> > 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.


Oh, right, the bombs fitted with empty chemical warheads, which could ONLY be fitted with a chemical warhead, weren't actually there. Neither are the records of Saddam Hussein purchasing aluminum tubing that is used nearly *exclusively* in the production of nuclear bombs. And the chemical weapons that he used on his own people the you *admitted* he used on his own people weren't actually there, either.

The 500 tons of mustard gas/serin/whatever that third one was that the United Nations and Hans Blix themselves have said Iraq had that are missing are missing because they were never actually there, too, right? Same with the thousands of liters of anthrax that every intelligence service in the world knows that Hussein has, and which location is unknown to the U.N.'s inspectors.

>
> 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.


Um, see above. Part of the agreement that ended the Gulf War involved Saddam disarming of the weapons that everybody knew he had, and that he was *to provide evidence of destroying*, and he never did.


> 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?

WHAT!!?

> coached scientists, etc. - Not yet proven.
>

Yes, it has been. Threats were issued to the scientists and their families that they all faced slow, tortuous death if they cooperated with UN inspectors. Which is why every single scientists the inspectors have interviewed have requested that officials from the Iraqi government be present: so that official can go tell Saddam that he doesn't have to send out his goons to rape/kill that family.

> 4. Saddam has known ties to international terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
>
> Not yet conclusively proven.

Actually, yes. Saddam has been funding the various groups that have been committing terrorist acts against Israel.

> 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.

The whole POINT of knowing history is to LEARN FROM IT. And we are LEARNING that letting men like Hussein stay in power is a Very Bad Thing. We have LEARNED that Saddam Hussein has set a very good precedent for being EVIL.

> 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.

No, we annihilated the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is a global organization, spread out across many countries and continents.

> 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 whole PROBLEM with North Korea is that they started doing what Hussein has started doing now, AND WE LET THEM FINISH. We know that North Korea HAS nuclear weapons, and that drastically changes how our approach to them must go. South Korea is only RIGHT THERE, and an established U.S. ally in the region, as is Japan. We are careful with North Korea because they were allowed throughout the 90s to finish going down the same path that Saddam Hussein is trying to go down. The whole POINT in disarming Iraq is to prevent it from becoming another North Korea.


> 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.
>

Korea? Vietnam? Hell, even Grenada? The U.S. was not directly attacked then, or anywhere near neutral in those conflicts.

> 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!!!

What about all the people that have defected from Iraq and TOLD US ABOUT THESE THINGS HAPPENING. Do you know what the CIA is? Do you realize that finding this stuff out is *what they do for a living*? Do you also realize that simply telling us and "proving" to us every little bit of information is a lot more complicated than you appear to think it is? Revelaing information has the peculiar quality of making it a lot easier for one to figure the source, and when opposing governments figure out that source, they tend to KILL IT. Which results in a) the loss of human life, were it a human source, and b) less information for you to not believe.

I don't mind a healthy distrust of the government. But blind conspiracy theories and disbelief of nearly anything with seeing it all for yourself is insane and a perfect indicator of why I'm glad this is a representative republic, and not a democracy.

The Other Matthew