<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>*EVERYONE* lies, and anyone that says they don't are going to spend their eternity in hell because we've all lied at some point. I think it's fair to say each and every one of us lies to some extent every day.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sgt. Baxter: this is quite a weird statement IMO. it's obviously not true, i don't even want to go into arguing with it.<br><br>however this reveals a lot about you. i hope you don't mind me being personal. i think you might have a problem. i think you feel guilty of lies and you think you can make it good by admitting your wrongdoing. at the same time, you want to believe that people around you are also doing the same thing, so your sin is not that big. i'm not a therapist, so i might be completely wrong. just a guess.<br><br>going back to the subject, you are defending Bush&Co by saying, yes they lied, but everyone does. this is amazing. your fanaticism for Bush goes to irrational extents. is there anything Bush would do, that it would turn your support for him down? obviously lies and killing isn't enough.<br><br>sorry for being raw, take it as my weakness. i hope you not gonna shoot me down like your sig pic suggests :)<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> this is quite a weird statement IMO. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Yes, it is. A weird outgrowth of this I think is the idea of "original sin". "shoot not even born yet and nailed with a sin already. Might as well sin. Hope I can be born again or repent or say penance orsomething right before the bus runs me over."<br><br>With my luck I'l see the bus coming and scream, "Jesus Fsking Christ I'm gonna die" and my ticket to the fire and brimstone gala will be punched. Sheet just looked and nine of ten are punched already! At least I'll get a free coffee!<br><br><br>

[censored] fabrications to support your effort. Such an action has to be LEGITIMATE and have the support of interational cooperation through the UN. Most of the rest of the world could see the error in that, they did not drink the Kool-Aid. Haven't see the movie yet, but I am glad to see it in theaters now. I hope it smoulders under Bush's ass for a while.<br><br>

You can't see the movie here in Yuma, Arizona! We have three theaters.<br><br>Even the casino-funded Main Street Cinema isn't showing it but they did put a poll on their web-site asking if their patrons want to see it. Yeeesh!<br><br>The vote is currently 3272 for YES and 2370 for NO.<br><br>I'll be glad when Harkin Theater opens their new 14-screen movie house in November. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]I am not John Kerry and I approve this ad.</font color=red>

What I have seen is the constant, one-sided negative reporting by our news media. Bad news (reporting) in Iraq means bad news for the President in November. The media gives us our daily Abu Grahib update but, by and large, fails to report on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:<br><br>Saddam<br><br>The people of Iraq are glad we have ended the regime of Saddam Hussein. They are glad we're there. <br><br>****************<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The media gives us our daily Abu Grahib update but, by and large, fails to report on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>from your link:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>says most of the dead were killed in 1991, after the failed uprising against Saddam Hussein.<p><hr></blockquote><p>so, saddam killed thousands of people who were fighting to overthrow him. hmmm. what did you expect him to do? the saddest part of this uprising from our perspective is that bush I led these insurgents to believe that we'd support their uprising and we instead watched them die during their efforts. where was bush I and why did we sit idly by? great point matt. why isn't the media talking about these deaths from 13 years ago? probably because the conservative media thinks the story is...oh, 13 years old. further, the conservative media doesn't want us to talk about how we urged the insurgents on back then and watched them get slaughtered.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, President George Bush urged Iraqis to topple the Baath regime, but the US did not back the Shiite uprising that ensued in southern Iraq, and the rebels were slaughtered. When the fighters of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), headed by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, poured over the border from Iran. Fears of Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites through SCIRI was a decisive factors in the US decision not to support the uprising. Grand Ayatollah Abu Gharib al-Qassem al-Khoei sent his son Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei to contact the Americans. When he reached French lines he was told Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces, would meet him, but the meeting never took place.<p><hr></blockquote><p>helping those people might have meant a lot more americans dying because we knew saddam had WMD back then in the form of the chemical weapons that we'd provided him in the 80s. Michael Moore does a good job of showing dubya and other high level officials talking in early 2001 about how well saddam was contained and that he didn't have any WMD. amazing how quickly they changed their minds to fit their agenda.<br><br>and, is fox news telling you that the people are glad we're in iraq? i wouldn't doubt it, but the survey that our own government commissioned revealed that the vast majority of iraqis want us gone immediately and aren't glad we're there.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The poll, conducted in May and obtained by Reuters on Thursday, found only 10 percent of Iraqis had confidence in U.S.-led forces -- down from 28 percent in January. Fifty-five percent would feel safer if those troops left Iraq (news - web sites) immediately.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040617/wl_nm/iraq_poll_dc_2">link</a> (we just discussed this last week, i believe)<br><br>----<br>smile!

How about these for reasons to attack Iraq.<br><br>They violated most of the UN resolutions against them following the gulf war, any one of which should have triggered military action.<br><br>They activly worked to decieve UN weapons inspectors, and then threw them out.<br><br>When Saddam's son in law, who was in charge of the WMD program, defected he spilled his guts to western intelligence agencies about the on going WMD program, and the lengths they had gone to in hiding it from UN inspectors. (Source was a discovery times channel documentary sorry no link) Saddam had him assasinated.<br><br>Iraq was shooting at US and other aircraft patrolling the UN mandated no fly zones almost every day for close to 12 years.<br><br>Iraq tried to assasinate a former President of the United States. That by it's self is an act of war in anybody's book, and should be an outrage to every American regardless of party.<br><br>Saddam made public statements that he wanted to destroy the US.<br><br>We were warned by the Russians that Iraq was actively working on a plan to attack the US.<br><br>Iraq had been supporting terrorists in Isreal by giving cash to the families of bombers.<br><br>Iraq had been in contact with Al Qaeda since 1990.<br><br>That's just the information that has been published. Now we could have taken a bury our head in the sand approach to Iraq or we could act. Personally I would rather act, than wait for another major attack on this country. I wonder what Moore would have to say if some Iraqi backed terrorist popped a dirty bomb in Hollywood, or dropped some ricin in the LA water supply. <br><br>I have spent the last week training on how to locate people trapped in collapsed buildings, as part of the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue team based here in Memphis. The guys who are teaching us spent two weeks at the Pentagon. We have also been getting lots of WMD training. What I have learned is that we had all better pray it doesn't happen here, and hope that whoever is running the show has the sense to take action to keep it from happening, because if it does it will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex

i support the removal of Saddam. the only problem is Bush didn't say he wants to remove Saddam because he's an evil dictator. he wouldn't have gotten the support and the army to invade, since it's not a good enough reason to be able to go to war. my problem is that they made up reasons and lied about them.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>They violated most of the UN resolutions against them following the gulf war, any one of which should have triggered military action.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the US had been disregarding the UN decisions as well. once the US realized they can't get support from the UN to go to war against Iraq, the US went to war anyway without a resolution.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>They activly worked to decieve UN weapons inspectors, and then threw them out.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that's subjective. Hans Blix, who was the guy in charge wouldn't agree with you. he said he needs more time and that things are going well.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When Saddam's son in law, who was in charge of the WMD program, defected he spilled his guts to western intelligence agencies about the on going WMD program, and the lengths they had gone to in hiding it from UN inspectors. (Source was a discovery times channel documentary sorry no link) Saddam had him assasinated.<p><hr></blockquote><p>this is Saddam's business. besides the WMD program has been discontinued long time back and Bush knew it, but it didn't suit him to say so. now the fact is that WMD's haven't been found!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq was shooting at US and other aircraft patrolling the UN mandated no fly zones almost every day for close to 12 years.<br><br>Iraq tried to assasinate a former President of the United States. That by it's self is an act of war in anybody's book, and should be an outrage to every American regardless of party.<br><br>Saddam made public statements that he wanted to destroy the US.<br><br>We were warned by the Russians that Iraq was actively working on a plan to attack the US.<p><hr></blockquote><p>yes i agree, this is a bad idea.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq had been supporting terrorists in Isreal by giving cash to the families of bombers.<p><hr></blockquote><p>depending where you stand Israel is a terrorist state because it has taken the land of Palestinians and continue to terrorize them until Today or you can say that they suffer from evil Palestinian terrorists. if you ask the people of Middle East they will tell you that the first option is the reality. and they know better, than the people living thousands of miles away.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq had been in contact with Al Qaeda since 1990.<p><hr></blockquote><p>so what? being in contact means nothing. the CIA has been in contact with Al Qaeda too. the point is that the Saddam regime didn't support them, they were actually enemies. Saddam had a secular regime. he made sure Al Qaeda can't operate in the areas of his control. Al Qaeda hated him, they think he is a socialist. but Bush made sure that his communication to the world blurs these issues and his way of putting it was exactly like your sentence. very shallow and in fact the opposite is true what was said.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I have spent the last week training on how to locate people trapped in collapsed buildings, as part of the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue team based here in Memphis. The guys who are teaching us spent two weeks at the Pentagon. We have also been getting lots of WMD training. What I have learned is that we had all better pray it doesn't happen here, and hope that whoever is running the show has the sense to take action to keep it from happening, because if it does it will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine.<p><hr></blockquote><p>this gives a lot of weight to your words and i adore your dedication. we should be all grateful that there are people like you who devote their life to save other people. i really have a big respect for you.<br><br>

One of the most articulate, passionate, intelligent, and balanced exchanges I've ever seen on this topic! You're both dead-on — because you're each at very different, yet relevant, vantage points on this issue. And your comments have homed in on a very disturbing paradox:<br><br>Before we even get to WMD, the U.N. had enough "goods" on Iraq to act decisively, and to put its weight behind the U.S. Why they didn't is a serious problem and totally undermines the organization's credibility and purpose.<br><br>However, the fact that the U.S. admin felt it was necessary to then deceive it's own people and the world at large by grossly distorting information in favor of it's case — call it deadly hyperbole — is also a huge problem. Now the U.S.'s credibility and purpose has been more deeply undermined than that of the UN! Now, had the UN chosen to support the U.S., would that show of force and aggregate resolve caused Iraq to cave without a single boot being placed on the ground? Could the invasion have been executed on a more powerful scale, or better yet, avoided all together?<br><br>The one thing that none of will know for many years — if ever — is whether or not the deception and manipulation will have ultimately been worth it. Look, any war, big or small, is messy and horrific — for the world and for the individual — and anyone expecting the smell of roses in less than a year is in denial. But the current climate in Iraq and the Middle East is anything but promising.<br><br>Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy said, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". Well, boys & girls, what goes around comes around. <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy said, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". Well, boys & girls, what goes around comes around. <p><hr></blockquote><p> The CIA did an analysis prior to the invasion of Iraq and came up with the same conclusion. That attacking Iraq would create more terrorists and increase terrorist activity against the United States for years to come.<br><br>It seems that the CIA was correct. We'll have to watch how the cards are played out to find out how right they were.<br><br><br><br>