Czar- I don't find you naive. Who I do find naive is those who believe we can rationally and diplomatically resolve Iraq's refusal to declare and destroy all their weapons of mass destruction.
Read Tony Blair's speech posted by snowbird. Read the speech by Capt. Ouimette posted by monami. These are not fictional accounts. These are factual accounts of recent history involving both Iraq and terrorism.
Saddam Hussein is a murderer. He killed his own people with mustard gas. Thousands of them. This is a documented fact. He has killed many others through the brutality of his military. Men, women, and children... none have been exempt. He *is* stockpiling chemical, biological and long-range weapons. Hans Blix' most recent report the UN detailed this. However, he neglected to discuss it in his presentation to the UN, and the press neglected to publicize that part of the report. And who do you think Saddam is waiting to use those weapons against? The U.S. and Israel. There is very little doubt about it. And if we do not take action and one of his sons or another zealot rise to power after Saddam, do you think they would hesitate to use them?
So how do those who are against military action plan on disarming a tyrant? Do you want to issue more ultimatims? Do you want to sit down at a table with him and iron out the differences and request that he be truthful and then believe his every word despite the untruths that have gone on for years? Oh, wait, I've got it. Lets try to rationalize with him. After all, a man who does not abdicate power at the very credible threat of death and destruction from the greatest military super-power in the world, but insteads pronounces that he will claim victory over this super-power is surely rational.
Then again, maybe he plans on using his weapons of mass destruction (including biological, chemical and nuclear) to ensure his victory.
Personally, I'm glad that Bush put his money where his mouth was, and we stopped being paralyzed by the UN's (and France's) refusal to take action.
And France... now do you really want to get me started on a country that has lost every conflict is has ever been engaged in unless another country came to its rescue?
[This message was edited by Master Tally on Mar. 20, 2003 at 04:35 PM.]
Read Tony Blair's speech posted by snowbird. Read the speech by Capt. Ouimette posted by monami. These are not fictional accounts. These are factual accounts of recent history involving both Iraq and terrorism.
Saddam Hussein is a murderer. He killed his own people with mustard gas. Thousands of them. This is a documented fact. He has killed many others through the brutality of his military. Men, women, and children... none have been exempt. He *is* stockpiling chemical, biological and long-range weapons. Hans Blix' most recent report the UN detailed this. However, he neglected to discuss it in his presentation to the UN, and the press neglected to publicize that part of the report. And who do you think Saddam is waiting to use those weapons against? The U.S. and Israel. There is very little doubt about it. And if we do not take action and one of his sons or another zealot rise to power after Saddam, do you think they would hesitate to use them?
So how do those who are against military action plan on disarming a tyrant? Do you want to issue more ultimatims? Do you want to sit down at a table with him and iron out the differences and request that he be truthful and then believe his every word despite the untruths that have gone on for years? Oh, wait, I've got it. Lets try to rationalize with him. After all, a man who does not abdicate power at the very credible threat of death and destruction from the greatest military super-power in the world, but insteads pronounces that he will claim victory over this super-power is surely rational.
Then again, maybe he plans on using his weapons of mass destruction (including biological, chemical and nuclear) to ensure his victory.Personally, I'm glad that Bush put his money where his mouth was, and we stopped being paralyzed by the UN's (and France's) refusal to take action.
And France... now do you really want to get me started on a country that has lost every conflict is has ever been engaged in unless another country came to its rescue?
[This message was edited by Master Tally on Mar. 20, 2003 at 04:35 PM.]
, I don't believe that one can be elected by financial prowess alone. What does that say about the majority of Americans than? Hmm...on second thought...don't answer that question 
) it is perfectly legal in this country to debate this whole mess.I just find it personally annoying to support your arguement with "Bush is stupid"...."and he wasn't really elected anyway". Most of what is being said is STRICTLY opinion. None of us actually know what is going on or what went into the decision making behind it. There are lots of other people to quote who don't KNOW either...just keep that in mind 
Comment