State of the Union address

[HeXp£Øi±]

Nukes no, biological, yes- chemical, yes. The point is he's not supposed to have them according to whatever UN resolution that was. The only reason we stopped short of killing saddam and taking out his government was because he agreed to the treaty. So if he won't abide by the treaty and picks up where he left off twelve years ago then so will we. Why do you think he's hiding so much from us? I doubt seriously because he thinks it's a game. More likely it's the obvious answer, he has much to hide.
The proof will come out within a matter of months not years. When we go in this will all be exposed finally.

 

[Gonz]

I think a little hard evidence

Well, if Iraq HAD wmds, in particular nukes, do you think we'd be going to war like this?

Hard evidence? We don't need no stinkin' eveidence. The UN mandate, which saddam agreed to as to avoid getting his ass blown away 12 years ago, states he must provide eveidence of destruction of said weapons-he hasn't. They have them, have used them & will again (as history shows). That said, if we tip our hand & say where they are or make enough info available that he figures out what we know or how we know it, they get moved & it becomes especially dangerous. I'd imagine the first set of targets, right after radar, will be where the WMDs are.

Remember (history again) Cuba & 1962. We had satelite photos of missiles. It's awfully hard to move missile trucks without noticing it. On the other hand, a few hundred liters of bio mass is easily moved from point A to point L without tracking. We have to hit them hard & fast to avoid that scenario.

Why can't he just take his money & leave, avoid all this mess? Mostly because he's an ambitious dicator who wishes to control the flow of oil to the world & nothing is gonna stop him, I suppose.

 

[flavio]

Hard evidence? We don't need no stinkin' eveidence.

I believe hard evidence was what we could use to get the support of the UN and then the support of U.S. citizens.

 

[Jeslek]

To get the support from the UN? Nah, not needed...

US citizens? I think the majority does indeed support a war. In any case, they voted for the Republicans.

 

[flavio]

To get the support from the UN? Nah, not needed...

US citizens? I think the majority does indeed support a war. In any case, they voted for the Republicans.

Well, your straight up wrong. The majority of U.S. citizens does not support war without UN support.

 

[Jeslek]

The majority of U.S. citizens does not support war without UN support

So? Did I say anything about how many people support war with or without UN support? I merely stated that the majority of American support a war, WITHOUT mentioning the UN's approval or not... There is a difference.

 

[flavio]

Well, my point involved the UN which you were responding to with....

support from the UN? Nah, not needed...

US citizens? I think the majority does indeed support a war.

So the basic idea is that we need support from the UN to get the majority of U.S. citizen support, if you would like to follow along.

 

[RD_151]

He's hurting his chances at reelection by not giving 75% of us more information

As I said before, I'm already voting for Hillary. And last time i actually voted for Dubya

 

[freako104]

I didnt watch it seeing as how im not a fan of Bush in fact i dont like him very much. i dont know it pounding the chest so much as he is syaing what his plans are(possibly just to scare Iraq or let the public know whats going on). hard evidence? maybe but as i have said in other threads if there is a way to get him out of power without war then we should do that but i dont think its possible hearing some things i hear such as he does have them or at least some kind of blueprint(didnt the inspectors find some paperwork on some weapons?) the majority are against war with Iraq myself included but i oppose any war. the majority prolly dont see what this has to do with terrorism(perhaps Bush is following his fathers footsteps?)

 

[Gonz]

I didnt watch it seeing as how im not a fan of Bush in fact i dont like him very much

Just another follower not wishing to find truth?

I believe hard evidence was what we could use to get the support of the UN and then the support of U.S. citizens.

A majority do support war, with or without the UN. A larger majority want the UN involved. "Should we go to war with Iraq" was asked pre & post speech last night. 66% said yes & then 77%.

The UN, wonderful on paper, have become the leasgue of nations. They certainly put a stop to Mussalini, Hitler * the Japanese pre WWII.

12 years & a whole slew of "STOP!, or we'll say STOP! again." The UN has no backbone & somebody has to step to the plate. Might as well be us.

 

[Squiggy]

A majority do support war, with or without the UN. A larger majority want the UN involved. "Should we go to war with Iraq" was asked pre & post speech last night. 66% said yes & then 77%.

That percentage dropped to 44 'without the UN support' . If you're gonna use numbers, get them right...

 

[flavio]

A majority do support war, with or without the UN.

"The speech had no immediate effect on opinions of the general population, according to the ABC News poll, which conducted an overall poll of the population while checking the speech viewers.
More than six in 10 of the overall population supported military action against Iraq after the speech; fewer than half, 46 percent, support it if the United Nations is opposed. "

From http://www.msnbc.com/news/865832.asp?0dm=C13MN

 

[catocom]

Well, after powell gets through at the UN meat,
I say "Let's get the show on the road" then let
the support fall into place when everybody sees
the stock pile.

 

[Squiggy]

And what if they're not there? Do we pay apparitions and shrug?

 

[catocom]

If they're not there?
I guess the pres. get impeached.
Geez man,
Do you really think the pres. is going to wage war, without
some definite proof from our intel. that the stuff is there?

 

[flavio]

Do you really think the pres. is going to wage war, without
some definite proof from our intel. that the stuff is there?

YES!!! If he had some proof he should share it. If Powell doesn't give something good to the UN in his meeting then there's some serious issues.

Here's some interesting thoughts .

 

[catocom]

I think a little hard evidence

Well, if Iraq HAD wmds, in particular nukes, do you think we'd be going to war like this?

Remember (history again) Cuba & 1962. We had satelite photos of missiles. It's awfully hard to move missile trucks without noticing it. On the other hand, a few hundred liters of bio mass is easily moved from point A to point L without tracking. We have to hit them hard & fast to avoid that scenario.

 

[Gonz]

there are polls for everyone

"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?"
Favor Oppose No
Opinion
% % %
1/28/03 63 32 5
1/27/03 61 36 3
1/16-20/03 57 41 3
12/02 62 35 3
11/02 64 29 7
9/23-26/02 61 34 5
9/12-14/02 68 29 3
8/29/02 56 34 10
8/7-11/02 69 22 9
3/02 72 24 4
1/02 71 24 4
12/01 72 24 5
11/01 78 17 6

"Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?"
Support Oppose Not Sure
% % %
1/03 67 25 8
12/02 65 23 12
11/02 68 18 14

 

[Gonz]

If he had some proof he should share it.

WHy? TO let the enemy know who, what & where?

 

[Squiggy]

So where are the numbers for the "without UN support" poll?