> 1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
> 2. Saddam has lied, broken agreements, U.N. resolutions, etc, about disarming but has in actuality been developing weapons of mass destruction -- biological, chemical, and nuclear -- all along.
> 3. Saddam has lied in his weapons declarations reports, failed to provide evidence for disarming, hidden evidence from U.N. inspectors, coached scientists, etc.
> 4. Saddam has known ties to international terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
> 5. Saddam has used his weapons of mass destruction against his own people, invaded and conquered another sovereign nation, and launched missiles against Israel. We kicked his butt, and that's just one of several reasons he hates the United States.
> 6. al Qaeda has made numerous assaults on the United States, including an attack on our own shores.
>
> Some of these are known facts and not debatable. The rest we have some evidence for, but the case is as yet incomplete. (Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. on February 5th appears to be when we are promised more complete evidence.) But I'm not talking about incontrovertible fact here; I'm talking about what Bush has been trying to say for the past months. I don't know why the State of the Union address doesn't make it crystal clear. Hell yes, Bush is telling us that threat Iraq poses to us now is the very real, very serious threat of a homeland attack of weapons of mass destruction, possibly launched directly by Iraq but as likely by al Qaeda or another international terrorist organization directly supplied and financed by Iraq.

> Debate whether or not the threat is real, whether or not Bush is lying or has enough evidence to draw his conclusions, whether or not the threat is great enough to justify war, whether there is more to the story than what we're being told, etc, etc, etc. But I didn't think there was any question about the meaning of what we *have* been told.



Bush has been wrong before. Anyone remember all the hype about terrorist attacks all over the U.S. in October 2001? There must have been hundreds of building evacuations, alerts, warnings, etc. All that happened was a few people were killed by anthrax that HASN'T EVEN BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN TO BE A TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE FIRST PLACE! Anthrax exists without terrorists! The white powder in envelopes may mean something, but what about the old lady in New Jersey???

Back to Iraq,

1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

Not yet proven.

2. Saddam has lied, broken agreements, U.N. resolutions, etc, about disarming but has in actuality been developing weapons of mass destruction -- biological, chemical, and nuclear -- all along.

Not yet proven.

3. Saddam has lied in his weapons declarations reports, - True.
failed to provide evidence for disarming, - True
hidden evidence from U.N. inspectors, - Could it really be an honest mistake?
coached scientists, etc. - Not yet proven.

4. Saddam has known ties to international terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.

Not yet conclusively proven.

5. Saddam has used his weapons of mass destruction against his own people, invaded and conquered another sovereign nation, and launched missiles against Israel. We kicked his butt, and that's just one of several reasons he hates the United States.

True, but that is history. That doesn't affect us now, except for making him angry. If he would have attacked us for that, it would have been in the '90s.

6. al Qaeda has made numerous assaults on the United States, including an attack on our own shores.

Undoubtable. However, we pretty much annihilated Al Qaeda with our attacks on Afghanistan.

And what about North Korea??? Bush didn't say nearly as much about them as Iraq, nor is he trying to stop them as much. Iraq allows inspectors in and may be open to negotiation. We threaten war. North Korea has started a plant up, which is capable of making nuclear weapons. They may have the plan of producing/using them. They kick the weapons inspectors out. They refuse to negotiate. We ask for negotiations. They refuse again. We try to convince them that they should negotiaite. They refuse. We ignore them. Bush said we learned a lesson from the events there, but we haven't yet. They may be making weapons right now, and we are taking no action.

The U.S. has had a policy of neutrality since the 1700s. Attack only if attacked. Iraq has not attacked. Iraq may not be currently producing weapons of mass destruction, we really have no proof they ever have, and yet we threaten UNPROVOKED war.


I realize I have only presented one side of this argument. I posted this to make people realize that they have been brainwashed by Washington and the media into believing all this information. Much of it is doubtable. Much of it is probably untrue. Much of it probably is true. However, isn't it possible that Saddam Hussein isn't an "oppressive mentally diseased dictator?" Those torture methods you have heard about have not been proven to be true. Just because the president says something doesn't make it a fact. I think that Bush's speech was just cleverly crafted enough to make people like him, and then make people agree with his dislike for Iraq. I'm going to say it now. BUSH'S SPEECH WAS NOTHING BUT ANTI-IRAQ PROPAGANDA!!!

I oppose war with Iraq, and I oppose war with North Korea. I tried my best here to take a neutral stance on Bush. This post was not meant as provocation, but simply to make a few points about what our government has been doing, and what our people have been believing. I personally don't believe some of the things I have said here, but have said them for the sake of making a point.

MANGO