Did Colin Powell's presentation at the UN convince YOU that Iraq is hiding or misleading the presence of weapons of mass destruction?

yep

There are two types of people in the world…

1) Those that are willing to deal with a problem no matter the cost

2) Those that are willing to ignore a problem so they don't have to pay a cost

To live free without fear means dealing with a problems, head-on and it costs!

Tight Lines & Shoot Straight

I was fortunate enough to see the entire presentation to the UN. Powell is a powerful speaker and presented (IMO) the evidence masterfully. And still the French et. al. don't get it. Their first call was to increase the number of inspectors. With Iraq actively hiding the WMDs, what difference will doubling or even increasing by ten fold the number of inspectors do. Could the truth be that France doesn't want war because it is they that have huge oil and other contracts with Iraq? I think the "no war for oil" protesters are targeting the wrong country.

The more interesting question is "Did his presentation change anyone's mind?" In other words, is there anyone out there that wanted war with Iraq who after hearing Secretary Powell speak doesn't want the war? And vice versa. I missed the presentation, and the only thing I have heard is that at least one Democrat - Senator Biden - now believes that war is the only course. I do not have enough wisdom to answer the question. I know that war is terrible and that innocents and American combatants will lose their lives inevitably. One thing I can say though, especially living on the West Coast, I am much, much more concerned about North Korea. They have nukes and the ability to deliver them. They also have millions of starving people - now that is truly scary.

I dont think he should have had to make his case. I think Its been made for about 12 years now.I do think he did a great job of presenting what information he had.He was very convincing.Even though it was mostly circumstantial evidence.I thought it was pretty damning.

I believe that the countries that are so against us going to war against Iraq have ulterior motives. i.e. protecting their own interests.

I hate the idea of war,but sometimes I think it is a necessary evil.This time,the lesser of the 2.

People are arguing that it will cause more terrorist attacks on the U.S.I believe that its inevitable that we will have more terrorist attacks no matter what action or lack of it we take.

I hope it never comes to this,and it probably wouldnt,but at least with G.W. in office if we ever have to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks.By us I mean the general public.We will have our personal firearms so that we will be better able to do just that.With a few more years of Clintons regime(Gore)that wouldnt be possible,because I'm convinced that it would be illegal for the general public to own those firearms.

I may not agree with everything G.W. says or does.I even think its more than a little too personal for him.But I do support his decision on this.

Hopefully Hussein is taken out one way or another.There are better alternatives than war,for sure. Hopefully his weapons will be destroyed.and this is taken care of once and for all.
My 2 cents worth anyway.

Frankly I don't think it really matters. I think it is time for the US to take the initiative and fix things before they need to be fixed. I am tired of us usually sitting back and waiting for something to happen cry about it then get pissed and then try and figure out how to fix it. 9-11 wasn't that long ago!! And Iraq has the capabilities to inflict some sort of mayham on inocent people. Lets just take care of the problem now!
Buck

I've posted several links on the State of the Union link that discuss some of the oil related issues and why France/Russia are so reluctant to sign on to this conflict. Interesting reading.

About the PP poles - I find it very revealing that the State of the Union speech had about a 52% approval rating for Bush, and Powell is running over 90%. Either people don't trust Bush as much, they trust Powell more, or it just took hearing the evidence put forth in a convincing way to sway the readers of this site.

Boy I'm encouraged so far...No Socialist babble yet..atleast on this particular thread. Those who hate George Bush and despise Republicans will most likely be against everything ...just like the same people were all for similar policies when their hero was in office...I think there will be serious consequences if we act but worse consequences if we don't. I've also been to North Korea and that situation is definitely scary,too.

How soon the French forget huh? If it wasn't for us they'd all be speaking German.
I can't believe there's been this many posts on this subject and nobody has been flamed, very different crowd in here than some of the other fishing boards I've been on.
I don't think GWB is a master communicator but he sure stood up to the UN, I liked that.
If we do end up going into Iraq maybe we ought to lob a few at France as we fly by as a reminder.
Seriously though, if we do it we should do it right, there's always going to be dissention whatever we do.
North Korea is maybe even scarier to me, my uncle commanded a chopper squadron there, actually in S. Korea and recently came home to attend more school. I know he's glad to be back in the States with his family but it's amazing to me how those marines are all over kicking some butt, he's chomping at the bit to get back and put his training to use. I'd hate to worry about him in a war but also am secure in the fact that our guys ARE the best at what they do.

In the end, does it really matter if Colin Powell made his case or not? Face it, we're going to war with Iraq, probably in the next few weeks. I've been predicting this since Bush got selected.

Bush has a blood feud with Saddam and no amount of protest is going to stop it. Not having France help really doesn't matter, either. While I agree that Sadaam is an evil *******, I don't think firing the first shot is a trait I would like Americans to be known for. Still, I gotta be pragmatic; like it or hate it, war is a given at this point.

At the risk of being callous, is anyone planning to pop some popcorn and watch the war on CNN? Or are you hitting the streets to check out the protests?

If your going to watch it on TV, watch Fox News, and S$$$W CNN, the Clinton News Network

Powell definitely made a good case for justifying action in Iraq. I have to ask myself, though, "Could he have made as good of a case for invading N. Korea?" Indonesia? Pakistan? (where Osama is presumed to be) Saudi Arabia?(Who's funding radical Islam all over the World) Nigeria?

I'm not quite sure what we're stepping into. If we don't have UN support, what do we do when China invades Taiwan without UN support or when N. Korea invades S. Korea without UN support, or when India nukes Pakistan without UN support. It's too volatile a world for one country to be judge, jury and exicutioner. I just hope there's a coalition before there's a war. I also think we're a lot more likely to see chem and bio weapons used against our troops and the Isreali's in the impending war.

It's too bad we (the US) has to work so hard for the "permission" to protect the rest of the world. There's no doubt, the things Powell devulged today, were details best kept to the people making strategic plans when we ultimately go to war. But thanks to the French, German and Chinese boneheads, most of the secrets had to be openned up. Everytime I hear those wimps complaining about going to war a couple thoughts come to mind:
1. What would they be saying when Sadam sends a nuke over and kills their family members and friends. Probably hear things like, "Why didn't GW do something months ago" and "I thought this government of ours was supposed to protect us by defending our freedom!"
2. What would our founding fathers say or more importantly, what would the heros say, who gave up their lives in pursuit of the freedoms that each one of us enjoy. Did they die in vain or is someone going to have enouph balls to stand up and do what needs to be done to take care of the evil, sadistic terrorists. We all have the the responsibility to protect freedom. For some, just standing behind and supporting those who are out there, laying their lives on the line, is doing your part. And, by the way, if you don't like it, you also have the freedom to get the #&!! out. No body is forcing you to stay here.
God Bless America!

Actually, they said this:
"Peace... has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it... However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care in pursuit of a fantastic honor unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions or the pride of administrators excited by personal incidents in which their citizens have no concern."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
Oh, don't give me that bull**** "Love it or Leave it" line. As Jefferson says, "My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right, and righted when wrong."

Yeticaster,well done! Maybe everyone didn't sleep through my history classes.

THINK IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER SING ALONG!


Are you ready?

"If You're Happy And You Know It Clap your Hand". We all remember that one. Well lets get singing, we need some humor in here.


If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is to risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Lets look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-agression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
"Cos it's all the proof I need,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
( And he tried to kill your dad )
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growing', bomb Iraq.
Of your ties to it are showing', bomb iraq.
If your politices are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason ,
Bomb Iraq.


Now was'nt that fun.

For Yeticaster:

Speaking on behalf of all of us Veterans on this great site, your obvious bleeding heart liberal BS is pathetic.

You do however have every right to protest! I served this country to protect that right. Your "Bush got selected" comment is typical LIBERAL poor loser statement. Thank God we have Mr Bush in office. He atleast has the guts to lead and protect and not kiss the asses of those countries who have forgotten what this country has done for them. Thank God for the people that have protected our way of life and continue to do so.

Here is a History Lesson:
I know I know................. Clinton was such a great guy as I am sure you believe. What a great guy.... Bin Laden was handed to him, too busy with Monica to deal with that. China didn't have the capability to nuke our country via long range missiles....... Slick Willy helped them to fix that problem. etc... Thanks Bill!
I am sure you already know the rest of this story!

You do have the right to protest! In this GREAT COUNTRY people have fought and died to protect that right, I do believe however that seeing how you ungrateful Liberals like polls so much.... I believe the results are in! You are in the small minority here. Instead of making your hateful unwelcomed comments here, go to Hollywood! I bet you drive and SUV, and fish in a 22 ft. Sled gas guzzeling "OIL" burning Sled huh? So why don't you hop in that rig and go see Barbra Streisand, Bill and Hillary, Jesse Jackson, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen and the rest of the America Haters and Sadaam Hussein Apologists! You can all bash this country in private!

I sincerely feel sorry for you! I hope you never have to bury your kids because of a terrorist!
If you do I am sure you will blame the Red/White and Blue for it! Please don't forget 9/11!

One last thing......... I will never let people like you disrespect my country. Shooting first is sometimes a necessary trait! I don't believe in getting shot at especially when I see it coming. The U.N. is a frigging joke!
God Bless Mr. Bush, God Bless our Troops, God Bless America!

Thanks to all of you that have served and continue to serve and protect our GREAT COUNTRY! Thanks to all of you that love the this country and defend the belief of FREEDOM!

Tight lines to all of you!

Shame on all you America Bashers!

Yeti, give Barbra my best!

None of this is about our freedom, or even our safety. Hussein is a bad one, and the world will be better off when he is gone. But spouting BS about this being about our freedom just shows you've been reading the propaganda and not researching the facts. Hussein can't threaten our freedom. He can't possibly militarily threaten us. We can and will crush him like a bug. There is simply no scenario where he would invade the US or any of our territories. So it is simply absurd to talk about this being about our freedom. Freedom is about somebody limiting your actions - he can't do that.

What he can possibly do is threaten our safety, or more realisticly, the safety and freedom of countries in the middle east. However, until we started all this escalation, it made no sense for him to do so. Maybe he's got anthrax, mustard gas, or heaven forbid, an A-bomb. If he were to use them, he knows we would render the Euphrates Valley into a molten glass plain. Thats why we keep our own Weapons of Mass Destruction, of which we have more than any other country in the world.

In the last gulf war, Hussein had the poison gas. We told Iraq that it would be a VERY BAD THING if they used gas on our boys, and they understood that. Under any normal circumstances, our arsenal would keep us safe, regardless of what he has in the back room.

But we seem loathe to leave well enough alone. It's ironic, but we are rapidly pushing things towards the only scenario where it makes sense for him to use any of these weapons that he has. Think about it - we have the power to level Iraq. That power has deterrent value, right up until the time that we commit to a plan of action that results in Hussein's death or imprisonment. When Hussein sees that coming, given that he is a vengeful, evil mo-fo, if he has this stuff, which we seem to think that he does, what is the logical thing for him to do with it? That's right, use or it lose it, and if he's going down, taking out as many people with him as he can.

So think about that when millions are dying of smallpox in six months. All he has to do is infect one person, and get them on a plane to, say, Seatac. Or maybe he does ten, and sends them to Seatac, Tel Aviv, Heathrow, JFK, etc. You get the picture.

So, that's why the going to war issue is a little more complicated than just marching in there waving old glory. A lot of people could die, and some of them could be our schoolchildren and wives. Is cheap oil worth that?

But let's say that we're actually wrong about him having biologicals, and that we actually can take him out easily, and that we can do it (improbably) with none of our boys getting hurt. Unilateral invasion by the US is still not in our best interest, because it will further the image we have overseas of being bullies and tyrants ourselves. Our reputation for that behavior, deserved or not, allows characters like Bin Laden to motivate their cannon fodder. People don't fly airplanes into our buildings just because they think we make bad movies.

This is a conflict that we can win and lose at the same time. By acting like a bunch of cowboys in a weekend posse, we are playing into Saddam's hands, allowing him to paint his own propagandistic picture of us. That will contribute to our having to look over our shoulders for a very long time.

Don't get me wrong, I think it was a mistake not to go all the way to Baghdad in 1991, and I think something needs to be done now. We'll just be better off if we can engineer things so that world opinion is with us rather than against us.

Well said Silver Hilton.

John Lee - nice sing along even though I get the impression we might disagree on a few things.

[[/qb][/QUOTE]None of this is about our freedom, or even our safety. Hussein is a bad one, and the world will be better off when he is gone. But spouting BS about this being about our freedom just shows you've been reading the propaganda and not researching the facts. Hussein can't threaten our freedom.

I am confused here...
Isn't terrorism a threat to our freedom? Isn't the fact that he can, will, and most likely has sponsored terriorist acts, a direct threat to our freedom? Were you eager to jump on a commercial airliner after 911? Hussein would drop nerve gas at Disneyland if he could. Nobody can feel completely safe anywhere, anytime with people like that around. Admit it, you wondered if something was going to happen at the World Series, or the Superbowl didn't you... Our freedom has already been compromised because fear of terrorism is always with us. The man is evil. Time to take him out.

First off, where do you get off thinking you are the voice of Veterans on this board? Being a Veteran doesn't mean you pack your morals and ethics away and "just follow orders". If anything, I honor my friends and family in uniform by not wanting them to be put in harm's way without a very good reason. I hate seeing my friends off for *another* six months on the USS Abraham Lincoln, away from his wife and daughters. How can you justify your bloodthirsty attitude, Mr. Red Badge of Courage? Why are you so eager to put good men and women in harms way without taking a really good look at why?

Bleeding heart liberal indeed. Hmph.



As an aside, do you deny that Mr. Gore received more votes? Yes, yes, the electoral system, I understand. I also realize that the election of 2000 demonstrated the flaws of the electoral compromise and I think it is high time we as a nation revisited our presidential election methods. But I digress...

Here, I have to disagree. Mr. Bush has done a poor job, economically, diplomatically, and politically. Economically, tons of people are unemployed, the intial tax cut had no effect, and now with the HUGE spending increases, our national debt has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. He spends *worse* than a Democrat, and is only different by not taxing to pay for it. He shows none of the classic fiscally conservative behavior, and we are worse for it.

Diplomatically, he is a disaster. Long time allies are turning their backs on us due to his policies, and he pours gasoline on the fire with such classics as his "Axis of Evil" speech. If anything, America needs to set the standard for modern democracy to keep the world's respect, and we haven't been doing that lately.

Look, I didn't particularly care for Clinton or Bush Sr., but I know when a job is being done poorly.
Congratulations on your use of the classic logical fallacy known as "The Strawman". You make blanket statements of what you feel I believe and then pummel and ridicule those beliefs to attempt to discredit and insult me.

Too bad it doesn't hold a drop of water.

You don't know what I believe. I never "bashed" this country. I don't have either an SUV or a sled, and I am certainly not an "ungrateful" Liberal.

You, on the other hand, seem happy to follow blindly under the guise of "patriotism." You may have been in the armed forces, sir, but your kind of attitude is anything but patriotic.
As a matter of fact, I have lost a friend to terrorism. He was a firefighter in New York, and he was much braver than all of the Keyboard Kourage you could ever muster.
I don't disrespect this country; I work to make it better.
I work to make it live up to the ideals for which many have died.
I stand with those who do not give up rights for temporary "security".
I stand with those who see what what we as a country are losing in our rush to implement draconian security measures.
I stand with those who believe that understanding and diplomacy is vital in our world, and that wishing it away doesn't change the fact that you DO have to deal with other countries.
I stand with those who would not waste American soldiers lives without a very good reason.

God Bless America indeed, and God protect us from the America we are slowly becoming.

I love politics... first, don't pull out the BIG OIL WAR argument unless you are willing to concede that the anti camp - France, China, and Russia, have very real oil interests of their own in Iraq. They aren't against war on humanitarian grounds, they are worried about THEIR oil interests. Please provide a solid piece of evidence that US interests are the same. We don't get Iraq oil currently and we are doing fine without it. Read some of the links I provided on the State of the Union thread.

Second, we have been attacked. It just wasn't an attack in the strict military sense. And I do believe there is an Iraq Bin Laden link. If you don't you're welcome to your opinion.

Finally, the electoral congress protects small states. Unless you'd rather have New York, California, and the other half dozen large states elect our presidents every four years. This is a nation of 50 states, not a nation of one state.

I have come to the conclusion that a sizable percentage of our population can only count to 1.

I base that on the squirrel hunting technique where two hunters enter the woods and sit down. After a while one gets up and leaves. The squirrels. who cannot count beyond one, think that it is safe again and move.

I believe that far too many people believe that about political opinions. Either you believe in Bush and EVERYTHING he does is great, or you believe in Clinton or Gore. Nothing in between.

The other countries are fighting us on the Iraq war because it is better for their own countries. They see future ecomonic advantage in having a better relationship with other countries becasue they stood up to the agressive United States. To a lot of other countries it is the U.S. that has the weapons of mass destruction and is threatening a smaller nation.

I do believe we need to take out Sadam. I just think it is sad that Bush's constant talk of war for the past year allowed the other countries to take advantage of us. In the years past WW2, Japan had difficulty trading with it's neighbors in the pacific. The neighbors remembered WW2 and the war crimes. Now we are setting ourselves up to be viewed the same way in the middle east. I wish Bush had listen to Powell right from the start, we would not be fight the other countries now just to go to war.

Oop's. I guess that opinion is not Bush's opinion and I guess that makes me un-American, supporting Osama, and, gasp, might have even voted for a Democrate at some time.

Wait, I think the FBI it tapping into my computer now...

Mike, you're welcome to believe in an Iraq to Bin Laden link if you like, it's just not a belief that is supported by the evidence. Even in the speech yesterday, Powell backed off the Iraq Terrorism link. There are a lot of reasons for us to oppose Hussein, but his support of terrorist attacks against us isn't one of them. That is propaganda that has been whipped up to build popular support for action against Iraq.

Again, think about it. Terrorists can operate because they are hidden. They do what they do because they aren't targetable for retribution. Iraq isn't hidden. While Hussein hates us, he is neither stupid nor suicidal. He has very different motivations from Bin Laden, and they weren't buddies in the best of times.

Put yourself in Hussein's shoes right now. If he were to sponsor a terrorist act right now, what do you think his assessment of our likely response is? That's right, any overt act of violence on his part would immediately sway world opinion towards a relandscaping Baghdad with 2000 lb shovels.

It would be stupid for Hussein to make himself a target by cooperating with Al Qaeda. He's many things, but stupid doesn't strike me as one of them.

The Al Qaeda threat is separate from the Iraq issue. Al Qaeda is a genuine threat to our security. Bin Laden's boys are willing to die for him, whereas most of the Iraqis would rather not. Iraq is not a threat to us, it is a threat to the other countries in the region, all of whom are at best indifferent allies to the US. Yes, even Israel. And we care about that why? Because of oil prices is the only reason I can come up with. I'm fine with that - we need stable oil prices for the world economy to continue to recover.

Some people will protest, "No, we're against Iraq because he's an evil dictator and uses bad weapons against his own people and the good folks of Iran." Well, so what? Mexico keeps thousands of people in hell hole prisons, hundreds of whom die every year. Africa is littered with corrupt violent dictatorships. North Korea is producing and selling missiles for the third world. We ourselves have more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world. What is it, particularly, about Iraq that makes Hussein the dictator that needs to be taken out today? Answer - political stability in the major oil producing region of the world.

Which I'm fine with. I just don't delude myself that this has anything to do with freedom, security or high moral causes. You shouldn't either.

Loco that name fits!

And your signature like it is who would believe you!!


Yeti- Bush ruin the economy? hmmmm The economy was falling while your beloved Clinton was in office he rode the shirttails of Reganomics and took all the praise..Clinton was the absolute worst Presideant EVER!!
Let me ask this do you feel you could do all the illegal things he done and still be walking free? NO! Not only that but if you knew how our military lacked from our great idiot clinton its scary!
And yes when clinton was voted in office BY ELECTORIAL VOTES he was outvoted by the people..

No, you are mistaken, Mike. The Senate is protection for small states, not the electoral college. The electoral college was put in place to compensate for the slow speed of communication that existed at the time. Like the House of Representatives, it attempts to match representation based on population.

However, this is where it is breaking down. The votes of the electors no longer correlate correctly to a states population. A vote from a citizen of Wyoming has more value than the vote of three citizens of California!

Is that right? What happened to "One person, one vote" that is at the core of democracy? That isn't protection, it is outright unfair! My vote shouldn't count less just because of what state I choose to live in. We now have the technology to make the Presidential election a popular vote as it should be. It is a reform that all parties, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, should be interested in.

Timber,

I didn't vote for Clinton, but I think it's a stretch to say that Reaganomics had anything to do with the boom we enjoyed during Clinton's years. Lest we forget, the economy was in a significant recession when the 92 elections were on. You're going to tell us that policies from 5 years before Clinton took office caused that recession to go away?

Recessions happen, and a lot of economists think that they are largely outside of the ability for administrations to control. The best thing we can do is try to not make them worse.

First off the electoral system is nothing short of genius by our forefathers.Without it we might as well just appoint extreme left wingers. To be fair to Bush he inherited the bad economy and with out 9/11 i am sure the economy would be hummin right now. Are the anti-threat of war protesters really for peace or just anti-Bush.And any moron who can get past idealogue will realize that russia, france and germany are balking because of oil interest.One more thing , those protesters need to go to baghdad because the onus is on hussein not the u.n. or the us.

I unfortunately did not hear Colon Powel's message, but I consider Colon Powell to be a much more thoughtful man than George Bush will ever be. Colon Powell, in presence alone, adds credence to this cause of starting war with Iraq. Bush strikes me as the kind of man that skips over the details and goes with his gut and I am not at all confident or convinced that singling out Iraq is in the best interests of the United States. This war will cost a ton of money, that could be spent on NASA, new and improved weapon systems or fund the tax cuts that George has no idea how he's going to pay for.....All he knows is that he's going to do it no matter what! I think Bush's new campaign slogan should be the "Deficit Driving Republican."

I've heard that going to war without France is like going Deer Hunting without an Acordian Player.

Timber,

The decline of the military actually started in the mid 80's as a result of the Graham-Rudman act. That was the post-vietnam major downsizing. Many senior officials believe it has resulted in a hollow corps required to do more with less.

Additionally, although many have claimed that Clinton tried to fill the ranks with gays, quite the opposite is true. Since the adoption of his "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the number of discharges for homosexuality has risen approximately 300%.

Finally, my biggest pay raise came while Clinton was in office. Matter of fact, Bush was going to severely limit the military pay raise for 2004 until the Pentagon pressured him into adding a significant raise to the upper ranks (none for the lower enlisted) to the upcoming budget.

Racer,

I believe the majority of anti-war protestors are genuinely concerned with peace, and I don't think it has anything to do with whether they support Bush or not.

I guess we should send the spouses of all the deployed soldiers to Iraq? You can't convince me that they are not opposed to their loved ones going off to battle. Ergo, they are anti-war protestors.

It's pretty easy to sit in front of a monitor and be an "armchair general," but until you've had to bury a soldier that you've lived and trained with, save your saber rattling for someone else. Anti-war protestors are not simply left wing radicals. Many are people that have loved ones they don't want to die. Many are veterans that have seen the horrors of war and wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

We took an oath to "defend the Constitution, and protect the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic." As far as I'm concerned, the US is in no danger from Iraq.... yet. There's a reason why it's called the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

Silver Hilton,

Precisely.

GUTZ-Good Lord, THAT has GOT to be the FUNNIEST thing I have EVER READ!!!

Elk,

No, terrorism is a threat to our safety. Our safety and comfort has been compromised, not our freedom. We're just as free as we were before 9/11. We are just more aware of the hatred that some people feel for us. It was already there, we were just ignorant of it. Now we know.

There is little evidence or logic that I can see that Hussein is interested in terrorism. The terrorists are groups like the PLO, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda, groups with passionate grievances, and no siginificant military might to use to fight against their targets. They also are few in number, and hidden, so that when they strike, they cannot easily be targeted in return.

As I said above, this doesn't describe either Iraq or, for that matter, North Korea (which I think is a bigger danger to us than Iraq, frankly).

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, similar to Hezollah, are using terror attacks to make it politically expensive for their targets to continue policies that the terrorists dislike. In the case of Al Qaeda, they want us to quit supporting the current Saudi government, which they view, correctly, as oppressive and corrupt. They also want us to exert pressure on Israel to settle the palestinian issue in a way that favors palestinians.

Hussein on the other hand, doesn't care about these issues, except as propaganda points to win support for his side. He has visions of an empire than stretches from Turkey to the Persian gulf. He cares about power, influence, prestige, and his personal safety. In sharp contrast to the terrorists, he is not willing to die for any cause, and is not religiously motivated.

Because he's not interested in dying for his cause, it makes no sense for him to bomb Disneyland, because he is targetable, and knows it.

That is, it makes no sense for him to launch an attack on us, unless, and until we are taking him down, and he has nothing to lose.

I agree that he should go. But let's not kid ourselves and think it's a simple walk in the park.

The biggest threat to our freedom right now is a misguided effort to relax the constitutional protections that we enjoy in the pursuit of safety. We are facing a choice - continue to maintain the protections maintained in the bill of rights, at the risk that it makes finding a terrorist harder, or repealing the bill of rights in exchange for a perception of greater safety.

If we let that happen, in my opinion, the terrorists will have won.

While I did not generally support Clinton, he did do one thing right: reduce the deficit. I honestly cannot comprehend how you can call yourself conservative if you do not believe in conservative fiscal policies. In that respect, Bush is a rampant liberal sans the taxation. He spends money we don't have.

As for the worst American President, I believe that honor goes to Andrew Johnson, not William J. Clinton.

Okay, I have to draw the line here. If you are going to argue with me, at least be *somewhat* intelligent and be accurate with your facts. Clinton was NOT outvoted by the people.

http://www.multied.com/elections/1992pop.html

1992 POPULAR VOTE
Perot: 19.0%
Bush: 37.7%
Clinton: 43.3%

If you would pull yourself away from Rush for more than a minute, you would know that.

So let's see Yeti said "One person, one vote" … Are you willing to verify that you are a Legal United States Citizen? That would reduce the number of votes that Gore received from several states California and New York being just two… How about a verification of “Alive” status? That would reduce of votes that Gore and Demo's received in the States of Illinois (especially in Chicago) and Missouri… And, I guess all those legally registered homeless voters would know where to pickup their free packs of cigarettes from the Demo's in several states to assure that they vote for the “right” candidate… And, let's not forget all of those nice convicted felons that are restricted from voting that seem to vote in every election…

We are along way from “One person, one vote” … You also said “…We now have the technology… “ yes we have the ability to let everyone vote BUT, we still do not have a 100% secure technology to do this! To date there has not been an electronic system developed and implemented that has not been hacked into or had a virus attack!

Ok… Silver Hilton you said…
------------------------------------
”None of this is about our freedom, or even our safety. Hussein is a bad one, and the world will be better off when he is gone. But spouting BS about this being about our freedom just shows you've been reading the propaganda and not researching the facts. Hussein can't threaten our freedom. He can't possibly militarily threaten us. We can and will crush him like a bug. There is simply no scenario where he would invade the US or any of our territories. So it is simply absurd to talk about this being about our freedom. Freedom is about somebody limiting your actions - he can't do that.”
-----------------------------------
So, I have a question… After 9-11 did you change anything in the way that you live your day-to-day life? If you didn't change something you are in the minority in America and the world! Ya,Ya, I know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but, it does put your comment “…Hussein can't threaten our freedom… Freedom is about somebody limiting your actions - he can't do that.” into a different light! Any walking/breathing piece of feces that can sneak into our country, can do damage. And the world knows and sees that the target of the terrorists is not just military or governmental!!

We could probably agree that nobody wants war for war's sake. But to believe that no one wants to harm us or the US is just being an Ostrich! There are individuals that are just evil or mean no matter what even if you do nothing to them.

Anyway my $0.02

SH,
Don't worry, I'm not deluded. But we have a difference of opinion on the terrorist connection as presented by Mr. Powell. That's OK, it's what democracy is all about.
I don't have too many delusions about going to Iraq to free the masses. It's not our business, frankly, although it always shows a lack of moral fiber to sit by while innocents die by the hundreds of thousands. But nations don't behave like individuals.
What I am honestly having a hard time understanding is why the anti-war crowd thinks Iraq is not a threat to us? You seriously believe that the chemical and biological weapons are going to stay safe and sound in their hiding places and not be leaked to terrorist cells for shipment to the US? You truly believe Saddam is just stockpiling this stuff to satisfy his ego or something? That he just wants to have an atomic weapon so he can feel safe and never use it to threaten Kuwait or Saudia Arabia? SH, can you really type these words - "I don't believe Saddam is a threat to the US and I don't think he will leak his weapons out to terrorists." Because if you can type those words, you're a braver man than me, Gunga Din.

Yeti - Social security fund! does that ring a bell?


As far as starting to call names don't do that behind a computter screen you chicken $hit.. I'm on lots of rivers meet me at one and say it to my face!!! Bet you don't have the balls!!!

Yes, I know of Social Security. What is the point you are trying to make.

I haven't called you names. I wasn't the one making strawman arguements such as saying "your beloved Clinton" and I certainly didn't make inaccurate claims without so much as checking my facts before posting. I did prove you wrong and urged you to be more intellegent about getting your facts straight.

However, your implied threat of violence in the face of rational debate says much about you, and I stand defiant against such bullying attempts. On the river, to your face, wherever you like; you are wrong, and I am unafraid to tell you so.

How unafraid am I?

My name is Ryan Ositis. I live at 1333 N. 180th St. in Shoreline. If you really need someone to tell you that you are wrong in person, that is where I am.

MIke,

No, I don't doubt that he's making the stuff to use it. The question is on who, and why. I think we're at risk of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - I think we're both of the opinion that he's past his expiration date. He has chemical weapons and has used them because they're efficient ways to fight wars. He didn't use them on us in the Gulf War, which demonstrates that he can be deterred by threats of superior force. I don't think it's great that he has them, and I don't think it would be great if he had nukes, either. However, I must point out that Pakistan, India, North Korea, South Africa, and all of the states of the former soviet union have nukes. We don't want Hussein to get them, but lets not kid ourselves that he's the only quick stop weapons shop in the mid-east.

There are already too many nukes in unfriendly or unstable hands. If you want to have a nightmare, think about revolution in Pakistan, with the winner being buddies with Bin Laden. There is already significant instability in Pakistan, and Mushareff (sp) is only hanging on by the skin of his teeth.

I believe Hussein mainly wants nukes because Israel has nukes. If he had a nuke, it would dramatically change the balance of power between Iraq and Israel. Him getting a few nukes would not change the balance of power between Iraq and the US, it would only affect the balance between him and the other states in the region. He doesn't need them to sell them for the money - he's got oil.


Wabowhunter,

re: 9/11, the point is, Iraq had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the world trade center bombing. If it had, and we had even a shred of evidence, the Marines would be toasting weiners in Baghdad already. So tying these two events together is sloppy logic at best. But, as I have said elsewhere, Hussein did not and does not have the motivation for these types of acts.

You may be missing my point. I don't mean to downplay the significance or horror of 9/11. My point is just that there's a lot of flag waving going on as we are trying to figure out what we are doing. There's a lot of talk about freedom. This is an emotionally charged word, and it moves people to take action. I merely observe that our freedom is not at risk, has not been put at risk, and is not likely to be put at risk by these events.

Our safety is at risk. Our economy has been damaged. We feel less secure. But we are still free to flame at each other on our keyboards. We are still free to walk down the street. We can still buy firearms, and criticize our government. We can still buy and burn Brittany Spears cds. I don't think anyone would argue that these aspects of our society, which make us a great place to live, have been changed.

So, yeah, even though I worry about a mushroom cloud appearing the freight docks in downtown Seattle, I don't think it's correct to say that our freedom has been reduced or threatened.

The only reason that I am picking this nit is that I don't respect the way the Bush administration has been propagandizing us. It annoys me, because I actually agree with GW that we need to take Saddam out. But I bitterly object to Bush trying to manipulate the American people and the world into seeing it his way and only his way. The simple facts and truth ought to be good enough. If they are not, well, then maybe our position isn't correct.

I thought this was northwest fishing board i must of hit the wrong key sorry for interupting

Timberman, you are getting pretty heated, you better slow down, take a deep breath and count to 10. Oop, sorry, let me help you:
1
not 1
1
not 1
1
not 1

This could take a while to get to 10...

BTW, Clinton did take over an economy that was on the rebound, but it wasn't from Reaganomics. President Bush Senior gets credit for that. I find it sad that the Republicans treated him like a red-headed stepchild. President Bush made the very difficult decision of going against the Republican king-makers and raised taxes. He had the economy that was in a severe downturn due the massive federal deficits and made the decision that he knew would probably cost him the election. That was true courage which his son, and Clinton, lack.

The economy is something every outdoorsman should be worried about. We are now at record deficit spending and that is not counting on the massive tax cut and the pending war in Iraq. Already something like 20 cents out of every dollar the government spends is just for the interest on the national debt. Just think how big the interest payment will be after the war and Bush's tax cut? We will then be told the only way out is to sell the BLM and Forest Service lands.

That is not left-wing propaganda, the sagebrush rebellion in the '70's was real. In the 90's they floated the idea of transfering the lands to the state where it would be much easier to sell. I have read opinions from the far-right that state that it is against the U.S. Constitution for the United States to own more land than what the federal buildings are on. I've read the Consititution and don't see that but then I'm just a simple engineer and can only read what is on paper, and not get the the minds of the founding fathers like the lawyers with an agenda. If you hunt and fish on federal land, you should be concerned.

I should thank you, Timberman, you do prove my point; Both the democrats and the republicans want you to believe their answers are the only answers and you have to take the whole package. Something to ask yourself is whether if you believe the entire party line, be it democrate or republican. If you have difficulty finding a disagreement with your party, then maybe you have been brainwashed. Because I disagreed with Bush on the economy, you thought I was a Clinton supporter...back to that 1, not 1 counting. If you must know, I supported John McCain. After he lost, I kinda lost interest. I did make a prediction that is now true. Before the election I said that if Bush was elected we would be back in massive deficit spending in 2 years.

I have considered starting my own polictical party: The Dead Skunk Party. I want to call it that from the Rush Limbaugh line "The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead skunks". Of course it would take away from my fishing time so I just write letters to my elected officials.

Your fearless leader GW Bush is a coward and a liar, have a look at his service records during vietnam. Funny hes so pumped about sending our young troops off to war, to do something he would surely never do himself. For all you who are so gung ho why dont you go enlist or reenlist in the marines and lead the charge? One more thing I think that anyone who goose steps along with EITHER political party is rather foolish.
GW Bush & Vietnam

SH,
On the point that we live in a dangerous world we can definately agree. I fear for the future generations and the trials they face.

Social security was used by the Clinton admin. for what?...

Thats good ynotfish coming from a demo web page

Well Im sure the pubs wouldnt say it. Are you saying its not true TM?

I hate war, and I hate politics just about as much. Yeah, I'm convinced that we have to do something about Saddam, but maybe let's just start by standing back and shooting the hell out of all those offensive things that CP was showing us on the sattelite photos. Start taking out trucks and trains too. Just don't waste one American life on that jerk.

I like to fish, let's talk about that.

The Clinton Legacy! Predicting the future reputation of any president is a difficult business. A consensus is bound to develop concerning an ex-president and William Jefferson Clinton is no exception.

One thing often considered when an ex-president?s legacy is forming is......the wisdom gained by the man during his term or terms of office. How this wisdom is manifested when that president ends his term of power. What kind of an elderly statesman will the ex-president make? How will he continue to contribute to the American people who trusted him as their leader.

A president?s demeanor, particularly at the end of his term, is considered. Sometimes, as in the case of George Washington his final speech to the nation stands out. The final ?military-industrial complex speech of president Eisenhower comes to mind. In the case of president Franklin D. Roosevelt?s we were locked in a two front war and things were happening fast. FDR?s health was failing and he was a sick man during his last years in office. On the other hand you have ex-presidents like Calvin Coolidge who were not notable in retrospect before, during or after his term in office. .

The exit of Richard Nixon looks good compared to the exit of William Jefferson Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton exit from the presidency reminds me more of Warren Harding if not worse.

Only time and history will record Clinton?s legacy. But I am sure down deep Bill Clinton must have some very very deep regrets. If not now....as he ages he certainly will. It is tragic! Because of his self centered personality there were so many lost opportunities. Great opportunities for America were wasted by William Jefferson Clinton particularly in the dealing of foreign affairs. . I could not imagine a worse exit to power than that forced on this great nation by Bill Clinton. His actions were not worthy of the office of the presidency......or of our great country.

When the history books are written.....I fear It will be difficult for the students of the next century to comprehend the mind set and actions of this man. For that matter it will be difficult for them to comprehend the mind set of the people of the United States who elected him and reelected him to his period of power.

I wonder where the $277 billion a year went from military money Clinton sure didn't spend that much yet $277 billion was taken and a few billion were unaccounted for every year hmmmmmmm!

Plagiarism is a terrible thing. If you're going to have a thought, try to make it original.

Okay, I'm going to have to invoke the Discussion Board rule of Post Link Or STFU. Since you were pulling facts out of thin air before, we need some sort proof citation before you are remotely believable.

Okay, enough with the diatribes against Clinton, Timber. We get the point that you hate him, but those feelings are not really germane to the topic at hand.

Besides, your tin-foil hat style rants about him don't particularly anger or offend me since I didn't generally support him. I just want you to make sure you have your facts straight. :p

Just for the record for anyone flaming me, I am not a Democrat OR a Republican. I am a registered independent - and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I see Saddam Hussein and his close leaders having meetings on t.v. all the time. Seems like they could drop 50 cruise missles on one of his meetings and be done with it.

A victory in Iraq has the possibility to open Pandora's box. There's really no telling what my be unleashed in the U.S., or no way to determine if a strike would increase terrorism.

Ever think about how crazy this all is--- anthrax, terrorism etc in the United States?? AMericans have for the most part been immune to the struggles other nations have had around th world. It hits hard when it occurs at home.

I think we'd hit one of those meetings in a minute if we could. Problem is, he knows it. I doubt there's an Iraqi CNN truck parked outside that we could use as a beacon. That's one of the reasons for the 70 some presidential palaces. He's got a lot of thought and money put into his personal security.

I kind of enjoyed O'Reilys Rant last night. Here it is. I suppose some of you proabably aren't tuned into Fox.

O\'Reillys Talking Points

Should we learn from history?

Does anyone here remember a Dictator (of a oil producing country) that was tied to terrorism worldwide, that made terrorist attacks against the US and several of our allies?

Mu'ammar al-Quadhafi

You know that a previous “moron cowboy” President (according to the Democrats), who was going to start WW III (again according to the Democrats) sent a message to Mu'ammar! You kill Americans with your cowardace terrorist attacks and we will come for you and your family!

Now, it has been a long time since (1986) we have heard from or about that Dictator! Do you suppose that he heard the message?

One other thing nobody can say that the US or our military have not been attacked without provokation… Do you remember the USS Stark (1987) and the death of 37 US Servicemen?

Maybe we should have used the same message on Saddam?

Goharley, you misqouted me i said "anti-threat of war protesters "as we are not at war yet.I do believe that most people want peace me included. My point is this , if hussein complies is war not diverted? Is it not all about that and not all about bush the warmonger.I do not hold ill will toward the protsters at all but there are a few holding "bush knew" signs referring to 9/11 which makes one wonder of somes motives,not all but some.And if i were protesting on a sreet corner i wouldnt be among people holding such signs.Personally korea is scarier to me than iraq at the moment.

Didnt mean to sound nit picky on previous post. The party line politics sucks but fishing dosent. :p

I think the "Bush Knew" signs are over the top. There is certainly reason to take our security forces to task for having not responded to data that we had, but it's overstating the case to say that we, or the president in particular, knew that this type of attack was impending. The sad fact is that our people were human, and they screwed up. The first one of us who has never screwed up, please stand up, now.

I sure wish we could detune the political attacks from both sides of the spectrum back to a productive level. Sometimes I feel like we hate each other more than Al Qaeda hates us.