Saddam Gassed His Own People

“Thoughtful answers mutt.

As it turns out, that letter from the ‘New Europe’ may have been nothing more than http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-rutten1feb01,0,7685570.column" target="_blank">a propaganda piece engineered by the Wall Street Journal.

I still have a major hang up with this whole notion of preemptive war. It goes against centuries of western thought on just war theory as taught in our own military schools.”

“sorry. I see i reiterated what you said about the streetfighting”

“Violin, the leaders still put their name to the letter, even if it was solicited by the WSJ? Propaganda may be too harsh of a word to use.

And if there is European support for the war, then why haven't we been reading about it before now? Propaganda also embodies what is not reported....”

“the long term obligations such as military occupation and such

This is why we need our allies on board: the aftermath. It would look a lot better for the U.S. if a multinational peacekeeping force was in Iraq - not just the American conquerors. Plus the financial burden would be lessened...”

“I agree wholeheartedly on that point, Mutt. Unilaterism is a dangerous business in my eyes”

“Germany declared war on us, even though that doesn't matter because Iraq is NOW! As for Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia etc... our motivation was humanitarian and we paid the price.

I think this time the price is too expensive.

9/11 still has not been tied to Iraq, I've heard about a bodyguard of Saddam's coming over, what he has to say (if it checks out) may be the smoking gun... he's mentioned somethings but has not implicated Iraq in 9/11.”

“I’ve got to admit. This one has continued to haunt me:


”We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.”

- Saddam Hussein to Ambassador Glaspie, July 25 1990 (according to NY Times transcript)”

“Yeah, that is disturbing, V. However, look at the date combined with the fact that it is a given that he is capable of that type of terrorism. I still don't think they have made the case to attack yet. Clear and present danger factor not there yet. However, I have always feared that individual terrorism (such as suicide bombings) are likely to be more commonplace here if we do go in without a more convincing argument.”

“more convincing proof, I should say”

“"There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which
will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation
of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to
repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful
instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we
are at all times ready for war." --George Washington”

“The case against Iraq:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the
last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself,
he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the
next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He
pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while
inspectors were in his country.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave
Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead
his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of
the world. ... The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam
Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over
25,000 liters of anthrax.... Our intelligence officials estimate
that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500
tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. ... U.S. intelligence
indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions
capable of delivering chemical agents. ... From three Iraqi
defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile
biological weapons labs. ... The International Atomic Energy Agency
confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon,
and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium
for a bomb. ... He has not accounted for these materials. He has
given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The dictator of
Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

With nuclear arms ... Saddam Hussein could resume his
ambitions.... Evidence from intelligence sources, secret
communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal
that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members
of al-Qa'ida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide
one of his hidden weapons to terrorists.... It would take just
one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to
bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will
do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since
when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions,
politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat
is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words
and all recriminations would come too late.

Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of
Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy
is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed
from power will be the day of your liberation. ...

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not
accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends,
and our allies. The United States will ask the UN Security Council
to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing
defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present
information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs;
its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors; and its links
to terrorist groups.


GW Bush, state of the union adress”

“read it guys. read it again. then reread it. you're just not listening. why do you trust this man? how can anybody on this earth trust him?

don't believe him? think he's lying to you? that means you trust hussein more than america's president. i can't fathom your logic. i don't want a war and neither does bush. he said so in that speech. but dam ya'll...think about it. don't think about it in terms of why we shouldn't...think about your friends all over the country, you family, your children being........being hurt really bad or even killed.


don't feel...think... he can't be trusted”

“"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they
become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch
your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it
becomes your destiny." --Frank Outlaw”

“think about your friends all over the country, you family, your children being........being hurt really bad or even killed.

don't feel...think... he can't be trusted

Wow, strat, That's amazing! An appeal to emotion followed by an appeal to logic wrapped in an emotional appeal. Fascinating!

If he's a danger to us, bush should have been able to prove it to me by now. I am looking for hard evidence. Please don't give me any of the "We have to trust him cause he's the president" Crap. He's a politician, and certainly capable of stretching the truth.

I'll wait for Wednesday, see the evidence and then judge, but it seems if there were irrefutable evidence that Iraq was an immediate danger to the US, Europe, or it's neighbors, we could have convinced them to join with us much sooner, rather than calling for inspections.”

“i know phaed, ,i was thinking the same thing after i wrote it...it's just..i dunno...we have so much to loose

so sincee he's apolotician, you trrust hussein more then?

evidence? read it again phaed, he tells you alot, you just don't believe it. so what's gonna convince you. and PLEASE don't say 'smoking gun'...i'm SO sick of the cliche(sp?)”

“i heard an interesting take on 'the radio factor' (bill o'reilly)today........ if this is all a big scheme to control oil...why not just nutron bomb um? hell we could flatten the whole dam place and nobody could do anything about it. so what if the whole world gets pissed. what are they gonna do? it's rediculous.”

“Let's what we have...


1. He violated the inspections.
We know he's a dictator desperate for power, and trying to hold on to it in his crippled state. This is not surprizing and is not indicative of WMD on its own.

2. He has the materials needed to produce biologican and chimicahl weapons.
So does every high school in sacramento. There is no intelligence that has been shared with us that says he has produced them. At this point, with the constant bombings of chemical plants and the like, I doubt he has the ability to refine a case of the flu!

3.Munitions capable of delivering chemical and nerve agents.
In basic training, we were shown how a simple mortar can be altered to deliver chem weapons. I wonder if W isn't subscribing to that theory...

4. He had materials and a plan to build nuclear weapons.
He has no capcity to complete this. He has no way of enrichng Uranium currently, according to every source I have looked into.

5. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'ida
If this is true, it changes things. We would have a political need to apprehend the al-qaeda members within Iraq. Assuming there is proof they are there. The testimony of a detainee should not be enough to induce the US to attack another country without military provocation.

Every one of us wants the US to remain safe and secure. I'm not convinced that unless we attack Iraq we will not be.Let's see the evidence. It has NOT been put forth yet.”

“5. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'ida
If this is true, it changes things. We would have a political need to apprehend the al-qaeda members within Iraq. Assuming there is proof they are there. The testimony of a detainee should not be enough to induce the US to attack another country without military provocation.


phaed...if they are helpin al queda in any way shape or form...it IS justification in and of itself. read bush's speech on 9-13-01. either your with us or against us. no muddy water, no #&%!$footin around. and how the hell else are you gonna find out abou tit? they aren't gonna tell us. it was all done in secrecy(assuming it was done). come on man....your sposed to be an american.

i just don't understand why you try so hard to disbelieve your president and try so hard to defend iraq.

#1; why would he violate inspections if he wasn't deceiving them?

#2; he clearly stated that from defecting iraqi sceintist we know they have mobile biolabs...never been accounted for

i could go on but i'm tired...


good night and have a plesant tomorrow....”

“come on man....your sposed to be an american

That comment officially makes you an ass.

i just don't understand why you try so hard to disbelieve your president and try so hard to defend iraq

I went to war against Iraq when it invaded another sovereign state without provication.

I'm not really sure if you're trying to be insulting, or if you're just too dumb to realize what it is you're saying, but either way, you have no right to question my loyalty to my country.”

“I'm wondering. The rhetoric is already softening a little. For the sake of being open minded, I don't want to pass judgment yet on what we will hear, but I have to wonder if this is going to be more of the same, or what.






Powell says he'll offer no 'smoking gun' on Iraq
Secretary of state to address Security Council on Wednesday
Monday, February 3, 2003 Posted: 10:21 PM EST (0321 GMT)



Powell met with Emir Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain on Monday.







WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that he will present "no smoking gun" when he addresses the U.N. Security Council this week but will show that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is not complying with a U.N. resolution to disarm.

Powell is expected to make a one-hour, public presentation Wednesday with photographs and perhaps transcripts of intercepted conversations in an effort to prove senior Iraqi officials have been hiding weapons and evidence of weapon programs from U.N. inspectors.

"While there will be no 'smoking gun,' we will provide evidence concerning the weapons programs that Iraq is working so hard to hide," he said in a commentary published in The Wall Street Journal. "We will, in sum, offer a straightforward, sober and compelling demonstration that Saddam is concealing the evidence of his weapons of mass destruction, while preserving the weapons themselves."

U.N. Resolution 1441 calls on Iraq to destroy any chemical, nuclear and biological weapons or face serious consequences. Iraq has consistently denied possessing such weapons.

International backing for any military consequences has been spotty. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush's most loyal supporter, called again Monday for a second U.N. resolution before any military action against Iraq is launched.

The Bush administration also faces resistance at home, with just 29 percent of Americans seeing Iraq as an immediate threat and about half calling for weapons inspections to be given more time to uncover evidence against Iraq, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

In the poll of 1,003 American adults, carried out January 31-February 2, about half of respondents said they have not made up their minds on Iraq, and 60 percent said Powell's presentation to the Security Council will be a very important factor in their decision.

Iraq's U.N. ambassador has asked to address the Security Council after Powell.

"There will not be evidence on the question of weapons of mass destruction on Iraq and also on the relationship with al Qaeda," Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri said. "I'm confident [Powell] can't present such evidence."

Security Council ambassadors are expected to consider Aldouri's request when they meet in a closed session Tuesday to discuss the month's schedule.

U.S. official: No objection to Iraqi speech
A U.S. official told CNN that the United States has no objection to Iraq speaking at the meeting.

"We certainly aren't against them speaking," the U.S. official said. "We think the scientists should speak; we think anyone should speak if they want to. This is a free country -- unlike Iraq."

When asked about the conditions set forth in chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix's and Mohamed ElBaradei's response to Iraq's invitation for them to return to Baghdad for discussions, Aldouri said, "I think all these issues will be [the] subject of negotiation," when the two reach Iraq.


Two U.N. weapons inspectors speak with a member of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate.



The inspectors have asked Iraq to allow U-2 surveillance flights and private interviews with scientists, and for Iraq to adopt national legislation that would ban weapons of mass destruction.

Blix and ElBaradei are to travel to Baghdad this weekend, a time both consider critical in the 12-year, U.S.-led effort to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Although "there are no guarantees," Blix told reporters he is optimistic. "I think that it's a moment when the Iraqis ought to decide to be cooperative on substance."

European Parliament member offers 'fresh evidence'
At the United Nations, a member of the European Parliament handed to Blix what she said was "fresh evidence from Iraqi people themselves of storage and resource acquisition of weapons of mass destruction."

The information "has not been given to anybody else before," said Emma Nicholson, vice chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee and a human rights advocate. She offered reporters no evidence to support her claim.

At International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna, Austria, ElBaradei called on Iraq to cooperate with inspectors. "The international community is getting impatient," he said.

The inspectors are to report back to the Security Council on February 14.

In Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors visited several sites Monday and found a missile 20 cm [8 inches] in diameter at the Al Nidaa state company, the official Iraqi News Agency said.

In addition, the team found a damaged warhead belonging to a Lunar missile, which has a range of 42 miles, the agency said.

"The team leader was informed that this warhead is [a] leftover and has nothing to do with past proscribed programs," it added.

The warhead was mentioned in Iraq's weapons declaration to the United Nations last year, the agency said.”

“IMHO, I haven't seen nearly enough proof to warrant the action Bush is proposing.

I trust, at this point, that he knows something that he hasn't disclosed to the rest of us. However, I would have grave concerns about taking any action until the facts have been disclosed. DOM nailed it, two wrongs never make a right.

As far as a "show of strength",,,,give me a break...

Do we have to "prove" we are the biggest, baddest guy on the block?

I don't thinks so. Is there any doubt that every Nation on this planet knows that we not only have the firepower, but we are the SOLE masters of projection?

Face it, what other Country could commence sizable military operations half way around the world? It is not the number of planes, tanks or men that is staggering. It is the logistics of opening and maintaining the supply chain that separates the players.

We control the seas, we control the air, and in any givn spot we could control the ground.

Will wiping out Saddam end terrorism? I think not. As long as there are those who hate us as much as the Taliban, and those who ferverently believe they are working for God when they strike us, we will always be subject to attack.

While we need to defend ourselves, can we resort to genocide to rid the world of any threat?

To me it is simple. We need to retaliate and punish anyone who attacks us (or aids and abets the same). But to take action against someone because we think they might do it (without substantial and clear proof) flies in the face of everything this country stands for.”

“Well said, Chili. The key is in the proof. Prove to me, beyond hearsay, that Al Quada and Iraq are working hand in hand and I will change my tune. As far as Saddam as a threat to U.S. soil, he doesn't have the means to get that stuff over here. I'm waiting to be proved wrong too. Let's see if they can do it.”

“To me it is simple. We need to retaliate and punish anyone who attacks us (or aids and abets the same). But to take action against someone because we think they might do it (without substantial and clear proof) flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

I've already put forth an argument that conquering Iraq will help in the war on terrorism, particularly Saudi Arabia, which is the hotbed of support for terrorism.

Do you agree with the premise (that it will help)? If you do, does that justify action in Iraq?”

“Somewhat off-topic here: but my hat is off to Mutt and Violin for keeping the cool and presenting their sides of the story in a calm, friendly manner. It's been interesting to read.”

“Mutt, judging from the way the American people understand the 'need' for action in Iraq (as put forth by this administration), do you think the average American sees it the way you put it. If anything, our government has not used any of that reasoning in presenting it's case. Most people don't see that this is a way to undermine the efforts of Saudi Arabia (one of the world's largest supporters of terrorism, I agree wholeheartedly). See what I am trying to say here?”

“I agree with the premise it would probably slow down terrorism, Mutt.

But no, that alone does not justify action.

An invasion of Columbia would help curb the drug problem. Would that justify miliary action against that country?

If we just stamped out North Korea, we could quit worrying about S. Korea being attacked (which causes us to maintain a sizable and somewhat expensive force there). Should we just go ahead and do away with them?

Without clear and convincing proof of actions taken against us, I maintain that we cannot go around the world with a big stick and take action against anyone that threatens us. If we did that, where would we stop? Better yet, what would the line of distinction be between us and them?”

“To me it is simple. We need to retaliate and punish anyone who attacks us (or aids and abets the same). But to take action against someone because we think they might do it (without substantial and clear proof) flies in the face of everything this country stands for."
chili36

chilie, i agree whole heartedly. while wiping out hussien won't end terrorism, i would submit that if they trained or supported al queda, even just a little bit, they(iraq) ARE terrorist too and must be dealt with harshly.


phaed, i'm sorry you find everything i say insulting. i'm not trying to insult you or provoke you or make you anrgy. i just speak my mind. i apologize for being an official ass, i guess i can't help myself.... and i thank you for your service to our countrty. that being said....

what was your mindset during gulf-warI? i mean your opinion of the whole thing...what was your feeling about the cease fire agreement at the end? do you think we stopped soon enough, or too soon or just right?

i think that we stopped back then, on the premise that he would disarm...and he still hasn't done that. so you wasted your time, IMO.”

“True, Chili. Vietnam should have taught us some lessons about the pitfalls of being the world's policeman.”

“Strat, I think Phaed is looking for the proof about Al Quada, just like many of us are. Hope I spoke correctly for you, Phaed.”

“Strat, one more thing. Sorry to say, but to me Bush's word alone does not constitute proof.”

“treebeard: yes, I see what you're saying.

This is my perspective: I've never listened much to what the Bushies have said regarding the justification for war, because I know they'll pursue the most politically expedient course. the NBC WMD issue plays well with the public, and into their fears. Politically smart. Geopolitically inaccurate. That more people cannot see through this and not recognize the underlying geopolitical motivations is beyond me. I'm dismayed my opinion is somewhat "unique".

So the false dichotomy of Sadam's innocence or guilt in pursuing WMD is a non-starter, and a rather naive and myopic perspective if you ask me. This is not meant as an insult to anyone. I may be completely off base on this!”

“I don't think you are totally off base. As a matter of fact, you did some more homework than a lot of people do, but people are emotional creatures. This makes it easier for quick talking politicians to play on that. Hence, why a lot of folks don't see the big picture. It's a really complicated situation and there are up and down sides of every argument. Which is 100% correct, I don't think exists. There's bound to be a price to pay whichever route we go. I just hope that we pick the course of lesser consequence.”

“mutt, i believe that being tied to al queda is much more significant than WMD. but if they ARE tied to al queda AND have WMDs.....dam dood...slam dunk


i know tree...i just don't think he'd lie about it...it's too easy to verify(after it's all over). he's not stupid(bush) and he has some SERIOUS smartypants surrounding him(rice, powell, cheny). anyways, i think the al queda tie-in is the real clincher here.”

“You know, Strat. For Bushie's sake, that should be true. Otherwise, he may not come out of this looking too good. There are a lot of poeple in this country questioning the whether military action is justified. I just hope we don't go in there for all the wrong reasons.”

“It's a really complicated situation and there are up and down sides of every argument. Which is 100% correct, I don't think exists. There's bound to be a price to pay whichever route we go. I just hope that we pick the course of lesser consequence."
treebeard

very well said tree...


i talked to my bro-in-law last night. he's a marine sergeant in texas and is fixin to get sand in between his toes. i asked him "what is the morale of the guys like? what is their mindset?" he said that to a man, they are chomping at the bit and want to hurry up and get over there and finish the job. i asked him about dissention in the ranks and he said that he has never once heard a dissenting word out of anyone. then i asked him if 'the regular grunts' are convinced were doing the right thing and he laughed. i said..what? he said that we have so much on iraq that's it's rediculous. so i said...how come they don't come out with it publically? he said that we have alot of spies in place, we monitor their phone calls, we have defectors...if we come out and say that professor so-n-so defected and told us such-n0such..they will kill the guys family. we can't say who our spies are, cuz they would be compromised and killed.

interesting stuff...”

“"You know, Strat. For Bushie's sake, that should be true. Otherwise, he may not come out of this looking too good. There are a lot of poeple in this country questioning the whether military action is justified. I just hope we don't go in there for all the wrong reasons."
treebeard


yes tree, this is exactly my point. if he's all concerned about geopolitical expediency...he's not gonna cut off his nose to spite his face. even if he's that stupid, his cabinet isn't.”

“Yes it is, from that standpoint. But, you can understand why intelligent thinking people back here at home would question what's going on. I question things based on the multitude of foreign policy mistakes the U.S. has made in the past. We are always backing the wrong people, for instance. Hell, we were backing Saddam for long enough. We made Bin Laden what he is today. We trained that bastard during the Reagan years and paid for his efforts back then. We backed a corrupt regime in Vietnam. I could go on and on, but the point I think has been made here.”

“An invasion of Columbia would help curb the drug problem. Would that justify miliary action against that country?

I disagree with the premise and I don't think it's a relavent analogy. Legalizing drugs and getting rid of the black market will take care of that problem. If it wasn't for neocon religious idiots, this would be a politically realistic course of action, as well.

If we just stamped out North Korea, we could quit worrying about S. Korea being attacked (which causes us to maintain a sizable and somewhat expensive force there). Should we just go ahead and do away with them?

Yes, absolutely we should finish the Korean War. We should be doing this before engaging Iraq. NK is more of a threat than terrorists right now. It would be a huge sacrifice (particularly for the SKs), but it would rid the world of a truly deranged cruel despot with nukes and ICBMs.

Without clear and convincing proof of actions taken against us, I maintain that we cannot go around the world with a big stick and take action against anyone that threatens us.

The proof was 9/11 and subsequent terrorist operations. I have no pity for Sadam. You have a problem with preemptively attacking sovereign, legitimate governments. I do too. But Sadam's regime has no legitimacy whatsoever. That would have to come from the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people want freedom and the chance to pursue a modern, free system of economics. Remember, the Iraqis for the most part are fairly secular and cosmopolitan compared with the rest of Arabian Peninsula. So Sadam, with his utterly cruel despotism, is in no way legitimate, and therefore a fair target for the U.S., particularly when the U.S. needs to reshape the ME for its own security and the world's.

If we did that, where would we stop? Better yet, what would the line of distinction be between us and them

Pax Americana. Peace through American dominance. The distinction between us and them is that the course we're pursuing is freedom, democracy, liberty, security, and economic expansion. They're pursuing killing innocent civilians for a deranged religious purpose. There's nothing moral about them.”

“mutt....you use your tounge perttier thanna twenty dollar whore.......”

“Well strat… I did link to a couple of stories showing how Bush lied in the SOTU address. Didn’t bother reading them?

Here they are again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57632-2003Jan28.html" target="_blank">Aluminum tubes not for ‘nukular’ program.
IAEA never said Saddam was http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm" target="_blank">six months from a bomb.

For whatever reason I am more swayed by Powell. Since you are so impressed with polls, you might find it interesting that http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-iraq-poll0204feb03,0,5943307.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines" target="_blank">Americans trust Powell over Bush by nearly 3 to 1.”

“$20 whore? Where! I'll take two.”

“yeahyeah violin, last time i clicked one of your links my hardrive started smoking, my microwave exploded and my garage door opener called the sherrif.....sorry dood, fool me twice, shame on me....


powell's speach should be interesting to say the least...”

“I guess you’ve been reading a lot of stuff produced by the uberhawks at The Project for the New American Century, mutt. They’ve been pushing for war with Iraq since their founding.

A war to restructure Arab society to our liking is a hard sell for me on moral grounds. No one can know for what the consequences will be. The CIA reportedly assisted the Baathist regime in Iraq and look where it got us. Will the current grand scheme work? I sure don’t know. If it does, I’ll start a campaign to build a statue of Paul Wolfowitz in every town square. (I’d add Cheney and Rumsfeld but that would just scare little children.)

Again, for me, it comes down to a moral problem with attacking a country for what they might do.”

“If you right-click on the links you'll see they go to the Washinton Post, Washington Times and Newsday.”

“I meant to say that the CIA reportedly assisted the rise of the Baathist regime in Iraq.”

“UNITED NATIONS—Responding to pressure from the international community, the U.N. ordered enigmatic candy maker William "Willy" Wonka to submit to chocolate-factory inspections Monday.

"For years, Wonka has hidden the ominous doings of his research and development facility from the outside world," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said. "Given the reports of child disappearances, technological advances in glass-elevator transport, and Wonka-run Oompa-Loompa forced-labor camps, the time has come to put an end to three decades of secrecy in the Wonka Empire."

The chocolate-making capabilities of Wonka's heavily fortified compound have long been a source of speculation. Wonka, defying international calls for full disclosure, has maintained his silence regarding his factory's suspected capacity to manufacture confections of mass deliciousness.

Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the U.N. announcement.

"No more will this sinister figure be free to pursue his nefarious endeavors without fear of reprisal, protected by loopholes in international candy-making law," Powell said. "With this ruling, the U.N. has issued the global community a 'golden ticket' to draw back the curtain behind which this mysterious confectioner hides."

According to CIA psychological profilers, Wonka has retreated from the outside world entirely, withdrawing into "a world of pure imagination." An anonymous tinker stationed near the infamous, long-locked Wonka factory gate corroborated the claim, saying, "Nobody ever goes in, nobody ever comes out."

Rival candy makers, long worried that Wonka's advanced capabilities have created an imbalance of power within the volatile global chocolate marketplace, also applauded the U.N. move.

"Wonka exerts a powerful psychological grip over the world's children," said Arthur Slugworth, president of Slugworth Confections. "They are devoted to him with a loyalty that borders on the fanatical, eagerly lapping up Scrumdiddlyumptious Bars by the millions at his command. But when we found evidence that Wonka was developing so-called 'everlasting gobstopper' technology—'the mother of all gobstoppers'—we knew it was time to act."

To date, all efforts to peer inside the Wonka inner sanctum have met with failure. Armies of legal experts retained by Wonka have kept visitors to his chocolate-making facilities effectively gagged with elaborate non-disclosure agreements. His in-house staff of high-contrast Technicolor dwarves carefully monitors what information flows in or out of the heavily guarded compound. And the few scraps of information that have come to light—vague reports of terrifying river-barge rides, razor-sharp ceiling fans, and human-sized pneumatic tubes of indeterminate purpose—have been obscured by layers of darkly comic, psychedelic symbolism, making them virtually impossible to interpret.

"Wonka has shown himself to be a man who cannot be trusted," Annan said. "Whether misrepresenting himself as a limping cripple, only to drop at the last moment into an agile somersault, or exploiting the deepest and most personal character flaws of misbehaving children, Wonka has been a man of shifty, undetermined motives and baffling ends. He must be stopped."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a longtime advocate of regime change in the Wonka Empire, is urging President Bush to consider military intervention should Wonka refuse to cooperate.

"The world can no longer turn a blind eye to Wonka's deception and misdirection," Rumsfeld said. "Without full inspections, there's no earthly way of knowing which direction Wonka's going. Not a speck of light is showing, so the danger must be growing. And he's certainly not showing any signs that he is slowing. Are the fires of Hell a-glowing? Is the grisly reaper mowing? Who can provide the world with the answer to these pressing questions?"

"The candy man can," Rumsfeld added grimly.

Bush said he is leaning toward the use of force, undeterred by the prospect of the candy maker using his rumored "Wonkavision" technology to turn would-be attackers into millions of tiny pieces, beaming them through the air and shrinking them to tiny, dollhouse-accessory size.

"We are talking about a man who is able to take a rainbow and cover it with dew," Bush told reporters during a press conference Monday. "Who knows what else he is capable of? Left to his own devices, he could, in a worst-case scenario, make the world taste very bad, indeed."”

“chilie, i agree whole heartedly. while wiping out hussien won't end terrorism, i would submit that if they trained or supported al queda, even just a little bit, they(iraq) ARE terrorist too and must be dealt with harshly.


I don't disagree with this stratdewd, what I assert is that there is some burden of proof to be maintained and I have yet to see the evidence that would meet that burden. I don't maintain it doesn't exist. It may, it may not. But I think we need to know what the facts are to warrant this type of action.

My position is very similar to Violin's. I do not believe the principals of Liberty and Freedom lend themselves to an action because we don't like someone.

Peace through Americanism??? Folks, I contend that will never work in the Arab world.”

“Oh and strat… If your brother-in-law has to go in, I want him to be prepared as possible. Could you print up a few hundred of http://store5.yimg.com/I/targets911-store_1717_186109" target="_blank">these for him and his unit?”

“I guess you’ve been reading a lot of stuff produced by the uberhawks at The Project for the New American Century, mutt

I've been reading a lot from across the political spectrum. I owe no allegiance to any one perspective - even my own.


A war to restructure Arab society to our liking is a hard sell for me on moral grounds. No one can know for what the consequences will be.

So fear of the unknown is a factor for you? I'm scared to death of what may happen in the event of war with Iraq.

The ME has been problematic for the U.S., the world, and the inhabitants of the ME for, well, a long time. A moral thing to do would be to de-radicalize and modernize the ME. What's immoral is for the islamofascists and the secular despots to keep their populations subjugated and ignorant. Just mho.”