Originally posted by giant
Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.
You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.
Wow. Just...wow. You are really starting to amaze me. I guess I have to play along.
No, decomposed spores that pose no threat would not, IMO, be considered a imminent threat. ANY potent chemical or biological wepaons would be. What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times. You won't listen to that last sentence, though, and you'll accuse me of making unsupported statements.
I contend that if Iraq has any potent weapons, they WERE a threat, and very REAL threat to the US and US interests around the world because there is the possibilty (or was) that Saddam, with his anti-US stance would give them to a terror group. In a post 9/11 world, I think that risk is unacceptable! This constitutes an immediate threat in every way.
So how exactly was Iraq and imminent danger to the US? If anyone is an imminent danger to the US, it's North Korea. They can hit me with a nuke where I'm sitting here in LA. I don't see how weapons, if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden can directly affect the United States.
I think I just answered that.
I agree with North Korea being major threat. However, that is not in any way the same situation. The question becomes what to do about NK. I don't know. Getting into a war with them would be potential blood-bath. We'd win, but I can only imagine the casualties. Then, there is the possibility they could go nuclear. In any case, the multilateral approach (which the leftward side of the Iraq debate argued is so imperative) is the best on this one, because it prevents NK from power-brokering with the US, which I think we can probably agree is their real goal.
BR, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we are focused on Iraq we can't focus on NK. I'm not sure what people are saying when they criticize and compare the NK strategy to the Iraq war. It's almost as if they are ADVOCATING we attack them too!
No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.
Oh, and he got every detail wrong.
Whatever details he got wrong, he got the overall point right. I saw he had the details wrong as well, but understood the overall point. Of course, you couldn't or wouldn't, because you are STILL obsessed with semantics. The point is the UN did find Iraq in breach and offered it one last chance to disarm. There is no question that Iraq did not do so. End of story. Serious consequences must and did follow. I suppose we are going to get into the definition of THAT, now? As one might imagine, I also disagree with this statement you made:
Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war? Really, give me another alternative. We tried sanctions. We tried inspections. We tried limited military strikes. We tried it all. Give me another option. War is a last resort, and if Saddam was required to disarm, which he was, we were "at" that last resort.
As far as what Bush said about going to war, the most clear reason was the threat I mentioned earlier in this post. But, there WERE other reasons. You can revise history all you want, but the President DID mention the humanitarian situation, the slaughter and torture of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region. There were a multitude of reasons. WMD was the main one. Perhaps, as I've said, Bush should have focused more on the other things to cover himself poltically. Funny, though...I seem to remember a lot of anti-war stanced people arguing that the Bush administration kept "changing" their argument for war. Hmmmm. Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD.
Now, this thread is about lying. I contend Bush didn't. Here is another interesting link on the topic.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun12.html
The CIA's failure to pass on the details of what it knew helped keep the uranium-purchase story alive until shortly before the war in Iraq began, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the documents were forgeries.
Rice, in defending Bush's decision to claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, said she was unaware that there were doubts about the information. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."
I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.