Volvo OPINIONS Forum

"Asside for US and British intelligence, I haven't heard any other country step up to the plate and say "oops"

I'll have to do some research, to give a proper response. I have seen snippets of support from many sources . I know Saddams son inlaw, the one he killed, made some strong allegations and reportedly gave convincing testimony to support Saddams continued efforts.

Besides, like I said, ostensibly independent, US and British investigations have not turned up wrong doing on the part ofthe Executive branches both here and in Britain. Both intelligence services have been well and truly pillaried.

Was there a rush to judgment on the part of the Administrations? A case can be made based on the available facts. This has been a problem for many years I don't condone it, as do I not condone the Gulf of Tonkin incident. In the end I believe we were foing to have deal with the situation one way or another, sometime in the future. I believe we will see in the trial of Saddam the true nature of the man.

"Agreed. But the reasons for Iraq... (terrorists, which no credible link has been found, and WMD... well, see above) are pretty sketchy at this point, and the argument only seems to be getting weaker"

Abu Musab Zarqawi is one that comes to mind with links to Saddam and Al Qaeda that I have read of and may very well pre-date Sept 11th. A bad actor indeed. The fact that Saddam had a record of foreign aggression and massive human rights abuses to include actual deployment and use of WMD, on his own people no less. I feel the jury is till out, but reports of transfer of prohibited technologies out of Iraq just prior to the war still won't go away, and not just from US sources. the often dismissed uranium from Niger now appears to have some truth after all. Seems AmbassadorJoe
Wilson's story is not all that it seems.

North Korea is a good point. The dynamic is, the country is destitute and as an internatioal pariah has little or no internationl leverage. Kim Jong Il in his altered state is not believed to be so foolish as to commit national suicide. Yes they probably have several nukes and even a marginal delivery capability. They also have ample reason to believe a pre-emptive attack on US soil requires a massive retaliatory response even conventional weapons could devastate the country. Note that negotiations have taken the edge off the situation over time.

"Problem is, civil unions grant "some" or "most" of the benefits as marriage. Personally, if they could grant ALL benefits of marriage then I'd say that's great, but that has never proven to be the case."

There we go!! I totally agree on this point. Each must give to receive. The word marriage closely held as a sacrament by religious folks of all faiths. To apply it to Gay/Lesbian unions at this time is nothing les thatna HUGE assault on closely held religious values ofthe majority. What is wrong with getting 95% or more of what you want and over time, get the rest "marriage" and all. We both know that it would go that way

Chris, I think we both see the problem well enough. There are enough radical elements in each camp that we are unlikely to see any amicable solution in the near future.

OBTW, constitutional amendment .... Pshaaah! It will never happen and it shouldn't! Before I would support that, I would eagerly support re-awakening of the Equal Rights Amendment process. That is one that is long overdue... Agreed. Wouldn't that just trump the whole issue!!!!