http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...top.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=350384 United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad. Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction.
Never read The Telegraph, its an ultra-conservative paper. To get journalistic info, read The Guardian or The Independent. http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,877819,00.html
Nice try Wake, Alex, Ian: "The 3,000 documents dated from the Eighties, found in an Iraqi scientist's house, detailed techniques to enrich uranium." I love how Wake's source uses the present progressive tense ("is trying" and "is continuing") to describe something the Iraqis were doing 15 or more years ago while they were our ally. In fact, 10 to 1 we were providing them with the very info contained in the docs. Saddam very well may be trying to develop nukes still, but this "discovery" proves nothing.
Anti war "freaks?" That's pretty funny. People who don't like war are freaks. You ask me, people who like the death and destruction of war are the freaks, but hey, that's me. YMMV.
If Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons and other wmds and they are a serious threat to American and world interests (as i believe), then it is incumbent upon the president of the United States to use all means, including military, to eliminate that threat. Period. If he does not, then I will not vote for him. I'm getting sick of this "Is this a material breach?" game. Either we know they have the weapons or are developing the weapons or we don't. Either they are violating their cease fire agreements and a state of war exists or they are not. THere is no middle ground. There is no excuse for letting the Europeans tie our hands. In fact that's the worst thing possible, b/c then every dictator with aggressive ambitions and delusions of grandeur will have a successful gameplan to dominating their regions.In fact, if we don't act, we will have little to no influence in the world, because our potential allies won't trust a word that we say. They'll be far more worried about the Saddam Husseins of the world than assured by our assurances. The world will be run by the Saddams and the Kim Jong-Ils. That's what we're heading for if we don't act. I mean for gosh sakes, how many years has China illegally and unilaterally occupied Tibet? 50+? Still, every other nation tries to curry favor with them. Sure, Amensty International occasionally issues a paper condemning their human rights record, but what difference does that make? But somehow the United States is frightened of overthrowing one of the most oppressive dictators on Earth and improving the lives of the people of his country, in the long run. Unreal.
C'mon now. All we have to do is hold hands, close our eyes and pray for peace, and we will have it. Right? I'm reminded of Carter's comments when he won the Nobel Peace Prize. There are those who say war is a necessary evil , but it is nevetheless evil. My feelings are, war is evil, but nevertheless it is sometimes necessary. Don't get me wrong. War sucks. I have relatives who can tell me about it first hand. There are those who believe war and violence never solved anything. Study history. Violence solved Naziism. Violence ended slavery in the US. And now we have a situation where this particular problem can be solved with a minimal degree of violence. Or we can wait , and several years down the line maybe millions die.
While I think being anti-war is certainly a defensible position, I have to say that describing the organizers of yesterday's peace demonstrations as "freaks" isn't far off the mark, I'm afraid. International ANSWER has extremely close ties with the Workers World Party. The WWP has, over the years, supported the actions of the Chinese government in Tienanmen Square, supports the horrific regime in place in North Korea and been a leading defender of Milosevic. As I said, being anti-war can be a legitimate stance, but I wish the anti-war folk would get someone else to carry their banner.
Neither one of those statements are given, by any means. Ideally, we'd be trying to solve this particular problem with no violence. That's the big problem with the "we know they're in material breach but we can't tell you" game. Well, one of the big problems.
Laying aside for a minute the question of war, gosh those protestors were goofy. i watched some of it on C-SPAN and it was a laugh riot, watching all these people wrapped up so tightly in their Che fantasy. The first speaker I saw asked the crowd to repeat the phrase "Allahu Akbar" like they were about to crash the plane. Sickening. Another one talked about the Bush administration "assassinating" the politicians that oppose the war, a presumptive reference to Paul Wellstone. At some point Patti (sp?) Davis shows up and sings a song called, I kid you not, "People Have the Power." IT was a really fun night's entertainment.
Nature of the beast. Any minor movement that becomes a mass movement will have such "problems." Just because the Communists, for example, were against Jim Crow way before lots of people doesn't mean Jim Crow was a great idea.
I think you mean Patti Smith. That's a pretty good song, and a pretty good album. On this general topic/digression...there was a great quote in the WP on the protest. Some guy said something like, "I don't like being here with these sentimental fools, but I don't think Bush has made his case." I distinctly remember the phrase "sentimental fools." I was going to start a thread discussing that quote, and the (IMO) distraction of having Jesse Jackson speak.