Yes. And the rest of the world did not want to be dragged in that war as I recall without the UN inspector's full results. But if you're referring to people having different sources of news: There was much scepticism over here in Europe... and that remains unchanged.

If there had been hard and unsubstantial evidence, I must ask: Why not do the politically correct thing in presenting that before the security council? The fact that the US did not do that tells me that it's evidence was sketchy at best... not enough to convince the rest of the security council to sanction a war. And so they went in on their own, dragging their "allies" in with an "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude (I believe that was a literal quote of Bush in one of his speeches).

A skepticism unshared by your leaders.

I'm not sure what evidence the US did or did not show the SC. But I am sure there was no point. By then, it was unmistakably clear that Chirac was Saddam's shill. Chirac's machinations to subvert the SC and to stall on behalf of his paymaster were clear to all. The US could have produced photos of Saddam sitting on a mountain of labelled sarin cannisters and France would have found some way to stall for time.

It tells me that everyone but you knew that the UN was not an honest arbiter.

The fact remains that we only know the status of WMD now because we DID invade. The intel would NEVER have become less sketchy, not in 20 more days or 20 more years, since no intel would ever emerge from an uncooperate police state. Saddam's noncompliance was itself casus belli.

Its called cherry-picking Aeternus.... they pick off the juicy bits that fit thier campaign and go from there..... leaving out other damning evidence which would go against thier wishes..... Bush deliberately mislead the American Public and willfully used wrongful information to start a war against the wishes of the rest of the world..... he has basically turned back the clock on all the advances the US has made since WW2 in the world at large because of his greed and stupidity.....

I might also add that your arguments with those that staunchly support Bush will go nowhere because they are still faithful to the almighty Bush rhetoric and attempting to be faithful to a Republican Party that should rightfully be called the Corporate Party as it is no longer a Republican Party......

True, but those are politicians. It's normal for that breed of people to go against what the population wants. It's already cost 1 government their rule, in Spain the war was at least partly responsible for a major shift...
And if you're specifically referring to dutch leaders, two major parties were in favor, and a whole bunch of others were not at all supportive of the war. But since the governing coalition as a whole made a compromise to enter the war (probably under that threat of "if you're not with us you're against us" and some economic pressure) our troops are now there as well. It's still debated wether or not they will stay past July.
France's scepticism was well founded in the end: No weapons found... And had the evidence been so overwhelming, going public with it would have got the public behind the US. With that kind of support even Chirac would have given in. Problem: THERE WAS/IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE.
A slow one I'll grant you. And the UN is not the SC. But as an arbiter the US by itself is also not qualified... One cannot be judge, jury and executioner and state the trials were fair. And the US did assume all those rules in the end.
So what's next? Pakistan for instance is known to have nukes... isn't that country (known for fundamentalist sympathies, AQ training facilities near the borders with Afghanistan) a liability too? Will you invade it to prevent "accidents" where AQ gets it's hands on Pakistani nukes? Or what of the many African countries in total chaos? Who knows what sick twisted little people are doing out there?

If the US only has to say "we know you have something you should not have", not prove that, and invade... then I fear international law has seen it's end. Which means a new arms race is the next logical step...

BEEP! <Rewind....>

BEEP! <Rewind....>

"your rhetoric is all conspiracy theories and nothing more"

"your rhetoric is all conspiracy theories and nothing more"

"your rhetoric is all conspiracy theories and nothing more"

They had direct access to intel. YOU did not.

Can you possibly be this naive? Is it possible that you alone on the planet don't know France and others were bought off via Oil for Food money?

Then what excuse is there for all the European leaders and Congress who said otherwise? Bush lied but they were merely mistaken? The problem with your conspiracy theory is how to explain, without inducing laughter, how Bush ALONE in the world knew Saddam didn't have WMD even though everyone else said he did. A second problem is to explain in any coherent way why Bush would invade knowing there was no WMD, thus guaranteeing a politically damaging result.

The SC stonewalled because theywere bought off by Saddam.

The UN stonewalled because the UN is a bunch of dictatorships voting to criticize the US and Israel and give each other a pass.

International law was never more than a squalid fiction, as the recent debacle proved. It's time to put aside childish things.

It is nice to see that you are finally accepting your words as what they are

Which they did not make public which is mandatory in most democracies. The only evidence they had to go on was the stuff produced by the US, which was to be kept secret from even some parts of our government. I still wonder how they got our second chamber to be in favor of the war...
Really? And your evidence for this is where? Quite an accusation you make here. But let me help you out of your dream: The average german and frenchman on the streets will have had no such bribe, and they too were dead set against the war at that time.
There is none. The US pulled them in under false reasons. Like I said before, it already cost the spanish conservatives their seat of power... It will also cost the christian-liberal dutch coalition some votes. We (as europeans) put too much faith in the data produced by your CIA. The competence of that organisation however will now be questioned more easily.
As for your second problem... Why do you think we have this conversation? It IS politically damaging, but economically it'll be a victory in the end... And those are still the main reasons for this war I think, economic ones. A foothold in the mideast, within immediate striking distance of Syria and Iran.
Odd that you mention Israel here. While it's indeed kinda regarded as the 54th state here (britain being 53) it's irrelevant to this discussion. The reason the UN stonewalls often is because it is far too large for it's own good. The reason the SC stonewalled is probably because they were unimpressed with the evidence. Russia wasn't about to sanction a war in a nation which they held economic interests in (such as the exploitation of the northern oilfields). I seriously doubt however that Iraq would have the funds to bribe security council members...
And revert into another cold war? Or perhaps do a little nuclear WW3 instead?
Remember why these laws were founded: To prevent just that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved quite effectively the nature of a nuclear war. Your attitude will see the destruction of the entire planet...

Aside from that. A "Free" state CANNOT rule the world by military force and keep it's claim of valueing freedom highly.


[edit] Oh... And "France and others" and the Security Council being bribed? Talk about conspiracy theories...

He will probably call you a chomskyite for that statement.... remember freedom is when we rule the world

Hahahahah...... now that IS a Conspiracy Theory... but see dgg9 thinks there are facts to back that up.... when all there is are hearsay and circumstantial evidence which provides nothing but a foundation for conspiracy theories akin to that

Naivete.

You are under the impression the European governments don't have their own source of intel, independent of the US? You're kidding, right?

Do a Google search on the Oil for Food scandal.

But as it turns out, their opinion doesn't matter.

Oh that's right -- you're still toiling in the nether idiot-worlds of the "it's all about oil" conspiracy theories -- the theories that hold that Bush made a move that cripples his re-election chances just to appease some SPECTRE-like cabal of hidden industrialists.

In the face of such patently idiotic claims, nothing need really be said.

Your remark simply identifies you as someone ignorant of the current status of the Oil for Food scandal.

Do some homework, then get back to us.

No... not at all... link me some evidence my friend

Do your own homework. Of course it would have preferable to do this homework before pontificating so loudly...

No, not naivity, more sincerety. Non-hypocritical attitudes. How can any population believe in the sincerety of the motives of their goverments if they are not even truthfully told on why the nation is going to war?
Oh, some have their own intel, I'm sure. Dutch intel however is fairly laughable... BVD does nothing more then keep track of a few known threats in our own country (mainly some subversive organisations... ecological hardliners, religious fundamentalists, yabba yabba...) but I would imagine the french, russians... perhaps the germans too would have a nice covert ops department somewhere. What surprises me therefor is that the european nations did not regard Iraq as a threat, whereas the US alone did (seeing biochem lab trucks on sattelites where they were only water trucks, seeing chemical storage depots where there were only empty warehouses...). This still amazes me... Why is the US the only nation capable of "finding" these things? That in the end were not there...
And that is fact.
I did. A lot of republican propaganda sites covering it... I couldn't find anything on other sites (such as CNN.com which probably would have covered it were it that important). Also, the few things I read show that there are 3 independant probes into the matter (forbes.com) which haven't returned results yet. I'll wait for the results... if it proves true then the UN as a whole has lost all credibility with me. But I'll wait for the official probes, and disregard propaganda shouting...
Quite true. Which says something about the democracies in our countries... The population here however has not forgotten it. And I'll see what the next elections bring... Probably at least some countries will see not so "let's follow the leader" style governments that Bush so likes.
You deny the lobby the oil industry has with the US government? Now THAT would be naivity.

Why did the US back out of the Kyoto treaty? Why does the US not try and fund other means of power generation (durable like wind/solar power, or clean nuclear power by fusion reactors)? Is it not strange that such a country that wants to be the best in everything (for let's be real, that IS US mentality) does not want to design the next generation of power supply? Most of that research is being done in France.
And to toss a genuine conspiracy theory ( ) rumor has it that scientists that are to work there are often lured away by other research companies who offer higher pays... companies owned or having ties with oil conglomerates. I cannot prove that though, and I have my doubts of that being true.
That is not freedom... That is either domination or opression. Kinda the relation the western world has with the third world.

Kind of begs the question, no? You're ASSUMING "Bush lied." But Occam's Razor looks at all the European leaders and the US Congress (BOTH parties)saying exactly what Bush was saying, and concludes that, if every person in power were saying the same thing, they probably believed it, i.e., the intel was faulty.

And Germany, the UK... And they all agreed with the US.

But let's be clear. France, Russia, Germany, UK, US -- ALL said, at the time, that Saddam had WMD. That fact (that they said that, before March 2003 ) is not in dispute. What was in dispute at the time is: what will Saddam do with those WMD? Is there a risk he would use them against the US? Is there a risk he would sell them to al Qaeda? Those were the debates raging throughout 2002 and 1Q03, NOT "did he have WMD." That Saddam did have WMD was the broad consensus.

The debate was NOT "did Saddam have WMD." The debate was "what will he do with them, and what should the rest of the world do about Iraq?"

In the end, we haven't looked everywhere. In the end, Saddam could have stashed them in a neighbor. But in the end, you know what you know ONLY because the US invaded and took control of Iraq. Else you would never have known.

Don't forget: Saddam's noncompliance was itself casus belli.

Fair enough. And I would hope you bring this same "show me" attitude to the rest of the debate.

This has nothing to do with fatuous conspiracy theories.

That's easy. Because Kyoto would impoverish the US, kill off the US poor, and achieve nothing. Look at Kyoto's parameters. It does not stop or reverse global warming. It guarantees that the US enters the Third World, all to slow global warming by some infinitesimal amount. And the real third world is not stopped from creating greenhouse gases at all.

Kyoto is little more than a predatory economic attack on the US.

The US DOES fund su