|
|
Post by MO on Oct 10, 2003 15:02:50 GMT -5
Bush never did claim he was an "imminent threat." This is what he said in his now famous state of the union speech:
|
|
What did the Gee Dubya say
Guest
|
Post by What did the Gee Dubya say on Oct 10, 2003 16:27:30 GMT -5
Bush never did claim he was an "imminent threat." This is what he said in his now famous state of the union speech: That was AFTER "Major Combat." Here's what he said to make his case before the war. ======================================== Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America... ...We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.... ...Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991... ...Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it... ...Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases... ...The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons... ...Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud... ...Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure... ...After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon... ...The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously... ...I hope this will not require military action, but it may... .... If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail... ...Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable... ...We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it... ... And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day... May God bless America. (Applause.) ======================================== There seems to be a problem. After six months in Iraq we can't prove any of these issues! |
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Oct 10, 2003 16:32:08 GMT -5
What's your point? I've just reread the whole thing, and I don't see a single sentance in there that is untrue.
|
|
Ironside
German Shepard
Army Veteran
Posts: 21
|
Post by Ironside on Oct 10, 2003 20:58:31 GMT -5
oops... Sorry, I forgot to log in!
This was my post!
========================================
That was AFTER "Major Combat."
Here's what he said to make his case before the war.
========================================
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America...
...We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas....
...Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991...
...Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it...
...Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases...
...The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons...
...Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...
...Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure...
...After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon...
...The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously...
...I hope this will not require military action, but it may...
.... If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail...
...Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable...
...We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it...
... And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day...
May God bless America. (Applause.)
========================================
There seems to be a problem. After six months in Iraq we can't prove any of these issues!
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Oct 11, 2003 0:03:14 GMT -5
Instead of just being obnoxious with redundancy, why don't you tell us what he said that was not true?
edited to include this-
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Op-Ed
The Washington Post
October 7, 2003
The interim findings of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group make two things abundantly clear: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach of its United Nations obligations before the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 last November, and Iraq went further into breach after the resolution was passed.
Kay's interim findings offer detailed evidence of Hussein's efforts to defy the international community to the last. The report describes a host of activities related to weapons of mass destruction that "should have been declared to the U.N." It reaffirms that Iraq's forbidden programs spanned more than two decades, involving thousands of people and billions of dollars.
What the world knew last November about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs was enough to justify the threat of serious consequences under Resolution 1441. What we now know as a result of David Kay's efforts confirms that Hussein had every intention of continuing his work on banned weapons despite the U.N. inspectors, and that we and our coalition partners were right to eliminate the danger that his regime posed to the world.
Although Kay and his team have not yet discovered stocks of the weapons themselves, they will press on in the months ahead with their important and painstaking work. All indications are that they will uncover still more evidence of Hussein's dangerous designs.
Before the war, our intelligence had detected a calculated campaign to prevent any meaningful inspections. We knew that Iraqi officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists had hidden prohibited items in their homes.
Lo and behold, Kay and his team found strains of organisms concealed in a scientist's home, and they report that one of the strains could be used to produce biological agents. Kay and his team also discovered documents and equipment in scientists' homes that would have been useful for resuming uranium enrichment efforts.
Kay and his team have "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery . . . has come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that the Iraq Survey Group has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N."
The Kay Report also addresses the issue of suspected mobile biological agent laboratories: "Investigation into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant and BW [biological warfare] production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing . . . rules out their potential use in BW production." Here Kay's findings are inconclusive. He is continuing to work this issue.
Kay and his team have, however, found this: "A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical-biological weapons] research." They also discovered: "a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N."
The Kay Report confirms that our intelligence was correct to suspect the al-Kindi Co. of being involved in prohibited activity. Missile designers at al-Kindi told Kay and his team that Iraq had resumed work on converting SA-2 surface-to-air missiles into ballistic missiles with a range of about 250 kilometers, and that this work continued even while UNMOVIC inspectors were in Iraq. The U.N.-mandated limit for Iraq was a range of 150 kilometers.
The Kay Report also confirmed our prewar intelligence that indicated Iraq was developing missiles with ranges up to 1,000 kilometers. Similarly, Kay substantiated our reports that Iraq had tested an unmanned aerial vehicle to 500 kilometers, also in violation of U.N. resolutions.
What's more, he and his team found that elaborate efforts to shield illicit programs from inspection persisted even after the collapse of Hussein's regime. Key evidence was deliberately eliminated or dispersed during the postwar period. In a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, computer hard drives were destroyed, files were burned and equipment was carefully cleansed of all traces of use -- and done so in a pattern that was clearly deliberate and selective, rather than random.
One year ago, when President Bush brought his concerns about Iraq to the United Nations, he made it plain that his principal concern in a post-Sept. 11 world was not just that a rogue regime such as Saddam Hussein's had WMD programs, but that such horrific weapons could find their way out of Iraq into the arms of terrorists who would have even fewer compunctions about using them against innocent people across the globe.
In the interim report, Kay and his team record the chilling fact that they "found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation."
Having put an end to that harrowing possibility alone justifies our coalition's action against Hussein's regime. But that is not the only achievement of our brave men and women in uniform and their coalition partners.
Three weeks ago I paid my respects at a mass grave in the northern city of Halabja, where on a Friday morning in March 1988, Hussein's forces murdered 5,000 men, women and children with chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein can cause no more Halabjas. His "Republic of Fear" no longer holds sway over the people of Iraq. For the first time in three decades, the Iraqi people have reason to hope for the future.
President Bush was right: This was an evil regime, lethal to its own people, in deepening material breach of its Security Council obligations, and a threat to international peace and security. Hussein would have stopped at nothing until something stopped him. It's a good thing that we did.
[End]
Released on October 7, 2003
|
|
Ironside
German Shepard
Army Veteran
Posts: 21
|
Post by Ironside on Oct 11, 2003 7:05:02 GMT -5
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
Threat to peace, we’d better listen to this!
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
It appears now in hindsight Saddam Hussein did cease producing and possessing chemical and biological weapons. They’re seeking nuclear weapons? When? Where? Is that part of the infamous British Intelligence? They have given shelter to terrorism? Where? In what part of Iraq was Saddam Hussein sheltering Terrorists?
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America...
Forget 9/11? No way, but what has Iraq got to do with 9/11? What “source of terror” has Iraq ever spewed upon the United States?
...We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas....
This is a good one! We do? “Thousands of tons”, huh? Well where would they be hiding THAT?
...Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991...
I believe these are the bunkers that came up empty upon inspecting after the great “shock-n-awe”, huh?
...Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it...
Hey, maybe if we make it look like we are concerned about the other Mid-eastern nations, they will join us! Then again, maybe not. These scare tactics just don’t work on everybody as good as they do on Americans.
...Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases...
Some al Qaeda leaders fled to Iraq? It’s well known, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden don’t like each other. There is still today, no evidence of these charges. The ONLY al Qaeda in Iraq are the ones slipping in to attack American soldiers after “major combat” ended.”
...The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons...
The evidence indicates George Bush is a warmonger. These are the kinds of claims that compromise the integrity of the Intelligence of the United States of America. Gotta throw in the ‘ol nuclear threat lie, that’ll surely scare many Americans into believing Bush.
...Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...
OH NO! The MUSHROOM Cloud! OH MY GAWD, they’re going to NUKE US! Well, to hear George Bush tell it anyway!
...Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure...
Um, yeah! So what’s so wrong about that? It seems we were rolling along again pretty good over there, Until, of course” the diplomacy or lack there of, George Bush came along.”
...After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon...
He does? He is? Interesting after six months there what little we are really finding and how we are twisting itno some kind of threat to America Iraq was.
...The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
”We will lead a coalition”….um, WHAT coalition did we lead? America and Britain defiant toward the world?
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously...
”Many nations are joining us”… need I say more?
...I hope this will not require military action, but it may...
Awe, poor Bush had to use military might against his “hope.”
.... If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail...
Plan carefully to attack and worry about the aftermath at another time?
...Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable...
After all these lies and scare tactics, it’s NO WONDER they passed a Bill to use the military “if necessary.”
...We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it...
George Bush this was YOUR doing. You asked for it, you got it.
... And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day...
Secure peace after starting a never ending war?
May God bless America. (Applause.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Oct 11, 2003 13:33:17 GMT -5
Good summary of opinions, but where are the facts? Back to the first post on this thread. Please explain the logic.....  I really don't see any other reason for Maddas to have acted the way he did, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Oct 11, 2003 15:17:22 GMT -5
Pardon me if I don't jump in here with many of my own words. I fear if I invest too much time in this debate, my eyes will become permanently locked in the roll position. It's kind of a tired debate that has convinced me that some people hate Republican administrations more than they love truth. Don't Bother Me With the Facts By Frank J Gaffney Jr. Townhall.com | October 7, 2003 To hear a number of leading Democrats tell it, the report issued last week by David Kay, the chairman of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), was proof positive that President Bush had effectively committed a war crime: He launched a war of aggression on the pretext that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and now, thanks to Dr. Kay, we know that wasn’t true. There is only one problem with this highly partisan attack, and the parallel media reporting that has taken a similarly pollyannish line about the Kay report: No responsible reader could take any comfort from its findings, let alone construe them as an indictment of the Bush Administration and its decision to liberate Iraq. While the President’s critics may not wish to be bothered by the facts, they are, as the saying goes, “stubborn things.” And those laid out by Dr. Kay and his colleagues paint a picture of Saddam Hussein as despot relentlessly engaged in the pursuit of the most devastating weapons known to man. The Iraq Survey Group’s inability to date to locate the weapons the UN previously determined were in Saddam’s hands should be a matter of grave concern – and redoubled effort. Its report certainly is not cause for, as some have suggested, shutting down the ISG and reallocating its resources elsewhere. Consider, for example, the following facts that belie the conclusion Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction: o The Kay team has thus far been able to examine only 10 of the 130 known ammo depots in Iraq, some of which are as large as fifty square miles. It would be folly to say on the basis of a less-than-ten-percent sample whether WMD are to be found in the remainder. o These depots are filled with immense quantities of ordinance. Since the regime made no appreciable effort to distinguish which contained high explosives and which were loaded with chemical or biological agents, establishing exactly what is in such facilities is a time-consuming and dangerous task. o In addition to the known depots, there are untold numbers of covert weapons caches around the country. These caches have been the source of much of the ordinance used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to attack American and coalition forces. Whether any of these contain WMD remains unknown at this juncture. But if they do, IEDs could, in the future, be vastly more devastating – especially to unprotected Iraqis in proximity to the attack. o The task is further complicated by the relatively small size of the objects of the search. Dr. Kay has noted that all of Saddam Hussein’s as yet unaccounted for WMD could be stored in a space the size of a two-car garage. According to former Clinton CIA Director R. James Woolsey, his entire suspected inventory of the biological agent anthrax would fill roughly half a standard semi’s tractor trailer. Taken together with the assiduous efforts Saddam made to conceal and otherwise to obscure his weapons of mass destruction program (also documented by Dr. Kay and his team), these factors give rise to an ineluctable reality: If the ISG is having a hard time ferreting out the truth about Iraq’s WMD, UN inspectors would likely never have found dispositive evidence of Iraqi WMD given the additional constraints they labored under that no longer apply (notably, those imposed on freedom of travel and inquiry by Saddam’s totalitarian system and the attendant lack of cooperation from Iraqi scientists). The really bad news in the Kay report are its revelations about the role being played in WMD-related activities by Saddam’s dreaded Iraqi Intelligence Service (known as the IIS, or Mukhabarat). According to Dr. Kay, the Mukhabarat had over two-dozen secret laboratories – and more are still being found – that “at a minimum kept alive Iraq’s capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons.”<br> In addition to discovering work aimed at weaponizing various deadly diseases, the Iraq Survey Group received from an Iraqi scientist “reference strains” for one of the most lethal substances known to man: Botulinum toxin. In short order, with the right equipment and growth material – items Saddam was able to acquire and retain since they were inherently “dual use” and could also be used for commercial purposes -- such strains could translate into large quantities of biological agents. Lest we forget, it was this sort of capability that President Bush cited as grounds for war. He warned of the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be made available to terrorists. It would not take large quantities to inflict immense damage. And it would likely be the Iraqi Intelligence Services, rather than the regular army or even the Republican Guard, who would be responsible for providing such support to the regime’s terrorist proxies. In a little-noted aspect of his recent “Meet the Press” interview, Vice President Richard Cheney for the first time offered official confirmation that Iraqi agents appeared to have played such a catalytic role in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. It is one thing to ignore the facts available, and their ominous implications. It is, however, another thing altogether to pretend that David Kay has shown that there is no danger from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, when the facts are otherwise, and bothersome indeed. www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10199 |
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 12, 2003 9:08:56 GMT -5
"What, exactly, was that evidence?" Evidence that has come for the inteligence services shows ambitions of saddam to have WMD's and show some indication of weapons research programs. But at the same time as doing this it demonstrates that there was no IMINENT threat. I but the word imenent in capitals because this is the key point I am making. The imenence was the reason the British people tolerated out governments actions in Iraq. "BTW, glad to see you signed on as a registered member of this Board. Welcome." Thankyou, I'm glad to be here  "Well, yes. But it was you who opened THAT particular can o'worms, mate" Actually It was the topic that the thread was started with. "Not an iminent threat? True. I, for one, never claimed he was" No but Tony Blair did. And considering this is the reason why the British people reluctantly went along with the invasion is it any surprize I am angry at my prime-minister? "The sensible thing was to get rid of him BEFORE he became an iminent threat." This is another slightly seperate subject that should be discussed on its own thread. Is pre-emptive force morally justified? id pre-pre-emptive force justified? Personally my view is that it creates more problems than it solves. "Indeed, though he wasn't an iminent threat to Britain or the US, he was most certainly an iminent threat to Israel, in that he was funding and enflaming the Palestinian attacks upon that state" There are other ways to deal with this than simply invading a country. To prevent suicide bombings takes a very subtle yet powerfull, long term and indepth effort from all fronts. The suicide bombings havn't stopped simply because Saddam is no longer there. Secondly, Saddam was not funding attacks. Saddams involvement was that he would pay for the rebuilding of palestinion homes that had been destroyed in Israeli revenge attacks, a policy which has been condemned by the entire international community. "Moreover, his very survival in power threatened the west. Every year Saddam remained in power, defying the world, he encouraged every terrrorist group and every despot to believe that the west did not have the stomach to fight back." For this statement to be true it would have to mean that terrorist groups were afraid of western intervention. No preemptive attack will ever reduce terrorism, it will create more. Can you not see how a cycle of violence can never be ended with more violence? Does petrol put out a wild fire? "I really don't see any other reason for Maddas to have acted the way he did, do you?" It may not have been the wisest idea but dictators are not known for being particularly wise people, they tend to make more mistakes that anyone else. Their own feelings of self importance and invinsibility always gets in the way of rational thinking. Hitler invading the USSR is just one other example. |
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Oct 12, 2003 11:35:24 GMT -5
"Their own feelings of self importance and invinsibility always gets in the way of rational thinking. Hitler invading the USSR is just one other example."
Full cirle and back to "GO."
That's the entire point. When Hitler decided to invade the USSR, what happened? Recriminations abounded about the absence of pre-emption, especially after the seige of Leningrad.
Maddas has been shown not to be rational, but if we chose to sit back and relax and he chose to "invade" the USA (or Israel, or Europe), the recriminations would also be flying.
I guess if you hate GWB, there is nothing he can do that will change your opinion. However if you think rationally about threats, imminent or otherwise, then do something the 9 dwarfs have yet to do, come up with rational alternatives, then your criticism will begin to make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 12, 2003 11:57:12 GMT -5
INAVDE THE USA? INVADE ISRAEL? INVADE EUROPE? IRAQ? ARE YOU JOKING??
sorry to use capital letters in such abundance but are you seriously saying that saddam had the capability to do any of those? That is utterly ridiculous.
Iraq is a third world nation with about as much military capability as my dead hampster Bruce. To compare it to Germany is a very strenuous way of getting across your point. There is no comparason to whatsoever other than the fact that both dictators were detatched from reality. Germany was a SUPERPOWER, Iraq was a tinpot dictatorship with an amateur tyrant at its head.
Invade the USA, unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 12, 2003 12:03:54 GMT -5
Oh, In my moment of utter disbelief I forgot to adress your point about alternatives. The alternative was containment and containment was working.
It was also the only sensible option. To invade a country preemptivley is to set a very bad precedent. Now, any country in the world that feels like overthrowing their neighbour will feel safer in doing so. International law is there to discourage such actions and now the US has made it a lot easier to violate these codes of conduct.
Just ask George Bush Senior, it's a pity Junior doesn't have as much common sence as his dad.
From GB Snr's memoirs, A world transformed:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ... [T]here was no viable ‘exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Oct 12, 2003 12:26:56 GMT -5
IWNW said, "To compare it to Germany is a very strenuous way of getting across your point. "
Permit me to refer you to your point just made where you brought the irrationality of Hitler into this discussion.
I assumed you intended to analogize the need to address Maddas and his irrationality to that of Hitler.
I must have misunderstood.
Can you please explain your point so I can better understand it?
As for "invade" that's exactly what OBL did. isn't it? If not, what would you call the direct hits on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
Where is there evidence that Maddas would not do exactly the same thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 12, 2003 12:44:49 GMT -5
"I assumed you intended to analogize the need to address Maddas and his irrationality to that of Hitler"
The analogy is between Hitlers fumbling mistake of invading the USSR thus creating a war on two fronts that led to his own defeat with saddams fumbling mistake of pretending to have WMD's. The comparason is between the psychology of two dictators, NOT between the military capacity or ambitions of Germany and Iraq.
"As for "invade" that's exactly what OBL did. isn't it?"
No, Osama Bin Laden organised a terrorist atrocity, to call that an invasion is pure newspeak. An invasion is when one nation uses military might to overun an occupy another nation.
"Where is there evidence that Maddas would not do exactly the same thing?"
Where is the proof that he WOULD? what even indicates that he had the ability or motive? what would be his reasons? Whilst Saddam was irrational it does not mean he was stupid. To carry out such an attack would have been suicide, especially under the current climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Oct 12, 2003 13:16:23 GMT -5
"No but Tony Blair did. And considering this is the reason why the British people reluctantly went along with the invasion is it any surprize I am angry at my prime-minister?"
He's my prime minister as well, worst luck, and it wasn't why I went along with it. Nor was it why a majority of others of my acquaintance who were pro-war did. No doubt some were sold on it, but anybody who still believes Blair after all his years of mendacity is beyond help.
Were you pro-war, soley on the issue of imminence? If so, I suppose you have a point, although I would say you were naive in the extreme. If you remained anti-war, or were pro-war for other reasons as well, you have no grounds to be angry with Blair. Or, rather, no additional grounds.
"There are other ways to deal with this than simply invading a country. To prevent suicide bombings takes a very subtle yet powerfull, long term and indepth effort from all fronts. The suicide bombings havn't stopped simply because Saddam is no longer there."
It is probably wiser to leave Israel to another thread, so purely on the Iraq side of things, I wasn't suggesting that Iraq was the sole driving force. He was, however, encouraging and enflaming the situation.
" Secondly, Saddam was not funding attacks. Saddams involvement was that he would pay for the rebuilding of palestinion homes that had been destroyed in Israeli revenge attacks, a policy which has been condemned by the entire international community."
Pfffpt! If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. He was paying them $25,000. Do you seriously think a flimsy hovel, in a supposedly temporary refugee camp, costs $25,000? Or that Saddam was such a committed humanitarian as to care about the families living arrangements? Come on.
"For this statement to be true it would have to mean that terrorist groups were afraid of western intervention. No preemptive attack will ever reduce terrorism, it will create more."
Proof? It solved the terrorism problem in Malaya, and in the Boer war.
" Can you not see how a cycle of violence can never be ended with more violence? Does petrol put out a wild fire?"
Violence has put an end to violence for the whole of human history. Otherwise, we wouldn't still be fighting WWII, we'd still be fighting the wars of the roses, the hundred years war and repelling vikings. Violence ends a cycle of violence when one side decisively wins.
|
|
1st Armored Division, HHC 1 Battalion 37th Armor - USAAREUR (74-76)