[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

Bush does not want this war. Bush wants Saddam to abide by U.N. resolutions. Why do you refuse to recognize this?

Because this is disingenuous. Israel is one of the largest violators of UN resolutions, where is the anger? Where is the outrage? George W. Bush, much like yourself, could care less about the "sanctity" of the UN. You are using it as yet another foot note to justify war, and it's sad.

Saddam has had 12 years and he knew that this was his last chance. He has no intention of getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction that France and Germany supplied him with....oops. Did I say that out loud?

Where are the weapons, and an even MORE important question, why don't you want the inspectors to keep looking for them...? Wouldn't it be convenient if we blew the hell out of Iraq, thus "destroying" all of these WMD...?

I might have to agree with you there, I'm simply not aware of the political climate at the time but no matter what it was I can't see supporting that sort of activity by not condemning it.....which leads me to believe that it might not have happened....All that aside, it's got nothing to do with here and now and I will not mention it again.

The U.S. turns a bling eye to a lot of things, Ronnie. Welcome to reality.

Rumsfeld was the one who said "old europe", not Tony Blair.

In this very speech Blair laments over Europe's brutal past.

Second, the sanctions that were approved by the U.N. are more than enough for the people of Iraq. They are not enough for both, Saddam's weapons programs and palaces...and the people.

Can't have pencils for school because he may use it to make a weapon, can't have coolants because he may store bio-weapons, can't have filtration devices because he may build a hydrogen bomb, etc. etc. etc. You're wrong.

He doesn't have to. The way Saddam has abused the sanctions only strengthens Tony's argument.

And the way the sanctions have abused the Iraqi people only strengthens Saddam's argument.

Yeah! He shouldn't have invaded Kuwait. Let that be an example to other world leaders.

You're taking what I said about pre-Gulf War out of its context. Blair was speaking about how terrible Iraq has been since Saddam took power, and pre-Gulf War Iraq shows that that's clearly not as true as Blair would like people to believe.

He's not spending the money that he's got taking care of his people. How can you defend that?

I'm not, I'm asking you exactly when W will be giving up his investments for the struggling economy here in America. I'm asking why is it that he can sit at his ranch in Texas while roughly 40 million Americans have little or no health care. ?