Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

Oh I'm not saying he didn't say it. I'm saying he didn't believe it when he said it.

Fox,



When what you should be saying is that YOU didn't believe it.

As far as I'm concerned - Nihm has explained the situation very clearly in his last few posts.

I still clearly remember how disgusted I was when the US was pushing for war - because I didn't KNOW if Iraq had WMDs. I figured "we've got inspectors in there poking and prodding - if there are WMDs in Iraq the inspectors will surely come across them in time. What's the rush to invade?"

I was really happy with Chretien's decision not to get involved in the Iraqi war effort. There were demonstrations all over the globe, which is a good indicator that a good chunk of the global population didn't think that Iraq had WMDs and wanted proof before any kind of invasion occurred.

What time frame for inspections would have been acceptable to the left? 20 years? 100 years? How much would the left be willing to take from Saddam before enough would be enough? How long could we really keep the oil for food program and containment up?

No, you're saying that you believe he didn't believe it, as Jer points out. That in no way allows you to make the authoritative statement that the majority of the world believed Hussein had WoMD. The articles you have linked dont' support such a contention either.

Here is an example of what i mean: We are preparing a bid package for a government agency. This package, among many other requirements which we can easily resolve, requires us to assure the agency concerned that we are in compliance with Occupational Health and Safety Administration requirements. In the past, when we have prepared bid packages, we have simply noted that our company has fewer employees than the threshold number which would require us to implement and publish to the employees a health and safety plan. We were so advised by the attorney of another company, speaking only as an acquaintance of our company's president. He told us to refer to the 1996 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

But we are now in a position of documenting our compliance. It is no longer sufficient to refer to anecdotal advice. We will have either to demonstrate that the size of our business exempts us, or provide evidence of our compliance. It is not sufficient to simply state: "Well, so-and-so's lawyer told us . . . " So i am reading the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, and Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, section 1900 et sequitur. We have to get it right here, and "somebody told us" just doesn't cut it.

This is the issue here, with your "sources." Simply the offer of someone's opinion piece, or some news organization's editorial is not evidence for your statement about what the majority of the people in the world did or didn't believe. Those here who offer statements by government officials dating from before the war have a far better case than you do, because such things are verifiable (i.e., one can find out if the person concerned did or did not say what he/she is alleged to have said). But what you offer are the partisan opinions of others, and constitute speculations, for which the issue of what is verifiable does not apply. We can only state that the author of the piece believes this or that-one cannot assure how much truth enters into such a document, nor what regard for the truth motivates the author.

I am not trying to beat up on you here-i am trying to point out that what you are doing is the equivalent of saying: "Somebody's lawyer told me . . . " as opposed to saying: "In Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1904, one reads . . . "

In the 1980's, the Reagan adminstration provided material support to the Iraqis in their war with the Persians. Saying as much won't support a statement that Americans are now being killed with weapons or ammunition provided by the Reagan administration. In the 1970's & 1980's, Germans provided materials which Hussein used in WoMD programs. That ended with the first Gulf War. After that war, the United Nations required them to destroy their WoMD. A German official could state honestly and with a clear conscience that he/she did not believe that Hussein had WoMD in 2003--regardless of your opinion of that person's veractity.

Your links prove nothing.

McG,

I can't speak for anyone else, but conclusive evidence as to whether or not Iraq possessed WMDs would have been enough for me. Further inspections would have allowed this determination one way or the other.

Either way I'm a firm believer in not convicting until there is proof of a crime. That's the way it works in the courts - why should it be any different in the global community.

You have to understand something here... When I'm arguing that we shouldn't have invaded when we did, that doesn't mean that I liked Saddam, what he did to his people, or that I wouldn't support an invasion if there were WMDs turned up. I don't want a maniac having WMDs anymore than you do. But risking thousands of American soldiers lives and Iraqi civilian lives on "maybes" and "I thinks" is unreasonable at best, and downright reckless as far as I'm concerned.

Americas security had been extremely heightened after 9/11 and the military was ready to go - so there wasn't a need to pre-emptively strike. They could have stood by, at the ready, as the inspections continued.

But Jer, for 12 years the UN failed to inspect Iraq for WMD's. What makes you think that another 6 months, or 6 years would make a difference?

What Jer said!

Failed to inspect for or failed to discover WMDs?

It would have made all the difference in the world if they kept the inspecters in there. And as far as your question on how long do we wait. We wait as long as it takes to find PROOF!

Failed in general. Saddam played the UN inspectors. He wouldn't allow full acccess, scientists and others who knew about WMD's were scared to talk to inspectors for fear of their own and their families lives.

As Bill and so many others have stated, he had them, they are not all accounted for, where are they?

Didn't know that you are so friendly with Joschka.

Like all the others here in Germany, I believe, he actually even wanted to articulate that much stronger.

Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.

In the mean time saddam continues killing thousands and thousands of Iraqi's and the quality of life in Iraq continues to deteriorate. It's good to know that you care so little for the citizens of Iraq.

Setanta writes:


You are correct. I am saying I don't believe he believed it. If he did believe it, given the facts already posted in this thread, then he was very ill informed for the job he had.

Bullshit!!!!!!!

You don't know a rats ass about how I feel, so please don't claim that you do!!! No one can ever get through to you war mongers!

Oh, so what you say and what you mean are not the same? Because you say you don't care about what happened to the Iraqi's and you say you would rather have Saddam still in office. Maybe if you spent more time saying what you meant instead of simply agreeing with other's statements I could fathom a guess at what you mean.

By the way McG, their reasons for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with saving the citizens! That crap was just thrown in there when they couldn't find their so called WMDs!

Oh please McG!!! I state clearly what I mean, so stop putting words in my mouth. I never ever supported Saddam, nor did I say I did and If I didn't care about the people in Iraq, I wouldn't be so angry, would I!

Read this. It ties in nicely with this discussion.

You'd be more convincing if you didn't refer to concern for Iraqi's welfare as "crap". Warmongers aren't the only people it's tough to get through to. :wink:

McG,

In my post prior to the one that you've quoted here, I addressed what you've just said. Have a look here!



When it comes to an individual's guilt, or a country's guilt for that matter, it is reasonable for the accuser to have to PROVE guilt. Your country is based upon the premise that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

That would be like me saying - Bush must've done absolutely everything that Moore suggests because he hasn't proven his innocence. That would be unreasonable, as was the Iraqi invasion.