[quote=executivejock]

Has anyone seen Fahernhype 9/11..?

[/quote]

I bought several copies, and give extras to people that need some remedial education. 

Fortunately, I live in a red state, so there aren't that many that need help.

[quote=babbling looney]

Repulican here.  Located in a blue state, but the county that I live in always votes 80% + republican.  I don't talk polictics with my clients, however.   Just to be on the safe side.

Here is an interesting test you might want to take.  I ended up right near Mitlon Friedman

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[/quote]

Looney--

Thanks for the link.  I enjoyed it.  I am about as much of a centrist as is possible.  I am slightly to the right economically, just slightly to the left socially.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use facts....

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=annuity guy]

Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.

Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

[/quote]

I agree. 

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don’t know about?

[/quote]

No, it is not.



If you raise a child to believe that the earth is flat, and he says the earth is flat, is that child a liar?



To lie you must be consciously aware that what you are saying is not true.  Lying is purposeful.  Intentional. 



For example, when Bill Clinton says he loves his wife–that is a
lie.  Or when he tells his wife that she is pretty–that is a
lie.  Or when Bill Clinton says that he isn’t cheating on his
wife–that is a lie.

[quote=Starka]

ClerkBoy, there are Attorneys General for each of
the 50 States, and there is an Attorney General for the Federal
Government.  Mr. Spitzer is the AG for New York (the State and not
the City), and Mr. Gonzales is the US Attorney General.

You were just a little confused there ClerkBoy (as usual).  Fortunately, one of us was here to clear things up for you (as usual)!

[quote=Juiced6]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.

Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.

Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo - I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is looking at impeachment.

I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

Inq - I agree with a lot of what you say, but Spitzer is a Piker. He needs to go.

A broker finally put up his dukes, and sent Piker Spitzer slithering back into his hole, with 30....count 'em! ...THIRTY not guilty verdicts!

That's his one and only enforcement trial, and he got spanked. They interviewed the jurors, and they all said "Where's the evidence of wrongdoing?"

Spitzer would be worse than LBJ.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

[/quote]

You lose a lot of legal battles.  Don't you?  Or you misinterpret a lot of documents with difficult wording.  Right?

Ask any detective, attorney, or polygraph examiner...you might be surprised.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[/quote]

Um...wrong again.

Stan,

Fortunately I was intelligent enough not to have clients invested in those companies.  Further, what the senior executives of those companies did is fraud.  That is why they are in jail or have pending litigation.

There is a subtle yet distinct different between being deliberately deceived and being deliberately deceptive.

Just so you understand...

If you invested in the companies that you named you are guilty of one of the above statements (you did nothing wrong).  The leaders of the companies you named did the other, along with George Bush (you are guilty of fraud and are a felon).

Signed,

The Resident Mensan

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=stanwbrown][quote=Cruiser]

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

[/quote]

Annoy a liberal, use facts....

[/quote]

That's 100% correct!  The way to get to a liberal is to use facts.  Statistics and hard data are the worst enemy of the liberal.  Every position they have is based on knee-jerk emotion.  Nothing they believe is based on fact.

I love discussing politics with liberals and watching them get all frustrated when you keep countering everything they say with facts.  Typically, they become angry and then sink to name-calling.  Racist, fascist, homophobe, etc.

The problem is that liberals DON'T think for themselves.  It's amazing that every single position they take they take AFTER it has been publicized the by the liberal leadership.

Take gay marriage for example.  All of a sudden they all start saying, "why do heterosexuals feel threatened by gay marriage."  They are repeating talking points, nothing more.  They never said anything like that years ago, then all of a sudden they all say the same thing at the same time. 

Logic is the enemy of the liberal.
[/quote]

What I thought was the funniest part of the gay marriage debate from the last election was the fact that the liberal's candidate said he agreed with te conservative candidate and opposed it (although they disagreed on the need for a constitutional amendment).

If you asked a liberal why they attacked Bush on gay marriage and not Kerry they'd either give you a strange look until you explained that Kerry had said he, too opposed it OR they'd say they knew he said he opposed it, but they didn't believe him.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

[/quote]

You lose a lot of legal battles.  Don't you?  Or you misinterpret a lot of documents with difficult wording.  Right?

Ask any detective, attorney, or polygraph examiner...you might be surprised.

[/quote]

Wow, I just don't know how to respond to such a well written, highly organized and fully supported argument as that.

BAWWAAAAAAAA 

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[/quote]

Um...wrong again.

Stan,

Fortunately I was intelligent enough not to have clients invested in those companies. 

[/quote]

Sure you were   And you don't have a single client that's every experienced negative returns....

[quote=menotellname]

Further, what the senior executives of those companies did is fraud.  That is why they are in jail or have pending litigation.

[/quote]

Obviously you misunderstood the point. The question wasn't about the CEO and what he may or may not have done. The point was what liability might a broker who relied on the information they provided have.

Ask someone in your office to explain that to you...

[quote=menotellname]

There is a subtle yet distinct different between being deliberately deceived and being deliberately deceptive.

[/quote]

Oh, so you're back to asserting, without a shred of evidence, that Bush was one of the above? LOL

[quote=menotellname][

Just so you understand...

If you invested in the companies that you named you are guilty of one of the above statements (you did nothing wrong).  The leaders of the companies you named did the other, along with George Bush (you are guilty of fraud and are a felon).

[/quote]

Just so you understand, you haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove that Bush OR the intelligence people (who told Clinton the same things, btw) were dishonest in their assessments.

[quote=menotellname]

Signed,

The Resident Mensan

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, why do I see and hear the "comic book store guy" on te Simpsons when I read the above?

Anyone else ? 

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Put Trader]Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?


[/quote]

Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.

Next...

[/quote]

You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.

To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

[/quote]

Stan,

You are wrong.

Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.

Main Entry: omis·sion
Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere
1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty
2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted

[/quote]

On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?

After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.

In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

[/quote]

Um...wrong again.

Stan,

Fortunately I was intelligent enough not to have clients invested in those companies. 

[/quote]

Sure you were   And you don't have a single client that's every experienced negative returns....

[quote=menotellname]

Further, what the senior executives of those companies did is fraud.  That is why they are in jail or have pending litigation.

[/quote]

Obviously you misunderstood the point. The question wasn't about the CEO and what he may or may not have done. The point was what liability might a broker who relied on the information they provided have.

Ask someone in your office to explain that to you...

[quote=menotellname]

There is a subtle yet distinct different between being deliberately deceived and being deliberately deceptive.

[/quote]

Oh, so you're back to asserting, without a shred of evidence, that Bush was one of the above? LOL

[quote=menotellname][

Just so you understand...

If you invested in the companies that you named you are guilty of one of the above statements (you did nothing wrong).  The leaders of the companies you named did the other, along with George Bush (you are guilty of fraud and are a felon).

[/quote]

Just so you understand, you haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove that Bush OR the intelligence people (who told Clinton the same things, btw) were dishonest in their assessments.

[quote=menotellname]

Signed,

The Resident Mensan

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, why do I see and hear the "comic book store guy" on te Simpsons when I read the above?

Anyone else ? 

[/quote]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

So Bush never said that the Iraqis have WMDs and went to war on that theory which was never confirmed by his intelligence staff but was simply assumed?  Bush never claimed that Iraq is the country behind 9-11?

I beg to differ.  Bush has misled you and the rest of the American public that defends him.  Please take the blinders off.

For you stan...from White House press releases:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.h tml

Just in case you are too lazy:

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
New York, New York

view
listen

     Fact Sheet: U.S. Rejoins UNESCO
     A Decade of Deception and Defiance

10:39 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 11:04 A.M. EDT

****************************************************

Seems to me that Mr. Bush assumes involvement in 9-11 because of Iraq's praise of the events.  Further, he assumes that there are WMDs even though none were ever found.  Then in the last highlighted paragraph he mentions "oil".  Now, isn't that really what this is all about for that little man from Texas?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

Wow, I just don't know how to respond to such a well written, highly organized and fully supported argument as that.

BAWWAAAAAAAA 

[/quote]

Please see the last post.

Your serve.

The whiners have great difficulty in coming to grips with several realities.



1.  The Clinton administration formulated a policy requiring the
US to overthrow the Hussein regime.  President Clinton failed at
his own policy, yet when President Bush completed the task he was wrong
for having done so.  When asked why they condemn President Bush
for accomplishing what President Clinton wanted to do but did not the
whiners respond, "Idonnoknow."



2.  Nobody on earth believed that the Hussein regime did not have
weapons of mass destruction–not a single soul on earth.  Even
Hussein himself believed that they were in his arsenal.  And they
were, he had used them several times.  That they were missing when
our troops arrived does not mean that they were never there or that
they are not there to this day–what he had could be hidden in a space
about the size of an average garage.  That space could be buried
in the desert–where it may never be found.  Nonetheless it’s
nonsensical to declare that the weapons were not available for
Hussein’s use.  When asked where they think the weapons that had
been used in the past went the whiners respond with "Idonnoknow."



3.  The planning for September 11th appears to have taken place in
Indonesia.  Immigration records prove that most of the hijackers
left there and came straight to the United States.  Those same
records prove that a key Hussein lieutenant arrived from Iraq when the
hijackers arrived from their homelands, and left Indonesia when the
hijackers left.  When asked why they think this lieutenant was in
Indonesia all that the whiners can muster is "idunnoknow."



4.  The fact is that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass
destruction.  If you don’t believe that you  have your head
up your butt–look at the rape rooms, the torture chambers, the mass
graves, the gassed Kurds.  When asked why they consider him to be
little more than an eccentric grandfather they respond, "Idonnoknow."



5.  Most of the whiners could not point to Iraq on a map, so the
chances that they could understand the strategic imporantance of
disrupting the movement within the middle east.  The fact is that
it was very important to disable the free movement of materials between
Afghanistan and Iran to the east and Syria to the west.  A good
analogy is that Iraq was a land bridge connecting terrorist nations,
removing bridges is basic when it comes to fighting a war.  If you
ask the mental midget whiners the best they can come up with is,
"Idonnoknow."



The reality is that pussies like those who are whining on this board
are simply too wimpish to appreciate strength.  I am aware of a
woman whose entire attitude is summed up with "I didn’t know anybody
who was killed in the attacks of September 11th so that it happened is
irrelevant to me."



Others have said that the buildings were ugly so it’s good that they’re
gone, and since the names of the dead mean nothing the entire incident
is unimportant.



Tell me, whiners, what is worth fighting for in your sad little world?

[quote=Put Trader]The whiners have great difficulty in coming to grips with several realities.



1.  The Clinton administration formulated a policy requiring the
US to overthrow the Hussein regime.  President Clinton failed at
his own policy, yet when President Bush completed the task he was wrong
for having done so.  When asked why they condemn President Bush
for accomplishing what President Clinton wanted to do but did not the
whiners respond, "Idonnoknow."



2.  Nobody on earth believed that the Hussein regime did not have
weapons of mass destruction–not a single soul on earth.  Even
Hussein himself believed that they were in his arsenal.  And they
were, he had used them several times.  That they were missing when
our troops arrived does not mean that they were never there or that
they are not there to this day–what he had could be hidden in a space
about the size of an average garage.  That space could be buried
in the desert–where it may never be found.  Nonetheless it’s
nonsensical to declare that the weapons were not available for
Hussein’s use.  When asked where they think the weapons that had
been used in the past went the whiners respond with "Idonnoknow."



3.  The planning for September 11th appears to have taken place in
Indonesia.  Immigration records prove that most of the hijackers
left there and came straight to the United States.  Those same
records prove that a key Hussein lieutenant arrived from Iraq when the
hijackers arrived from their homelands, and left Indonesia when the
hijackers left.  When asked why they think this lieutenant was in
Indonesia all that the whiners can muster is "idunnoknow."



4.  The fact is that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass
destruction.  If you don’t believe that you  have your head
up your butt–look at the rape rooms, the torture chambers, the mass
graves, the gassed Kurds.  When asked why they consider him to be
little more than an eccentric grandfather they respond, "Idonnoknow."



5.  Most of the whiners could not point to Iraq on a map, so the
chances that they could understand the strategic imporantance of
disrupting the movement within the middle east.  The fact is that
it was very important to disable the free movement of materials between
Afghanistan and Iran to the east and Syria to the west.  A good
analogy is that Iraq was a land bridge connecting terrorist nations,
removing bridges is basic when it comes to fighting a war.  If you
ask the mental midget whiners the best they can come up with is,
"Idonnoknow."



The reality is that pussies like those who are whining on this board
are simply too wimpish to appreciate strength.  I am aware of a
woman whose entire attitude is summed up with "I didn’t know anybody
who was killed in the attacks of September 11th so that it happened is
irrelevant to me."



Others have said that the buildings were ugly so it’s good that they’re
gone, and since the names of the dead mean nothing the entire incident
is unimportant.



Tell me, whiners, what is worth fighting for in your sad little world?

[/quote]



Mr. Putman Trader, I salute you.



While most of these fools debate “truths” the rest of the islamic world
is fortifying its means for making war. A holy or idealogical war
doesn’t need the consent of the majority to conduct forward operations
in preparation of future assaults. A small faction of radical extremist
need little to draw a line in the sand where sides must be ultimately
chosen or forced. Don’t wait for an Uncle Ali Achbed recruitment poster
for the Sacred Sands Army at your local bus stop, on a billboard, or
accompanied by a catchy jingle on the radio (be Allah, you can be).
Good luck with the western nimby dreamlands that the local mullah is
using to leverage the next generation of seeds for destruction and
salvation…scary stuff.



All tug-of-wars aside, great post Put.

Learn how to cut and paste . There is no need to repeat over and over the same replies to each other.  Also, a link to the url you are referring to is more than sufficient. 

On second thought, why don't you all just take it outside and agree that you will never agree.

PS. Good post Put. I agree entirely. Lib weiners have their heads so far up their butts that they can't hear you.  (fingers in ears...la.la.la.la)