Iraqgate

..when talking about how a U.S. President is elected. I was really curious about that. And Oz said 52 states...I just lost my mind. LOL I was thinking it was 50 states plus 2 territories.

Was your 51 a typo (1 and 0 are too far away on the keyboard) or does one of the territories get to vote too. I am geniuenly curious.

I guess you guys don't share that one then.
Here it is a running joke that the US has 52 states, including Canada and Mexico.

Are you sure you weren't referring to multiple question marks?????????

Or was it apostrophes ''''''''''' ?

No, America like many countries will always help if it is in their best interests to do so. Who would go to die for someone else's benefit?

To say this is a big himanitarian issue is a joke, everyone rememers the WMDfears used to sell the public on the iraq invasion, it wasn't THAT long ago. As it turned out to be hogwash nd the UN was actually doing its job all along, what else can they say now? We are there to HELP Iraq become a safe place to live, BULLSH*T! I'm sure if that was the original intent, Canada would have been in there like white on rice, that's what we do, humanitarian efforts to help the downtrodden in the world, we don't invade out of fear.

So to answer your question I will say NO the US isn't concerned about uplifting other countries at all, it's a side bar to cloud the relity of a bad decision. If the US was really concerned about helping others, they have more money, more citizens and more resources than most other countries, why would there still be ANY downtrodden people in the world? Are we saving Ethiopians? Thousands of them die from starvation each month, lets see them feed Ethiopia, just one of those MONSTER size boxes found on a US grocery shelf would go a LOOOOONG way there.

.
I don't want to get off on the tangent of the role of government, because it's a matter of preference, not necessarily right or wrong. What might seem right to you may seem very wrong to me, and vice-versa.

However, I will say this. If everyone who wanted womb to tomb care could live in one state (or province), while the others who did not want it lived in another, and neither could rely on the other, your state (or province) would fail, while the other (mine) would prosper, because the takers of government services, the tax-takers, would have no one from which to take, the tax-payers. The tax-taker system would collapse because there would be more takers than givers.

Why is that "wrong" of me? Why can't you just heed your own words and "get used to it and accept each others differences". Why are you always so judgmental? Why are you so intolerant of another's opinion? Americans you encounter may reinforce your belief that we're all overly patriotic, but you give the term "smug Canadian" a whole new meaning.

Apostrophe usage - I never said it annoyed me. I just thought it was funny that a know-it-all, better than Americans in every way Canadian could come across as so.....well, never mind.

Advice: Lighten up and see humor when and where intended.

It was how you said "We don't need any more people who think the government's main purpose is to provide womb to tomb care."

Actually most Canadians don't feel this way at all. Just because our government does something that doesn't mean that's what we want at all. So I was saying you are wrong in that we think the government's main purpose ....

BC Medical is nice, but I pay my own premiums anyway, which I am sure are similar to your own insurance premiums, $64.00 month as I am not a full time employee for a company that provides medical coverage. We don't get FREE medical anyway, it is subsidised, less and less each year. Most companies don't offer medical benefits anymore as it is just too expensive for them. It is common to get EXTENDED medical benefits, eyewear, time off due to injury or sickness is repaid (at about 80%).

It is cheaper to pay the employee more and have the employee pay the premiums. As for Welfare, you have a big army we have welfare bums, although I'm sure you have welfare bums too that simply don't want to join the military and earn a paycheck.

In regards to lightening up, you know as well as anyone that I rarely take ANYTHING seriously, whether intended to be serious or not.

I am used to you being a straight man so when you decide to play funny man forgive me if the humor is passed over, maybe I just need some practice.

So no Max, I wasn't shooting down your comments and nor was I saying your thoughts were wrong as they are different than mine, you were wrong in saying that we want the handouts wonb to tomb, that's just part of living here, not a request. Like I've said before, we just roll with the punches and go with the flow, the government plays a very small role in our lives as we are too focused on living in freedom instead of constantly fighting for our freedoms. The government is a big scam, we just pay our taxes and forget about it, other than the odd grunt about the price of beer in the pub (Tax on draught beer at a pub, whatever next?)

Anyhow, I skipped my meeting today and am going to benefit from the added time by hitting the links for the afternoon, have fun, be good.
OM

Though we can make a trivia question out of it.

Canada has ten provinces, and for a long time had 2 territories. One of those territories recently split into two. I would venture that most Canadians couldn't name both of the new territories by name.

James

Nunavut is correct.

But it was always part of Canada.

What is now Nunavut was part of the North West Territories until the recent split. The line relects a divide between one group of Inuit and another group of Inuit and Indians. NWT has the mix of two groups while Nunavut is exclusively Inuit.

My uncle taught in many places across NWT. So I knew, but many people don't know about the split.

There is no need to invade. Many Inuit are part of the Arctic Rangers - special militia of the Canadian Armed Forces. They regularly do exercises with the regular forces.

I don't know how you can fly over Nunavut without either starting there or landing there - its far enough north of our southern cities that you have to go way out of your way. Unless you were flying from Alaska to Manitoba.....

James Linn - Canadian Born

Before any of you go off and write a rebuttal, please read the first few lines here.

First, the US should not leave Iraq until we have assisted them in forming a "functioning" government.

Second, while the jury is still out as to whether or not the US invasion of Iraq was "just' and justifiable, a few "good" things have resulted because of the invasion:

Iran has opened up their nuclear program to international inspection.

Libya has admitted to, and abandoned their major weapons programs.

It is doubtful that either of these countries would have opened their programs to international inspection without being concerned that the US might invade them next.

The Iraqi people are getting humanitarian aid to counteract the years of neglect that resulted from the UN sanctions.
(Anyone who thought that Saddam and not the Iraqi people would suffer under sanctions is just plain naive!)

Now Julian,

You started this thread with a title suggesting that there were not reasons for the US to invade Iraq.
Yet, the "meat" of your posting is a question as to if / why George W. Bush will be re-elected in November.

I have noticed a curious trait in the people and postings that support George W. Bush.
They all somehow believe that George W. Bush would not lie to about matters that pertain to the security of the nation.
Further, they are proud of the fact that our well stocked and overwhelming forces were able to decimate a demoralized poorly equipped army.

It sounds like the majority of Bush supporters believe that the US has the "right" to force our views on any other nation.

It is always easy to flex your muscle when you have overwhelming might.

It takes a much stronger person to work diplomacy and achieve the same end result.

Every posting that I have read praising G.W. Bush for having the "strength" to invade Iraq, reads to me like the words of the "War-Mongers" of the 60's.

If the US continues to position itself as the worlds "bully" policeman, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for the next terrorist attack.

Chas

Well, it is pretty obvious that Nanavut WAS part of the NWT, that's why we only had 2 territories and now have 3. It has never been recognized as a part of Canada itself, that is why I had forgotten to mention it the first time. When I was in school in Cape Breton I learned about the 2 territories, Yukon and NWT but Nanavut was just NWT. Therefore Nananvut is now a recognized territory, whereas previously it was just the NWT.

I think we are on the same page now but thanks for the geography lesson all the same.

As for the flight it was circa '82 direct to UK. We crossed the southern portion of the NWT and then across Greenland on the way to Gatwick.

"we are in a perpetual state of "damned if we do, damned if we don't" on ALL global issues. That is the price of being the world's police force."

Sorry mate, but that's only your view and is not shared by the rest of the world, especially after this major, irreversible stuff-up in Iraq.
America has interfered too long in the affairs of other countries, and mostly (if not always) when it was only in your own interests to do so.

[SMH, April 23, 2004]
Australia has been invited to begin talks to join a free-trade zone covering South-East Asia in a diplomatic coup that follows years of frustration and rebuffs for the Howard Government. Any deal with the 10-nation-strong ASEAN grouping of countries could be the precursor to something much, much bigger - a free-trade area including India and China that encompasses HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.

Australia is well on the road to becoming a republic, independent of the UK. When this inevitably occurs, you won't find Australia kowtowing to the mighty USA. New alliances will be forged. America needs Australia for its satellite tracking stations, for simple geographical reasons. But somewhere along the road we may no longer need you for either financial or military reasons.

I think America's self-appointed role as alleged world police force is fast approaching its total and permanent demise. New power blocs will be established which will dominate the USA financially, and unless you would care to nuke some of these countries, you had better start to prepare yourselves psychologically to your new role as the most hated and mistrusted nation on the planet.

Personally I don't care who replaces you as the "world's police force." It would be extremely difficult for any country to match the arrogance and hypocrisy of the USA.

It has been brought to my attention recently that proper use of the apostrophe will ensure proper understanding of the post.
SO when you say the worlds police I am not sure exactly which 'worlds' you are referring to.

Are you referring to one of our worlds or the others?

Or perhaps you actually meant world's, police. 'World's' being the possive form.

Damn journalists! :-)

"Personally, I'm still waiting on that big price drop for all that free oil that the US invaded Iraq to seize. I guess the "thin veil" on that particular agenda is a lot thicker than meets the eye....."

Now when did I ever say, or suggest, or imply that America would gain immediate access to Iraqi oil? It is part of a long-term agenda. Everyone to whom I speak in my daily travels, which includes people from many nations INCLUDING America, has always taken for granted that control of Middle East oil was the underlying motive for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

It is one thing that none of us can afford to do. While most of the world considers the US to be responsible solely for Iraq there are other countries involved directly supporting the US's stance. Now if the US was to pull out now they would be seen as "Easy Targets" as they lack the convictions to do what they said they where going to do. What is currently happening in Iraq has to be stopped and soon before to many more people are killed unnecessarily as every time that either a US citizen is killed or a member of the service it gives the radicals/fanatics or as I prefer to think of them the fools the idea that the US can be beaten and quite easily. Now when any native or other Muslim is killed in Iraq fighting the "Invaders" they are thought of as hero's but the general population and what is worse they are nothing more than "Canon Fodder" by their leaders who are prepared to waste far too many people in their attempt to win.

Have you ever seen the stupid things that are happening in Palestine? Israeli tanks going into an area and being fired upon by small arms the only damage that they could hope to inflict is some minor paint damage but every time some fool shots a rifle at a tank they are considered as hero's buy the general community "That is all loosely speaking of course." The whole thing is just too stupid for words and it is that mentality that needs to be changed.

While I don't know how to do this I do at least understand that it needs to be changed and unless the people responsible do as well things will only escalate rather than start to diminish. Currently there are far more people at risk in Iraq than when the "War" was on in full swing. Now when the troops rolled into Baghdad the people where lining the streets cheering now they seem to think that the people who they considered as liberators are now the enemy what the hell has changed in such a short time to warrant this opinion?

Col

It is the very same countries that you mentioned who are responsible for making most of the manufactured goods that once where solely US made and most of these countries are predominately Muslim.

Now if the idea was to spread that the US is in fact not interested in fighting a "War on Terrorism" but is actually fighting a "War on Islam" these countries could make life very difficult for the USA as they could nationalize all of the industries in their countries, imprison any foreigners and just take over where thing where left off. Sure there would be very little new development but then again the USA couldn't hope to start manufacturing these things onshore again either.

Currently there is a symbiotic relationship between these countries and the USA and what scares me is what will happen when these countries get the idea that they no longer need the USA to do business? Sure they would be breaking several thousand Patent agreements but these are only useful when there is an alternative supplier. If the situation was to arise that if you "Any Country" needed these things then International Law just wouldn't be an issue they would buy them from who ever and then worry about the consequences latter. Something that could be done in the International Courts but by then the USA would be dead and buried as well as long forgotten. Currently the only thing preventing this from happening is that the supply of Industrial Doped Silicon is mostly made outside these countries so they require these resources to continue to make these items but if some form of radical was to come to power in these countries quickly and at almost the same time they wouldn't be at all concerned as they have a one tracked mind "Do as much damage as possible to the USA and don't worry about anything else." They wouldn't be at all concerned if there where thousands of people dying in the country of starvation they would get their jollies from seeing America suffer their own people just don't count in the equation.

Col

I've already said elsewhere here that I really feel sorry for the troops over in Iraq. And you just might change my mind as I really have no opinion at all about what is going on in Iraq what I've mentioned here are nothing more than observations based from the dreaded media.

I really thought that the Iraq thing was nothing more than a side issue when it started but it has developed into something that must be won and unlike Afghanistan the people over in Iraq no longer seem to like us being there.

Actually most of the people that I know in the military join for the perks like a funded education and get paid as well instead of having to use their own money to get the education. People like pilots get all their training paid for by the Tax Payer and then after a certain time can leave the Air force and fly aircraft for either private individuals or companies like QANTAS. War is more of an inconvenience to these people that is how "here at least" the Australian Military machine get the recruits in the first place by offering the "Perks" and never mentioning the downside of things.

Anyway I'm getting carried away again but Max feel free to post anything that you like on this type of subject as I really like to try to understand how others think on a range of varied subjects. After all I would never have considered the way you use the work "Volunteer" as the way I use it and incidentally there are certain places that I just do not send any of my staff let alone someone who I'm not paying for. While I've never had a volunteer here I've had a few "Work Experience" people through the doors and they never leave the base as I just can't expect them to go outside to a site for repairs mainly for "Security Reasons" but also for insurance reasons as if they where injured while away from here I'm not covered for any injuries that they may suffer.

Col

It was staring me in the face, but I didn't see it until I read a letter in a newspaper. Howard didn't invite Opposition Leader Mark Latham to accompany him on his "goodwill gesture."

Now Labor would never have sent Australian troops to Iraq in the first place, and Mark Latham has promised to bring them home before Christmas if he is elected.

HOWEVER, the Australians who are serving their country need to know that both major parties, as I image do all Australians, wish them well so long as they are in that hell hole.

So yes, in light of this you are 100 per cent right. By not inviting the Opposition Leader to accompany him, Howard has once again taken advantage of the situation to score political points.

Well Maxwell I have to agree in full that the media is definitely NOT a reliable source on it's own. The general views in the media are usually compared to each other and opinions are formed from 'somewhere in the middle' don't buy all of it but don't discount all of it either.

Yes we see the full speeches here too, infact it pisses me to to no end when these 'speeches' from a leader in another country pre-empt almost 80% of our TV stations, as MOST are US channels. We sit and painfully groan through them anyway, hoping that the hockey game will come back on or our favorite sitcom resumes. George W. Bush has the WORST public speaking skills I have seen, granted they have bee closely monitored and addressed so that he improves his poor body language and tone of delivery, so I can also not believe a single word that comes from the horses........mouth, either.

So we cannot trust the media, people who have fought in a war and are currently in Iraq say it is out of control. People who have never fought a war and are in eth White House sday it is under control.

One media source says Bush hasn't a clue, The Amdinistration says Bush knows better than anyone and is doing the right thing.

Other White House members have said he is full of it, he swears he isn't.

So NO report including the spew that comes from GWB's mouth can be taken verbatim either. Maxwell, you have NO proof whatsoever that Bush does not lie, you simply cannot attest to his honesty as you don't know his true character or the truth behind what he is saying, you just trust it to be true.

ON the WMD issue, you are trying to tune in a VERY fine point, perhaps GWB never actually punically said that he was going to attack due to WMD. Perhaps it was simply implied and then elaborated on. When these discussions first took place, not a single individual, including yourself from what I remember, mentioned ANYTHING whatsoever to do with Lieration or Democracy or Rebuilding Iraq. The closest I saw to that frame of mind was some people mentioning that Saddam was a cruel dictator and must be stopped.

At THAT time, nobody even mentioned anything close to the fact that Iraqi's were being repressed and needed Liberation, that the city's infrastructure needed repair etc. Why not?

Because they hadn't been 'fed' that information yet. The initial fear as you can surely attest to was WMD and America being attacked. Protect our families, people saying we wer epoor citizens of our country for not wantig to protect it from this maniac etc.

Now from what I understand this gets blown way out of proportion by the Media, but how can somethng grow without a seed? WHo planted this seed? Where did we even get the phrase WMD when talking about Iraq? It wasn't made up out of thin air by the media. It wasn't contrived by anynoe, it was either said directly or forcibly implied by not JUST GWB but MANY reports from the House that I watched, WMD WAS an issue. Other wise the whole mess about Bush being misinformed by his Administration and contacts would hold no relevance. Who cares if he was misinformed if he didn't say anything about it? But no, he was lied to and this led to his misleading the public who supported him.

Call it what you will Maxwell, BEDNING the truth, reporting the wrong information, lies, contrived BS etc.

The White House and the members who suport and speak on Bush's behalf enforced the WMD issue to create fear of the enemy (no different than Castro) which in turn builds support for rash actions. There is no denying it unless we are all supposed to wipe our memory a la Men in Black.

I was here, it wasn't thought up in my imagination, I saw you all defending the reasons for war with a vengeance, and so did everyone else.

Hi,

I mean no offense to anyone here (or their sensibilities), however, just because Abe Lincoln did something, it doesn't make it right.
The following is a direct quote from Maxwell Edison's reply to Julian - -
"In the fall of 1862 Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the North in cases involving antiwar activity, thereby authorizing the army to arrest civilians and hold them indefinitely without trial. Military authorities also suppressed and otherwise interfered with newspapers they considered disloyal. Democrats also bitterly denounced the Emancipation Proclamation and accused Lincoln of perverting the war to save the Union into a wild abolitionist crusade to destroy slavery and overthrow the South's existing social order. (Copied from an essay by historian, William E. Gienapp)"

I know that most modern Americans worship Lincoln, but as an American, I don't understand the worshiping of a man who took direct actions to clamp down on people's liberties. I was raised with the image of Lincoln as a saint and, upon becoming an adult, had to make my own mind up about it. At this point in my life, I don't believe the Union has any right to prevent states from succeeding, although, the constitution does ban states from going to war against each other or against the Federal Union.

Some actions taken by the Union during the civil war were wrong as are some of the actions that have been taken by the Bush administration.

Just to inflame this discussion some more, I'd like to point out that John Kennedy shouldn't be worshiped either.

Bob Kahler

No Max, you seem to be completely missing my point, try re-reading my last post.

Everybody was on the same page, WMD, were they not? (other than you of course because apparently you are the only one who understands what Bush is saying).

My point was that GWB MAY not have uttered those EXACT words, BUT his administration lead us to believe that ws the KEY issue. I had never even heard of Liberating Iraq until the WMD issue was pushed aside and the focus changed. Yes probably by the media, but that's not relevant either.

The Impression I got from Bush's speeches, and no I don't take dictation the way you do, was that Sadam was a threat to America. He had WMD and wouldn't let inspectors in to see them, which he later did and they found nothing.
THEN Bush got in cahoots with Blair and again the WMD was the foremost issue. Tony Blair actually apologized to the people of England when he was found to be mislead. Bush said we are there to liberate and save these people WMD will be found in time.

Now I watch the same TV you do, and that 99% of the USA does, it is syndicated preogramming and network television seen by many.

Now apparently, I was poorly mislead, perhaps because I am North of the border, don't understand Bush's accent, or simply cannot comprehend American English as a Canadian.

I also had above average reading and comprehension skills when tested on a College level. What surprises me is that if WMD were never implied as a reason for war, how did millions of Americans see this as a way to save America from Saddam's attack from WMD. It was never mentioned by their President, or anyone in th eWHite House apparently. NOw if Bush said we were going to invade for Liberation, and the TV shows were saying that it was due to WMD, who do YOU think the majority of Americans would listen to? Right, America's great and holy President G.W.Bush, if not he wouldn't have been elected would he?

So he didn't say this, he didnt't imply this, nobody in the White House did either? sounds like Mass hysteria to me. If I was a president and KNEW that my countymen were all being blantantly mislead by such lies from the media, would it not then be my job as President to ensure that people were put at ease and that they were ensured that the coutry is not threatened by SAID WMD, that we are just sending thousands of troops over there, your sons and daughters, to die in the name of Democracy?

Why didn't President Bush show his true heart and help the people of America understand why they wer being sent to war?

Why didn't President Bush announce to the wold's media that this isn't a war over WMD, it is to help people?

Why didn't President Bush contest that what he said was the reason is correct and what the media says is misleading?

BECAUSE IT IS IN HIS BEST INTERESTS TO HAVE AMERICANS FIGHT FROM FEAR, NOT FROM THE WANT TO HELP OTHERS.

Lastly, why didn't he correct tony Blair when he informed England that this was a war to rid Iraq of WMD ?

He has his nose in everyone else's business as he pleases and yet decides to become a deaf mute when lies surface?

Well hopefully he will seek some help for this but I don't think it's needed. You would back him in an asylum anyway.

.
From speech to UN:

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

----------

From State of the Union speech:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

----------

(Gee, why do I believe that you'll continue to assert that he said something that he didn't?)

Believe me, I have better things to do than waste my time reading the whole book. However, as you have presumably already read the book cover-to-cover, (otherwise you would keep you stupid mouth shut) this would give you a distinct advantage over me, as you could then discredit the book by selecting passages that suit your own agenda.

In an earlier posting, Colin politely asked Bob why hadn't he volunteered to go to Iraq. I will now put this same question to yourself and all the other TechRepublic armchair generals who have previously served in the military: if you are so sure it is a righteous cause and a winnable war, then why aren't YOU there instead of, like the rest of us, relying on the media to know what's actually happening in Iraq?

So Max, put your life on the line for your country and your president, or shut up your whingeing and whining and flaming and ridiculously inaccurate arguments in favor of Bush and America.

"I am a proud Canadian, a former political activist and went to uni to study political science."

As you obviously have an advantage over many of us because you have studied political science at university (I have too, but that's another matter) perhaps you could put your knowledge to good use by enlightening us as to the intricacies of the history of Iraq -- a subject about which George Bush and his advisers obviously have minimal knowledge, or they would have seen the futility of trying to impose a Western-style democracy in that region.

Hi,
You're right about the historical context point.
I was thinking with a 21st century point of view. I do believe, however, that states should have the right to leave the union, but that wasn't the point of this discussion.
I have to admire the energy you devote to answering a lot of these posts.

bob kahler

On last night's news there was a report of US Military personal torturing Iraq people did that get aired in the USA?

Col

YEs Colin, I fipped on the TV and what do you know, CNN was talking about it, CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration)was ranting and raving about it too. Well so were all the other channels too. Apparently even GWB has aknowledged and commented that this will not happen again and the soldiers will be dealt with acordingly (I don't believe that was an EXACT quote yet it was to that effect).

Lets not foget that there will probably be some form of justification behind beating or humiliating them though.

Look at this the first is through Western Eyes which we would tend to do and see it as abhorrent and the second way is through the Arab eyes as they are accustom to this kind of treatment and "Rough Justice" so anything less is considered as weakness.

Actually since I originally asked apparently there have come to light some British troops doing the same thing to at least one prisoner and there has been a fairly large out cry about this action.

But I can not help but wonder if this type of thing is so bad as being "Strong" means that you not only have to be strong but act accordingly and in this part of the world anything less is seen as weakness which could very well be the reason why so many are now turning on the US troops.

I'll leave it at that as I know there will be howls of discontent raining down on me after that little response.

Col

Julian,

Here are the requirements for enlisting in the National Guard:

Prior Service Enlistment Criteria
You are eligible to join the Army National Guard if you meet the following criteria*:

Meet citizenship requirements.
At least 17 and less than 36 years of age, or individuals that are 36 years of age and older must have sufficient prior service time to attain 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay prior to age 60.
Non-high school graduates must obtain a high school diploma or GED certificate within one year after the date of enlistment.
Must meet the Army physical fitness standards.
Must qualify for the MOS enlisting in.
Applicants, who may be otherwise eligible for enlistment options, monetary incentives, educational benefits, or any combination of these, must enlist for the periods stated by the program from which they desire to benefit.
*Not all of the enlistment criteria are shown here; call your career counselor for exact details.

http://www.1800goguard.com/service/service_who_prior.html

I'm sure that Max knows that he is past the age where he can go back into "active" service.

Yes, he may be able to get a job as a civilian working for the US Government.

Max made his contribution, unlike many from our generation.

Chas

Well in today's rag it says that UK AND US troops had been toruring prisoners.

It says that British soldiers were "beating an Iraqi prisoner who had a bag over his head and then urinating on him."
"Let me make it quite clear that if these things have actually been done, they are completely and totally unacceptable," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the BBC yesterday.
"We went to Iraq to get rid of that sort of thing, not to do it"

It goes on to mentioan that Iraqis were furious over photos published a few days ago that showed U.S. prison guards sexually humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib prison, the same prison where Saddam's military also had conducted similar abuses.

The article photo shows an Iraqi prisoner clad in a hood and rain poncho standing on a box with his arms held wide with wired.

Maybe Max could form a US version of 'Dad's Army'.

I guess only British members would remember that one.