It's not that you shouldn't believe what you saw, it's that you can't even explain what you saw. Do you go to war against those individuals? And if so I'll ask a second time, who are they? If not just those individuals do you attack their entire country or race?
Your rash generalizations are unrealistic and dangerous. No offense but:
psychosis
n : any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted
Now that's not to compare you to Charles Manson or anything, but your belief is dangerous. You can't take a news report like that for granted. You can't support killing based on information and evidence that is so far removed because it is so dangerous.
You believe this so strongly because when you saw the report it supported your predisposition. You're searching for evidence to support your predetermined set of beliefs rather than the reverse. That is, searching for evidence to formulate a belief.
Maybe I am slow, but where am I losing touch or distorting?
I saw palestinians of all ages celebrating at the notion of the Great Satan US being hurt and heard reports of radical Muslims everywhere reveling. SH and company encouraged the notion as if it was a good thing. That was real.
I do not support meaningless killing or death. But you and I both would not complain if a policeman shot someone that was sneaking up on us to kill us. Protecting you is his job and you and I both expect that protection. Wether you agree or even believe the initial reasons for the Iraq conflict, you have to admit that protecting the US is the mandate given to the President.
The only predisposition i have about the palestinian issue is that these people are being misled and brainwashed by radical factions of the Muslim faith. I don't hate them individually. Would you live over there? I don't see large groups of Americans fighting for tracts of land anywhere in the MI.
If I were POTUS I would declare war on those that are misleading these people; Terrorists and those that support them. Oh BTW I would not want to be POTUS right now. That is a bold move and requires the brass of an old west gun fighter.
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
Well then, I am not the only that sees that. That's OK. Let him paint if that is what he chooses. I would prefer an intelligent debate, but ...
Thanks for your concern, however this is not a left/right or win/lose thing to me, so I am not going to fall into the traps they set for me. Nor do I have the motives they assume I have. The typical tactics will not work with me.
I am testing myself as much as or more than they are. I really have nothing to prove to them.
Maybe I am slow, but where am I losing touch or distorting?
I do not support meaningless killing or death. But you and I both would not complain if a policeman shot someone that was sneaking up on us to kill us. Protecting you is his job and you and I both expect that protection. Wether you agree or even believe the initial reasons for the Iraq conflict, you have to admit that protecting the US is the mandate given to the President.
Okey doke, here is where you are losing touch and distorting.
You go blithely from "not supporting meaningless death and killing" to a completely bogus metaphor about people sneaking up to kill us.
Do you honestly think that if people believed that Iraq was "sneaking up to kill us" that there would be any dissent? Have you really gone through this thread somehow missing that the entire point of contention is Iraq's status as a threat? Has it escaped your notice that none of the reasons Bush offered up that Iraq was a threat have been substaniated, and that most of them have proven to be false?
And yet you act as if those that disagree with you are inexpicably suicidal, refusing to agree that the "policeman" should be given full authority to "shoot" "someone" who is trying to "sneak up" on us to kill us.
And yes, I agree that the President is given the madate to protect the American people. Nobody on these boards, to the best of my knowledge, has ever asserted otherwise. Again, because you seem incapable of hearing it, the point of contention is that invading Iraq does not enhance the security of the American people, and in fact diverts precious resources from the actual threats.
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
Okey doke, here is where you are losing touch and distorting.
You go blithely from "not supporting meaningless death and killing" to a completely bogus metaphor about people sneaking up to kill us.
The focus of that paragraph was on protection. The comparison was between the jobs of a policeman and the president, sometimes similar. I used a form of the word protect in 3 of the 4 sentances in that paragraph. Those put in those jobs are asked by us to make those life and death decisions. You put yourself across as smart, and yet you are trying to infer you did not catch that? Or did you just choose an alternative interpretation as to marginalize me?
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Do you honestly think that if people believed that Iraq was "sneaking up to kill us" that there would be any dissent? Have you really gone through this thread somehow missing that the entire point of contention is Iraq's status as a threat? Has it escaped your notice that none of the reasons Bush offered up that Iraq was a threat have been substaniated, and that most of them have proven to be false?
First, I am not arguing that there are not points of contention. There is and always will be when it comes to war. The points you and I and others here don't agree upon is how much of a threat Iraq actually was and if the president overemphasized certain aspects of that threat. Second, I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to be patient with regards to jumping to conclusions about this war. Things will be revealed in time, that is the way it happens. Let me say this again, YOU COULD BE RIGHT, but right now no-one knows.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
And yet you act as if those that disagree with you are inexpicably suicidal, refusing to agree that the "policeman" should be given full authority to "shoot" "someone" who is trying to "sneak up" on us to kill us.
I am not sure what group of words you discerned my acting ability, let alone implying suicidal tendencies. I simply pointed out most people's total and unquestioning trust in any number of unknown policemen as contrasted with the total mistrust even automatic suspicion of this president.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
And yes, I agree that the President is given the madate to protect the American people. Nobody on these boards, to the best of my knowledge, has ever asserted otherwise. Again, because you seem incapable of hearing it, the point of contention is that invading Iraq does not enhance the security of the American people, and in fact diverts precious resources from the actual threats.
Hey look there is something we agree upon. We really should explore that.
Now let me be clear here, I am not trying to be coy, but I would like to clarify something. Are you saying that you do not see Iraq was a threat in any way whatsoever to the US or it's interests?
I know you are going to say something like "...well, not the way bush presented it..." or something. But a straight answer could progress this conversation along.
Second, I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to be patient with regards to jumping to conclusions about this war. Things will be revealed in time, that is the way it happens. Let me say this again, YOU COULD BE RIGHT, but right now no-one knows.
Sorry to break the old news, but this is something we know now. We are even now at the point of discussing certain aspects of Iraqi WMD as physical impossibilities. That means that even if you can imagine Iraqi VX in your dreams, the physical reality of the real world can not support it.
What's interesting is that you flip-flop from post to post claiming that there is "proof" of Iraqi WMD and then preaching that everyone should reserve judgment.
Now let me be clear here, I am not trying to be coy, but I would like to clarify something. Are you saying that you do not see Iraq was a threat in any way whatsoever to the US or it's interests?
I know you are going to say something like "...well, not the way bush presented it..." or something. But a straight answer could progress this conversation along.
This could be a point to debate... [/B]
Well, not to speak for any others who have previously posted in this thread, but I remember pretty specifically what Bush said - he said "an imminent threat" and "an imminent danger to the world" - due to "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." - and it wasn't too hard to Google it up
"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.
But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.
"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others".
The key here, is that Bush claimed there was substantial evidence of WoMD, and little to no evidence has been found, now that we've found everything they're hiding. If we found Saddam.. how much better hidden are his massive stashes of WoMD??
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
NaplesX,
Be very open minded and it won't matter what anyone here says about you, Bush, WOMD, each other, or anyone else. majorscott is normally just a troll though.
I do not support meaningless killing or death. But you and I both would not complain if a policeman shot someone that was sneaking up on us to kill us. Protecting you is his job and you and I both expect that protection. Wether you agree or even believe the initial reasons for the Iraq conflict, you have to admit that protecting the US is the mandate given to the President.
But you can't just kill everyone around you that you fear and consider it 'protection'. You are advocating murder under the guise of protection and that's where you are bordering on a psychosis.
Again, you are afraid of foreigners, presumably muslims, so you're happy to believe they're all going to sneak up on you and shoot you in the back. That's how you can justify murder. That's a psychosis.
Are you saying that you do not see Iraq was a threat in any way whatsoever to the US or it's interests?
I know you are going to say something like "...well, not the way bush presented it..." or something. But a straight answer could progress this conversation along.
This could be a point to debate...
Realisticly any country could be considered a thread. France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, whoever. The key is the definition of threat. If we go by Bush's definition, there's no way in hell Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests.
By any generic definition I'd say Iraq certainly wasn't the greatest threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. There are many more countries that would be put on a list ahead of Iraq. By most realistic calculations Iraq would be very far down on the list.
Realisticly any country could be considered a thread. France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, whoever. The key is the definition of threat. If we go by Bush's definition, there's no way in hell Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests.
By any generic definition I'd say Iraq certainly wasn't the greatest threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. There are many more countries that would be put on a list ahead of Iraq. By most realistic calculations Iraq would be very far down on the list.
Other than Al Qaeda and Saddam, I can't think of any other foreign agents who tried to Assassinate the President. I also can't think of anyone, other than Al Qaeda and Saddam, implicated in a terroristic act against the US occurring on the US mainland. (WTC). I also can't think of anyone other than Saddam that did more to disrupt the supply of oil from the ME. But what does Bush know about who under his own "definition" fits as a threat to US interests. Leave it to Bunge. He's figured it out. Mix France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, and whoever into the pot, and there you have it.
Well, not to speak for any others who have previously posted in this thread, but I remember pretty specifically what Bush said - he said "an imminent threat" and "an imminent danger to the world" - due to "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." - and it wasn't too hard to Google it up
The key here, is that Bush claimed there was substantial evidence of WoMD, and little to no evidence has been found, now that we've found everything they're hiding. If we found Saddam.. how much better hidden are his massive stashes of WoMD??
You know, there was a whole thread devoted to this question. Turns out a lot of people are saying things that Bush has supposedly said that in fact he did not. Now isn't it interesting that they would do that. Why not look through the actual transcripts of Bush's speech(s) and see for yourself what was said and what was not?
You know, there was a whole thread devoted to this question. Turns out a lot of people are saying things that Bush has supposedly said that in fact he did not. Now isn't it interesting that they would do that. Why not look through the actual transcripts of Bush's speech(s) and see for yourself what was said and what was not?
Here we are back at this. You and othes have made a huge deal over whether or not Bush ever actually used the word "imminent", as if this were an important point that puts his detractors in a bad light. His meaning was clear.
You may find it "interesting" that people have used a word to sum up the obvious intent of Bush's rhetoric. I find it interesting that the case for the invasion is so weak that its supporters are reduced to focusing on entirely irrelevant bits of by-play.
Sorry to break the old news, but this is something we know now. We are even now at the point of discussing certain aspects of Iraqi WMD as physical impossibilities. That means that even if you can imagine Iraqi VX in your dreams, the physical reality of the real world can not support it.
What's interesting is that you flip-flop from post to post claiming that there is "proof" of Iraqi WMD and then preaching that everyone should reserve judgment.
I regret to inform you that there is nor reasonable form of communication possible between us.
But you can't just kill everyone around you that you fear and consider it 'protection'. You are advocating murder under the guise of protection and that's where you are bordering on a psychosis.
Again, you are afraid of foreigners, presumably muslims, so you're happy to believe they're all going to sneak up on you and shoot you in the back. That's how you can justify murder. That's a psychosis.
Did you even read my previous reply to you? I do not fear muslims. If anything, I "fear" apathists and pacifists.
Well, not to speak for any others who have previously posted in this thread, but I remember pretty specifically what Bush said - he said "an imminent threat" and "an imminent danger to the world" - due to "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." - and it wasn't too hard to Google it up
The key here, is that Bush claimed there was substantial evidence of WoMD, and little to no evidence has been found, now that we've found everything they're hiding. If we found Saddam.. how much better hidden are his massive stashes of WoMD??
However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.
The phrase "imminent threat" was used many times by many people to summarize the Admininstration's position. The LA Times headline I linked to, showed that, and it's not something from just recently since it has become a matter of debate, but a year ago, when reporting on the State of the Union speech.
And, as long as you are checking out spinsanity, check out
First, as we have demonstrated, President Bush and his representatives repeatedly dissembled last year with regard to Iraq's nuclear capabilities. On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
That statement implied that the IAEA report issued in 1998 (when the inspectors were "finally denied access") concluded that Iraq was within six months of developing a nuclear weapon. But the IAEA report released in that year actually said that Iraq was six to twenty-four months from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991. In response to questioning, Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan claimed that the president was referring to an apparently nonexistant 1991 IAEA report (which the organization denies issuing) and suggested a reporter consult two newspaper stories that fail to corroborate Bush's statement. Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the Washington Post that the claim was based on US intelligence before finally stating that "it was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months." However, the IISS report was issued on September 9, 2002 - two days after Bush's original statement - and does not mention any such six-month estimate.
Quote:
A second claim that the Bush administration has made in its attempt to prove Iraq is building nuclear capability is that Iraq tried to buy anodized aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. As the President stated in his speech to the United Nations last September 12, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." There is significant cause to doubt this claim, however. As recent pieces in the Washington Post and The New Republic noted, the IAEA found that the tubes Iraq attempted to purchase were "not directly suitable" for enriching uranium and IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said it was "highly unlikely" the tubes could be used for that purpose. Specifically, the tubes are the wrong size for uranium enrichment and the IAEA has secured extensive documentation proving that Iraq has been trying for years to purchase such tubes for use in artillery rockets.
Did Iraq attempt to purchase uranium from Niger?
The Bush administration has also cited documents that purportedly showed that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger. But, again, as The New Republic and Washington Post, amongst others, have noted, the documents, which Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations in a February presentation, have also been found to be false by the IAEA. As Peter Beinart stated in The New Republic, the documents were in fact revealed to be "crude forgeries." Despite apparent concerns in the intelligence community over the authenticity of the documents, President Bush cited them in his State of the Union address in January as if they were fact, saying "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. "
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
My CNN comment was facetious.
It's not that you shouldn't believe what you saw, it's that you can't even explain what you saw. Do you go to war against those individuals? And if so I'll ask a second time, who are they? If not just those individuals do you attack their entire country or race?
Your rash generalizations are unrealistic and dangerous. No offense but:
psychosis
n : any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted
Now that's not to compare you to Charles Manson or anything, but your belief is dangerous. You can't take a news report like that for granted. You can't support killing based on information and evidence that is so far removed because it is so dangerous.
You believe this so strongly because when you saw the report it supported your predisposition. You're searching for evidence to support your predetermined set of beliefs rather than the reverse. That is, searching for evidence to formulate a belief.
Maybe I am slow, but where am I losing touch or distorting?
I saw palestinians of all ages celebrating at the notion of the Great Satan US being hurt and heard reports of radical Muslims everywhere reveling. SH and company encouraged the notion as if it was a good thing. That was real.
I do not support meaningless killing or death. But you and I both would not complain if a policeman shot someone that was sneaking up on us to kill us. Protecting you is his job and you and I both expect that protection. Wether you agree or even believe the initial reasons for the Iraq conflict, you have to admit that protecting the US is the mandate given to the President.
The only predisposition i have about the palestinian issue is that these people are being misled and brainwashed by radical factions of the Muslim faith. I don't hate them individually. Would you live over there? I don't see large groups of Americans fighting for tracts of land anywhere in the MI.
If I were POTUS I would declare war on those that are misleading these people; Terrorists and those that support them. Oh BTW I would not want to be POTUS right now. That is a bold move and requires the brass of an old west gun fighter.
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
Originally posted by majorspunk
NaplesX,
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
Well then, I am not the only that sees that. That's OK. Let him paint if that is what he chooses. I would prefer an intelligent debate, but ...
Thanks for your concern, however this is not a left/right or win/lose thing to me, so I am not going to fall into the traps they set for me. Nor do I have the motives they assume I have. The typical tactics will not work with me.
I am testing myself as much as or more than they are. I really have nothing to prove to them.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Maybe I am slow, but where am I losing touch or distorting?
I do not support meaningless killing or death. But you and I both would not complain if a policeman shot someone that was sneaking up on us to kill us. Protecting you is his job and you and I both expect that protection. Wether you agree or even believe the initial reasons for the Iraq conflict, you have to admit that protecting the US is the mandate given to the President.
Okey doke, here is where you are losing touch and distorting.
You go blithely from "not supporting meaningless death and killing" to a completely bogus metaphor about people sneaking up to kill us.
Do you honestly think that if people believed that Iraq was "sneaking up to kill us" that there would be any dissent? Have you really gone through this thread somehow missing that the entire point of contention is Iraq's status as a threat? Has it escaped your notice that none of the reasons Bush offered up that Iraq was a threat have been substaniated, and that most of them have proven to be false?
And yet you act as if those that disagree with you are inexpicably suicidal, refusing to agree that the "policeman" should be given full authority to "shoot" "someone" who is trying to "sneak up" on us to kill us.
And yes, I agree that the President is given the madate to protect the American people. Nobody on these boards, to the best of my knowledge, has ever asserted otherwise. Again, because you seem incapable of hearing it, the point of contention is that invading Iraq does not enhance the security of the American people, and in fact diverts precious resources from the actual threats.
Originally posted by majorspunk
NaplesX,
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
Whooo!
Originally posted by addabox
Okey doke, here is where you are losing touch and distorting.
You go blithely from "not supporting meaningless death and killing" to a completely bogus metaphor about people sneaking up to kill us.
The focus of that paragraph was on protection. The comparison was between the jobs of a policeman and the president, sometimes similar. I used a form of the word protect in 3 of the 4 sentances in that paragraph. Those put in those jobs are asked by us to make those life and death decisions. You put yourself across as smart, and yet you are trying to infer you did not catch that? Or did you just choose an alternative interpretation as to marginalize me?
Originally posted by addabox
Do you honestly think that if people believed that Iraq was "sneaking up to kill us" that there would be any dissent? Have you really gone through this thread somehow missing that the entire point of contention is Iraq's status as a threat? Has it escaped your notice that none of the reasons Bush offered up that Iraq was a threat have been substaniated, and that most of them have proven to be false?
First, I am not arguing that there are not points of contention. There is and always will be when it comes to war. The points you and I and others here don't agree upon is how much of a threat Iraq actually was and if the president overemphasized certain aspects of that threat. Second, I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to be patient with regards to jumping to conclusions about this war. Things will be revealed in time, that is the way it happens. Let me say this again, YOU COULD BE RIGHT, but right now no-one knows.
Originally posted by addabox
And yet you act as if those that disagree with you are inexpicably suicidal, refusing to agree that the "policeman" should be given full authority to "shoot" "someone" who is trying to "sneak up" on us to kill us.
I am not sure what group of words you discerned my acting ability, let alone implying suicidal tendencies. I simply pointed out most people's total and unquestioning trust in any number of unknown policemen as contrasted with the total mistrust even automatic suspicion of this president.
Originally posted by addabox
And yes, I agree that the President is given the madate to protect the American people. Nobody on these boards, to the best of my knowledge, has ever asserted otherwise. Again, because you seem incapable of hearing it, the point of contention is that invading Iraq does not enhance the security of the American people, and in fact diverts precious resources from the actual threats.
Hey look there is something we agree upon. We really should explore that.
Now let me be clear here, I am not trying to be coy, but I would like to clarify something. Are you saying that you do not see Iraq was a threat in any way whatsoever to the US or it's interests?
I know you are going to say something like "...well, not the way bush presented it..." or something. But a straight answer could progress this conversation along.
This could be a point to debate...
Originally posted by NaplesX
Second, I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to be patient with regards to jumping to conclusions about this war. Things will be revealed in time, that is the way it happens. Let me say this again, YOU COULD BE RIGHT, but right now no-one knows.
Sorry to break the old news, but this is something we know now. We are even now at the point of discussing certain aspects of Iraqi WMD as physical impossibilities. That means that even if you can imagine Iraqi VX in your dreams, the physical reality of the real world can not support it.
What's interesting is that you flip-flop from post to post claiming that there is "proof" of Iraqi WMD and then preaching that everyone should reserve judgment.
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B
Now let me be clear here, I am not trying to be coy, but I would like to clarify something. Are you saying that you do not see Iraq was a threat in any way whatsoever to the US or it's interests?
I know you are going to say something like "...well, not the way bush presented it..." or something. But a straight answer could progress this conversation along.
This could be a point to debate... [/B]
Well, not to speak for any others who have previously posted in this thread, but I remember pretty specifically what Bush said - he said "an imminent threat" and "an imminent danger to the world" - due to "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." - and it wasn't too hard to Google it up
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html
Source: Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2003
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat
"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.
But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.
"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others".
The key here, is that Bush claimed there was substantial evidence of WoMD, and little to no evidence has been found, now that we've found everything they're hiding. If we found Saddam.. how much better hidden are his massive stashes of WoMD??
Originally posted by majorspunk
NaplesX,
Be very careful of this one. He's the one with brains in the group. That's not a compliment to him, but a warning to you. He's a very slippery fish this one. And will paint you so many shades of grey you'll begin seeing white as black and black as white.
NaplesX,
Be very open minded and it won't matter what anyone here says about you, Bush, WOMD, each other, or anyone else. majorscott is normally just a troll though.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I do not support meaningless killing or death. But you and I both would not complain if a policeman shot someone that was sneaking up on us to kill us. Protecting you is his job and you and I both expect that protection. Wether you agree or even believe the initial reasons for the Iraq conflict, you have to admit that protecting the US is the mandate given to the President.
But you can't just kill everyone around you that you fear and consider it 'protection'. You are advocating murder under the guise of protection and that's where you are bordering on a psychosis.
Again, you are afraid of foreigners, presumably muslims, so you're happy to believe they're all going to sneak up on you and shoot you in the back. That's how you can justify murder. That's a psychosis.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you saying that you do not see Iraq was a threat in any way whatsoever to the US or it's interests?
I know you are going to say something like "...well, not the way bush presented it..." or something. But a straight answer could progress this conversation along.
This could be a point to debate...
Realisticly any country could be considered a thread. France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, whoever. The key is the definition of threat. If we go by Bush's definition, there's no way in hell Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests.
By any generic definition I'd say Iraq certainly wasn't the greatest threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. There are many more countries that would be put on a list ahead of Iraq. By most realistic calculations Iraq would be very far down on the list.
Originally posted by bunge
Realisticly any country could be considered a thread. France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, whoever. The key is the definition of threat. If we go by Bush's definition, there's no way in hell Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests.
By any generic definition I'd say Iraq certainly wasn't the greatest threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. There are many more countries that would be put on a list ahead of Iraq. By most realistic calculations Iraq would be very far down on the list.
Other than Al Qaeda and Saddam, I can't think of any other foreign agents who tried to Assassinate the President. I also can't think of anyone, other than Al Qaeda and Saddam, implicated in a terroristic act against the US occurring on the US mainland. (WTC). I also can't think of anyone other than Saddam that did more to disrupt the supply of oil from the ME. But what does Bush know about who under his own "definition" fits as a threat to US interests. Leave it to Bunge. He's figured it out. Mix France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, and whoever into the pot, and there you have it.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Well, not to speak for any others who have previously posted in this thread, but I remember pretty specifically what Bush said - he said "an imminent threat" and "an imminent danger to the world" - due to "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." - and it wasn't too hard to Google it up
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html
The key here, is that Bush claimed there was substantial evidence of WoMD, and little to no evidence has been found, now that we've found everything they're hiding. If we found Saddam.. how much better hidden are his massive stashes of WoMD??
You know, there was a whole thread devoted to this question. Turns out a lot of people are saying things that Bush has supposedly said that in fact he did not. Now isn't it interesting that they would do that. Why not look through the actual transcripts of Bush's speech(s) and see for yourself what was said and what was not?
Originally posted by majorspunk
You know, there was a whole thread devoted to this question. Turns out a lot of people are saying things that Bush has supposedly said that in fact he did not. Now isn't it interesting that they would do that. Why not look through the actual transcripts of Bush's speech(s) and see for yourself what was said and what was not?
Here we are back at this. You and othes have made a huge deal over whether or not Bush ever actually used the word "imminent", as if this were an important point that puts his detractors in a bad light. His meaning was clear.
You may find it "interesting" that people have used a word to sum up the obvious intent of Bush's rhetoric. I find it interesting that the case for the invasion is so weak that its supporters are reduced to focusing on entirely irrelevant bits of by-play.
Originally posted by giant
Sorry to break the old news, but this is something we know now. We are even now at the point of discussing certain aspects of Iraqi WMD as physical impossibilities. That means that even if you can imagine Iraqi VX in your dreams, the physical reality of the real world can not support it.
What's interesting is that you flip-flop from post to post claiming that there is "proof" of Iraqi WMD and then preaching that everyone should reserve judgment.
I regret to inform you that there is nor reasonable form of communication possible between us.
SpinSanity did a review of the rhetoric over "imminent threat".
Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate
Originally posted by bunge
But you can't just kill everyone around you that you fear and consider it 'protection'. You are advocating murder under the guise of protection and that's where you are bordering on a psychosis.
Again, you are afraid of foreigners, presumably muslims, so you're happy to believe they're all going to sneak up on you and shoot you in the back. That's how you can justify murder. That's a psychosis.
Did you even read my previous reply to you? I do not fear muslims. If anything, I "fear" apathists and pacifists.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Well, not to speak for any others who have previously posted in this thread, but I remember pretty specifically what Bush said - he said "an imminent threat" and "an imminent danger to the world" - due to "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." - and it wasn't too hard to Google it up
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html
The key here, is that Bush claimed there was substantial evidence of WoMD, and little to no evidence has been found, now that we've found everything they're hiding. If we found Saddam.. how much better hidden are his massive stashes of WoMD??
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
read it for yourself then get back to me
Originally posted by Scott
[B]Maybe this will help.
SpinSanity did a review of the rhetoric over "imminent threat".
Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate
Sure, I read that.
However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.
The phrase "imminent threat" was used many times by many people to summarize the Admininstration's position. The LA Times headline I linked to, showed that, and it's not something from just recently since it has become a matter of debate, but a year ago, when reporting on the State of the Union speech.
And, as long as you are checking out spinsanity, check out
this article.
First, as we have demonstrated, President Bush and his representatives repeatedly dissembled last year with regard to Iraq's nuclear capabilities. On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
That statement implied that the IAEA report issued in 1998 (when the inspectors were "finally denied access") concluded that Iraq was within six months of developing a nuclear weapon. But the IAEA report released in that year actually said that Iraq was six to twenty-four months from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991. In response to questioning, Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan claimed that the president was referring to an apparently nonexistant 1991 IAEA report (which the organization denies issuing) and suggested a reporter consult two newspaper stories that fail to corroborate Bush's statement. Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the Washington Post that the claim was based on US intelligence before finally stating that "it was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months." However, the IISS report was issued on September 9, 2002 - two days after Bush's original statement - and does not mention any such six-month estimate.
A second claim that the Bush administration has made in its attempt to prove Iraq is building nuclear capability is that Iraq tried to buy anodized aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. As the President stated in his speech to the United Nations last September 12, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." There is significant cause to doubt this claim, however. As recent pieces in the Washington Post and The New Republic noted, the IAEA found that the tubes Iraq attempted to purchase were "not directly suitable" for enriching uranium and IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said it was "highly unlikely" the tubes could be used for that purpose. Specifically, the tubes are the wrong size for uranium enrichment and the IAEA has secured extensive documentation proving that Iraq has been trying for years to purchase such tubes for use in artillery rockets.
Did Iraq attempt to purchase uranium from Niger?
The Bush administration has also cited documents that purportedly showed that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger. But, again, as The New Republic and Washington Post, amongst others, have noted, the documents, which Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations in a February presentation, have also been found to be false by the IAEA. As Peter Beinart stated in The New Republic, the documents were in fact revealed to be "crude forgeries." Despite apparent concerns in the intelligence community over the authenticity of the documents, President Bush cited them in his State of the Union address in January as if they were fact, saying "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. "