The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

ahhh, i get it.  thanks

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 07 2003,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 07 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But on the flip-side, I find it absurd to say France and Russia are against the war because of their ideals when their multi-million dollar oil contracts with Iraq are well known and in jeopardy.<span id='postcolor'>

That may very well be, but you have to agree that not starting a war for questionable reasons is better then starting a war for questionable reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

Fuggin A Denoir, that is exactly the point, isn't it. As much as pro-US advocates want to drag France and Russia through the mud, this is the fundamental fact they seem to keep ignoring.

[FSPilot 0]

Well yeah, but what if we're doing this for the right reasons and not acting turns out to be a huge mistake?

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 08 2003,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fuggin A Denoir, that is exactly the point, isn't it. As much as pro-US advocates want to drag France and Russia through the mud, this is the fundamental fact they seem to keep ignoring.<span id='postcolor'>

What you mean by drag thru the mud  ? That happens to amerca all the time.People keep saying this is an oil war.But no one gives america a fair shot and say it might not be one.

But we have proven that the french and russia want peace because they can get more outta of it, then other countries.But they are hiding it from us by saying inspectors are workings,and civilians might get killed(which is true).But they are using the civilians for their own little puppet use,and you people are believing their propaganda.Even if iraq had chemical weapons and only  if these countries knew they would probably withhold the evidence because of money.Greed kills all.These countries haven't figure that out.

So the main player in this  UN veto thing is kinda biased.I mean if  it was some other country without ties to iraq,maybe i would believe them more.

But i'm still on the fence not knowing who to believe.I don't believe iraq,US,france,russia.But when i think about it,i have to root for the hometeam.GO US.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A direct breach of postwar agreements? This calls for twelve years of Security Council resolutions!<span id='postcolor'>

The US are claiming to be the good guys. So why are they breaking agreements and cover up their troops destroying the fence with civillian clothes ?

If the US is claiming to be the one with freedom, justice and so on they have to stick to the rules more than others.

A war without UN´s agreement is still an illegal war. That´s not debateable.

[Longinius 1]

"But we have proven that the french and russia want peace because they can get more outta of it, then other countries."

This has been proven just as much as the fact that America want to start a war because they get access to one of the worlds biggest oil reserves. Access they otherwise dont stand a chance to get.

"But they are using the civilians for their own little puppet use,and you people are believing their propaganda."

Just like the US say this is about freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator? And you believe their propaganda...

"So the main player in this UN veto thing is kinda biased.I mean if it was some other country without ties to iraq,maybe i would believe them more."

So? The US has been quite biased when vetoing in regards to Israel. I didnt see you complaining about anything then.

"But i'm still on the fence not knowing who to believe.I don't believe iraq,US,france,russia.But when i think about it,i have to root for the hometeam.GO US. "

Why? Your hometeam can actually come out the loser sometimes you know. There is nothing wrong with accepting that before it happens.

The main difference here is that most of the people on this forum objecting to a war are quite aware about France and Russias interests. They are also aware of what an American agenda might be. But the fact still remains, it is not France and Russia that are trying to START a war. No matter their interests, they are playing by UN rules. The US is not.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 08 2003,09:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But we have proven that the french and russia want peace because they can get more outta of it, then other countries."

This has been proven just as much as the fact that America want to start a war because they get access to one of the worlds biggest oil reserves. Access they otherwise dont stand a chance to get.

"But they are using the civilians for their own little puppet use,and you people are believing their propaganda."

Just like the US say this is about freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator? And you believe their propaganda...

"So the main player in this  UN veto thing is kinda biased.I mean if  it was some other country without ties to iraq,maybe i would believe them more."

So? The US has been quite biased when vetoing in regards to Israel. I didnt see you complaining about anything then.

"But i'm still on the fence not knowing who to believe.I don't believe iraq,US,france,russia.But when i think about it,i have to root for the hometeam.GO US. "

Why? Your hometeam can actually come out the loser sometimes you know. There is nothing wrong with accepting that before it happens.

The main difference here is that most of the people on this forum objecting to a war are quite aware about France and Russias interests. They are also aware of what an American agenda might be. But the fact still remains, it is not France and Russia that are trying to START a war. No matter their interests, they are playing by UN rules. The US is not.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you.Both sides are doing(playing the propganda war) .I know were going  to war ,So i rather support US troops then iraq troops,and hope this war ends quickly.I hope you root for the US troops also,because if iraq kills lots of US soldiers this war will just go ugly.

The US are claiming to be the good guys. So why are they breaking agreements and cover up their troops destroying the fence with civillian clothes ?

Maybe they don't want to show iraq where they are coming from ?

A war without UN´s agreement is still an illegal war. That´s not debateable.

I agree somewhat.But at what point do we stop pushing the limits back ? Like the missiles,you can  say all you want about resolutions,but when do you stop letting him get away with the stuff ? Sure he might be destroying them,but when does it stop him from making more ? Where did these missiles come from.Is there more then one factory where they came from.

Why did they pour all their chemicals weapons in the ground ? Doesn't make sense.However i believe they did pour some or half of their chemicals weapons in the ground to say that they don't have them anymore.

I mean we do we say no more ?

[Jinef 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 08 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you mean by drag thru the mud ? That happens to amerca all the time.People keep saying this is an oil war.But no one gives america a fair shot and say it might not be one.

<span id='postcolor'>

The Americans have said it's not a war for oil, but who's gonna believe them? America has already proved countless times that they are capable of being 'unfaithful' towards their allies about the subject of oil.

Just a bit offtopic here.

I would really like to see Russia become a big player again, and join Nato so there is a wall against America screwing smaller countries over.

The Moscow incident was unfortunate but remember, these hostage rescue situations can go tits up in a very small amount of time and the Russians delt with it very well, if the onscene commander hadn't acted we might well of have faced less or more civilian casualties.

I doubt the western special forces teams could have done much better.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 08 2003,12:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would really like to see Russia become a big player again, and join Nato so there is a wall against America screwing smaller countries over.<span id='postcolor'>

I`d like to see that too. Russia`s President Putin is a former intelligence man and he sure is smart and understands world politics. We need a counterweight to the USA, that`s for sure, after the US government is doing what it likes, braking rules like they like and not excepting other views than the US view.

Another thing I just read in the news: The USA asks other nations to make iraqi diplomats leave these countries, because these diplomats would be spies. That`s so ridiculous and fucked up.

A nation that spies on it`s "allies" and the UN council and on NK and on [insert long list here] wants to tell us that we have to throw out foreign diplomats, because they "could" be spies. As for me I`m no longer believing anything that comes from the US government, no matter what this information would be. Even if they`d say the sun rises in the morning, I`d be very sceptical after the last US faux pas!

Before I`d throw iraqi diplomats out of my country, I`d rather throw out the US diplomats, that`s for sure! I can`t believe it, what a BS...

[Frisbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well yeah, but what if we're doing this for the right reasons and not acting turns out to be a huge mistake?<span id='postcolor'>

Or what if you're not acting on completely right reasons,and the whole middle east flares up.

Keywords : what if.

[FSPilot 0]

Well what if we're not? What if Saddam flares up the whole middle east region on his own?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well what if we're not?  What if Saddam flares up the whole middle east region on his own?<span id='postcolor'>

With what? His imaginary WMDs that nobody can seem to find? With the sad remains of his military that can't even control the Iraqi territory?

[FSPilot 0]

the WMDs that the UN inspectors found

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,18:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the WMDs that the UN inspectors found<span id='postcolor'>

They havn't found anything now. So far all the evidence that Saddam has presented of unilateral destruction of them have checked out.

I suppose, you listening to Blix's presentation was too much to hope for...

[FSPilot 0]

i suppose not believing someone who's lied to the entire world before is too much to ask for.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,18:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i suppose not believing someone who's lied to the entire world before is too much to ask for.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I don't trust Saddam either, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he has WMDs. I do however trust the UN inspectors and until they say that Iraq has WMDs, I'll remain sceptical towards the opposite theory.

One good argument for the fact that Saddam is no danger to the world or the region is that he doesn't even control his own territory. If he had a fraction of the capabilities that the Bush regime claim he has then the first thing he would do would be to retake control over northern Iraq, which is in Kurd hands.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 08 2003,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I don't trust Saddam either, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he has WMDs. I do however trust the UN inspectors and until they say that Iraq has WMDs, I'll remain sceptical towards the opposite theory.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm a litte more sceptical. Iraq played games with and dodged the inspectors in the 90's, they're probably doing it again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One good argument for the fact that Saddam is no danger to the world or the region is that he doesn't even control his own territory. If he had a fraction of the capabilities that the Bush regime claim he has then the first thing he would do would be to retake control over northern Iraq, which is in Kurd hands.<span id='postcolor'>

All the more reason for him to develop WMDs.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 08 2003,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I don't trust Saddam either, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he has WMDs. I do however trust the UN inspectors and until they say that Iraq has WMDs, I'll remain sceptical towards the opposite theory.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm a litte more sceptical.  Iraq played games with and dodged the inspectors in the 90's, they're probably doing it again.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes they did but I am pretty sure that they are not doing again, at least not in the same way. The UN inspectors were very citical towards Iraq's behaviour in the matter back then that they in the end concluded that their mission was impossible and withdrew. Now, the same UN inspectors are saying that they believe that they can complete the work, they just need more time.

Why do I trust them? Because:

1) They are unbiased. They neither oppose or support a war.

2) They have the technical skill and knowledge to make an assesment.

3) They have direct first hand experience.

Everything is pointing to the fact that Iraq indeed is reluctantly cooperating and that the inspections are actually working.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One good argument for the fact that Saddam is no danger to the world or the region is that he doesn't even control his own territory. If he had a fraction of the capabilities that the Bush regime claim he has then the first thing he would do would be to retake control over northern Iraq, which is in Kurd hands.<span id='postcolor'>

All the more reason for him to develop WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

But he hasn't! Or he would have used them already. This shows that either Saddam doesn't have the capabilities to do so or he doesn't want to. Either way it shows that Iraq is not using WMDs in a situation where it would help them keep their border integrity.

You are as usual using circular logic to maintain that you are right:

"If Saddam doesn't have WMDs then he is trying to develop them. If saddam isn't developing WMDs then he already had tham."

Completely ignoring the possibilty that he doesn't have them and he isn't developing them which is, judging by the data provided by the UN inspectors, the most probable.

[Guest]

Btw, did anybody listen to Dominique de Villepin's (France's foregein minister) response to Blix report? I think it was very good. I seldom completely agree with the positions of politicians, but this an exception. France's position on the conflict is more or less identical to mine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the presentation they have just given us. Their reports testified to regular progress in the disarmament of Iraq.

And what have the inspectors told us? That for a month Iraq has been actively cooperating with them, that substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of al-Samoud II missiles and their equipment, that new prospects are opening up with the recent question of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed, and that is indeed the key to Resolution 1441.

Therefore, I would like solemnly to address a question to this body, and it's the very same question being asked by people all over the world. Why should we now engage in war with Iraq? And I would also like to ask, why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?

War is always an acknowledgment of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable. Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences. Let us measure the effects of our decision. And it's clear to all in Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction. The method that we have chosen worked.

The information supply (inaudible) has been verified by the inspectors and is leading to the elimination of banned ballistic equipment. We must proceed the same way with all the other programs: with information, verification and destruction. We already have useful information in the biological and chemical domain.

In response to the inspectors' questions, Iraq must give us further information in timely fashion so that we may obtain the most precise knowledge possible about any existing inventories or programs. On the basis of that information, we will destroy all the components that are discovered, as we've done for the missiles, and we'll determine the truth of the matter.

With regard to nuclear weapons, Mr. ElBaradei's statement confirmed that we are approaching the time where the IAEA will be able to certify the dismantlement of Iraq's program.

What conclusions can we draw? That Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991, that we can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country. Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad.

The adoption of Resolution 1441, the assumption of converging positions by the vast majority of the world's nations, diplomatic action by the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the non-aligned movement, all of these common efforts are bearing fruit.

The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve. We all recognize the effectiveness of this pressure on the part of the international community, and we must use it to go through with our objective of disarmament through inspections.

As the European Union noted, these inspections cannot continue indefinitely. The pace must therefore be stepped up. That is why France wants to make three proposals today.

First, let us ask the inspectors to establish a hierarchy of tasks for disarmament, and, on that basis, to present us, as quickly as possible, with the work program provided for by Resolution 1284. We need to know immediately which priority issues could constitute the key disarmament tasks to be carried out by Iraq.

Secondly, we propose that the inspectors give us a progress report every three weeks. This will make the Iraqi authorities understand that in no case may they interrupt their efforts.

And finally, let us establish a schedule for assessing the implementation of the work program. Resolution 1284 provides for a time frame of 120 days. We are willing to shorten it if the inspectors consider it feasible.

The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections. We agree to timetables and to an accelerated calendar, but we cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation. That would mean war. That would lead the Security Council to relinquish its responsibility.

By imposing a deadline of only a few days, would we merely be seeking a pretext for war? As a permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again: France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force.

Let us consider the anguish and the expectations of people all over the world, in all our countries, from Cairo to Rio, from Algiers to Pretoria, from Rome to Jakarta. Indeed, the stakes go beyond the fate of Iraq alone.

Let us be clear-sighted. We are defining a method to resolve crisis. We are choosing how to define the world we want our children to live in.

This is true in the case of North Korea, in the case of southern Asia, where we have not yet found the path toward a lasting resolution of disputes. It is true in the case of the Mideast. Can we continue to wait while acts of violence multiply?

These crises have many roots. They are political, religious, economic. Their origins lie deep in the turmoil of history.

There may be some who believe that these problems can be resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. But this is not what France believes. On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can arouse resentment and hatred, fuel a clash of identities and of cultures, something that our generation has a prime responsibility to avoid.

To those who believe that war would be the quickest way of disarming Iraq, I can reply that it will drive wedges and create wounds that will be long in healing. And how many victims will it cause? How many families will grieve?

We do not subscribe to what may be the other objectives of a war. Is it a matter of regime change in Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship or the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. But this is not the objective of Resolution 1441. And force is certainly not the best way of bringing about democracy. Here and elsewhere it would encourage dangerous instability.

Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence.

Let us beware of playing into the hands of those who do want a clash of civilizations or a clash of religions.

Is it finally a matter of recasting the political landscape of the Middle East? In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability, not to mention that in Iraq itself the large number of communities and religions already represents a danger of a potential breakup.

We all have the same demands: We want more security and more democracy. But there is another logic other than the logic of force. There is another path. There are other solutions.

We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America struck in the heart. And I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom, justice, tolerance.

But there is nothing today to indicate a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country's conviction is: It will not.

Four months ago, we unanimously adopted a system of inspections to eliminate the threat of potential weapons of mass destruction and to guarantee our security. Today we cannot accept without contradicting ourselves a conflict that might well weaken it.

Yes, we also want more democracy in the world, but we can only achieve this objective within the framework of a true global democracy based on respect, sharing, the awareness of a true community of values and a common destiny. And its core is the United Nations.

Let us make no mistake. In the face of multiple and complex threats, there is no single response, but there is a single necessity: We must remain united. Today, we must together invent a new future for the Middle East.

Let us not forget the immense hope created by the efforts of the Madrid conference and the Oslo Agreement. Let us not forget that the Mideast crisis represents our greatest challenge in terms of security and justice.

For us, the Middle East, like Iraq, represents a priority commitment. And this calls for even greater ambition and boldness. We should envision a region transformed through peace; civilizations that, through the courage of reaching out to each other, rediscover their self-confidence and an international prestige equal to their long history and their aspirations.

Mr. President, in a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial choice implies others. It implies the international community's ability to resolve current or future crisis. It implies a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations.

France therefore believes that to make this choice, to make it in good conscience in this forum of international democracy, before our people and before the world, the heads of state and government must meet again here in New York at the Security Council. This is in everyone's interest.

We must rediscover the fundamental vocation of the United Nations, which is to allow each of its members to assume responsibilities in the face of the Iraqi crisis, but also to seize together the destiny of a world in crisis, and thus to recreate the conditions for our future unity.

<span id='postcolor'>

[FallenPaladin 0]

That`s indeed a great speach! But I fear our Bush-followers here will simply say it`s only France defending it`s oil and bla bla bla.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 08 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do I trust them? Because:

1) They are unbiased. They neither oppose or support a war.

2) They have the technical skill and knowledge to make an assesment.

3) They have direct first hand experience.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I'm not saying I don't trust the inspectors. I don't trust Saddam. And a lot of the inspector's job recquired them to work with Saddam.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But he hasn't! Or he would have used them already. This shows that either Saddam doesn't have the capabilities to do so or he doesn't want to. Either way it shows that Iraq is not using WMDs in a situation where it would help them keep their border integrity.<span id='postcolor'>

Or they're walking on eggshells to avoid being bombed by the US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"If Saddam doesn't have WMDs then he is trying to develop them. If saddam isn't developing WMDs then he already had tham."<span id='postcolor'>

But I'm not saying that. There's no ifs involved. We know he has them and we know he's developing them. I want proof that he's stopped and destroyed all that he has to create them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Completely ignoring the possibilty that he doesn't have them and he isn't developing them which is, judging by the data provided by the UN inspectors, the most probable.<span id='postcolor'>

But that isn't a possibility. We know he has them because he hasn't proven to anybody that he's destroyed them. We know he's developing them because they don't just appear out of thin air.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We know he has them because he hasn't proven to anybody that he's destroyed them.  We know he's developing them because they don't just appear out of thin air.<span id='postcolor'>

By that logic I know that you are a five year old girl from Zimbabwe since you have not proven otherwise.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

proof

n.

The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that Iraq hasn't yet proven that they don't have WMDs does not in any way induce that they have them. Lack of proof for a theory does not in any way imply that the theory is false. It's elementary in both logic and law.

[ran 0]

De Villepin for president

i've read something in the Times about him ... why do they put down one of the only french politician/diplomat i like ?

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 07 2003,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We know he has them because he hasn't proven to anybody that he's destroyed them.  We know he's developing them because they don't just appear out of thin air.<span id='postcolor'>

By that logic I know that you are a five year old girl from Zimbabwe since you have not proven otherwise.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

proof

n.

The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that Iraq hasn't yet proven that they don't have WMDs does not in any way induce that they have them. Lack of proof for a theory does not in any way imply that the theory is false. It's elementary in both logic and law.<span id='postcolor'>

WHat i still don't understand is how do you proof that you've destroyed something?

Can you convince me that you have burned (for example) all the red towels in your house? But remember, allowing me to inspect isn't good enough, cuz i'm sure that you are playing a cat and mouse game!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 09 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By that logic I know that you are a five year old girl from Zimbabwe since you have not proven otherwise. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, you could go off on a tangent about it. But you didn't have UN inspectors in my house in the 1990s finding dolls and posters of cute zimbabwe pop stars on my wall.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that Iraq hasn't yet proven that they don't have WMDs does not in any way induce that they have them. Lack of proof for a theory does not in any way imply that the theory is false. It's elementary in both logic and law.<span id='postcolor'>

But we know they have them. We found them in the 90's. What we want now is proof that they've disarmed.