Powell went a long way in the SC to prove a connection between Al Quada and Iraq.
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
They made horribly weak connections, yes, but how that would translate into THE POINT baffles me.
Quote:
Besides I don´t think New ever said Al Quada or prevention of terror was THE stated reason for war. Its just that the reasonS for war seems to become hollow one by one.
Tell me how the only real compelling reason for the war is hollow.
Humanitarian crisis re: Hussein and the sanctions.
How your lot loves to ignore that.
--
Harald:
Quote:
The war was always, always, always part of the war on terror.
This is all very confusing. I don't understand how the war can now be described as a failure in its goal to prevent terrorism when in fact I was told previously that the purpose of the war was actually solely an oil grab by the rude arrogant and slothful American imperial aggressors.
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
Tell me how the only real compelling reason for the war is hollow.
Humanitarian crisis re: Hussein and the sanctions.
How your lot loves to ignore that.
Last thing first. I say the reasons become hollow one by one. Not that all can be dismissed. But what you try to make the main reason for the war always played a very small role (untill after the war and stories of succes was needed)
Grover: "The well being of the IRaqis was the only (real) reason for war.
New: "The war against iraq was part of the war against terrorism"
WRONG both of you.
Grover: Try read Bush State of the union talk from this year. Lots of talk about Iraq: Threat to the region, terrorism, Biochem weapons aso. and very little about the popultaion of Iraq. Try read Powells speech in the SC: Lot of biochem weapons, lots about terrorism and AQ links. NOTHING about the Iraqis.
Mew: Terrorism wan´t the only reason for the war. Bush have openly said that the war was also about the stability of the region and that is quite logical. Massive wars like that are not fought if it isn´t thought to have a positive influence on the US position in the area. Another thing is if there was other REAL reasons for the war.
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
Iraq was always pitched as part of the war on terror. I don't think Bush ever talked about the war being justified in order to end sanctions. You've talked about sanctions, but not Bush.
The war on terror is not confined strictly to the al Qaeda that we're chasing. The war on terror extends beyond just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.
Good morning. This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror. First, American and Pakistani authorities captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our country, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. ...
Second, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
.....what about the documents "they" found linking the two? There was a good deal of documentation found when all the international operatives---er, I mean Iraqis---looted those valuable government documents in Baghdad.
I had assumed it was a foregone conclusion at this point.
I don't think the Bush admin. would have said that taking out Iraq would prevent these kinds of attacks this past week. They said it would prevent future possible attacks using WoMD.
But to deny the Bush admin tried to link Iraq and terrorism, uh, that's just insane. Bush linked Iraq to Al-Qaeda repeatedly, and critics called it bunk repeatedly.
Groverat's just having a bad day.
More Bushspeak:
Quote:
Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. 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. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.
Last thing first. I say the reasons become hollow one by one. Not that all can be dismissed. But what you try to make the main reason for the war always played a very small role (untill after the war and stories of succes was needed)
The horrors of Saddam played a "very small role" and were only brought out after the war?
Quote:
Grover: Try read Bush State of the union talk from this year. Lots of talk about Iraq: Threat to the region, terrorism, Biochem weapons aso. and very little about the popultaion of Iraq. Try read Powells speech in the SC: Lot of biochem weapons, lots about terrorism and AQ links. NOTHING about the Iraqis.
There's an old saying among trial lawyers, "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to."
I'll introduce to you a corollary, "Don't point to documents you haven't read."
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
BRussell:
Quote:
raq was always pitched as part of the war on terror. I don't think Bush ever talked about the war being justified in order to end sanctions. You've talked about sanctions, but not Bush.
We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.
Quote:
But to deny the Bush admin tried to link Iraq and terrorism, uh, that's just insane.
Funny, I said on two different occassions in this very freaking thread that the Bush administration tried to link Iraq and terror ("They made horribly weak connections, yes..."). But we as thinking beings should be able to examine the real reasons outside of politician-speak.
That is, of course, if real dialogue is the goal and not pointless partisan bitching.
Even doing the childish and easy "politicians are liars!" game, I don't recall Bush ever saying that taking out Saddam would stop terrorism.
You guys are still sore from how well the war went, aren't you?
You guys are still sore from how well the war went, aren't you?
It's almost funny how in one sentence you'll complain about partisan bitching, and then in the next make a statement like this. You're one of the worst around here for this type of crap.
Yo Grover. Lets have a look at your reading skills
I said:
Quote:
But what you try to make the main reason for the war always played a very small role (untill after the war and stories of succes was needed)
What you said I said
Quote:
The horrors of Saddam played a "very small role" and were only brought out after the war?
See any difference? The word "and" doesn´t mean the same as "until"
I said:
Quote:
Try read Bush State of the union talk from this year. Lots of talk about Iraq: Threat to the region, terrorism, Biochem weapons aso. [b]and very little about the popultaion of Iraq.[b]
What you said I said
Quote:
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
Hard time distinquising between Powell and Bush. Shouldn´t be that hard.
And lets see the Bush speech. You quoted the part about the population of Iraq. Here is the part about WoMDs, threat to the region and terrorism, just before what you quoted. Now the relationship between the two parts is what I call "lots" to "very little"
Quote:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
There's a big difference between the stated reason for war and the reason for war. Why there is such insistence on analyzing what the Bush administration says I'll never know.
They lie, they exaggerate. Of course they do, they are politicians.
Why can you people not discuss these things on their own merits?
And of course Powell's SC bit was about terrorism/weapons, do you think he's going to lecture the body who makes the sanctions about the freaking sanctions? I misread that, yes, but you're asking for a fish to walk saying "Powell said nothing about sanctions to the UN-SC". Ridiculous.
But I said "Humanitarian crisis re: Hussein & sanctions" and Powell certainly addressed the atrocities of Hussein in his speech to the SC
Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died.
His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shi'a Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.
So you say that Bush was publicly using arguments mainly about WoMDs, terrorism and regional stability while his secret main reason was the safety and happiness for the iraqis?
You are so pathetically, transparently disingenuous groverat. You were talking about the administration's expressed reasons for the war when you said it was the least important reason they gave.
Quote:
Originally posted by disingenuous boy
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
One more chance: do you really agree with what you wrote above?
So you say that Bush was publicly using arguments mainly about WoMDs, terrorism and regional stability while his secret main reason was the safety and happiness for the iraqis?
Come on Grover. This is too far out.\
Execution of Straw-Man logical fallacy as a debate tactic (for use in lieu of a real argument):
Step 1: Fabricate opponent's statement.
Step 2: Attack fabricated statement.
Repeat until opponent gives up in frustration.
I say what I say using the words that I use.
I never claimed any secret holy motivation for Bush. I said he mentioned it. I said the real reason to attack Iraq was humanitarian, does "real" mean "official"? Not to me.
The official reason makes ZERO difference, politicians are liars.
Independent thinking. Analyzing the situation for its own merits; good and bad. Try it.
--
BRussell:
Quote:
You are so pathetically, transparently disingenuous groverat. You were talking about the administration's expressed reasons for the war when you said it was the least important reason they gave.
It was the least important, by far. It doesn't matter how much they said it. Only Rush Limbaugh actually thought this war meant anything WRT to terrorism. The Bush administration might not have thought it truly valid, but they said it.
Why did Bush want to attack Iraq? I don't really give a shit and I'm not stupid enough to put a numerical order on his priorities.
You're missing the point, BRussell, it's not about what Bush says. The reality of situation exists outside the political machinations of presidential administrations.
Why is this so goddam hard to grasp? Politicians are liars, big ****ing discovery! Let's give out the Nobel prizes to the genius who just figured that out!
Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
It *was* the least prominent! It was almost 100% garbage and recognized by everyone as such.
But by all means continue to focus on how Bush is a liar to take your mind off the tremendous foolishness that was opposing a war of liberation.
So you say that Bush was publicly using arguments mainly about WoMDs, terrorism and regional stability while his real main reason was the safety and happiness for the iraqis?
To be fair I admit I just looked for quotes from you showing that you had another opnion before and during the war. But the entire time you actually argues from a humanitarian standpoint.
But your arguments is not those of Bush as you admit here.
Quote:
Again.
I
do
not
give
a
shit
about
the
motivations
of
George
W
Bush.
Keep beating the dead horse.
Argue with him if you want to debate his policy.
Being pro-war does not mean you have a mental ****ing connection to George Bush where you can ask him what his inner child is telling him to do
Comments
Or rather isn´t =
Powell went a long way in the SC to prove a connection between Al Quada and Iraq.
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
They made horribly weak connections, yes, but how that would translate into THE POINT baffles me.
Besides I don´t think New ever said Al Quada or prevention of terror was THE stated reason for war. Its just that the reasonS for war seems to become hollow one by one.
Tell me how the only real compelling reason for the war is hollow.
Humanitarian crisis re: Hussein and the sanctions.
How your lot loves to ignore that.
--
Harald:
The war was always, always, always part of the war on terror.
Circular. It was because it was.
Originally posted by groverat
Anders:
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
Tell me how the only real compelling reason for the war is hollow.
Humanitarian crisis re: Hussein and the sanctions.
How your lot loves to ignore that.
Last thing first. I say the reasons become hollow one by one. Not that all can be dismissed. But what you try to make the main reason for the war always played a very small role (untill after the war and stories of succes was needed)
Grover: "The well being of the IRaqis was the only (real) reason for war.
New: "The war against iraq was part of the war against terrorism"
WRONG both of you.
Grover: Try read Bush State of the union talk from this year. Lots of talk about Iraq: Threat to the region, terrorism, Biochem weapons aso. and very little about the popultaion of Iraq. Try read Powells speech in the SC: Lot of biochem weapons, lots about terrorism and AQ links. NOTHING about the Iraqis.
Mew: Terrorism wan´t the only reason for the war. Bush have openly said that the war was also about the stability of the region and that is quite logical. Massive wars like that are not fought if it isn´t thought to have a positive influence on the US position in the area. Another thing is if there was other REAL reasons for the war.
19.html
Originally posted by groverat
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
Iraq was always pitched as part of the war on terror. I don't think Bush ever talked about the war being justified in order to end sanctions. You've talked about sanctions, but not Bush.
Go to whitehouse.gov and search iraq + war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030129-2.html
The war on terror is not confined strictly to the al Qaeda that we're chasing. The war on terror extends beyond just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030308-1.html
Good morning. This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror. First, American and Pakistani authorities captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our country, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. ...
Second, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm.
Originally posted by groverat
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
.....what about the documents "they" found linking the two? There was a good deal of documentation found when all the international operatives---er, I mean Iraqis---looted those valuable government documents in Baghdad.
I had assumed it was a foregone conclusion at this point.
But to deny the Bush admin tried to link Iraq and terrorism, uh, that's just insane. Bush linked Iraq to Al-Qaeda repeatedly, and critics called it bunk repeatedly.
Groverat's just having a bad day.
More Bushspeak:
Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. 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. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.
Originally posted by Scott
...we pulled our troops out of SA.
That's a lie.
Originally posted by ena
I thought the title of the thread was redundant.
That's because you're racist.
Last thing first. I say the reasons become hollow one by one. Not that all can be dismissed. But what you try to make the main reason for the war always played a very small role (untill after the war and stories of succes was needed)
The horrors of Saddam played a "very small role" and were only brought out after the war?
Grover: Try read Bush State of the union talk from this year. Lots of talk about Iraq: Threat to the region, terrorism, Biochem weapons aso. and very little about the popultaion of Iraq. Try read Powells speech in the SC: Lot of biochem weapons, lots about terrorism and AQ links. NOTHING about the Iraqis.
There's an old saying among trial lawyers, "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to."
I'll introduce to you a corollary, "Don't point to documents you haven't read."
From Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address click
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
BRussell:
raq was always pitched as part of the war on terror. I don't think Bush ever talked about the war being justified in order to end sanctions. You've talked about sanctions, but not Bush.
Bush didn't talk about sanctions before the war?
Are you sure? click
We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.
But to deny the Bush admin tried to link Iraq and terrorism, uh, that's just insane.
Funny, I said on two different occassions in this very freaking thread that the Bush administration tried to link Iraq and terror ("They made horribly weak connections, yes..."). But we as thinking beings should be able to examine the real reasons outside of politician-speak.
That is, of course, if real dialogue is the goal and not pointless partisan bitching.
Even doing the childish and easy "politicians are liars!" game, I don't recall Bush ever saying that taking out Saddam would stop terrorism.
You guys are still sore from how well the war went, aren't you?
Originally posted by groverat
You guys are still sore from how well the war went, aren't you?
It's almost funny how in one sentence you'll complain about partisan bitching, and then in the next make a statement like this. You're one of the worst around here for this type of crap.
I said:
But what you try to make the main reason for the war always played a very small role (untill after the war and stories of succes was needed)
What you said I said
The horrors of Saddam played a "very small role" and were only brought out after the war?
See any difference? The word "and" doesn´t mean the same as "until"
I said:
Try read Bush State of the union talk from this year. Lots of talk about Iraq: Threat to the region, terrorism, Biochem weapons aso. [b]and very little about the popultaion of Iraq.[b]
What you said I said
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
Hard time distinquising between Powell and Bush. Shouldn´t be that hard.
And lets see the Bush speech. You quoted the part about the population of Iraq. Here is the part about WoMDs, threat to the region and terrorism, just before what you quoted. Now the relationship between the two parts is what I call "lots" to "very little"
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
They lie, they exaggerate. Of course they do, they are politicians.
Why can you people not discuss these things on their own merits?
And of course Powell's SC bit was about terrorism/weapons, do you think he's going to lecture the body who makes the sanctions about the freaking sanctions? I misread that, yes, but you're asking for a fish to walk saying "Powell said nothing about sanctions to the UN-SC". Ridiculous.
But I said "Humanitarian crisis re: Hussein & sanctions" and Powell certainly addressed the atrocities of Hussein in his speech to the SC
Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died.
His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shi'a Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.
click
But the anti-war movement never really gave a rat's ass about the people of Iraq. What a pathetic farce.
What's worse: Blood-for-Oil or Blood-for-Spite?
Come on Grover. This is too far out.
Originally posted by disingenuous boy
Yes, but less that than the other reasons. Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
One more chance: do you really agree with what you wrote above?
So you say that Bush was publicly using arguments mainly about WoMDs, terrorism and regional stability while his secret main reason was the safety and happiness for the iraqis?
Come on Grover. This is too far out.
Execution of Straw-Man logical fallacy as a debate tactic (for use in lieu of a real argument):
Step 1: Fabricate opponent's statement.
Step 2: Attack fabricated statement.
Repeat until opponent gives up in frustration.
I say what I say using the words that I use.
I never claimed any secret holy motivation for Bush. I said he mentioned it. I said the real reason to attack Iraq was humanitarian, does "real" mean "official"? Not to me.
The official reason makes ZERO difference, politicians are liars.
Independent thinking. Analyzing the situation for its own merits; good and bad. Try it.
--
BRussell:
You are so pathetically, transparently disingenuous groverat. You were talking about the administration's expressed reasons for the war when you said it was the least important reason they gave.
It was the least important, by far. It doesn't matter how much they said it. Only Rush Limbaugh actually thought this war meant anything WRT to terrorism. The Bush administration might not have thought it truly valid, but they said it.
Why did Bush want to attack Iraq? I don't really give a shit and I'm not stupid enough to put a numerical order on his priorities.
You're missing the point, BRussell, it's not about what Bush says. The reality of situation exists outside the political machinations of presidential administrations.
Why is this so goddam hard to grasp? Politicians are liars, big ****ing discovery! Let's give out the Nobel prizes to the genius who just figured that out!
Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
It *was* the least prominent! It was almost 100% garbage and recognized by everyone as such.
But by all means continue to focus on how Bush is a liar to take your mind off the tremendous foolishness that was opposing a war of liberation.
So you say that Bush was publicly using arguments mainly about WoMDs, terrorism and regional stability while his real main reason was the safety and happiness for the iraqis?
Come on Grover. This is too far out.
But your arguments is not those of Bush as you admit here.
Again.
I
do
not
give
a
shit
about
the
motivations
of
George
W
Bush.
Keep beating the dead horse.
Argue with him if you want to debate his policy.
Being pro-war does not mean you have a mental ****ing connection to George Bush where you can ask him what his inner child is telling him to do