Americans tolerance

[Guest eureka]

I can only repeat that you should read the rest of the Globe piece if you still cannot comprehend that the paragraph does not lend itself to the interpretation that you choose to give it.

It is very clear that there is no suggestion that Martin did not say terrorists had access to Iraqi WMD. He says "we do not know where they are." We don't do we since much was destroyed under the auspices of the UN and no evidence has been found that there has been any replacement of those.

Also, "access to all that" clearly refers to general proliferation - the WMD that America supplied to some nations (including failed states), for example. That and the new breeding grounds for foot soldiers.

I should think that it is also clear that as "no man is an island," no nation is either. If we are not to be concerned with what goes on "over there," then why should "over there" come on side when something happens "over here?"

Terrorism wherever it happens is the world's concern. That is why we created the United Nations. If we dor care about "over there," then we will find ourselves in the position of "First they came for the Jews..........then they came for me." There would be noone left to be "for us" only against us.

[Stoker]

I can only repeat that you should read the rest of the Globe piece if you still cannot comprehend that the paragraph does not lend itself to the interpretation that you choose to give it.

I've read it several times.

It is very clear that there is no suggestion that Martin did not say terrorists had access to Iraqi WMD. He says "we do not know where they are." We don't do we since much was destroyed under the auspices of the UN and no evidence has been found that there has been any replacement of those.

Define "much". Is "much" enough to kill everbody on the Eastern seaboard or just New York?

Back to the Martin Quote:

"The problem is increasingly failed states, or states that are on the edge of failure, the fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that."

Was Saddam once the leader of Iraq? So wouldn't it stand to reason that any WMDs Saddam had, since they would have been procured with Iraqi money, could be called Iraqi WMDs?

Also, "access to all that" clearly refers to general proliferation - the WMD that America supplied to some nations (including failed states), for example. That and the new breeding grounds for foot soldiers.

If my father gave me a shotgun as a gift for my birthday, then years later I used it in a crime, would he be guilty?

Now if America gave Iraq WMDs or the means to make WMDs, are they guilty if Iraq used them?

One more question, how do you get from "the terrorists have access to all that", in a sentence refering to Saddam Hussein as an example, to what you call "general proliferation"? Paul Martin wasn't using say Iran or North Korea as an example, but Saddam's Iraq. The same country that you and others claim either didn't have WMDs or didn't have "very many" or "not much" if you will, of the "not really bad kind of WMDs" (What would those be I wonder? Mustard Gas perhaps?)

I should think that it is also clear that as "no man is an island," no nation is either. If we are not to be concerned with what goes on "over there," then why should "over there" come on side when something happens "over here?"

Where did I say I'm not concerned with what goes on "over there"?

Terrorism wherever it happens is the world's concern. That is why we created the United Nations. If we dor care about "over there," then we will find ourselves in the position of "First they came for the Jews..........then they came for me." There would be noone left to be "for us" only against us.

Again, where did I say I'm not concerned with what goes on "over there"?

[Guest eureka]

Another said that he was not concerned with what went on "over there."

How do you define much. Much was destroyed under UN auspices - ask that body. The inspectors found none and the "Coalition" found none. Therefore there is none and no intelligence has found any link to others who may have got WMD from Iraq. We do know though, that the US throughout the 1980's supplied Israle with massive amounts of armaments that found there way via China to Iraq - a coverup.

Martin was talking of general proliferation as his speech shows. Since he knew that no WMD had been found, and since hw knew that Iraq had not had any to use on the invading Americans and British, it should be quite clear that he was NOT saying that Iraqi WMD were available to terrorists. There might be a chance that he was speculating that some had gone from Iraq long before the invasion. However, that is clearly an absurdity since Iraq would not have denuded itself of protection.

[caesar]

personally, I don't give a darn what P Martin thinks as long as he keeps us out of that mess. He is good at business and finances; no one claimed he was a foreign affairs experts. Hopefully, he will leave that to the experts. Many biased news sources like to take a snippet of a speech out of context and try to make something of it. Much ado about nothing; like as not

[Stoker]

Another said that he was not concerned with what went on "over there."

Who was that? I brought up the "over here/there" statement.........but never said I wasn't concerned, just that I have more concern with my own well being first, before say India's struggles with the Tamal Tigers.

How do you define much. Much was destroyed under UN auspices - ask that body. The inspectors found none and the "Coalition" found none. Therefore there is none and no intelligence has found any link to others who may have got WMD from Iraq. We do know though, that the US throughout the 1980's supplied Israle with massive amounts of armaments that found there way via China to Iraq - a coverup.

If Iraq had of destroyed their WMDs, why didn't they provide proof? All that was needed was the location so that scientists could conduct soil surveys and the like to prove that infact they were destroyed........Wouldn't that have been a better option for Saddam?

WRT your second point........Blah Blah Blah......that's so 1980s Everyman and his dog knows that the west gave Iraq (and Iran) chemical weapons to fight each other....whats that have to do with Iraq not getting rid of them when they were suppose to?

Martin was talking of general proliferation as his speech shows. Since he knew that no WMD had been found, and since hw knew that Iraq had not had any to use on the invading Americans and British, it should be quite clear that he was NOT saying that Iraqi WMD were available to terrorists. There might be a chance that he was speculating that some had gone from Iraq long before the invasion. However, that is clearly an absurdity since Iraq would not have denuded itself of protection.

Did he or did he not use Saddam's Iraq as an example in the above quote?

WRT to country being denuded by selling weapons.......that the biggest load of BS I've heard in quite a while.........Would you say the United States or China have been denuded due to their sales of arms?

personally, I don't give a darn what P Martin thinks as long as he keeps us out of that mess. He is good at business and finances; no one claimed he was a foreign affairs experts. Hopefully, he will leave that to the experts. Many biased news sources like to take a snippet of a speech out of context and try to make something of it. Much ado about nothing; like as not

If you don't "give a darn what Martin has to say", why were you so quick to defend him?

[Guest eureka]

1st. No.

Next, denuded means to get rid of all. The idea is an absurdity. The US and China sell but produce for themselves.

There is a huge difference.

Then, Iraq's WMD were destroyed after 1991. They did give the UN and US proof of that but were not believed by Dubbya who wanted a war.

Everyone knows this, including Martin.

[caesar]

Get it guys for once and for all. I don't care who may say that there may have been, could have been, or should have been. There Were No Weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq. It is simple to prove you have something; not as easy to prove that you do not have something. The weapons inspectors were finding no indications of WMD so Bush had to put an end to their work as the proof might have been almost complete had they been allowed to continue. There was no just cause to invade Iraq.

Former American intelligence agents warned Bush that he was using warped intelligence. Bush chose to believe what he wanted to hear. If you chose to believe Bush; then you are fools , too.

[Stoker]

1st. No.

To what?

Then, Iraq's WMD were destroyed after 1991. They did give the UN and US proof of that but were not believed by Dubbya who wanted a war.

Do you have proof? A UN report perhaps? And what proof did they give the UN and US?

Everyone knows this, including Martin.

Then why would he (Martin) say terrorists now have access to Iraqi WMDs if all the Iraqi WMDs were destroyed? Doesn't add up, so please feel free to explain.....and use some sort of proof please.

[Stoker]

Get it guys for once and for all. I don't care who may say that there may have been, could have been, or should have been. There Were No Weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq. It is simple to prove you have something; not as easy to prove that you do not have something. The weapons inspectors were finding no indications of WMD so Bush had to put an end to their work as the proof might have been almost complete had they been allowed to continue. There was no just cause to invade Iraq.

Former American intelligence agents warned Bush that he was using warped intelligence. Bush chose to believe what he wanted to hear. If you chose to believe Bush; then you are fools , too.

If they found "no indications of WMD", why did they want an extension and more importantly, why did the Iraqis refuse to provide proof that the WMDs had been destroyed?

As for your second point: If Bush had of choosen not to go into Iraq, and say in 2005 eastern US and Canadian cities were gased by Iraqi WMDs in the hands of terrorists, would you not be jumping on Bush for not preventing this when he had the chance?

{see preemption}

[caesar]

nswer; Iraq is a large country; there was a "POSSIBILITY" that some would exist. A possibility is not legal or moral grounds to invade a country.

The Iraqis were not "refusing" to provide proof of the destruction of any WMD; they were cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

No 2 ways about it; the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to complete the job until and unless there WAS real serious resistance from Iraq.

We will have problems in years to come for the failure to concentrate and finish the real war on terrorism with the REAL terrorists. Those in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush's failure to condemn Pakistan and its scientist that sold nuclear technologie and parts to rogue nations.

That may come back to haunt us. he al Qaeda and bin Laden are still out there waiting to attack. Iraq was NOT part of that terroristic organization. Saddam was just a mouthy taunt.

the

[Stoker]

nswer; Iraq is a large country; there was a "POSSIBILITY" that some would exist. A possibility is not legal or moral grounds to invade a country.

If I'm on probation and have a no drinking order, but I have just a little to drink, am I breaking the law?

The Iraqis were not "refusing" to provide proof of the destruction of any WMD; they were cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

It's black or white.......they either provided proof or they didn't provide proof.......and they didn't. Simple as that.

No 2 ways about it; the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to complete the job until and unless there WAS real serious resistance from Iraq.

Define "serious resistance". Would you consider holding up inseptors, and most importantly not providing proof that could back up your claim, and not even that, providing proof that could exonerate you completly, to be "serious resistance"?

We will have problems in years to come for the failure to concentrate and finish the real war on terrorism with the REAL terrorists. Those in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush's failure to condemn Pakistan and its scientist that sold nuclear technologie and parts to rogue nations.

Who said we were finished the "real" war on terror? It's still ongoing in many places, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but the entire world

That may come back to haunt us. he al Qaeda and bin Laden are still out there waiting to attack. Iraq was NOT part of that terroristic organization. Saddam was just a mouthy taunt.

Did you miss the speach Bush gave "on the hill" just after 9/11? You are either with us or against us, Iraq was against us.

[Bro]

Man,it is really annoying when people won't accept what is written down,but have to put their liberal spin on it.

Martin,in no uncertain terms,said terrorists now have access to the wmd's which saddam refused to show or document that they had been destroyed.

It is a moot point anyway,as we all know any decision out of the liberal gov. will come from quebec,and they will never side with any of our traditional allies. Secondly,why do all liberals trust saddam over the Americans?The man did all of his public addresses with a

military combat outfit.Does this not suggest anything to you?

[Guest eureka]

In the instance you site, you are breaking the terms of the probation order. You could not, however, be dealt with by authority if it was not known that you had a little drink. The same for Iraq. And, in the light of what we now know about American deception, the International Community had no right to ask for the proofs. The onus was the reverse and Bush lied in order to have the war he had determined on.

Iraq, in the event, did supply the proofs. Trouble is, the proofs put Bush et al in an uncomfortable position. They wanted a war and lied about the inadequacy of the proofs.

"Serious resistance" could be defined as enough to prevent the inspectors from doing the job. That was not there. The inspectors complained of inadequate cooperation not "serious resistance." They. as Blix and EL ? made clear could have continued and finished in a reasonable time. They have also said that, in their opinion, and based on the evidence, Iraq did not have WMD and did not now have the capacity to acquire them in the foreseeable furure.

The "real war" on teror is still with us as you rightly point out. What a pity that the US will not join with the rest of the world in fighting it. The US is still bogged down in fighting for its oikl interests while terror grows around the world.

Bush did say that "if you are not with us, you are aginst us." Isn,t it ironic that such a bonehead could become President of the World,s most powerful (militarily) nation. He did not understand whar he was saying and most of the world was against him in that context - rightly so. Or do you believe in the saying of another American in the past: "My country right or wrong, but my country." What an obnoxious ideal to live by.

Remeber his other saying written for him by a Canadian clown?

[Stoker]

In the instance you site, you are breaking the terms of the probation order. You could not, however, be dealt with by authority if it was not known that you had a little drink. The same for Iraq. And, in the light of what we now know about American deception, the International Community had no right to ask for the proofs. The onus was the reverse and Bush lied in order to have the war he had determined on.

Yes, and if the authorites thought my behaviour to be suspect, I'd exhaust all means to prove my innocence.

Iraq, in the event, did supply the proofs. Trouble is, the proofs put Bush et al in an uncomfortable position. They wanted a war and lied about the inadequacy of the proofs.

You have source to back up your claim?

"Serious resistance" could be defined as enough to prevent the inspectors from doing the job. That was not there. The inspectors complained of inadequate cooperation not "serious resistance." They. as Blix and EL ? made clear could have continued and finished in a reasonable time. They have also said that, in their opinion, and based on the evidence, Iraq did not have WMD and did not now have the capacity to acquire them in the foreseeable furure.

Well we could also define "Serious resistance" as "inadequate cooperation"..........

The "real war" on teror is still with us as you rightly point out. What a pity that the US will not join with the rest of the world in fighting it. The US is still bogged down in fighting for its oikl interests while terror grows around the world.

What are you talking about?

Bush did say that "if you are not with us, you are aginst us." Isn,t it ironic that such a bonehead could become President of the World,s most powerful (militarily) nation. He did not understand whar he was saying and most of the world was against him in that context - rightly so. Or do you believe in the saying of another American in the past: "My country right or wrong, but my country." What an obnoxious ideal to live by.

I don't fault anybody for looking out for themselves first.

[Big Blue Machine]

How come Paul Martin greeted George Bush so gladly, but in the election, he said he was anti-American. He has no choose but to sign the Star Wars missle system treaty. It's just like NORAD, but only involving more dangerous weapons.