War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Abe, as long as it's good canadian beer, and you are buying, I wont mock the Canadiens (hey, I'll even point out that they won in Detroit for the first time in like 20 years this year).  But you owe me a Molsen.

It doesn't surprise me that people aren't familure with Nippon, as much as it bothers me that people not knowing it jumped to it having a bad connotation.  I mean, I may show plenty of disrespect to individuals that I regard as dumbasses, but I've never been one to judge based on race or nation or anything that wasn't 100% choice.  I don't hate the Iraqi people, never have I come close to saying that I do.  I hate Saddam, and it sucks that he leads them and that many of them could die along with people from other places, like the USA.  

What it really amounts to is it's easier for people that disagree with me to hang those titles on me and hate me, then to realize that it's not evil or wrong to accept and recognize the harsh truths of the world we live in.  Some people find it more comfortable to hate the people that don't agree with them.  So, I must be evil, and conservative, if I don't agree with the liberals here.  Just like I'm a bleeding heart Liberal to some of the conservatives.  And I must be pro war and murder, if I point out that the burden of proof is on Iraq, and not the US.  It's just so much easier to disagree with the messenger then with the message, when the message makes this much sense.

Oh, and before someone takes that as an oppertunity to use my own words against me, let me point out that it's not insults, labels or mocking, it's making assumptions as to my ideology based on the fact that I don't support your arguments.  

I mean, saying that Iraq has the burden of proof, and that it's wrong to wait forever for them to comply.  Saying that Bush has the right to go to war without the UN's ok.  All this got me accused of wanting to go to war now, even though I posted many times that I didn't think it was that time yet, that I still wanted more facts myself.  Punching holes in other peopels mistakes makes them automatically put me as an evil guy, that is against all that is good and right.

Such bullshit.

Ok, enough of the irish whiskey, it's starting to show.

[Zaity Upstairs]

Now see I have a few bones to pick with your last 4 posts. First is that my school is like millions around the nation and I do reading on the matters that arent in my books outside of school but I know others dont so others are missing out on funding to lrarn truthfulness about the world.

Secondly, Many of the heads of country of Europe had just taken power and we are talking PRE WWI lay out, but otherwise your right we wanted a different plan that congress didnt pass

Third, that commercial is a good example of what I was looking for but thats just one you realize? I mean how many were watching the game then flip away or take a leak during that time, tell me if you see another one

Forth, Is what your saying about defense is that if for one year we did not buy any NEW cruise missiles and thus saved BILLIONS we wouldnt be able to defend our selves? With or without the new shipment we could do just fine in defending our selves I think.

Fifth, The bush administration without a doubt has numerous times sad something like "and we will continue to lead the world" From Bush, down to my little cities Republican party agree that we lead the world, now weather we lead it well or not is in doubt to me but clearly those in power think we lead the world which is why im pretty sure i put it in quotations

Sixth, My information on the failure of the patriot missiles came from the BBC and Congress and they both say that it was an over rated system, I just dont see how you can debate that.

Seventh, I dont need your bullshit about the upper class, my parents both have PhDs and one works for the fed one works at the university so yea I can be called upper class. And you and I and all the rest of the people on here might not be racist but much of the upper class is and I stand by my argument.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Bucc there are some differences between you and me:

Where as I type things with out explaining the full context, you type things based on....thoughts
When I get things from CONGRESS and the BBC, you try to rebuttle thier credibility

Bucc you have to learn just because I am younger does not mean I need to be condesended to and it does make you any better theb me because your not. I think im just as spart as you and just because we have different views on how the world should work doesnt make one of us smarter then the other, and though I could continue with this immature flamewar I wont and I will post on the topic of Iraq like we should be posting.

Although leaders in our country do not listen to terrorists there wants are for the USA to leave the middle east. Now although I do not think that should happen perhaps we can change our policy. We are there obvoiusly because our leaders say we lead the world however we got attacked for our policies. Now here we are again in the middle east attacking just to get one man out of power and It will result with a terrorist attack. Last time it was 3000 at the WTC this time it could be a dirty  bomb in downtown denver 280,000. War, in this context, is simply not the answer

[EUR_Zaitsev]

You congradulate bush on pushing his war against Iraq behind talking to the UN but this is overshadowed by the fact that if the UN doesnt take the bait we will attack anyway. Also isnt it true Powell had to convince him?

Your comment about nobody deserving terrorists your right. Thier views are extreme and illegal and im not saying we deserved it but im disagreeing with people saying the attacks were random.

Your nippon comment, although bondo did accept your reasoning and I can seewhere your coming from I still think some Japenesse people would be offended by it

Your Teddy comment. Now saying he would because thats "the kind of guy he was" is one thing but then you said OR do we forget speak softly...etc meaning that the reason he woulda nuked is the speak softly carry a big stick thing which is in correct again I see where your coming from but your the one who used the wrong context this time

Your posts about we cant convince the public we are over spending defense. I doubt that, nobody has even tried and the cant rob peter to pay paul well you have to becasue the US budget to bar inflation operates on a Part-Part-whole meaning in order for one thing to go up, another has to go down.

Also you pinned the "iraq mess" that should have been cleaned up a long time ago on Clinton when infact that was Bush Sr.s time. Clinton had no reason to attack Iraq so he saved lives, unlike what Bush is going to do.

About saying Bush is strong on foriegn policy maybe for the first while after 9-11 he was decent I admit, but now we are right back where started with Millions protesting his foriegn policy because its simply arrogent and will get innocent people killed. We think not doing things will get innocent people killed by Saddam but the US forces commit more attrocities then the enemy themselves. Do you know what the highway of death is? Have you seen the pictures? So you see if we are attacking those who committed attrocities arent our guns pointed in the wrong direction?

Then theres your post about me. Well I feel loved that on Valentines day itself you took the time to write a post about me but really I dont need your coodleing and I dont need you to answer my questions because your views are wrong. Maybe in Michigan or wherever your from you see sense in them but I dont. Now its clear to me we have different opinions and we are entitled to that but your bullshit remakrs about me being a dumbass and me being insulting is not only a mirror image of yourself but it is more childish then I could ever be because you egg on flamewars when thats not what the forum is for

My point that you said I didnt have on Valentines day is that maybe if you, along side the rest of the Republican Party, woke up you would see the world disagrees with us so MAYBE WE ARE WRONG. We have never once in this ordeal asked ourselves is it moral? Is it just? is there evidence? Our Judicial system says innocent until proven guilty and so it should be in Iraq. THAT WAS MY POINT which was backed up by 82% of now a million voters say that the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.

Then there was your complaint to Bondo about him calling our your insults and not ours. Then you said I started it which is complete and utter bullshit. Sorry but my views are flamewars they are just politiccally sound. You started the flame war right along side abe so dont try the he started it first bullshit

Overview is that I, in just my 14 years on this earth, have learned something you have not. And that is to make a point you insult the argument not the person. Your posts repeadedly fail to comprehend that.  And you say I dont have a good political view tell me how this sounds.....


Let Iraq and Korea have full say at the UN so that the United Nations, based on its perpose of collective security, can operate correctly. Re-evaluate our stance on Isreal/Palestine. Instead of buying 50 billion in Cruise missiles, omit that perchase for one year and work in co-operation with the African governments to limit disease and end hunger there. Raise the taxes by some% and enhance domestic programs fighting hunger and homelessness. Then through the UN re-evaluate hot spots around the globe. Once these hotspots are ordered in line of urgency. work in stride with the government this includes hearing both sides and trying to compromise. Knowing that many hotspots have built up over the years no one side will give in, we have to meet in the middle. Using additonal funds saved by the absence of those extra Cruise missiles and the tax raise we launch ads telling facts about gun control in America. Maybe some day our government will really be of the people, by the people, and for the people

[Mr. Lothario]

     Ugh. Zaitsev, you continue to talk out of your ass. In keeping with your style, your points are either flat wrong or ignore additional evidence and/or context which makes them false.

     Let me do a little roleplaying. I'm now you. Let's say that we are discussing the effectiveness of police in major cities. I read an article that says that police catch or dismiss 82% of murder suspects (I'm just making this up, I didn't get that from anywhere). Now remember, I'm you. I'll now post on the forum: "The article from New York Times says that 18% of murderers never get caught. That's millions of murderers walking the streets of cities. It's obvious that our police forces are completely ineffective and we need to do something about it."

     I'm saying that you take only the data that helps your position, and you ignore the rest of the information about that data. That is a very amateurish thing to do.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

First is that my school is like millions around the nation and I do reading on the matters that arent in my books outside of school but I know others dont so others are missing out on funding to lrarn truthfulness about the world.

First, you are the one that brought up the fact that your school only had 1 paragraph on the subject.  That shows that it sucks (at least as far as history goes) or that you misrepresent it.  Doesn't matter to me either way.  

Second, how many of the millions of schools around the nation have you visited to be able to tell that they are the same?  Since schools are run at state and local levels, I'd just like to call BULLSHIT.

Many of the heads of country of Europe had just taken power and we are talking PRE WWI lay out, but otherwise your right we wanted a different plan that congress didnt pass

I am not sure what you are saying.  I said you are blaming the USA, holding it responsible for the layout of Europe and the area once known as Yugoslovia.  And I called BULLSHIT.  From this last post of yours, I can't tell if you are defending that the USA is responsible, or coming to terms with the fact that it wasn't.

that commercial is a good example of what I was looking for but thats just one you realize? I mean how many were watching the game then flip away or take a leak during that time, tell me if you see another one

I see ads from the Freedom Counsel all the time.  This wasn't a first, or just one.  So do you realize that you just may be in a small market, that doesn't have enough viewers?  Or that maybe, the people that own the media in your market don't want to air them?  Or maybe, they just aren't on the stations you watch?  Oh, I saw a FC ad on FNC the other day too.  So they aren't just local.  Your whole argument is shit on this point.

With or without the new shipment we could do just fine in defending our selves I think.

I'll just forget most of the points and give you just one to work with.  WE ALREADY GIVE FOOD AND AID ALL OVER THE WORLD.  BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH EVERY YEAR.  WE GET LITTLE TO NO CREDIT FOR IT.  So how is slashing defense spending to give away more going to change that?  People like you only focus in on the negative.  You ignore that we already do what you say would be good, and it doesn't change any opinions, even yours.

The bush administration without a doubt has numerous times sad something like "and we will continue to lead the world"

And I've heard it said many times that "we will continue to be a world leader".  And we do lead the world in some things.  So, maybe you should have a lesson in the dangers of taking quotes out of context.  Try this.  "And we will continue to lead the world, in the number of rednecks that pay billions of dollars to watch automobiles drive in circles".  It's real easy to misquote me and say that I said we lead the world.  So don't be an idiot.  Look at the whole picture, not just quotes.  Remember, Gore invented the internet.  And I'm sure I can look up a dumb quote and yank it out of context for any leader you want to name (as long as there are records).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

My information on the failure of the patriot missiles came from the BBC and Congress and they both say that it was an over rated system, I just dont see how you can debate that.

No.  You again see nothing but what you want to see.  I read the links you put up, and I'm not challenging what they say, I'm calling BULLSHIT on how your represent it.  

Congress said that the ARMY's method of rating the success was shit.  That they ran the numbers and it could be as low as 9%.  But they also wrote in there that nothing could be really determined because there were just so many problems with the way it was measured.  From the fact that so many SCUD's never would have made it (so you can't tell if the Patriot did the damage or if it was just the SCUD being shitty) anyway, to the facts that the people measureing shouldn't be the ones measuring.  

I also said that this was from 92, and where is something more recent?  And why don't you think they've improved in 10 years?

So, I'm not questioning the evidence you posted, I'm calling bull to your version of it.  And I'm questioning where some relevant information on how it will perform today is.

And you and I and all the rest of the people on here might not be racist but much of the upper class is and I stand by my argument.

Zaitsev, can you smell your own BULLSHIT?  You hung a label of hater, racist, etc on the upper class.  You blamed the upper class for not allowing ads on tv (which I've seen on TV myself).  Now you say you are part of the upper class too.  So I guess it's not the "upper class", it's just some assholes.

You continue to miss the easy, broad points (or just ignore them).

You are as bad as any racist.  Let me say that again.  YOU ARE AS BAD AS ANY RACIST.  You blame a "group" of people for these problems (some of which don't even exist) based upon their income and education (aka, the upper class).  Sure, you can say that you only mean the ones that do it, but it's not what you say.  You hang a title and the blame around their necks, just like some racist murder has hung a rope around a black mans neck.  And you do it with about the same level of ignorance.

You are the great Zaitsev, that has said you can't get peace with violence, and said that you would be one of the first to riot if we go to war.  You are the great dumbass that doesn't even see what a hypocrite that makes you.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Where as I type things with out explaining the full context, you type things based on....thoughts
When I get things from CONGRESS and the BBC, you try to rebuttle thier credibility

Nope.  If you could read without your dumbass filter on, you would see that I changed part of my opinion on the evidence you brought from Congress.  I didn't filter out the parts that don't support my previous postion.  It's not their credibility I rebute, it's yours.

I completely disagree in the way you interpret the data.  You only look at the pieces of information that support your argument, while ignoring the whole message of it.  It may be asking too much for you to be able to see what it means, but I think it's more likely that you just wear your dumbass filters, since you ignore things that don't agree with you.  

Bucc you have to learn just because I am younger does not mean I need to be condesended to and it does make you any better theb me because your not. I think im just as spart as you and just because we have different views on how the world should work doesnt make one of us smarter then the other

Nope.  I happen to think you are a complete dumbass, not because of your age, but because of the bullshit you spout.  You base your opinions and complete and utter bullshit, as has been shown time and time again.  But you ignore it.   The fact that you can't support any of your opinions well, and ignore or overlook any data that doesn't agree with you, that is what makes you a dumbass.

The fact that you are a hypocrite, spouting hate while condeming it.  Saying that violence will never get peace, but saying you will riot.  

And I find it very hard to find the point in many of your posts, because your writing skills suck.  I don't pick on that very often (in relation to as often as I could), because I cut you some slack based on your age.  Well, fuck cutting you some slack.  You are a fucking idiot.

Now although I do not think that should happen perhaps we can change our policy.

Sure, give in to terrorism.  That's a good way to end it.  That was sarcasim for those that didn't catch it.  And putting a dirty bomb in denver isn't an act of war, it's an act of terrorism.  If you don't see the difference, you really are a dumbass.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

we give billions to foriegn aid now great, but we still have a lot more to give, such as a needless 50 billion dollar perchase of Missiles, thats logical

Patriot Missiles
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/09/patriot.missile/
This article says that many of the missiles have been in the 30 years of stockpiling. They missiles have infact been updated however only one of those has been flown and it missed. The 9 succesful flights it mentioned I believe are from the older models which were re-heated pre-test.

 The riot comment which you referred to was simply baitign you to say not to achieve peace with violence and realize thats what Bush is doing.

Now the whole war or terrorism thing, 9-11 was terrorism. Now, according to Bush, we have a  WAR ON TERROR. And Osama Bin Laden has urged a Jihad or HOLY WAR. It has gone from terrorism to war, so yes WE are at war.

I do not urge giving into terrorism I just urge us to re-evaluate our spots not to thier wants but to what is truley equal. Maybe its time we partially swallowed our pride and realized our country has poor foriegn policy and Its not just the republicans either


Okay, your correct, my upper class statement was wrong. Your also correct in that I sometimes rush through refrences without reading the entire article and I will try to be where of that however the argument was over weather or not the Patriot Missiles provided by the US were effective and even the maximum of 9% does not constitute effectivness. So although I agree with you in that I sometimes do not look at all the information in this situation I was still right. Also we dont need all this dumbass filter thing because I mean its obvious I tend to feel the same about you but shouldnt we both show restraint with the sarcastic insults? i know I, at age 14 can.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You congradulate bush on pushing his war against Iraq behind talking to the UN but this is overshadowed by the fact that if the UN doesnt take the bait we will attack anyway. Also isnt it true Powell had to convince him?

Bait?  Nice twist on what I said.  Nice assumptions in there too.  And isn't it true that Powell had to convince whom of what?  I swear, you have the hardest time making a point.

First, I haven't "congradulated" Bush on anything.  I've said look at his actions, they speak louder then the words you quip out out the press.  The actions of the US government in this matter have not been to go to war, but to push the UN into enforcing it's own resolutions.  ENFORCING IT'S OWN RESOLUTIONS.  DUH.

Your comment about nobody deserving terrorists your right. Thier views are extreme and illegal and im not saying we deserved it but im disagreeing with people saying the attacks were random.

I have never once said that these attacks were random.  Once again, you put words at the end of my fingers that just aren't there.

Your nippon comment, although bondo did accept your reasoning and I can seewhere your coming from I still think some Japenesse people would be offended by it

Thanks for being a dumbass once again.  You think they would be offended by it, but you have no idea.  Look where the fucking word came from.  NIPPON is what THEY CALL JAPAN.  Or are you saying that the name WE AMERICANS give it is what should be used, and that they shouldn't be insulted by Japanese?  Fucking idiot.  You disagree when you know absolutely nothing.  That is a great fucking example of why you are a dumbass.

Your Teddy comment. Now saying he would because thats "the kind of guy he was" is one thing but then you said OR do we forget speak softly...etc meaning that the reason he woulda nuked is the speak softly carry a big stick thing which is in correct again I see where your coming from but your the one who used the wrong context this time

Show me the wrong CONTEXT you say I used.  DO IT.  The context was in answer to somone thinking Teddy would have had a better forign policy.  So the OR was asking if they forgot that he said it and what it means.  So, explain how the CONTEXT was off.  Come on.

Your posts about we cant convince the public we are over spending defense. I doubt that, nobody has even tried

Really?  Nobody tries to convince the public we over spend on defense?  BULLSHIT.  Come on, you aren't even trying now.  As for your part-part, it doesn't impress me that you can spout a term, when, from your previous dumbass comments about WAR=MORE SPENDING=LOWED BUDGET, you obviously know nothing about economics.  And part-part-whole doesn't dispute "trickle down" either.  

Bah, I'm tried of trying to teach you.  I'll just hit one last point.

Overview is that I, in just my 14 years on this earth, have learned something you have not. And that is to make a point you insult the argument not the person. Your posts repeadedly fail to comprehend that.  

That only think that fails to comprehend is you.  You don't seem to see anything that doesn't support your position.  You don't see that both your posts, points, evidence, and writing can be insulted and refuted, besides just insulting you.  My posts can multitask.

As for what I think about your political view.  In a few words, over simplistic, communist, irresponsible and over-optimistic.  I could break it down, but it's not worth the effort.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Okay you know Im beyhond caring, we have different views and us repeating our selves wont change each others views. Your vulger ness just makes me less persuaded to see your side of a matter and saying that the attacks were random is said " i disagree with PEOPLE" not you but PEOPLE as in a generalized statement. So Im done and you can post your views andill post mine but the flame war was stupid and immature for both of us  maybe we should accept the fact we both think low of each other and not state it in a rage that really frankly wont solve anything

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Or Zaitsev, you can just stop posting stupid, ignorant shit.  I don't care if you think I'm "vulger".  The points have been said nice as often as they have been said, well, not so nice.  By me and others.  You don't know what you are talking about, and you completely ignore any evidence that doesn't match your midset.

You are as bad as any KKK biggot, because you assign labels and views and stereotypes (hell, you still call me a republican).  

So, no, I'm not going to stop calling bullshit where I see it.  The only way to stop it is for you to not post the crap.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Meh. Bucc, I've been through this with Rapid. He (meaning either Zaitsev or Rapid, take your pick) won't listen to anything that conflicts with his worldview. Period. Although, to be fair, Zaitsev has one up on Rapid, since Zaitsev twists what you say rather than simply ignoring it. But anyway, it's utterly futile to talk with him about anything. So I recommend that you just start ignoring his posts. It's better for your mental health. Heh.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Loth, the only problem with that is someone may actually think he has a fact right and believe his bullshit at some point.  But I get your point.

[abe]

bucc, i cant believe you still have the nerves, patience and endurance to actually keep arguing with this this brick-wall.

What bothers me personally is that zaitsev feels that his opinions, no mater how badly argued or supported, are universal truths and that he knows better than everyone else. thats why there's really no point in trying to discuss anything with him, so i just began to ignore him.

zaitsev, i posted the saudi arabia thing to see what people thoght about it. if thats spam then i guess this and every other thread here is spam as well. are they?

and the other thing id like to know is where u get the notion that "daily lynchings" are going on in the south. where the hell do you get your information from? maybe your textbooks are too old to have any information on post ww2 conflicts.

im not trying to start any flame wars, but i dont need 14year olds talking to me like im an ass. i get enough people that are a lot older than me giving me shit in real life so i dont need somone who just learned how to wipe wipe his ass to give me any more on here. unless you say somthing really really dumb, im not gonna respond, zaitsev, so shove it.(ughhh, that almost sounds like a challenge......it wasnt meant to!)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yep Abe, whatever you do, don't encourage him to act any dumber.

And I agree.  Just like the zealots on the other side of th issue, Zaitsev thinks that these are universial truths, not opinions, and that they don't need support, we should all just see the truth in them.  

But, just like most zealots, it's ok for his side to act that way, after all, they are right.  And anyone that doesn't agree or see this must be an ultra right wing republican, and worse (in his opinion) the Bin Laden or Saddam.  

Attitudes like his really burn my ass hairs, and I feel almost a duty to point out the bullshit they spout.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I sympathize, Bucc. For myself, though, I long ago decided that it was more pleasurable and saner to argue with rational beings. Rational beings are few and far between on this forum, but whenever possible, I try to deal with them.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

BACK ON THE SUBJECT OF IRAQ

There simply isnt a reason to go to war in Iraq. We have not found Nuclear Weapons as we were sure we would, Iraq, however slowly, has complied with UN inspection teams and I mean it is just at this point un-nessicary to risk so many lives. Over 50% of Iraq is children and if we attack now then they only know one thing about the US, they killed the parents and the house and my friends up the street. And then they become "Zealots". Until we have a smoking gun or a threat from Iraq there is simply no reason to kill

There are probably other issues I could have commented on but I only had 5 hours of sleep. Now Bucc if you disagree with this point sure yell Bullshit and follow abe and lothario and ignore me but if you agree with them then all this time we have been fighting for the same side and however badly I present my argument it still, in some respects, has a valid point.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

There simply isnt a reason to go to war in Iraq.

Stop saying stupid shit like that.  There is noting simple or clear about this situation at all.  That's always where the bullshit starts.  Read Loth's posts about it.

We have not found Nuclear Weapons as we were sure we would

Nobody has said they have nuclear weapons.  But it has been said that they are trying to create them (that's where the aluminium tubes and magnets come in).  It's not just their having WMD's, but they aren't allowed to seek them or try to create them.  And there are other WMD's besides nuclear.  Where's all that VX gas they had stockpiled?  The mustard gas?  Anthrax?

It's not our duty to find them, or the UN's.  It's Iraq's duty to show the evidence of them being destroyed.  Why do you keep ignoring that simple fact?

Iraq, however slowly, has complied with UN inspection teams and I mean it is just at this point un-nessicary to risk so many lives.

Did they do this without the threat of war?  Or did they only really start to cooperate since war has been hanging over their heads?  Answer that for us.  And they still haven't complied 100%.  They've just started moving.

Over 50% of Iraq is children and if we attack now then they only know one thing about the US, they killed the parents and the house and my friends up the street.

SO WHAT.  I said it before and you haven't addressed it.  What about the situation does the percentage of children change (assuming it's true)?  That they may hate us?  Don't they already according to you?  

Let's pull this into yet another analogy.  

You have a guy, a convected felon on parole, he's holed up in his house with two buddies, their wives and 9 children.  He's armed, and could be very well armed, but nobody is sure, but by not proving it to his parole officer, he has violated his parole.  So the law sends letters and phones for YEARS to get him to surrender himself peacefully.  Then they threaten arrest.  Now, they have the house surrounded, and are telling him to come out with his hands up.  Now, and only now, has he started even talking.  Well, how long does the law have to wait for him to come out before they actually go in and get him?  Is it better to let a criminal go.  Not only go but to just thumb his nose at the law, undermining it?

At some point, he has to either come out with his hands up, or the law has to be enforced.  

And if you look at all that, you'll notice it has nothing to do with the children.  Because for all the children in the home, there are millions of others on the outside.  All of them have to learn right and wrong.  Or would you like the anarchary of a society without law enforcement?

Now, stop being a dumbass.  Don't ignore that Iraq has the burden of proof.  Don't ignore that the've done nothing to honor it except now at the point of a gun.  Don't ignore that Iraq has admitted to not following the rules set down and agreed to (and it shouldn't matter that those missiles are only a little to long range, they are still over.  And those rocket motors are 5 times stronger).  

How about answering this.  What is a reason to go to war in your opinion?  Are there any?  What prices are you willing to pay and see paid?  

Something you have to think about.  What is the price if enforcement doesn't happen?

So no, nothing is simple.  Not much is clear.  And you are still a dumbass that ignores everything that Saddam and Iraq does wrong, twisting the facts to fit his own view.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

I see your point on the holed up in a house
I see your point about seeking and making

But isnt it extremly hard to show you dont have somethign I mean it could be in any corner of thier country. Saddam Hussien Is a bad man , yes I acknowledge that but I do not think he would attack other countries after being flatly sent home in Desert Storm. Maybe I am wrong and even when he pushes troops to the borders it is clear to him that the US has a watchful eye on him and I doubt he will make any significant moves outside of Iraqi terreritory