The UN DID NOT SAY THAT. IN fact, what they said was that there were numerous WMD's that were unaccounted for.
'Hans Blix, the UN Security Council weapons inspector from 2002-2003, recorded in his reports to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for its possession of the nerve agent VX, 6500 chemical bombs, at least 8500 litres of anthrax, 650kg of bacterial growth media, and 1000 tonnes of chemical agents. And these, he said, were only examples of ``many proscribed weapons and items not accounted for'''
This was the problem. Saddam didn't tell us where they went as he was required to. We knew he had these at one point, and don't know where they went.
See http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951561/posts? page=17
The linked article (whose text is reproduced there) is password-protected.
Also there was the Duelfer report, which was an official investigation - a continuation of David Kay's investigation.
Here are some excerpts from the Duelfer Report:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/War%20Cr it ics%20and%20the%20Duefler%20Report.htm
Basically, while there weren't large-scale factories, there were numerous underground laboratories. In addition, Saddam had always kept his dual-use industrial chemical plants in overcapacity, so he could start creating these weapons on a large scale once the UN left.
The interim report, given by David Kay, also shows Iraq was in possession of numbers of banned weapons. We did not find large caches of WMD's, but we did notice large amounts of truck movement to Syria. Shortly after the war, there was an attempted use of WMD from Syria against the King of Jordan.
Also, the HMX which the press has been giving Bush a hard time about was already starting to disappear in the leadup to the war. The UN had noted that Saddam had been moving it. It seems that Bush came just in time, before more was moved out.
" Actually is quite well know that Saddam didn't fund or train terrorist"
Actually it is VERY well-known that he funded palestinian terrorists. It is fairly well-known that he used the oil-for-food program to fund Al-Qaeda.
"train terrorist"
Actually, it is fairly well-known that they trained all sorts of terrorists at their Salmon-Pak facility. They even had a 747 for use in training to hijack. They were also not direct enemies w/ Al-Qaeda, especially since, as the 9-11 report stated, that they had signed a mutual pact to develop weapons together. Also, Saddam has harbored many terrorists in Baghdad.
Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden:
"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
WTC1: Mohammed Salameh called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Afterwards, Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash.
After leaving Afghanistan, Zarqawi fled to Baghdad and received medical attention in one of their premier hospitals.
Here's some links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ ne ws/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml
This link includes both confirmed and speculated connections of Iraq/Al-Qaeda:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20T er ror.htm
I have more, but I'll leave it at that for now. Note that in the 90's, the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was pretty much a given. Only now that Bush is using Saddam's terror ties as reason for invasion are people backing down.
"want to knock down the barrier between church and state?"
How does that violate the freedom of speech, press, or religion? In fact, preventing religion in public life by public leaders is actually a violation of freedom of religion.
It's freedom _of_ religion not freedom _from_ religion.
"There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others."
Law, by its very nature, is forcing one group of people's beliefs on another.
"Have I been living in the same universe as these guys??? All three pillars involve "peace"? What happened to preemptive war, the axis of evil, not caring what the rest of world think, etc. etc."
Ummm... there was _never_ peace in the axis of evil. The goal is to make it more peaceful.
Can you think of a time when NK, Iran, or Iraq were peaceful?
On the other hand, Germany is peaceful do to our and others' interventions in WWII. Japan is likewise peaceful.
"After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists."
It was already going into the hands of terrorists. In the months leading up to the war, large convoys of trucks were sent across the border to Syria.
In addition, one of the reasons for war is that in Saddam's weapons declarations, a lot of his arsenal just "disappeared" with no explanation. Since we know he has been funding and training terrorists, we feared he was giving it to them.
What this means is that we probably should have acted even sooner. Like the first time the inspectors were thrown out.
"And if they discovered that there were no explosives there so long ago how come it took so long to report it?"
Why was it useful to report? We already knew that Saddam had sents many, many convoys of trucks over the border to Syria in the months before the war. I don't see why this is a national story at all. We know that Iraq was giving weapons to terrorists. One of the reasons we went to war was because a huuge amount of Vx gas just "disappeared" off of his weapons declarations with no explanation. Did he destroy them? Give them to terrorists? Use them? What? He offered no explanation.
Then you have the truck convoys to Syria, and an attempted WMD attack from Syria on Jordan shortly after the war.
It's not that hard to put together the puzzle pieces. We should have acted sooner, but Bush tried to put together a coalition. Eventually, we just had to go in and do the deed. We had already waited too long.
Learn your own history. On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton gave this speech:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
In addition, Clinton bombed a building in the Sudan on the basis that it was a chemical weapons plant funded by Saddam and Al-Qaeda. In addition, the indictment for Osama ben Laden included his close ties with Saddam/Iraq.
Saddam has been a threat to the US for quite some time. On GWB's first day of office he had to authorize combat missions because Iraq was violating airspace agreements. In addition, you should check out the info on Iraq's links to the OKC bombing in the book, The Third Terrorist.
Every month I had to call and get charges reversed for "roaming" even though I neve left the city. They were willing to do it, although, if they can tell that you were in-town when you made the call, WHY CAN'T THEIR BILLING SYSTEM?!?!?!!?
In addition, I've been charged for a very interesting call. I was in the middle of a call to a number, say 555-5555. In the middle of the call, it says that I received a call from the number I was in the middle of talking to. That made me completely not believe any billing information they gave me, especially since our usage was 3x what we expected.
What's frustrating for me is that a few weeks before they first announced this, I, having been COMPLETELY FED UP with Cingular and their terrible, possibly unethical billing practices, I decided to drop them mid-contract and signed up w/ AT&T.
Not quite. Saddam has been involved in a number of terrorist attacks on the US.
* WTC1 - the main guy, Ramzi Youssef, is thought to be w/ Iraqi intelligence, and received his passports from Iraq (he also had a Pakistani passport, which was from a Pakistani national who went missing in Kuwait after Iraq invaded). The one guy who got away went to live in Baghdad living off of Saddam's money.
* OKC - Terry Nichols was trained by Ramzi Youssef in bomb-making in the Phillippines. With McVeigh that day was former Iraqi republican guard member Hussein Al-Hussany. This was attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. Al-Hussany then went to work for Logan National Airport. You can read about this in the book The Third Terrorist by OKC reporter Jayna Davis. Al-Hussany sued her for libel and she won. You can find more info at jaynadavis.com
* The attempted assasination of GHWB in Kuwait
* TWA Flight 800 - not sure if this was Saddam, but this actually was a terrorist attack that Clinton covered up (he wanted to be associated w/ peace and not war, so he covered up anything that might indicate the need to go to war). That this was a terrorist attack has been mentioned by George Stephanopolous and John Kerry.
* WTC2 - Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence a few months before 9/11. In addition, a few months before, Iraq's state paper basically predicted it -- said that Osama would attack America with all of the force of the bedouins, hitting the pentagon, the white house, and New York on "the arm that is already hurting".
Also, many of the other attacks outside our borders seem to have Saddam be quite complicit. He would make a threat, and then a month or two later Osama would strike.
"It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates"
"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits."
"Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but rather through the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibilites."
I disagree with your notion of the connection of labels and lack of debate. I believe that labels are useful because traits usually fall in groups, not singularly. That doesn't mean you _can't_ openly and honestly debate. We just _aren't_.
"Look at the 2000 election. Look at current presidential polls. The country is pretty much evenly split."
True, but the Republicans have a majority in both houses of congress (or did we lose one, I can't remember) AND have the white house. That's a pretty far-right shift. The reason the country is divided is more because the Democrats have done a good job discreditting the president, which you have to admit whether or not you agree with the discreditting.
Here in Oklahoma, there is a bitter fight to prevent any legislation regarding boter identification coming to pass, even though we have a large number of fraudulent voters.
"The overall impact of getting away from the one-party-controls-all system we have at the moment will be a move back toward the center, where all the good compromising gets done. "
Actually, right now the Republican party _has_ been pulled to the center. The democratic party of JFK is actually a little to the right of mainstream Republicans.
Those of us on the right have been feeling the Republican party jump left for quite some time now.
The difference is that the democrats have been nearly entirely taken over by the radical left, who tend to make everyone seem more right-wing than they really are. This is what is causing Republicans to win elections. People who were strong democrats are abandoning ship because the Democratic party, at a national level, has shifted far, far away from where they used to be.
My grandparents are democrats, but that have voted Republican ever since Reagan. Many long-time democrats are seeing their party being taken over, and want out.
The democrats have completely alienated much of their base, and that is why the republicans have gotten so far ahead.
"as well as the comment that everyone is for regulation when it benefits them but not when it hinders them. Seems like your post (and my personal theories) supports that view."
Not quite. I am for no regulation in the default case. I think regulation should be relegated to cases of dishonesty and corner cases of abuse.
Right now, to start a business, it is a legal nightmare, some industries worse than others. I think that a part of personal freedom is the freedom to engage in commerce. I certainly think that if I am doing something inherently unethical I should be stopped, but I don't think I should have to hire a lawyer and pore over volumes of government regulation just to operate a personal business.
Basically, I think that regulation should be more reactive than proactive.
What I find most funny are the people who don't like working for large corporations, but insist on so many market regulations that only large corporations would be able to comply.
"Isn't selling a cure that doesn't work exactly that? If a vendor ignores or refuses to engage in clinical trials and people die isn't it criminal?"
Not if they were aware of these issues. If I choose to do something stupid, I will get stupid consequences.
If someone says "this will cure X" and it just flat doesn't, that's lying. That's what I think should be illegal. If it has major side-effects or problems, the information should be available. If no tests have been performed to check side-effects, that information should be available. Lying about a product should be criminal -- a consumer not checking into things should not be.
"There are a lot of cheats and liars in the healthcare industry."
Cheats and liars should be prosecuted. That's the purpose of the law. If they were fair and straight with what the side-effects or the amount of testing that their product has been under, then it's in the consumer's ballpark to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
"According to UN there was NO WMD's in Iraq."
? page=17
r it ics%20and%20the%20Duefler%20Report.htm
The UN DID NOT SAY THAT. IN fact, what they said was that there were numerous WMD's that were unaccounted for.
'Hans Blix, the UN Security Council weapons inspector from 2002-2003, recorded in his reports to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for its possession of the nerve agent VX, 6500 chemical bombs, at least 8500 litres of anthrax, 650kg of bacterial growth media, and 1000 tonnes of chemical agents. And these, he said, were only examples of ``many proscribed weapons and items not accounted for'''
This was the problem. Saddam didn't tell us where they went as he was required to. We knew he had these at one point, and don't know where they went.
See http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951561/posts
The linked article (whose text is reproduced there) is password-protected.
Also there was the Duelfer report, which was an official investigation - a continuation of David Kay's investigation.
Here are some excerpts from the Duelfer Report:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/War%20C
Basically, while there weren't large-scale factories, there were numerous underground laboratories. In addition, Saddam had always kept his dual-use industrial chemical plants in overcapacity, so he could start creating these weapons on a large scale once the UN left.
The interim report, given by David Kay, also shows Iraq was in possession of numbers of banned weapons. We did not find large caches of WMD's, but we did notice large amounts of truck movement to Syria. Shortly after the war, there was an attempted use of WMD from Syria against the King of Jordan.
Also, the HMX which the press has been giving Bush a hard time about was already starting to disappear in the leadup to the war. The UN had noted that Saddam had been moving it. It seems that Bush came just in time, before more was moved out.
" Actually is quite well know that Saddam didn't fund or train terrorist"
/ ne ws/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml
T er ror.htm
Actually it is VERY well-known that he funded palestinian terrorists. It is fairly well-known that he used the oil-for-food program to fund Al-Qaeda.
"train terrorist"
Actually, it is fairly well-known that they trained all sorts of terrorists at their Salmon-Pak facility. They even had a 747 for use in training to hijack. They were also not direct enemies w/ Al-Qaeda, especially since, as the 9-11 report stated, that they had signed a mutual pact to develop weapons together. Also, Saddam has harbored many terrorists in Baghdad.
Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden:
"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
WTC1: Mohammed Salameh called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Afterwards, Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash.
After leaving Afghanistan, Zarqawi fled to Baghdad and received medical attention in one of their premier hospitals.
Here's some links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=
This link includes both confirmed and speculated connections of Iraq/Al-Qaeda:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20
I have more, but I'll leave it at that for now. Note that in the 90's, the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was pretty much a given. Only now that Bush is using Saddam's terror ties as reason for invasion are people backing down.
"want to knock down the barrier between church and state?"
How does that violate the freedom of speech, press, or religion? In fact, preventing religion in public life by public leaders is actually a violation of freedom of religion.
It's freedom _of_ religion not freedom _from_ religion.
"If you cannot tell the difference between a surgical strike and a full-scale invasion, then I cannot help you."
The person you were responding to was not claiming a full-scale invasion. He said "attack", which is the word that Clinton used to describe it.
"There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others."
Law, by its very nature, is forcing one group of people's beliefs on another.
"Have I been living in the same universe as these guys??? All three pillars involve "peace"? What happened to preemptive war, the axis of evil, not caring what the rest of world think, etc. etc."
Ummm... there was _never_ peace in the axis of evil. The goal is to make it more peaceful.
Can you think of a time when NK, Iran, or Iraq were peaceful?
On the other hand, Germany is peaceful do to our and others' interventions in WWII. Japan is likewise peaceful.
"After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists."
It was already going into the hands of terrorists. In the months leading up to the war, large convoys of trucks were sent across the border to Syria.
In addition, one of the reasons for war is that in Saddam's weapons declarations, a lot of his arsenal just "disappeared" with no explanation. Since we know he has been funding and training terrorists, we feared he was giving it to them.
What this means is that we probably should have acted even sooner. Like the first time the inspectors were thrown out.
"And if they discovered that there were no explosives there so long ago how come it took so long to report it?"
Why was it useful to report? We already knew that Saddam had sents many, many convoys of trucks over the border to Syria in the months before the war. I don't see why this is a national story at all. We know that Iraq was giving weapons to terrorists. One of the reasons we went to war was because a huuge amount of Vx gas just "disappeared" off of his weapons declarations with no explanation. Did he destroy them? Give them to terrorists? Use them? What? He offered no explanation.
Then you have the truck convoys to Syria, and an attempted WMD attack from Syria on Jordan shortly after the war.
It's not that hard to put together the puzzle pieces. We should have acted sooner, but Bush tried to put together a coalition. Eventually, we just had to go in and do the deed. We had already waited too long.
Learn your own history. On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton gave this speech:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
In addition, Clinton bombed a building in the Sudan on the basis that it was a chemical weapons plant funded by Saddam and Al-Qaeda. In addition, the indictment for Osama ben Laden included his close ties with Saddam/Iraq.
Saddam has been a threat to the US for quite some time. On GWB's first day of office he had to authorize combat missions because Iraq was violating airspace agreements. In addition, you should check out the info on Iraq's links to the OKC bombing in the book, The Third Terrorist.
Every month I had to call and get charges reversed for "roaming" even though I neve left the city. They were willing to do it, although, if they can tell that you were in-town when you made the call, WHY CAN'T THEIR BILLING SYSTEM?!?!?!!?
In addition, I've been charged for a very interesting call. I was in the middle of a call to a number, say 555-5555. In the middle of the call, it says that I received a call from the number I was in the middle of talking to. That made me completely not believe any billing information they gave me, especially since our usage was 3x what we expected.
What's frustrating for me is that a few weeks before they first announced this, I, having been COMPLETELY FED UP with Cingular and their terrible, possibly unethical billing practices, I decided to drop them mid-contract and signed up w/ AT&T.
I just can't win.
Of course, w/ a 64-bit processor that's not a terrible idea.
Trust me, authors use every opportunity possible to hock their books. Just look at my sig!
"Premptive war"
r ror.htm
Not quite. Saddam has been involved in a number of terrorist attacks on the US.
* WTC1 - the main guy, Ramzi Youssef, is thought to be w/ Iraqi intelligence, and received his passports from Iraq (he also had a Pakistani passport, which was from a Pakistani national who went missing in Kuwait after Iraq invaded). The one guy who got away went to live in Baghdad living off of Saddam's money.
* OKC - Terry Nichols was trained by Ramzi Youssef in bomb-making in the Phillippines. With McVeigh that day was former Iraqi republican guard member Hussein Al-Hussany. This was attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. Al-Hussany then went to work for Logan National Airport. You can read about this in the book The Third Terrorist by OKC reporter Jayna Davis. Al-Hussany sued her for libel and she won. You can find more info at jaynadavis.com
* The attempted assasination of GHWB in Kuwait
* TWA Flight 800 - not sure if this was Saddam, but this actually was a terrorist attack that Clinton covered up (he wanted to be associated w/ peace and not war, so he covered up anything that might indicate the need to go to war). That this was a terrorist attack has been mentioned by George Stephanopolous and John Kerry.
* WTC2 - Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence a few months before 9/11. In addition, a few months before, Iraq's state paper basically predicted it -- said that Osama would attack America with all of the force of the bedouins, hitting the pentagon, the white house, and New York on "the arm that is already hurting".
Also, many of the other attacks outside our borders seem to have Saddam be quite complicit. He would make a threat, and then a month or two later Osama would strike.
Some links:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Te
http://freedomkeys.com/secrethistory.htm
A good list of links
JFK - one of the most beloved democrats:
"It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates"
"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits."
"Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but rather through the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibilites."
I disagree with your notion of the connection of labels and lack of debate. I believe that labels are useful because traits usually fall in groups, not singularly. That doesn't mean you _can't_ openly and honestly debate. We just _aren't_.
"Look at the 2000 election. Look at current presidential polls. The country is pretty much evenly split."
True, but the Republicans have a majority in both houses of congress (or did we lose one, I can't remember) AND have the white house. That's a pretty far-right shift. The reason the country is divided is more because the Democrats have done a good job discreditting the president, which you have to admit whether or not you agree with the discreditting.
Here in Oklahoma, there is a bitter fight to prevent any legislation regarding boter identification coming to pass, even though we have a large number of fraudulent voters.
"The overall impact of getting away from the one-party-controls-all system we have at the moment will be a move back toward the center, where all the good compromising gets done. "
Actually, right now the Republican party _has_ been pulled to the center. The democratic party of JFK is actually a little to the right of mainstream Republicans.
Those of us on the right have been feeling the Republican party jump left for quite some time now.
The difference is that the democrats have been nearly entirely taken over by the radical left, who tend to make everyone seem more right-wing than they really are. This is what is causing Republicans to win elections. People who were strong democrats are abandoning ship because the Democratic party, at a national level, has shifted far, far away from where they used to be.
My grandparents are democrats, but that have voted Republican ever since Reagan. Many long-time democrats are seeing their party being taken over, and want out.
The democrats have completely alienated much of their base, and that is why the republicans have gotten so far ahead.
Very true. In addition, I like what Merril Lynch said about free software -- it's free as in market.
I'm a conservative, and I'm agreeing with the New York Times. The end of the world MUST be near.
I don't see where you get the "you" from in this case.
You could sell it, but not as a cure-all, unless you revealed that you haven't actually tested it on anything and have no idea if it really works.
"as well as the comment that everyone is for regulation when it benefits them but not when it hinders them. Seems like your post (and my personal theories) supports that view."
Not quite. I am for no regulation in the default case. I think regulation should be relegated to cases of dishonesty and corner cases of abuse.
Right now, to start a business, it is a legal nightmare, some industries worse than others. I think that a part of personal freedom is the freedom to engage in commerce. I certainly think that if I am doing something inherently unethical I should be stopped, but I don't think I should have to hire a lawyer and pore over volumes of government regulation just to operate a personal business.
Basically, I think that regulation should be more reactive than proactive.
What I find most funny are the people who don't like working for large corporations, but insist on so many market regulations that only large corporations would be able to comply.
"Isn't selling a cure that doesn't work exactly that? If a vendor ignores or refuses to engage in clinical trials and people die isn't it criminal?"
Not if they were aware of these issues. If I choose to do something stupid, I will get stupid consequences.
If someone says "this will cure X" and it just flat doesn't, that's lying. That's what I think should be illegal. If it has major side-effects or problems, the information should be available. If no tests have been performed to check side-effects, that information should be available. Lying about a product should be criminal -- a consumer not checking into things should not be.
"There are a lot of cheats and liars in the healthcare industry."
Cheats and liars should be prosecuted. That's the purpose of the law. If they were fair and straight with what the side-effects or the amount of testing that their product has been under, then it's in the consumer's ballpark to decide.