...but if such is true, I'm entitled to my opinion that you're all quite shortsighted in your thoughts. At least the thoughts you've listed here.

bit like the pot calling the kettle black

Regardless of semantics, which is what this comes down to in this case. Are they or aren't they of the proper specifications to use in a centrifuge? And why would the U.S. claim that they were if they weren't? Bottom line: The tubes, no matter what they're being used for, are on the list of items PROHIBITED by U.N. resolutions. It doesn't matter if they brought those tubes into Iraq to use them to build the worlds largest soda cans, fact remains that Iraq is NOT suppose to have them or be attempting to acquire them. If you're not suppose to do something, and you go do it anyway, no one really cares what the reason for it was - they just know you were doing something wrong.

and yet......if they are not to be used for a nuclear program you can hardly call it proof of that can you? You seem like the type who would be happy to call a war over this! President Bush knew of the doubts yet still persisted with this claim. also Iraq made no secret of it either.

This isn't a topic of debate, it's come to the point of being utterly absurd. The current government regime in Iraq is simply NO GOOD. It's not good for the people of Iraq, (I mean, come on, can anyone tell me with a shred of conviction that the Iraqi people lead a healthy life under the rule of Saddam? They suffer.) Saddam is a man that has proven time and time again that he is volatile, unreasonable, maniacal, and power hungry. He gassed his own people and tried to invade his neighboring countries! That in and of itself demands action, and while I won't shy away from accepting that the U.S. botched that portion back in 1991 by not finishing what they started, the phrase 'Better Late Then Never" pops into mind now.

They botched it, but you ignore many thigs here. The number of other regimes out there, eg north korea. The number of potential casualties in any war, the fact that it took so long for the US to suddenly think iraq was a danger. hey I could go on, but surely it is time taht you sought the truth yourself.

As for the U.S. preventing other countries from doing what they themselves do, I'd like for you to clarify what you're alleging there. If it were your case that the U.S. has nuclear weapons and biological weapons, then I'd say you have a firm grasp of the obvious. On the hierarchy of civilization, certain countries have proven that they are responsible enough to wield the mighty power of the atom (the U.S., Russia, China, hell even the French who I dislike are responsible stewards of their nuclear weapons), others have shown that they are clearly irresponsible with something as simple as anthrax and therefore shouldn't be allowed to develop pea soup secretly, much less nuclear power. Iraq is one nation that clearly has no responsibility in this regard. Your arguments are equivalent to saying, if Nazi Germany in 1940 after they had moved into Poland was trying to acquire nuclear weapons (assuming that such a weapon existed then, because German was trying to develop it even then) that it would have been wrong for the U.S. to step in and attack them or prevent them from acquiring the materials needed to make such a weapon? That's the most purely idiotic notion I've ever heard. Iraq doesn't even have the forward thinking to let the women of their nation out from under their thumb by giving them empowerment to go to school, work in any field, or have a say in government - and you clowns would defend them?

hey? wtf are you on about, I never said any such thing

Iraq is a bad egg. It's no secret, it doesn't require investigation or dialogue. As a nation Iraq has had 12 years (count them, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12!!!) to make good on the terms of the U.N. resolutions and sanctions placed on them. They've failed miserably for 12 years, and now the world is saying to give them another chance? As if they only JUST made a mistake for the first time? Who gets 12 years to fix a problem? It's unheard of. People of the world, it's all well and good to try and seem thoughtful and noble by wearing the badge of passivity and decrying the actions of World Superpowers like the U.S., Russia, and China when they throw their weight around, but the REALITY of the situation is that no change ever comes without struggle. Even RJ himself throws that into the mix, "..there is no salvation without destruction, no hope this side of death." If you live in the U.S., the land you're standing on was won through bloodshed. If you're in England, France, Germany, Belgium, on and on, your land was won through bloodshed. LIkewise in all those great nations, if your government ever became even half as corrupt as Iraq's is now, it was deposed through violence and bloodshed. I'm all for diplomacy and tolerance, but at some point enough HAS to be enough.

actually apparently the US gets 12 years because they f***ed it up in the first place

enough has to be enough? Look around at all of the other regimes out there. Tehn tell me that enough is enougha nd that the US is going to be changing those

Go stand near a WWII battlefield and read the words "The Price of Freedom is Visible Here", and then come talk to me about why we shouldn't pre-emptively attack people who prove that they are then, now, and in the future, up to no good.

go stand in a WWII cemetary t find your answers for one

Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.

btw, don't accuse ME of saying things that I haven't said

The Seeker Of Truth

"The Doctor says I won't have so many nosebleeds, if I keep my finger out of there!" - Ralph Wiggum


wads

Onwards the Aussie Spam Invasion!
TwoWongs rocks my world
campaiging for vitamin S
Quai Master is my muffin