after all they have oil and we want it? How about Mexico? Or Canada? All these countries have resources, drugs, and immigrants pouring in. Why doesn't the government attack them for oil? Because the government is corrupt and self-serving, but it is not stupid and imperilistic. Besides, even if this war were for some bizzare and stupid reason to be for Oil, wouldn't that be better for EVERYONE? The Iraqis would be a richer democracy, and the rest of the world would get their oil. Even if it were true, it would still be a overwhelmingly positive, if selfish change. By contrast, economically Saddam and a selective few hold power over most of the oil production in Iraq, while one fourth of the population is starving. If you were an Iraqi who was below the poverty line, wouldn't you want to make a profit? Thats what liberated Iraqis will look forward to, whether this war is for oil or not.

Emperor, you say that Iraq shows no danger to america. That may be true, but for how long? Would the Iraqi government, which until this war was able to finance Palestian terrorists, have ever stopped? No, they would have continued to support terror in the middle east, the exact occurrence we are fighting against in this entire "war on terror".

What about your contradictory stance that Saddam poses no threat to the world, but that when provoked he will fire missiles at Isreal and his neighbors? Isn't that what the Bush administration has been warning about, as has Tony Blair and the forty nations in complete support of the United States? Can you imagine the devastation that Saddam could cause with Isreal? How about the Kurds and the other minorities in Iraq if Saddam decides to go full circle and start another holocaust, with scuds and sarin gas this time no less? What do you say then, will a sorry do to the thousands dead and wounded? What about the possibility of the SCUDS being mistaken for real nuclear missiles by Isreal or India and Pakistan (or both)? If so, you should take a look at National Geographic because that will be all you ever see of the middle east again. As I posted earlier, the economic devastation from a attack on the whole middle east's oil fields by Saddam in a fit of insantity or spite would be unmatched.

Empy -

You think that Saddam's neighbors support him? That is absolutely not true. The whole region has been in dread of what that madsaddam might do since about the mid 1980's. They hate him and they are afraid of him. How do I know? My brother was an officer in the Army.

Saudi Arabia paid our military to go into Kuwait and help liberate the Kuwaiti people from Iraq. You think we paid for that? That was one war that the U.S. waged for which we did not have to risk both our young men and women and our money!

What were we doing about it - about the fact that everyone in the Middle East was afraid of what mad saddam would do? We have been preparing in the military for possible military action in the Mididle East ever since Saddam started acting out as a nutcake.

It is diabolically unfathomonable to me as to why our young people think it is all right for madsaddam to act out and attack for more oil ownership, but it is not o.k. for the U.S. to try to help people in the region keep the oil they own.

The Iraqi people own the oil fields, not saddam.

With the largest army in the middle east, the known presence of weapons of mass destruction, the proclaimed goal of destroying Israel and the United States, and a lot of money - you can still be so naive to think that Iraq is not a threat?

I would prefer that we not have a war. Apparently, Sadam prefers that we do. All HE had to do to avert one was step down.

And you blind "peaceniks" have the total stupidity and tamerity to blame our President - when you have absolutely no concept of what is at stake here - and only a fraction of the information that he has had to make his decisions.

Get real!

Has anyone ever heard about what the United States does to people?? We may not gas them but we have kept them in holding areas regulated by the INS without the right to a lawyer or a phone call home. These people were held there and tortured untill they gave information about Sept. 11th, even those who really didnt know anything at all. In fact, MOST of those people knew nothing at all. But we held them their, drove them crazy with sleep deprivation, lack of food, crowded quarters (tens of people in the same small room of a holding area without being allowed to leave, locked up!!!! and yet most American Citizens know nothing about this because OUR MEDIA likes to show us how EVIL our enemies are (hmm.. axis of evil.. mere coincidence?? i think not) and loves to leave out the horrible things we do. even as an american, i WILL NOT STAND BY OUR PRESIDENT. Let him name other countries that have not hurt us and continue to hurt his own people just as badly as they may or may not have done to their people. i just hope he dies a slow painful death so he can feel the pain of the people he has allowed to die in this war. its all on him...

"In a world that has suffered so much death, to kill a human being is surely the gravest sin"

Justice conservative I will give you that oil maybe only a secondary reason.
About Iraq posing no threat and being a domestic political tool.
Is a cynical idea neccesarily wrong? How does Saddam stringing UN and US along prove he is a threat to Americans? And why now? it has been 12 years of inspections, and threats by the US to disarm and Iraq did not comply. Why with a presidential election and ****ty economy is suddenly dire to the continuation of humanity to remove Saddam? My idea is not such a cynical and far fetched one when history shows rulers have used war as a political tool for centuries.


No, he does not pose a threat YET but he will to his neighbors in the near future. It isn't that he's a threat that we're attacking, its that we told him to turn over all potentially devastating weapons to the UN and he did not do so fully. If we warned him that he would be attacked if he didn't give all his weapons and he didn't comply, what choice do we have?

Explain why we have any right to tell Saddam to disarm? I yet to see any proof he threatens American lives. If you say humaniterain mission gives America the right than i would say what about all the people who have died in the last 50 years due to American action(Guetamala,Chile,Afghanistan, IRan, and various others) Or the ppl under dictatorships who we support that brutally opress their ppl (saudi Arabia-Pakistan)
Tell that to the thousands of Iraqis and Kurds he gassed when he was testing his weapons. Saddam is a complete
Tell the Kurds who paid and made those weapons? It was 1988 the kurds were slaughtered, and gues who was Iraq biggest military backer ??? USA

imperialism are typical anti-American lines. Has America enslaved anyone since the 1860s? Did we start any wars? Or take over surrounding countries? No, of course not. That my friend is imperialism, and it was other countries that participated in those actions, not the United States.
I have to go now but I will return late to show all the great AMerican actions of the last 50 that I hve eluded too previuosly.

Emperor, your assertion that we are going to war purely for oil is a cynical, socialist viewpoint that frankly is too simplistic to be the case. There are many reasons for war with Iraq, among them potential harboring of terrorism, protection of Israel, and protection of the region's oil resources (note that oil is only one reason, not the only reason).

Your arguments are ultimately disprove when examined more closely:

"Iraq poses no viable threat to American citizens. The spotlight of Iraq by the Bush administration is merely a diversionary tactic to avoid real domestic problems like the economy."

That is the most cynical stance ever, and to be honest it ignores everything the UN and current administration has been saying. Bush and the UN issued out an ultimatum for Iraq to disarm, or turn over its weapons publicly. So far, only a decree has been issued by Saddam to destroy all weapons of mass destruction, although this was not applied to the government. This is obviously a ploy that was done at the last minute to appease inspectors, while prolonging inspections to avoid war. Why didn't Saddam do this months before when we warned him? Because he's manipulating the world. Bush does not want this war, as it will probably add to his problems, but he issued out an ultimatum and now must carry it out. Saddam is the US right now what a person in debt is to a creditor: We warned him to comply with our demands, he didn't listen and instead prolonged things until the last minute.

"Even if Iraq has nuclear weapons (he has had chemical and biological weapons since the 80s while backed by the U.S.)does he pose a threat? He cannot gain anything from attacking the U.S. except for his guaranteed removal. He is a brutal dictator, but he is not a fool."

No, he does not pose a threat YET but he will to his neighbors in the near future. It isn't that he's a threat that we're attacking, its that we told him to turn over all potentially devastating weapons to the UN and he did not do so fully. If we warned him that he would be attacked if he didn't give all his weapons and he didn't comply, what choice do we have?

"Hussein knows his country's state, he will not launch weapons of mass destruction unless he believes he will be swept from power any way. The Bush administration has done a great job of declaring that Saddamm must be removed no matter what he does."

That's because Saddam is danger to the Arab world or at the very least his own people. He won't launch weapons unless provoked? Tell that to the thousands of Iraqis and Kurds he gassed when he was testing his weapons. Saddam is a complete psychopath who will do whatever he wants, he needs to be replaced.

"If Hussein has no incentive to cooperate with the UN or the US than the recipe for a nuclear or biological weapon launched at Israel, one of his neighbors, and possibly the U.S. is created."

You miss the point: He hasn't cooperated when we warned him he had to. We told him he would be eliminated if he didn't comply, now its time to act on that. Saddam could have saved himself, but he instead chose to manipulate the world into endless inspections while lying to them all the way through.

"The true motives for the looming attack on Iraq are obvious. OIL, is the reason for American interest in the Near East (Middle) period. The belief that we are "liberating" the people of Iraq is merely a ploy to influence Americans through their conscience to justify an attack."

To say that we are going to war for oil is an entirely socialist idea. Iraq is a totalitarian dictatorship harboring terrorists and WMDS, we know that by Osama Bin Laden's recent video tapes and weapons that were found by inspectors (or were "unaccounted for"). We are indeed liberating the Iraqis from one of the most oppressive governments in world history. How would you like to live in a country where prostitutes are beheaded and the government can murder you at anytime? No? Neither do the millions of Iraqis forced to obey their dictatorial government. Besides, have you noticed that the FRENCH and many others have lucrative oil deals with the current Iraqi dictatorship? No? If you did, then I wonder how you could call war entirely for oil? What about the current "peace"? Isn't that being maintained for business reasons?

"If the U.S. was really interested in the Iraqi people the history shows other wise. War with Iraq is only modern imperialism, and will cause more hatred for the U.S. and increase the risk of another terrorist attack."

How does history show otherwise? We allowed Saddam to live so long as he allowed inspections and dismantled his weapons. So far he has:

1. Allowed inspections only when pressured to do so, and to prevent war. (Why now do they want inspections so badly? To buy time!)
2. Left thousands of biological weapons "unaccounted for" and has not shown them to the UN at all.
3. Murdered the Kurds in droves, while unleashing biological weapons on his own people.

When the US says it wants to eliminate Saddam's dictatorship for failing to destroy deadly weapons (or give proof of doing so) after a direct deadline was given, and free people living since 1979 under Saddam's government, how is that imperialism? Your ideas that this is somehow American imperialism are typical anti-American lines. Has America enslaved anyone since the 1860s? Did we start any wars? Or take over surrounding countries? No, of course not. That my friend is imperialism, and it was other countries that participated in those actions, not the United States.

Been a while since I have been to this site so now I guess I will respond.
Most respones are rhetoric and do not deserve a response. But dramaqueen169 how is death for oil a great thing? My god,death for nothing is not some great accomplishment. I agree with you that if we are going to pretend to have an equal society women should be allowed to fight on the front lines.
Irish-You say you were in the army since age 16. How you have to be 18 to serve in the military unless you are including some ROTC program? First of all you describe how horrible Hussein is, which I dont disagree with, but there are, and have been as bad or worse governments that the US did,and does nothing about, even supports.
TO argue war is justified by wrongs of his government is ludicrous. Next, the idea that children will be killed by saddams men more than the US or its allies is not true. Over a half-million children have died since the end of the gulf war due to coalition bombing and embargos.
Disturbed handled the range of missiles, and not being able to reach America.
Ok, lets pretend Saddam has weapons mass desrtuction even nukes. Lets say he poses a threat to his neighbors (who mostly support him) and the Bush administration is right. His weapons could not reach America so really it boils down to american interests. Is oil worth war? I would rather give up some money for a less gas consuming car than lose possible thousands of American lives as well as many other Iraqi lives.

you have a good point. i agree with you completely

The Minute Man III is 59.9' in length, with a 5.5' diameter. The payload, the Mark 12 reentry system, consists of a payload mounting platform, penetration aids, three reentry vehicles (RVs) and an aerodynamic shroud. The shroud protects the RVs during the early phases of flight. The mounting platform is also a "payload bus" and contains a restartable hypergolic rocket engine powered by hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. With this configuration, the RVs can be independently aimed at different targets within the missile's overall target area or "footprint". This concept is known as Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles (MIRV). Maximum range is approximately 6,000 miles.

The PeaceKeeper is 71' in length with a 7'8" diameter. It is equiped with 10 Mk21 re-entry vehicles. The range is approximately 6,830+ miles.



(W87 Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles on payload bus (MK21) for PeaceKeeper)

The W87 combines high yield payload with increased accuracy. Standard yield is 300 Kilotons upgradeable to 475 Kt.


Distance to United Status from Iraq:
5,400 miles (Alaska), 7,800 miles (Mainland)


Now you have to ask yourself, is it possible for Iraq to be developing PeaceKeeper missiles capable of reaching the continental US in secracy (such as the PeaceKeeper with MK21 MIRVs), while all the sites capable of developing such weapons are under inspection by the UN, forcing them to move 70' rockets with 7' diameters out in the open in order to not be caught? While under surveillance by pretty much every intelligence organization and satallite in the world?

Iraq is NOT developing ICBMs that could even think of reaching the continental US. If anything they would work on the B54 or W54 warheads which weigh less than 60 lbs a piece but yield no more than 1 Kt. Even the W54 (used as the warhead for the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon ever designed by the US military, a 155mm recoilless rifle capable of delivering the payload to only 2.49 miles from launch site), which only had a yield of 0.01 Kt, would have an explosive blast equal to four times that of the ammonium nitrate bomb used to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building. Iraqi ICMBs are not a threat to the US, let's make that clear.

One last thing to realize is the fact that the classic scud missle design, and the new IBX-76 nuclear-projectile casings that Iraq holds, have a range of twenty-five thousand miles are can be fitted with any current or near futute nuclear or bio-chemical warheads. Also, the halflife of bio-chemical weapons that are supposedly in the hands of Iraq, such as VX2 posion gas, are well over one-thousand years, so the weapons that Iraq had or currently owns will be good up until the day they are used.

[The U.S. is out of range of ANY missile attacks by Iraq. The self life for thier bio and chem weapons was a while ago. They don't have any nuclear weapons.] [/QUOTE]

I am brother to this Noise member, and I have been in the Army since I was 16, and I have seen more than almost any of you can even imagine. I respect your opinions and beliefs about peace and of not going to war, but I feel I must present my beliefs from my own perspective inside the armed forces. I feel that Iraq truely is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. This has been made obvious by his deceptive speeches, lies, and actions against the United States. If one were to study the video footage of each speech given my Saddam Hussein, one would notice his comfort and joy mildly obscured by the power of his words. One must focus on his body movements and facial expressions while fighting the urge to hear his words. They are the twitches and movements of one that knows they are lying and deceiving others into believing their words are true.
This large collective of weapon-inspectors in Iraq is not a very efficient group. They check an average of five sites every two days. These inspections have never lasted more than three-hours, covering sites with a surplus of over two-hundred buildings on occasion. If anyone is able to claim that twenty-six inspectors could cover two-hundred+, several story buildings in three hours or less and be effective, let them speak now please. I am related to one of the inspectors, and I have been briefed on the situations. This inspector agrees that it is entirely possible for Saddam's military to move weapons and launchers between sites during investigations, and move them back at later times. One can thank the genius U.N. for this fact, since they declare every site they inspect and at which dates/times.
Some have felt the obligation to point out that children will die during the inevitable upcoming war. It is a blatant fact that several hundred children die each day from famine, disease, and war. I recommend that each of you visit Iraq and experience with your own eyes, the attrocities commited by Saddam's armies. I have been stationed outside Abdaly in Kuwait, among other places and I have seen Saddam's "elite guards" massacre masses of innocent civilians, including children in their own borders, just to torment and will the United States military into crossing its own jurisdiction. It is true that children will probably be killed by bombing or random sporadic fire in combat engagements, but the majority will be killed by Saddam's forces, not the opposing forces. Such are the horrors of war. I recommend that you civilians that believe that all of the people of Iraq or its neighboring nations are helpless and innocent, watch the film "Black Hawk Down" and then wonder. The actions depicted in that movie are no where near their true form of terror and horror. Yes, Somalia is not part of the Middle East, but Mohammed Farrah Aidid was Iraqi, and so are the current warlords that rule the territory. So you can imagine what persuasive Iraqi militants can do to entire populations.
Such are the horrors of war that we must enter it, and terminate the threat before it is too late.