Sounds like a Letterman line. Too funny.
US calls off search for weapons of mass destruction
by WhyNow2000 193 Replies latest social current
-
-
amac
Yeru,
I'm sure you agree that the US gov't impressed on the US people that the main reason for going to war was because that Iraq had WMD and were a danger to the world. Either that or the media twisted everything and the Bush administration did nothing to stop it. Otherwise the majority of the US population is suffering mass hysteria in all thinking the same thing.
Isn't it easy to see why people feel lied to since no WMD have been found that show Iraq to have been a dangerous threat to the world?
I don't deny that Saddam was evil and Iraq is better off without him in power. Do I think life in Iraq will improve? Probably not. Do I think that Iraqis really wanted to be invaded and have Saddam ousted? It's very hard to tell. There is nothing concrete about this that makes me feel good about Bush's tactics.
About the US in general...Yes, Batista is an obvious example and I appreciate you noting and acknowledging that mistake. But he is far from the only. Just about every "banana republic" in South America has had US involvement for the sole reason of retaining and perpetuating an export economy that benefited US companies such as the United Fruit Co (who's lead company lawyer was a brother of the head of CIA in the 50's oddly enough.) and reduced the local people to near indentured servants (what's that song by Johnny Cash...something like "I owe my soul to the company store..." seems fitting.)
How can I trust and support a government that I KNOW have destroyed the lives of entire regions of people simply for their capitalist endeavors, a.k.a. GREED! How can I pretend that all of a sudden we are the good guys?
I realize that administrations change, but when a gov't has a history like ours, you become skeptical and you look for concrete reason to put trust in an administration. Bush has done the exact OPPOSITE! That's why he must go.
-
Satanus
Mars may be a good place for bush to be. Hey, it was the god of war. He could also be undisputed ruler of the whole planet
SS
-
Yerusalyim
AMAC,
Sure, WMD were emphasized...those were some of the main resolutions Saddam was in violation of. That he had WMD programs is not disputed, if he developed new WMD is disputed...I still buy the evidence suggesting that the WMD took a trip to Syria. As to the Iraqis not wanting to be invaded...I think many of them didn't trust the US after we let them down when we didn't support them when they tried to overthrow Saddam...BUSH 1 made a BIG mistake.
Just about every "banana republic" in South America has had US involvement for the sole reason of retaining and perpetuating an export economy that benefited US companies
Early on in the 20th century, I concede the point...in the 50-s on...it was driven more from a fear that Communism would take hold in the South...like we needed South and Central America to be communist.
How can I trust and support a government that I KNOW have destroyed the lives of entire regions of people simply for their capitalist endeavors, a.k.a. GREED! How can I pretend that all of a sudden we are the good guys?
We aren't always the good guys...but in the case of Iraq...we are...I can think of no other country doing BETTER...is the US just held to a higher standard?
By the way...Bush is being re-elected.
AMAC...this is the type of debate I like...open and even handed.
THANKS.
SaintSatan...That too is humorous.
-
Aztec
Bush is being re-elected
It's not November yet buddy!
~Aztec
-
Sunnygal41
(snickering at what Saint Satan said)
-
Simon
The reason for going to war given was that Iraq was an imminent threat and had WoMD. This is what we were told. There are numerous articles and things that can be referenced to prove this.The Administration, to the best of my knowldege...never said imminent threat...show me if I'm wrong.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
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.
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.
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat?most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today?s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction?weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction? and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy?s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world?s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
- build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
- coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
- continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just
Now, you are trying to back up the new party mantra that the reason was to get rid of Saddam and that WoMD don't matter. Simon, Regime change has been the OFFICIAL POLICY of the US government since 1998...how is that the new party mantra...especially considering it was a Democratic president. The WMD DO still matter...but they weren't the only reason we went...we'll find em...in Syria and Lebenon.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02122900.htm
Mr. Russert: But if he disarms completely, he could stay in power?
Secretary Powell: We will wait and see what happens. If he disarms completely to the satisfaction, complete satisfaction, of the international community, that would suggest that the nature of that regime is changing. We just have to wait and see.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02102106.htm
The stated policy of the United States (towards Iraq) is regime change, Bush said, "because for 11 years Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world." "However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations ... that in itself will signal the regime has changed," Bush said. (and so, he'd stay?)
Explain please, if the reason was to get Saddam and this had always been the reason that the administration was saying bfore the war that Saddam could stay if he handed over WoMD? Appeasement...bald appeasement for folks who want to avoid war at any cost. However, had Saddam cooperated it would mean that he could be worked with.
No, the problem is not trying to make peace but previous meddling in foreign affairs. For the people with short-terms memories remember this: THE US CREATED SADDAM AND AL QUIDA
Either Mr Bush ande his cronies are a bunch of dishonest liars or you are clutching at straws trying to justify the actions of your leader and cannot admit to the fact that you have been fed lies. Simon, again...what SPECIFCALLY was the lie or lies?
Du huh !! How about the whole WoMD thing? The state of the union address? Just a continuous string of balloney.
Do you agree that the reason the US invaded Iraq was because he has WMD and was a clear and present danger to the US with the ability to attack us? If not, what was the reason? His possession of WMD and his refusal to cooperate with the UN inspectors was PART of the reason...not the only reason. I don't recall "clear and present danger" being used as a term by the administration...but it may have been. The Adminstration gave myriad reasons...his refusal to cooperate with inspectors...his support of terrorists...violation of ceasefire...violation of sanctions...he was a bad person...etc etc etcNext...if you agree with the above...do you still HONESTLY believe that Saddam had WMD that posed a clear and present danger to the US and that they are yet to be found? Do I believe it...YES! You don't? He had WMD programs...that is established fact...and there's every reason to believe he had WMD...they're easy to hide... the evidence suggests...but doesn't prove he recently had some nasty stuff...the missles that were found back at the beginnning of the war that originally tested positive for nerve agent...but then tested pos for rocket fuel (if you empty the chems and put in the fuel...it overpowers the trace evidence of chems...this happened at several locations...including water trucks, etc this all fits in with the suggestion that ambulances and water trucks were used to transport chems into Syria right before the war. I think the Nuke stuff went to Iran.
He didn't. They have back-peddled on EVERYTHING they claimed about Iraq and the weapons and all the crap that Powell stood in front of the UN and spouted, about links to Al Quida.
There are only the die-hard zealots who still cling to the belief that their cult leader didn't really lie ...
Before patting ourselves on the back for removing an evil dictator...what about all the times that the US has helped install an evil dictator? Where were all the patriotic US "voices of reason" then? You have a valid point...had the US not supported Batista in Cuba...Castro may never have happened...Communism and the cold war made for some strange bedfellows..and we didn't always choose wisely...but here's an example which might explain why the US does what it does in regards to dictators...Musharif in Pakistan is NO ANGEL...God knows that...but we support him...why? He's better than the alternative...which at this time is a Taliban type government...now...do you feel better with Musharif in charge of a country with Nukes...or would you rather the Taliban have them? That's why the US supports him.
You have exported terrorism and suffering around the world on a massive scale and now all the birds are coming home to roost. Welcome to the world that you created.
Some good quotes here:
http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html
Sure, I'd have a beer with ya.
-
Simon
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
(yeah, the deception was by Bush and now his followers are in denial !)
You have to put things together and THINK. The only legitimate and legal cause for war is if the country is an imminent threat. You are now saying that no only wasn't it an imminent threat but it wasn't claimed to be ... so therefore the war was illegal !
-
Simon
Yeru. Can you tell me why the US refuses to keep figures on civilian deaths?
-
logansrun
Yeru,
Early on in the 20th century, I concede the point...in the 50-s on...it was driven more from a fear that Communism would take hold in the South...like we needed South and Central America to be communist.
If a sovereign state decides to shift to a command economy who are we to say they don't have that right?
B.