<qoute.To quote Mr. Spock, "Interesting."</quote><br><br>Indeed. <br>Thanks Cherry, very interesting numbers! I'll make sure I'll pass on the "distorted truth" to others.<br>Unfortunately, not being American, we cannot make a difference directly next year.<br><br>Az.<br>That which is dreamed can never be lost, can never be undreamed. - The Sandman

What would you call a person that hands you 10$ out of nowhere? Seriously, what would you call that person?<br><br><br>"Buddy"?<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The reasons that we went into this war were simply fabrications and now people are trying to find the "good" in it all.<p><hr></blockquote><p>May I cut in?<br><br>"Thre's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our Allies" - Howard Dean, September 2002<br><br> "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given." - Howard Dean, Drake University, Febraury 2003.<br><br>"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. . . . Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . . . When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."<br><br>". . . I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive. . . . This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this. . . . There's no question that . . . there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al Qaeda). It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat." - Wesley Clark, testimony before House Armed Services Committee, September 26, 2002<br><br>[i]"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." - Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003<br><br>""If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction ...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction .... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."[b] - President Bill Clinton<br><br>

Again, what are you talking about? That is why I again posted where the numbers came from.<br><br>This is silly then, don't you think? <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>But IMHO telling people what they should or should not post is . . .<p><hr></blockquote><p>Thank you voice of reason.<br><br>

Okay, since you seem to not be able to go to bed unless you're answered:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>But you conveniently didn't bother replying to my question about the 12 years of UN voilations<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yup, 12 years of violating UN, that is the United Nations, not the United States. The UN had jurisdiction over this and they were the ones that get to make the decisions on it—no matter how inept ol' W thought they were acting.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>or the intelligence from mutilnational sourses about WMDs, and how that may or may not justify removing him from power.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Shown to be assembled from fabrications and faulty intelligence.<br><br>

Yup, 12 years of violating UN, that is the United Nations, not the United States. The UN had jurisdiction over this and they were the ones that get to make the decisions on it—no matter how inept ol' W thought they were acting.<br><br>But you have to admit the UN, in this instance, was acting a lot like the high school principal that preceded Joe Clark in 'Lean On Me'...<br><br>"Well, maybe we'll just sit back and hope things get better"...<br><br>I'm under the opinion that while this may not have been the most justified course of action in our history, we should act in our own interests when the UN cannot unilaterally agree on a matter.<br><br>That is, when we have good enough reason to do so. <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>May I cut in?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Most certainly. <br><br>Interesting info. So you've got some Democrats and one foreign dignitary making arguments that Saddam probably had WMD—but there's still no compelling reason to have sent US soldiers to their death. I still say we were hasty and heavy-handed in this foreign affairs issue.<br><br>

Well answered. But you have seem to have forgotten to mention that the US went agains the UNs will into IRAQ. Also, the only nation that has been part of the UN for all these years and never payed a single $ of it's dues is the USA.<br><br>_________________________________________<br>http://www.geocities.com/djstefan/bush.gif

God Cherry!<br><br>I told you that the numbers were interesting. That's what I mean, plain and simple. Why you're looking for hidden meaning in that is beyond me. I was, in fact, tellig you that I learned a few things from that. It was my attempt at trying to reach SOME middle ground with you, but you're wrapped up to see that I might ACTUALLY be independent, and could learn something from your post.<br><br>I've seen the numbers skewed the other way as well. But the numbers you shared were carefully selected to make the President and the war in Iraq look ineffective. I'm just trying to speak for the other side to present the WHOLE story.<br><br><br>