Either Bush/Blair know iraq does’nt have any weapons or they know damn well that the serial niumbers of the iraq weapons will match our own military databases..
Daschle: Bush Must Prove Iraq Arms Claim
and sadly Bush address won’t include Iraq evidence sigh
such bummer !! i sure had my hopes high on that one..
well atleast for the time being brits have a ‘hand written’ letter that proves iraq has nukes..
:yukh:
There is no evidence. He will bomb the hell out them and for all its worth, the world will ask for the evidence and we will be ignored. This man is EVIL in himself. Not to say the S.Hussein isn't, but bush is more dangerous right now.
I will run naked through the streets of Memphis Tennessee, USA if he presents any real evidence. No problem...aint gonna happen!
Isn't it beautiful how juntas can create such policies based on the blatant stupidity and laziness of [the majority of] the people and then be allowed to enact them?
It never happened against Afghanistan and it will never happen against Iraq either. There is no proof and there will be non since they exactly know who provided them the know how and the weapons for building wmds. Starting from italy to germany til the so peace loving government of US. But Rumsefeld already said he doesn't believe they ever provided weapons or know how to IRAQ, who will listen then?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NotMT: *
I will run naked through the streets of Memphis Tennessee, USA if he presents any real evidence. No problem...aint gonna happen!
[/QUOTE]
Better start dis-robing
Proof if proof was needed,that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
Feb 5th Powell will adress the UN and lay out the reasons why Iraq needs to be brought into line,thats what i heard,now i will wait and see if it happens and what he says.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shopbrat: *
Better start dis-robing
[/QUOTE]
No need....sure didn't see any proof last night.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NotMT: *
No need....sure didn't see any proof last night.
[/QUOTE]
Bush says that Powell is going to the UN on the 5th. Feb. to lay out what proof that they have from intelligence sources etc.
What does that actually mean to you MT?
To me that means that Powell is going the the U.N on the 5th.to tell the rest of the world what you are asking to know.Now if Bush wants Powell to do it on the 5th.why would he tell us last night?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
Proof if proof was needed,that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
Feb 5th Powell will adress the UN and lay out the reasons why Iraq needs to be brought into line,thats what i heard,now i will wait and see if it happens and what he says.
[/QUOTE]
I'll tell you what their response be:
Saddam is a liar, he is Evil. We need to get rid of this dictatorship...blah blah..some allegations...blah blah...allegation 2...blah blah...allegation3.....and the count will go on and on and on.
Its great to see that you are waiting for this proof with such an open mind Ali R.
There are those who won't believe any evidence that the U.S. or Britain produces, after all there are those who still believe Bin Laden had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. It's an extreme position that should be ignored.
question...if and when the proof is made public, will everyone asking for proof be a banner waving supporter of war? just want to know. Or will there be a new reason then which will dominate the anti-war arguments?
Here's the problem with you anti-Bush folks. The UN Security Council, the weapons inspectors and the rest of the world did not send the inspectors into Iraq to hunt for WMD. They sent them there to oversee the voluntary disarmament of Iraq.
The inspectors have clearly reported that Iraq just doesn't seem to get it. They are frustrated. The Russians have commented upon the Iraqi intransigence following Blix's report and have said their patience is wearing thin.
The Iraqis don't get it nor do you anti-Bushies.
The type of evidence the US will show is evidence of Iraqi cover-up, not stashes of weapons. Non-believers will think those trucks leaving compounds and sites just ahead of the arrival of UN inspectors are simply delivering powdered milk to sick Iraqi infants.
Regardless of the rhetoric, Iraq's neighbors certainly still believe he has WMD or they wouldn't be so worried about him using them in the coming military conflict and getting gas masks delivered to their citizens. I seriously doubt the US would be vacinating all its troops in the Gulf and issuing them multiple uniforms to protect them against bio and chemical attack if the government and military planners didn't believe Iraq possessed and might use such weapons. And I seriously doubt Saddam would be importing vaccines and equiping his own soldiers with protective gear and clothing unless he had bio and chemical weapons. No one of sound mind can actually believe the drivel coming out of some mouths that Saddam is worried about a bio or chemical attack by US or UK troops. With all its high tech weaponsry, the US doesn't need to drop mustard gas on Iraqi troops or let loose the small pox virus to defeat Iraq.
Playing hide-and-seek with Saddam, Mark Steel
The Independent, 23 January 2003
Since Iraq says it doesn't have any WMD, and all were destroyed circa 1991 and 1998... what kinda evidence does it need to provide? How do you prove something does not exist? All the empty buildings are still there, and the Inspectors are going around verifying this very thing. All they find are empty cases of warheads, and no warheads, which just goes to show there ain't anything.
Now, thats not conclusive.
If US says "We know it has WMD", then the onus is on them to show satellite imagery or other evidence clearly showing presence of WMD in Iraq. Shrugging this off by saying "We will show at an appropriate time" or "it will compromise our sources" just doesn't cut it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Since Iraq says it doesn't have any WMD, and all were destroyed circa 1991 and 1998... what kinda evidence does it need to provide?
[/QUOTE]
Uhhhh..... how about credible evidence of the alleged destruction. Perhaps they could provide information and evidence of where, when and how 30,000 chemical weapons artillery shells and delivery missiles were destroyed. Do you think mustard gas, nerve agents, anthrax, mobile weapons labs and chemical weapons warheads are just haphazardly tossed into a garbage dump and burned along with all records and evidence of their existence and their destruction?
The only thing Iraq has done is said "Yeah we had them but we don't have them anymore. Trust us." Bottom line is that Iraq cannot substantiate its claim of destruction and all of that cr*p is unaccounted for. 108 people, or 208 or 1008 cannot be expected to comb every square foot of every cave, bunker, basement, building, school, hospital, home, etc. in Iraq to verify that Iraq has no WMD. This is especially true under circumstances where it appears as if important documents and evidence is moved from location to location before and after the inspections.
Faisal :k: Great reply.
If you take the word of Saddam as truth you are a fool.
I agree with Fraudz. The question is, if the proof was provided, would that be a good enough reason to bomb the hell out of Iraq? Is that a good enough reason to kill innocent civilians, children and women???
we all know that if war starts, there will be a lot more civilian casualities than 1990? Gulf war. If Saddam has weapons, why are the people of Iraq being punished for, for the last decade.
Now someone might say that, since people of Iraq aren't kicking Saddam out, some external force has to do it. Iraqi's do't have the power to kick Saddam out. They tried in 1991 after Bush senior's urged them to "rise against their government", abt 300000 Iraqis died and nobody came to help them.
I dont' think War is the answer, but than again, Saddam will always remain where he is untill he is forced.
All i know that, America itself doens't have any right (Al-Qaida or no Al-Qaida) to invade a country. Even UN doenst' have the right to attack a country.
Shahzadqu:
I don’t think Fraudia voiced an opinion that you could agree or disagree with. He asked a question. His question was that if proof was presented, would those asking for the proof now change their mind and support a war.
You state: “we all know that if war starts, there will be a lot more civilian casualities than 1990?”
I’ve got to ask, how do we all know that? IMO, it is only if Saddam unleashes a scorched earth policy in defeat and unleashes the bio and chemical weapons that naysayers say he doesn’t have on his own people that more civilian casualties will result. It is only if Saddam burns his oil fields and poisons water supplies that more civilians must necessarily die. As Bush said last night, the enemy of the Iraqi people is not the forces surrounding them.
In listening to Bush’s speech last night, it seemed to me that he was not making a case that we had the RIGHT to disarm Saddam. What he seemed to be saying is that we had the DUTY to do so. And that DUTY was owed to the American people, Iraq’s neighbors, freedom loving people in general and future generations. There is an important distinction between RIGHTS and DUTIES. A RIGHT is something you have that you may choose to exercise or not exercise. A DUTY, on the other hand, is something that you are obligated and required to perform.