> Back to Iraq,
>
> 1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Not yet proven.

He used to. Prove that he got rid of them. You know, like the U.N. has told him to. Like he's promised to. The way I see it, if you at one time have weapons of mass destruction, the burden of proof is on you to prove you've gotten rid of them.

> 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.

Well, he has lied and broken agreements and U.N. resolutions as they relate to his weapons. He certainly *seemed* to have started developing them again back in '98 when he kicked out the inspectors.

> 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?

An "honest mistake"? Yeah, I suppose. And I suppose Pearl Harbor *could* have just been a Japanese training exercise that hit the wrong place. Do you really think governments make a lot of honest mistakes when dealing at this level?

> coached scientists, etc. - Not yet proven.

Fair enough.

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

Yeah, this one I'm with MANGO and wintermute on. These ties are very specious -- I'd like to see hard evidence for them. Even if Al Qaeda dudes are chillin' in North Iraq, it doesn't mean that Saddam is helping them, as I understand he has very little control over that part of the country.

>
> 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.

Dismissing this is like being in 1938 and saying, "Yeah, sure, Hitler's invaded some places. But that's history! He won't do it anymore. Besides, if he wanted Poland, he'd have taken it by now." That he has used chemical weapons and attacked innocent countries is proof that he's willing to do so.

> 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.

Not proven. Describe to me how you can be certain we've annihilated Al Qaeda. I'm not saying they're still around in force, but I see no hard evidence to prove they're annihilated.

>
> 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.

When Bush referred to learning the lesson of Korea, he meant we shouldn't trust people who claim not to have nuclear programs (as North Korea did for so long). North Korea is a trickier issue, politically speaking, but don't think the White House (and much of the world) isn't worried about it. The thing with Iraq is, really, what more are we supposed to do with the country? People accuse Bush of war-mongering, but we've had ten years of lies and games from Iraq. Iraq signed a surrender after the first Gulf War (which it instigated!) and has not met the obligations placed upon it. The country continues to largely ignore the U.N. If it continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, it poses an even greater threat to stability in the region.

That's why I think we need to be done with Saddam. He was the agressor in a war which he lost, signed a surrender, and has failed to meet abide by the criteria of that surrender. As the prinipal actor in calling for the first Gulf War (and in fighting it), it rests upon the U.S. once again to deal with him. I honestly don't know why the Security Council is so opposed to removing him: he makes them look weak and impotent. I imagine, though, that much of it is political maneuvering and the Security Council will end up approving military action against Iraq, though it will cost the U.S. France may agree to just abstain from the vote. We'll see.

As for North Korea, I'm confused what exactly it has to do with Iraq. Just because it is a problem, doesn't mean Iraq isn't *also* a problem.

> 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.

A few things:

1) That policy went out the window with the start of the Cold War. It was the official policy of the U.S. government to stop the spread of communism. This explains any number of our military engagements during the 45 years or so of the cold war. Really, the isolationist policy worked when we were a backwards country nobody cared about. Our forced involvement in the two World Wars is a good reason to take a proactive role in world affairs. I firmly believe that the Truman Doctrine (standing up to the spread of communism) helped prevent a third world war (nuclear deterrence was probably an issue as well).

2) What do you mean we have no proof that Iraq ever had weapons of mass destruction? They freely admit that! They've used chemical weapons! This is not a secret. What's in contention is whether or not they *destroyed* them as they claim and whether or not they've continued developing them.

3) It is the United States' right to forcefully neutralize threats to our security. It is the right of all sovereign nations. If we can prove that Saddam Hussein has links to terrorists that have acted against us (as the White House claims) then it is firmly within our rights to remove him. Furthermore, we already had a war with him that he provoked. We won, he signed a surrender. He's not keeping the terms of the surrender. Why does he have to do anything further to justify our removal of him?

> 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?"

Sort of. He is a dictator. Iraq is not a democracy. There are not free elections. He seized power by force. He is oppressive, that is certain. I can't speak to whether or not he's mentally diseased.

> 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!!!

Did you miss the first 45 minutes where he didn't mention Iraq? I'm just wondering.

Also, you claim that claims of torture haven't been proven. You need to do some research before you make these claims. Check out Amnesty International, an organization not particularly fond of the U.S. or the idea of a war on Iraq.

"Torture is used systematically against political detainees in Iraqi prisons and detention centres. The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the acceptance of its use at the highest level. There are no attempts to curtail or prevent such violations or punish those responsible."

"Amnesty International has over the years received numerous reports of torture and interviewed hundreds of torture victims. The organization has also published many reports documenting a wide range of human rights violations in the country, including torture and ill-treatment. Victims of torture in Iraq have been subjected to a wide range of forms of torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture, including the gouging out of the eyes, marks of severe beatings and electric shocks to various parts of the body, when returned to their families. Some detainees died as a result of torture. Many torture victims now live with permanent physical or psychological damage."

Feel free to question whether or not we *should* go to war. But don't call into question Iraq's record on human rights -- it's not pretty. Below I've linked to the report I quoted from; feel free to do a bit more research.

Also, when you claim that Bush's speech was carefully crafted to make people like him and share his views... well THANK YOU VERY GOOD. I had always thought politicians were out trying to make us dislike them and disagree with their views. I'm not even certain what exactly you want from a political speech, if an attempt to persuade you to thinking in a certain way isn't it.

Stephen