A Progress Report

[mr mahs]

Coming home from work yesterday I noticed protestors through out the city and the first thing I thought was why? After all the dicoveries of human torture, rape, mass graves and now that what we have known all along has been exposed, the U.N oil for food debacle.. How can anybody protest what's been done? I'll tell you one thing, from the view I saw and this just might be concentrated to whom took the ferry that day , social misfits with mawhawks and lip ring and of course the infamous"War for Oil" T shirts.... is all I saw holding those pickett signs... I felt like asking one of them if they picketed when Iraqi's were dying every day at the hands of Sadam? Most likely not...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/marshall200403190820.asp

A Progress Report

Iraq, the next March.

By Paul Marshall

Spain's socialist prime-minister-elect buttressed his intention of pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq with the claim that "the war has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster." While few in America are quite so negative, there is a pervasive sense that things are going badly over there. In truth, most things have gone well.

The invasion itself went rapidly, with death tolls below almost everyone's expectations. There was no gotterdammerung: no refugee outflows; no humanitarian disasters; the oilfields were not set ablaze; the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates were not breached.

I traveled to Iraq two months after the end of major hostilities and the first striking thing about Baghdad was that most hopeful sign: traffic jams. Here were tens of thousands of people who had cars and were in a heck of a hurry to get somewhere to do something. This was no cowed, broken city, and no cowed, broken people.

The second striking thing was the minimal indications that there had been a war: occasional burned out trucks and tanks, shattered street signs, and then those shells of government buildings. The bombing had been not only accurate, but had left nearly all the destroyed buildings still standing. Some looked undamaged until you got up close and discovered that they were hollowed out. If you had been in one, you would be dead: If you had been next door, you would be alive.

And these were the areas of conflict: Baghdad and Basra and the narrow zone of the allied advance up the river valleys. The rest of Iraq never saw any war. Most Iraqis learned what was happening the same way Americans did: on the news. Even now, over three quarters of Iraqis have had no dealings either with the Coalition authority or allied forces.

The task of rebuilding Iraq's physical infrastructure, after decades of decay, has, by almost any standard, gone rapidly. Oil production, electrical facilities, and water supply are doing well. At times it has seemed slow, but not if you compare it to the amount of time it takes to do these things almost anywhere else — including in the U.S.

The signing of the interim constitution earlier this month also gives reason for hope. Members of the Iraqi Governing Council had thunderous arguments, accused each other of duplicity, made backdoor alliances, staged walkouts, and denounced the final product. In short, they acted like members of the U.S. Congress. And the final product was a very good one.

The recent Oxford Research International survey of Iraqi opinion gives additional positive news. 70 percent of Iraqis think things in their life are "very good" or "quite good." Less than 20 percent feel things are worse now than before the war. Only 7 percent think things will be worse a year from now. The survey may have some sampling problems but these findings are stark enough to survive such a weakness.

There have been major mistakes, such as rapidly disbanding the Iraqi army. The Coalition Provisional Authority has also, by most accounts, done a poor job of communicating with Iraqis.

And there is the problem, the one that dominates our headlines, the lack of security, with continued bloody bombings and mortar attacks, now aimed mostly at soft, civilian targets; kidnapping, crime, and local militias. Most Iraqis expect the smaller security problems to subside, and they are probably right, but the bombings may remain. If Madrid, Jaffa, Bali, and Istanbul can be bombed, then Baghdad, Karbala, and Basra can be also.

Iraq remains a high-wire act: a perilous enterprise of creating a genuine democracy in the face of hostile neighbors and terrorists in a country subjected to decades of totalitarian rule. Things can fall apart very, very quickly.

But the central thing, the most important thing, the never to be forgotten thing, is that Saddam has gone — the man who until a year ago affected every fear of war, every calculation of the future of the Middle East. He's the man who filled those oh-so-little-reported mass graves that Iraqis are uncovering, with their hundreds of thousands of bodies, including the children's graves. He's the man who vies with Halugu Khan for the title of the greatest slaughterer of Muslims in history. Gone: a pathetic figure with lice in his beard.

All in all, a good year's work.

[siceone]

good read

[igloo]

Originally posted by mr mahs

I'll tell you one thing, from the view I saw and this just might be concentrated to whom took the ferry that day , social misfits with mawhawks and lip ring and of course the infamous"War for Oil" T shirts.... is all I saw holding those pickett signs... I felt like asking one of them if they picketed when Iraqi's were dying every day at the hands of Sadam? Most likely not...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly!!!!!

Social misfits with nothing better to do, who have no idea what the fuck they are even protesting about...

The "No war for Oil" signs and the "bring the troops home" signs prove they are detached from reality and have no idea what the fuck they are talking about....

And just like marksimons, they were not protesting against Saddam Hussein's atrocities, not now and not ever.....nothing but hypocritical blowhards.....

And here is what is really laughable from these retards........who are they protesting for?.....The Iraqi people?

The Iraqi people overwhelmingly are glad Saddam Hussein is gone, feel their lives are better today, and feel their lives will be better off in the future......but of course, the protestors know better than the Iraqi people and must speak for them....

Nothing but blowhards......

And this is telling from my other thread:

"Many in the French elite--most prominently, the foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin--want the democratic experiment in Iraq to fail"....

This is obviously true, not just France but some other Western countries as well, who should be doing everything in their power to make sure that Iraq is successful....

And the thing that disgusts me is that the other party that desperately needs Iraqi democracy to fail is the terrorists (jihadists, Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc)......

What is so difficult for the clueless left to understand?......

Democracy in Iraq provides the single greatest hope for change and reform in the Middle East, from everything to education to economic to social benefit......and to remove the dynamics and elements that creates recruiting pools for the terrorists

Winning the war of ideas in the War on Terror can start with democracy in Iraq, and everyone should be behind this......

They should have been in the streets protesting against the terrorists who are killing innocent people......

They should be protesting against the U.N., who ran from Iraq in a dispicable display of hypocracy.....bad enough the U.N. was toothless with Iraq and resided over a corrupt Oil fo Food program, but to cut and run from Iraq was disgusting from this 'world body"...

They should be protesting in the streets for countries who are not doing anything in Iraq to contribute....Amen to Japan, who taday announced millions more in Aid and more troops....

The problems with the left and the protestors is they would rather just sit around pointing the finger of blame at the U.S. from their elitist thrones .......simply because it gives their empty and pathetic existence some type of meaning.....i.e. marksimons.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

Exactly!!!!!

Social misfits with nothing better to do, who have no idea what the fuck they are even protesting about...

The "No war for Oil" signs and the "bring the troops home" signs prove they are detached from reality and have no idea what the fuck they are talking about....

And just like marksimons, they were not protesting against Saddam Hussein's atrocities, not now and not ever.....nothing but hypocritical blowhards.....

And here is what is really laughable from these retards........who are they protesting for?.....The Iraqi people?

The Iraqi people overwhelmingly are glad Saddam Hussein is gone, feel their lives are better today, and feel their lives will be better off in the future......but of course, the protestors know better than the Iraqi people and must speak for them....

Nothing but blowhards......

And this is telling from my other thread:

"Many in the French elite--most prominently, the foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin--want the democratic experiment in Iraq to fail"....

This is obviously true, not just France but some other Western countries as well, who should be doing everything in their power to make sure that Iraq is successful....

And the thing that disgusts me is that the other party that desperately needs Iraqi democracy to fail is the terrorists (jihadists, Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc)......

What is so difficult for the clueless left to understand?......

Democracy in Iraq provides the single greatest hope for change and reform in the Middle East, from everything to education to economic to social benefit......and to remove the dynamics and elements that creates recruiting pools for the terrorists

Winning the war of ideas in the War on Terror can start with democracy in Iraq, and everyone should be behind this......

They should have been in the streets protesting against the terrorists who are killing innocent people......

They should be protesting against the U.N., who ran from Iraq in a dispicable display of hypocracy.....bad enough the U.N. was toothless with Iraq and resided over a corrupt Oil fo Food program, but to cut and run from Iraq was disgusting from this 'world body"...

They should be protesting in the streets for countries who are not doing anything in Iraq to contribute....Amen to Japan, who taday announced millions more in Aid and more troops....

The problems with the left and the protestors is they would rather just sit around pointing the finger of blame at the U.S. from their elitist thrones .......simply because it gives their empty and pathetic existence some type of meaning.....i.e. marksimons.

:clap2: AMEN....

[igloo]

March 19, 2004, 8:32 a.m.

The New Taste of Freedom

Miracles and growing pains.

By Robert Alt

BAGHDAD, IRAQ — One year ago, the United States entered Iraq, and, after removing a tyrant, joined the Iraqi people in the journey toward a free and independent nation. The journey has been one of both promise and peril. Like any fledgling country, Iraq has had its share of growing pains. But it is growing. With that in mind, here is a review of some of the changes, accomplishments, and challenges which have arisen in the last year.

First, the significance of Saddam Hussein's capture should not be underestimated. With Saddam behind bars, those who were hopeful or fearful that he would return have accepted that his ouster is permanent. This has led to an increase in the amount and quality of intelligence, as Iraqis feel more willing to talk about suspicious and dangerous activity in their neighborhoods.

Next in the line of major accomplishments is the signing of Iraq's interim constitution. While not perfect, the interim constitution provides the Iraqi people with a number of precious freedoms that they have not known: freedom of press, assembly, speech, and religion. Even Dan Rather, who previously visited Iraq for a dubious controlled interview with Saddam, could not help but comment on the feeling of freedom which prevails today, and which did not exist under Saddam.

The third great accomplishment is a rising economy. Here there have been many strides, beginning with the transition of currency from the old Iraqi dinar featuring Saddam to the new Iraqi dinar — a transition that was accomplished almost seamlessly, without a run on the market. But perhaps of greater importance to the locals is the fact that there are now more dinars in the pockets of the Iraqi people. For example, a doctor practicing in Baghdad toward the end of Saddam's regime made around 4,000 dinars per month. The same doctor today makes between 200,000 — 500,000 dinars per month. This extra income has made its way to the marketplace, as more and more Iraqis are demanding not just the necessities of life, but luxury items, such as air conditioners and cellular telephones.

This year has also seen improvements in the local services. The schools are up and running, and many them have received substantial renovations. Communications are greatly improved, and media channels which were once reserved for Saddam's propaganda now offer actual programming.

This leads us to electricity. Ironically, during one of the press briefings this week designed to tout the accomplishments of the past year, the lights went out. It would be easy to focus on this and other anecdotes to say that there is less power to be had now, but that would be wrong. In fact there is more power being generated, and it is being distributed to more Iraqis than during Saddam's regime. Saddam assured that the lights stayed on in Baghdad, but at the expense of the outlying regions, which were either wholly neglected or severely rationed. These regions now get their share of power as well. This is not to say that there are not still hurdles to efficient power distribution. Indeed, as quickly as the United States installs new cable to increase the coverage and reliability of power, the bandits tear it down for the copper. Policing miles of cable in the middle of the desert is simply not an option, so the cure must come in reducing the number of roving bandits. But daily progress is being made, in terms of power generation, distribution, and security.

Finally, this year has seen a change in the nature of safety issues. Today there are 47,000 Coalition and Iraqi security forces patrolling in Baghdad. As a result of the increase in security, the local Iraqis will tell you that general crime has greatly reduced over the past six months, most notably in a reduction in the number of thieves and gangs. But while ordinary crime has reduced, terrorism is on the rise. There is increasing confirmation that international elements are participating in terrorism in Iraq. In response, the Coalition has recently launched special operation "Iron Promise" in cooperation with Iraqi security forces to crack down on terrorism. In the last 48 hours, they have captured two individuals tied to international terror organizations, have captured 86 local terrorists, and have seized significant stockpiles of weapons.

But the truth is that things will get worse before they get better. Most security analysts predict, based in large part on the infamous Zarkawi letter, that the terrorists will use the pretext of U.S. control to increase the number and intensity of attacks between now and the June 30, 2004, transition of power. But it is important to realize that these attacks do not even rise to the level of so-called "resistance." Rather they are fringe elements and international detractors who are rightly described as terrorists. If these terror attacks are intended to drive wedges in the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions, they seem to be having the opposite effect, driving them instead toward greater cooperation. Dan Senor, the spokesman for Ambassador Bremer, summed up the Iraqi response when he said, "I have no doubt that Iraqis will not be cowed by terrorists. They have waited too long for democracy."

Finally, it is worth noting that Iraqis feel that their lives are better today. In one of the first large-scale polls conducted in Iraq, ABC News reports that 56 percent of Iraqis responded that things are going better today than they were before the war. And there is optimism for the future, as 71 percent of Iraqis believe that their lives will be better a year from now.

The nation of Iraq has made enormous strides in the past year. It is a rocky road that lies ahead, and one which is unfortunately lined with IEDs (improvised explosive devices). But the road from tyranny to democracy is worth taking. Indeed it is a road that must be taken, both for the stability of Iraq and of the region.

[BRIANC1046]

Originally posted by igloo

Exactly!!!!!

Social misfits with nothing better to do, who have no idea what the fuck they are even protesting about...

The "No war for Oil" signs and the "bring the troops home" signs prove they are detached from reality and have no idea what the fuck they are talking about....

And just like marksimons, they were not protesting against Saddam Hussein's atrocities, not now and not ever.....nothing but hypocritical blowhards.....

And here is what is really laughable from these retards........who are they protesting for?.....The Iraqi people?

The Iraqi people overwhelmingly are glad Saddam Hussein is gone, feel their lives are better today, and feel their lives will be better off in the future......but of course, the protestors know better than the Iraqi people and must speak for them....

Nothing but blowhards......

And this is telling from my other thread:

"Many in the French elite--most prominently, the foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin--want the democratic experiment in Iraq to fail"....

This is obviously true, not just France but some other Western countries as well, who should be doing everything in their power to make sure that Iraq is successful....

And the thing that disgusts me is that the other party that desperately needs Iraqi democracy to fail is the terrorists (jihadists, Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc)......

What is so difficult for the clueless left to understand?......

Democracy in Iraq provides the single greatest hope for change and reform in the Middle East, from everything to education to economic to social benefit......and to remove the dynamics and elements that creates recruiting pools for the terrorists

Winning the war of ideas in the War on Terror can start with democracy in Iraq, and everyone should be behind this......

They should have been in the streets protesting against the terrorists who are killing innocent people......

They should be protesting against the U.N., who ran from Iraq in a dispicable display of hypocracy.....bad enough the U.N. was toothless with Iraq and resided over a corrupt Oil fo Food program, but to cut and run from Iraq was disgusting from this 'world body"...

They should be protesting in the streets for countries who are not doing anything in Iraq to contribute....Amen to Japan, who taday announced millions more in Aid and more troops....

The problems with the left and the protestors is they would rather just sit around pointing the finger of blame at the U.S. from their elitist thrones .......simply because it gives their empty and pathetic existence some type of meaning.....i.e. marksimons.

wait.. i'm still not exactly sure what the war was over.. was it to fight the 'war on terror'? or to help the Iraqis from a brutal leader? Did anyone catch 60minutes tonight or Clarke's book that is coming out tomorrow? Probably the best terror expert in the U.S. who worked under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 said Bush is doing a horrible job fighting terror.. He believes he is making thinks worse.. He doesn't think Iraq has any connections to Terror..

That is why you see these protesters.. Because the majority of OUR country did not agree with going to war with Iraq at the time we did..

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by bdanto4

wait.. i'm still not exactly sure what the war was over.. was it to fight the 'war on terror'? or to help the Iraqis from a brutal leader? Did anyone catch 60minutes tonight or Clarke's book that is coming out tomorrow? Probably the best terror expert in the U.S. who worked under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 said Bush is doing a horrible job fighting terror.. He believes he is making thinks worse.. He doesn't think Iraq has any connections to Terror..

That is why you see these protesters.. Because the majority of OUR country did not agree with going to war with Iraq at the time we did..

You bring up important points in your post BUT from the getgo it's was a humanitarian issue as well as WMD because they are so closely tied.... The goal was to limit anti-americanism and spread democracy in a cess pool region. The hatred that drove those cowards on 911 is what were up against.. Did you hear the UN speech Bush gave on Sept 12th 2002? If not please read, the only ones in the dark are the people with SO MUCH hatred that they're not listening, just protesting to protest...

http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president-bush-speech-091302.htm

President Bush's Speech To The United Nations September 12, 2002

Pres. Bush Speeches Index

Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the citizens of many countries. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We have accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror -- and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that -- unlike the League of Nations -- our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged.

Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lift up lives ... to extend trade and the prosperity it brings ... and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms ... exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- be his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents -- all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995 -- after four years of deception -- Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq -- four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others -- again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues -- as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.

[igloo]

Originally posted by bdanto4

wait.. i'm still not exactly sure what the war was over.. was it to fight the 'war on terror'? or to help the Iraqis from a brutal leader? Did anyone catch 60minutes tonight or Clarke's book that is coming out tomorrow? Probably the best terror expert in the U.S. who worked under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 said Bush is doing a horrible job fighting terror.. He believes he is making thinks worse.. He doesn't think Iraq has any connections to Terror..

That is why you see these protesters.. Because the majority of OUR country did not agree with going to war with Iraq at the time we did..

You still do not know what the war in Iraq means because you are a complete moron....

And jerkoff, the majority of this country DID AGREE with the war, and still does today...pull your head out of your rotted ass and wake up .....we have enough retards here, we do not need another one

[djxeno]

Originally posted by igloo

You still do not know what the war in Iraq means because you are a complete moron....

And jerkoff, the majority of this country DID AGREE with the war, and still does today...pull your head out of your rotted ass and wake up .....we have enough retards here, we do not need another one

so what does the war mean? what was the war over? enlighten us old wise one....

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

so what does the war mean? what was the war over? enlighten us old wise one....

There is an article posted on this thread retard that should give you a little insight into some of the reasons for this war.....

I doubt your little mind could comprehend, but give it a shot....BE careful though, don't hurt yourself...I know you are used to SpongeBob books

[djxeno]

Originally posted by igloo

There is an article posted on this thread retard that should give you a little insight into some of the reasons for this war.....

I doubt your little mind could comprehend, but give it a shot....BE careful though, don't hurt yourself...I know you are used to SpongeBob books

im asking you, not an article.

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

im asking you, not an article.

I believe in every reason given in the article...every reason....

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

im asking you, not an article.

I believe in every reason given in the article...every reason....

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

im asking you, not an article.

I believe in every reason given in Bush's address, and the article, as well as countless other articles I posted as to why this war was justified.....every reason....

Democracy, human suffering, brutal dictator, WMD's , geopolitical upside, war on terror, U.N. resolutions, etc.........countless reasons that when all added up, equal justification

[BRIANC1046]

Originally posted by igloo

You still do not know what the war in Iraq means because you are a complete moron....

And jerkoff, the majority of this country DID AGREE with the war, and still does today...pull your head out of your rotted ass and wake up .....we have enough retards here, we do not need another one

ok so to this day no WMD are found.. so one of your reasons isn't justified.. Saddam has not been linked at all to 911 or any other terroristic threats.. There goes another reason.. He sure is a brutal dictator, but we have plenty more in the world that are worse then he..

So, to this day.. How can you say the war was justified?

Once again there is no need to call someone that disagrees with your view a moron or a jerkoff..

[marksimons]

america sold saddam weapons.

saddam was probably trained by the CIA in how to repress his people.

the west is the best.

we all did business with saddam when he was in power abusing his people.

okay, so I was less than one year old when this picture was taken - so please do forgive me for not protesting.

how can you republican supporters take the moral high ground for getting rid of someone your side helped build up and get into a position, giving him the tools, to enable him to repress his people?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

america sold saddam weapons.

saddam was probably trained by the CIA in how to repress his people.

the west is the best.

we all did business with saddam when he was in power abusing his people.

okay, so I was less than one year old when this picture was taken - so please do forgive me for not protesting.

how can you republican supporters take the moral high ground for getting rid of someone your side helped build up and get into a position, giving him the tools, to enable him to repress his people?

You are so fawking backwards you can't see forward.... Diffrent day,diffrent war.... So we should just leave him inpower as if the same leaders are in office today and the world is the same place?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

america sold saddam weapons.

saddam was probably trained by the CIA in how to repress his people.

the west is the best.

we all did business with saddam when he was in power abusing his people.

okay, so I was less than one year old when this picture was taken - so please do forgive me for not protesting.

how can you republican supporters take the moral high ground for getting rid of someone your side helped build up and get into a position, giving him the tools, to enable him to repress his people?