About 1/3 of the needed troops were in the area; however, a large portion of the 52,000 troops referenced are not included in the 130,000 because they are still performing CENTCOM related tasks in countries other than Iraq (i.e Afganastan, Bahrain, etc).
Um the very first thing that was attended to was Al Qaeda and the taliban. Not Iraq. The second thing was Iraq. That blows the theory that it was top of GWB's list. It was not.
Even if it was, he did what was best for the country and take out the haven of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. Then he took out Iraq and SH.
It was on the top of the neo-con list (Rummy, Cheney, Perle...). A handful of people have come forward saying the immediate response to 911 was going to be an attack on Iraq, not on the taliban. In fact I seem to recall a lot of conjecture of the sort immediatly after 911 about going into Iraq.
Finally, we drove the Talliban, and OBL into hiding only. They are still pulling the purse strings. Will capturing OBL end terrorism? No, but it will satiate it IMO. It would have quelled the terrorist networks more effectively than invading a muslim/arab nation based on weak evidence.
About 1/3 of the needed troops were in the area; however, a large portion of the 52,000 troops referenced are not included in the 130,000 because they are still performing CENTCOM related tasks in countries other than Iraq (i.e Afganastan, Bahrain, etc).
Forces and battleships were taken from all around that continent, if I remember correctly. Do you want to argue numbers?
I will put it a little differently:
A considerable amount of assets were in the area, this making it somewhat of an easier and/or quicker to deploy the Iraq plan.
Forces and battleships were taken from all around that continent, if I remember correctly. Do you want to argue numbers?
I will put it a little differently:
A considerable amount of assets were in the area, this making it somewhat of an easier and/or quicker to deploy the Iraq plan.
No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.
P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.
It was on the top of the neo-con list (Rummy, Cheney, Perle...). A handful of people have come forward saying the immediate response to 911 was going to be an attack on Iraq, not on the taliban. In fact I seem to recall a lot of conjecture of the sort immediatly after 911 about going into Iraq.
Finally, we drove the Talliban, and OBL into hiding only. They are still pulling the purse strings. Will capturing OBL end terrorism? No, but it will satiate it IMO. It would have quelled the terrorist networks more effectively than invading a muslim/arab nation based on weak evidence.
So what, what different does it make what position Iraq was in, as far as priorities for the admin?
Are you saying that Iraq would have just become a peace loving haven left to the devices of SH?
Like I said, it had to be addressed at some point, and no-one else seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Bush did, so what. Is the MI in a better place now? Many experts say yes, some say no. Let's wait and see. But until we know how can you assume you know it all and say it is not?
No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.
P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.
So you are saying that there were no assets in the area that made the deployment easier?
The flap was over the heavy machinery not being able to come in through turkey. because they flip flopped. They had to move it by ship down to the other entry point. I am not sure it was about it not being there.
No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.
P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.
here is an excerpt from a report for congress dated January 13, 2003
Titled: Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations
"Aside from the deployments in the Balkans where the United States has about 12,000 troops, operations continue in Afghanistan where U.S. troops number about 7,000. DOD has not released information on the current deployment situation for U.S. Air Force units: however many air assets could possibly respond to operational requirements for either Iraq or Afghanistan from their current bases, if aerial refueling is possible. While the Department of Defense could meet the overall manpower requirements of an Iraqi invasion, an issue of particular concern is whether sufficient ?low density-high demand? assets can be made available. These include assets such as the EA-6B aircraft used to engage air defense radars, the AWACS and JSTARS reconnaissance/air control aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, Combat-Air-Search and rescue (CSAR), and all special operations forces (SOF). Demands on special operations forces have been particularly high over the last year. Most notably in Afghanistan, but there have also been training/advisory missions in the Philippines, Georgia (Graze), and Yemen as part of a world-wide antiterrorism campaign, in addition to anti-drug operations in Columbia. And, recently Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that he intended to increase further the SOF commitment to the war on terrorism . 20 It is in this context, that some have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would detract from the resources available to continue efforts to pursue the world-wide war on terrorism, which they view as currently a greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq."
So what, what different does it make what position Iraq was in, as far as priorities for the admin?
Are you saying that Iraq would have just become a peace loving haven left to the devices of SH?
Like I said, it had to be addressed at some point, and no-one else seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Bush did, so what. Is the MI in a better place now? Many experts say yes, some say no. Let's wait and see. But until we know how can you assume you know it all and say it is not?
One sentence makes all that moot.
WHERE'S THE WOMD?
None of these other things matter. That and that alone is why this war was able to take place.
If the Bush admin. had plans earlier it just makes it that more damning.
That's it in a nutshell. Anything else is an attempt to spin the situation.
My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers.
I disagree with the premise of the question, but I will try to answer it the best i can.
Nothing. Bush zealots are just that so why try to change them.
But like I said, I am not a "Bush Zealot, but I know when people are just attacking him, and loosing grip on any type of reality.
This kind of thing happens here all the time, and I feel the need to say something if only so that these things don't get at least challenged. I am not defending Bush or his policies, I state when I agree with them, but more importantly point out that not everyone just goes along with what the lemming media proliferate.
None of these other things matter. That and that alone is why this war was able to take place.
If the Bush admin. had plans earlier it just makes it that more damning.
That's it in a nutshell. Anything else is an attempt to spin the situation.
According to you.
It doesn't matter that SH was a terror to his own people?
It doesn't matter that he would have perpetuated deception with the UN and it's resolutions?
It doesn't matter that the UN was an accomplice to SH in starving his own people?
It doesn't matter that we would have never known for a fact if he had WMD or not and that the possibility that he could help fellow US hating radicals?
It doesn't matter that millians of people now have a chance to enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy every day?
It doesn't matter that the rapes and the tortures and the non-stop killing have ended?
All you care about is this political issue over WMD's?
By the way there was a litany of reasons given for this war. Don't omit that from your selective memory banks.
It doesn't matter that SH was a terror to his own people?
It doesn't matter that he would have perpetuated deception with the UN and it's resolutions?
It doesn't matter that the UN was an accomplice to SH in starving his own people?
It doesn't matter that we would have never known for a fact if he had WMD or not and that the possibility that he could help fellow US hating radicals?
It doesn't matter that millians of people now have a chance to enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy every day?
It doesn't matter that the rapes and the tortures and the non-stop killing have ended?
All you care about is this political issue over WMD's?
By the way there was a litany of reasons given for this war. Don't omit that from your selective memory banks.
NOPE!
It doesn't matter.
Not in this context.
We're not talking about what SH did but what Bush did.
Of course there is a littany of reasons but this one is the only one that matters. Because without it this war wouldn't have got off the ground. You know it, I know it, and Bush knew it!
That's why it's looking more and more like a falsehood.
Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.
The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.
You know, you're a bag of contradictions. First you discredit Clarke and then.....you quote him. You say let's not dwell on him anymore...then you quote him. I guess he's only worthy of mention when it benefits your "opinions". Iraq wasn't a threat as Powell had been quoted as saying as late as 2001:
Quote:
?We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,? Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with ?Face the Nation. ?We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them? it's been quite a success for ten years??
Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies ?have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.?
Saddam?s ?forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago,? Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at
?Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.?
You know, you're a bag of contradictions. First you discredit Clarke and then.....you quote him. You say let's not dwell on him anymore...then you quote him. I guess he's only worthy of mention when it benefits your "opinions". Iraq wasn't a threat as Powell had been quoted as saying as late as 2001:
I quoted clarke because you all have adopted him as the savior to oust Bush. Thus, to you he is an authority. I used your messiah's words against him to further point out the further holes in your your arguments.
We're not talking about what SH did but what Bush did.
Of course there is a littany of reasons but this one is the only one that matters. Because without it this war wouldn't have got off the ground. You know it, I know it, and Bush knew it!
That's why it's looking more and more like a falsehood.
Well that all says a lot about you.
But let's say they do find WMD's, will you change your tune?
I quoted clarke because you all have adopted him as the savior to oust Bush. Thus, to you he is an authority. I used your messiah's words against him to further point out the further holes in your your arguments.
Yeah, sure you did. Great argument. Bash Clarke and then quote him to make what you seem is a positive point for Bush.
So tell me, if he isn't an authority, why were the Reps. full of praise for him today in their opening statements to him? From reading your posts all over AO, everyone knows you're one of the few out to defend your hero Bush at all costs. It's cool. To each his own. -shrug-
Yeah, sure you did. Great argument. Bash Clarke and then quote him to make what you seem is a positive point for Bush.
So tell me, if he isn't an authority, why were the Reps. full of praise for him today in their opening statements to him? From reading your posts all over AO, everyone knows you're one of the few out to defend your hero Bush at all costs. It's cool. To each his own. -shrug-
yeah except I don't care about bush except that he should be given a fair shake. I guess my own words that I have typed over and over have said the same thing, all that does not matter.
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.
Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush. Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.
So it's just a coincidence that you seem to side with Bush no matter what? Ok, guess stranger things have happened.
Quote:
Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush.
If I see lies, mismanagement, deception, corruption, etc, you bet I'm gonna be critical of the next admin. I haven't had a problem with putting my party membership aside to study and research the issues I comment on. I'm an American before I'm a republican.
Quote:
Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.
I think I'm being more than fair and reasonable with you. I even said I would give you the benefit of the doubt re: your claims that you're not a republican even though your posts "suggest" otherwise and even though you dismiss anyone who comes out and says anything negative( even though it may be/is true.)about Bush and co. in a childish manner. You're not innocent of what you accuse others of Naples. Read your posts to refresh your memory.
So it's just a coincidence that you seem to side with Bush no matter what? Ok, guess stranger things have happened. If I see lies, mismanagement, deception, corruption, etc, you bet I'm gonna be critical of the next admin. I haven't had a problem with putting my party membership aside to study and research the issues I comment on. I'm an American before I'm a republican. I think I'm being more than fair and reasonable with you. I even said I would give you the benefit of the doubt re: your claims that you're not a republican even though your posts "suggest" otherwise and even though you dismiss anyone who comes out and says anything negative( even though it may be/is true.)about Bush and co. in a childish manner. You're not innocent of what you accuse others of Naples. Read your posts to refresh your memory.
Ok let's see how honest you are.
Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?
Did he lie also?
Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?
If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?
I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.
I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.
I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no. All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop. I am disappointed that so few of you can rise above and be civil, fair, and honest. I am glad that I do not base my view of humanity and the good that exists in people. But unfortunately, the attitudes and general disrespect found in AO in particular is a bad example for anyone who happens upon it.
We all should be ashamed about the state of these political threads.
here is an excerpt from a report for congress dated January 13, 2003
Titled: Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations
"Aside from the deployments in the Balkans where the United States has about 12,000 troops, operations continue in Afghanistan where U.S. troops number about 7,000. DOD has not released information on the current deployment situation for U.S. Air Force units: however many air assets could possibly respond to operational requirements for either Iraq or Afghanistan from their current bases, if aerial refueling is possible. While the Department of Defense could meet the overall manpower requirements of an Iraqi invasion, an issue of particular concern is whether sufficient ?low density-high demand? assets can be made available. These include assets such as the EA-6B aircraft used to engage air defense radars, the AWACS and JSTARS reconnaissance/air control aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, Combat-Air-Search and rescue (CSAR), and all special operations forces (SOF). Demands on special operations forces have been particularly high over the last year. Most notably in Afghanistan, but there have also been training/advisory missions in the Philippines, Georgia (Graze), and Yemen as part of a world-wide antiterrorism campaign, in addition to anti-drug operations in Columbia. And, recently Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that he intended to increase further the SOF commitment to the war on terrorism . 20 It is in this context, that some have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would detract from the resources available to continue efforts to pursue the world-wide war on terrorism, which they view as currently a greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq."
If this is what you consider "considerable amount of assets were in the area" then you are sorely mistanken. The number (12,000) which you posted above is 1/10 that which is there now. Your idea that we had significant forces in the area so, eh, lets topple us a dictator is flawed. Look at how many reservists have been called up for the WMD war.
As of Feb-12, about 150,000 reservists had been activated, and that doesn't include the number of regular forces. If we can have 130,000 troops in Iraq why couldn't we have that many hunting OBL? Why did our priorities get skewed? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in536144.shtml
Yet again, this is inconsequential to the real issue. Why have we toppled a two-bit dictator while the real bad man runs free? Why are we pouring 150 Billion + into rebuilding Iraq when we could be using that money on the home front? An interesting aside: Tax cuts have a much smaller effect on the economy than direct government spending in areas such as technology development, and infrastructure improvements (give people a job and they have money to spend). Imagine what a boost 150 Billion in direct spending would do for the job market. Imagine not having to worry about the possible future drag on the economy caused by this endless spending.
Another thing, you asked "What if they found WMD...." Where are they going to find these weapons? The people who would have made them said "Ain't here." The places where they would have been made were searched and searched again to no avail. The only WMD we found was in the form of a bearing and bearing support mechanism for a very old gas centrifuge design stashed in a scientists garden. How did we find it? The scientist said "here it is." Get over the prospect of finding WMD they are most likely not there according to David Kay (the Iraq war hawk turn weapons inspector turn BushCo detractor).
Quote:
yeah except I don't care about bush except that he should be given a fair shake. I guess my own words that I have typed over and over have said the same thing, all that does not matter.
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.
Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush. Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck.
As Gilsch said read what you've said, and then repeat the I'm not a Bush supporter.
Next, your assertion that other reasons for the war were given is technically correct, but lets look at the 2003 sate of the union address to see how much weight was given to WMD versus those other reasons (highlghted in red).
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.)
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. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
Hmmmm, so much was said about WMD and how SH used WMD, but so little was said about the human rights. I wonder why that is? It kind of puts the Bush administrations focus into perspective when you look at how much was said about WMD and how much was said about "other".
I'm with Gilsch again. I gave GW the benefit--I voted for him. He dragged us into a war while the real bad guy prances and writes poetry in Afganastan/Pakistan. He's added massave ammounts of debt for your children to pay off. He's sending $$$ overseas to rebuild another country while 5.6% (this number would be much higher is job market drop out were factored in) of the US is unemployed.
You can proclaim to be protecting the man with out alterior motives (why someone with zero vested interest would do such a thing is well beyond me) but at some point you have to say "Wow that's a good valid point. I'll look into that" I was big enough to say that point 2 was your strongest point, yet I've never seen you say "Wow man, I never thought that so many people would be jumping ship from the administration. Maybe they ARE right."
Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?
Did he lie also?
Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?
If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?
I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.
I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.
I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no. All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop. I am disappointed that so few of you can rise above and be civil, fair, and honest. I am glad that I do not base my view of humanity and the good that exists in people. But unfortunately, the attitudes and general disrespect found in AO in particular is a bad example for anyone who happens upon it.
We all should be ashamed about the state of these political threads.
1) Clinton sold us a war based on humanatarian reasons and sanctioned by the UN, and NATO. I'm not saying this acceptance is required for an act of protection, but for conflicts of convenience it sure as hell helps to have 30 countries actually footing the bill unlike our current coalitions.
Again with Clinton!!! Man just drop it already. He's out of office. He wont hex your children. He wont be making sex with interns in the oval office anymore. He wont be sending children back to Cuba anymore. He wont be commander-in-cheif anymore. He's old news and out of office. Just give it a break and focus on the issue. Why are we at war in Iraq instaed of hunting OBL with every resource available? Why did we find SH in less than a year but not OBL in over two years? Why did we spend more money investigation why the space shuttle blew up than investigating intelligence failures leading to the Iraq conflict?
Comments
About 1/3 of the needed troops were in the area; however, a large portion of the 52,000 troops referenced are not included in the 130,000 because they are still performing CENTCOM related tasks in countries other than Iraq (i.e Afganastan, Bahrain, etc).
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um the very first thing that was attended to was Al Qaeda and the taliban. Not Iraq. The second thing was Iraq. That blows the theory that it was top of GWB's list. It was not.
Even if it was, he did what was best for the country and take out the haven of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. Then he took out Iraq and SH.
It was on the top of the neo-con list (Rummy, Cheney, Perle...). A handful of people have come forward saying the immediate response to 911 was going to be an attack on Iraq, not on the taliban. In fact I seem to recall a lot of conjecture of the sort immediatly after 911 about going into Iraq.
Finally, we drove the Talliban, and OBL into hiding only. They are still pulling the purse strings. Will capturing OBL end terrorism? No, but it will satiate it IMO. It would have quelled the terrorist networks more effectively than invading a muslim/arab nation based on weak evidence.
Originally posted by faust9
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...bat_030106.htm
About 1/3 of the needed troops were in the area; however, a large portion of the 52,000 troops referenced are not included in the 130,000 because they are still performing CENTCOM related tasks in countries other than Iraq (i.e Afganastan, Bahrain, etc).
Forces and battleships were taken from all around that continent, if I remember correctly. Do you want to argue numbers?
I will put it a little differently:
A considerable amount of assets were in the area, this making it somewhat of an easier and/or quicker to deploy the Iraq plan.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Forces and battleships were taken from all around that continent, if I remember correctly. Do you want to argue numbers?
I will put it a little differently:
A considerable amount of assets were in the area, this making it somewhat of an easier and/or quicker to deploy the Iraq plan.
No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.
P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.
Originally posted by faust9
It was on the top of the neo-con list (Rummy, Cheney, Perle...). A handful of people have come forward saying the immediate response to 911 was going to be an attack on Iraq, not on the taliban. In fact I seem to recall a lot of conjecture of the sort immediatly after 911 about going into Iraq.
Finally, we drove the Talliban, and OBL into hiding only. They are still pulling the purse strings. Will capturing OBL end terrorism? No, but it will satiate it IMO. It would have quelled the terrorist networks more effectively than invading a muslim/arab nation based on weak evidence.
So what, what different does it make what position Iraq was in, as far as priorities for the admin?
Are you saying that Iraq would have just become a peace loving haven left to the devices of SH?
Like I said, it had to be addressed at some point, and no-one else seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Bush did, so what. Is the MI in a better place now? Many experts say yes, some say no. Let's wait and see. But until we know how can you assume you know it all and say it is not?
Originally posted by faust9
No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.
P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.
So you are saying that there were no assets in the area that made the deployment easier?
The flap was over the heavy machinery not being able to come in through turkey. because they flip flopped. They had to move it by ship down to the other entry point. I am not sure it was about it not being there.
Originally posted by faust9
No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.
P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.
here is an excerpt from a report for congress dated January 13, 2003
Titled: Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations
"Aside from the deployments in the Balkans where the United States has about 12,000 troops, operations continue in Afghanistan where U.S. troops number about 7,000. DOD has not released information on the current deployment situation for U.S. Air Force units: however many air assets could possibly respond to operational requirements for either Iraq or Afghanistan from their current bases, if aerial refueling is possible. While the Department of Defense could meet the overall manpower requirements of an Iraqi invasion, an issue of particular concern is whether sufficient ?low density-high demand? assets can be made available. These include assets such as the EA-6B aircraft used to engage air defense radars, the AWACS and JSTARS reconnaissance/air control aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, Combat-Air-Search and rescue (CSAR), and all special operations forces (SOF). Demands on special operations forces have been particularly high over the last year. Most notably in Afghanistan, but there have also been training/advisory missions in the Philippines, Georgia (Graze), and Yemen as part of a world-wide antiterrorism campaign, in addition to anti-drug operations in Columbia. And, recently Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that he intended to increase further the SOF commitment to the war on terrorism . 20 It is in this context, that some have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would detract from the resources available to continue efforts to pursue the world-wide war on terrorism, which they view as currently a greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq."
Originally posted by NaplesX
So what, what different does it make what position Iraq was in, as far as priorities for the admin?
Are you saying that Iraq would have just become a peace loving haven left to the devices of SH?
Like I said, it had to be addressed at some point, and no-one else seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Bush did, so what. Is the MI in a better place now? Many experts say yes, some say no. Let's wait and see. But until we know how can you assume you know it all and say it is not?
One sentence makes all that moot.
WHERE'S THE WOMD?
None of these other things matter. That and that alone is why this war was able to take place.
If the Bush admin. had plans earlier it just makes it that more damning.
That's it in a nutshell. Anything else is an attempt to spin the situation.
Originally posted by faust9
My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers.
I disagree with the premise of the question, but I will try to answer it the best i can.
Nothing. Bush zealots are just that so why try to change them.
But like I said, I am not a "Bush Zealot, but I know when people are just attacking him, and loosing grip on any type of reality.
This kind of thing happens here all the time, and I feel the need to say something if only so that these things don't get at least challenged. I am not defending Bush or his policies, I state when I agree with them, but more importantly point out that not everyone just goes along with what the lemming media proliferate.
Originally posted by jimmac
One sentence makes all that moot.
WHERE'S THE WOMD?
None of these other things matter. That and that alone is why this war was able to take place.
If the Bush admin. had plans earlier it just makes it that more damning.
That's it in a nutshell. Anything else is an attempt to spin the situation.
According to you.
It doesn't matter that SH was a terror to his own people?
It doesn't matter that he would have perpetuated deception with the UN and it's resolutions?
It doesn't matter that the UN was an accomplice to SH in starving his own people?
It doesn't matter that we would have never known for a fact if he had WMD or not and that the possibility that he could help fellow US hating radicals?
It doesn't matter that millians of people now have a chance to enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy every day?
It doesn't matter that the rapes and the tortures and the non-stop killing have ended?
All you care about is this political issue over WMD's?
By the way there was a litany of reasons given for this war. Don't omit that from your selective memory banks.
Originally posted by NaplesX
According to you.
It doesn't matter that SH was a terror to his own people?
It doesn't matter that he would have perpetuated deception with the UN and it's resolutions?
It doesn't matter that the UN was an accomplice to SH in starving his own people?
It doesn't matter that we would have never known for a fact if he had WMD or not and that the possibility that he could help fellow US hating radicals?
It doesn't matter that millians of people now have a chance to enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy every day?
It doesn't matter that the rapes and the tortures and the non-stop killing have ended?
All you care about is this political issue over WMD's?
By the way there was a litany of reasons given for this war. Don't omit that from your selective memory banks.
NOPE!
It doesn't matter.
Not in this context.
We're not talking about what SH did but what Bush did.
Of course there is a littany of reasons but this one is the only one that matters. Because without it this war wouldn't have got off the ground. You know it, I know it, and Bush knew it!
That's why it's looking more and more like a falsehood.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.
The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.
You know, you're a bag of contradictions. First you discredit Clarke and then.....you quote him. You say let's not dwell on him anymore...then you quote him. I guess he's only worthy of mention when it benefits your "opinions".
?We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,? Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with ?Face the Nation. ?We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them? it's been quite a success for ten years??
Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies ?have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.?
Saddam?s ?forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago,? Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/p...y/me0222a.html
?Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.?
Originally posted by Gilsch
You know, you're a bag of contradictions. First you discredit Clarke and then.....you quote him. You say let's not dwell on him anymore...then you quote him. I guess he's only worthy of mention when it benefits your "opinions".
I quoted clarke because you all have adopted him as the savior to oust Bush. Thus, to you he is an authority. I used your messiah's words against him to further point out the further holes in your your arguments.
Originally posted by jimmac
NOPE!
It doesn't matter.
Not in this context.
We're not talking about what SH did but what Bush did.
Of course there is a littany of reasons but this one is the only one that matters. Because without it this war wouldn't have got off the ground. You know it, I know it, and Bush knew it!
That's why it's looking more and more like a falsehood.
Well that all says a lot about you.
But let's say they do find WMD's, will you change your tune?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I quoted clarke because you all have adopted him as the savior to oust Bush. Thus, to you he is an authority. I used your messiah's words against him to further point out the further holes in your your arguments.
Yeah, sure you did. Great argument. Bash Clarke and then quote him to make what you seem is a positive point for Bush.
So tell me, if he isn't an authority, why were the Reps. full of praise for him today in their opening statements to him? From reading your posts all over AO, everyone knows you're one of the few out to defend your hero Bush at all costs. It's cool. To each his own. -shrug-
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, sure you did. Great argument. Bash Clarke and then quote him to make what you seem is a positive point for Bush.
So tell me, if he isn't an authority, why were the Reps. full of praise for him today in their opening statements to him? From reading your posts all over AO, everyone knows you're one of the few out to defend your hero Bush at all costs. It's cool. To each his own. -shrug-
yeah except I don't care about bush except that he should be given a fair shake. I guess my own words that I have typed over and over have said the same thing, all that does not matter.
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.
Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush. Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.
So it's just a coincidence that you seem to side with Bush no matter what? Ok, guess stranger things have happened.
Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush.
If I see lies, mismanagement, deception, corruption, etc, you bet I'm gonna be critical of the next admin. I haven't had a problem with putting my party membership aside to study and research the issues I comment on. I'm an American before I'm a republican.
Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.
I think I'm being more than fair and reasonable with you. I even said I would give you the benefit of the doubt re: your claims that you're not a republican even though your posts "suggest" otherwise and even though you dismiss anyone who comes out and says anything negative( even though it may be/is true.)about Bush and co. in a childish manner. You're not innocent of what you accuse others of Naples. Read your posts to refresh your memory.
Originally posted by Gilsch
So it's just a coincidence that you seem to side with Bush no matter what? Ok, guess stranger things have happened.
Ok let's see how honest you are.
Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?
Did he lie also?
Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?
If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?
I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.
I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.
I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no. All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop. I am disappointed that so few of you can rise above and be civil, fair, and honest. I am glad that I do not base my view of humanity and the good that exists in people. But unfortunately, the attitudes and general disrespect found in AO in particular is a bad example for anyone who happens upon it.
We all should be ashamed about the state of these political threads.
Originally posted by NaplesX
here is an excerpt from a report for congress dated January 13, 2003
Titled: Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations
"Aside from the deployments in the Balkans where the United States has about 12,000 troops, operations continue in Afghanistan where U.S. troops number about 7,000. DOD has not released information on the current deployment situation for U.S. Air Force units: however many air assets could possibly respond to operational requirements for either Iraq or Afghanistan from their current bases, if aerial refueling is possible. While the Department of Defense could meet the overall manpower requirements of an Iraqi invasion, an issue of particular concern is whether sufficient ?low density-high demand? assets can be made available. These include assets such as the EA-6B aircraft used to engage air defense radars, the AWACS and JSTARS reconnaissance/air control aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, Combat-Air-Search and rescue (CSAR), and all special operations forces (SOF). Demands on special operations forces have been particularly high over the last year. Most notably in Afghanistan, but there have also been training/advisory missions in the Philippines, Georgia (Graze), and Yemen as part of a world-wide antiterrorism campaign, in addition to anti-drug operations in Columbia. And, recently Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that he intended to increase further the SOF commitment to the war on terrorism . 20 It is in this context, that some have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would detract from the resources available to continue efforts to pursue the world-wide war on terrorism, which they view as currently a greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq."
If this is what you consider "considerable amount of assets were in the area" then you are sorely mistanken. The number (12,000) which you posted above is 1/10 that which is there now. Your idea that we had significant forces in the area so, eh, lets topple us a dictator is flawed. Look at how many reservists have been called up for the WMD war.
As of Feb-12, about 150,000 reservists had been activated, and that doesn't include the number of regular forces. If we can have 130,000 troops in Iraq why couldn't we have that many hunting OBL? Why did our priorities get skewed? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in536144.shtml
Yet again, this is inconsequential to the real issue. Why have we toppled a two-bit dictator while the real bad man runs free? Why are we pouring 150 Billion + into rebuilding Iraq when we could be using that money on the home front? An interesting aside: Tax cuts have a much smaller effect on the economy than direct government spending in areas such as technology development, and infrastructure improvements (give people a job and they have money to spend). Imagine what a boost 150 Billion in direct spending would do for the job market. Imagine not having to worry about the possible future drag on the economy caused by this endless spending.
Another thing, you asked "What if they found WMD...." Where are they going to find these weapons? The people who would have made them said "Ain't here." The places where they would have been made were searched and searched again to no avail. The only WMD we found was in the form of a bearing and bearing support mechanism for a very old gas centrifuge design stashed in a scientists garden. How did we find it? The scientist said "here it is." Get over the prospect of finding WMD they are most likely not there according to David Kay (the Iraq war hawk turn weapons inspector turn BushCo detractor).
yeah except I don't care about bush except that he should be given a fair shake. I guess my own words that I have typed over and over have said the same thing, all that does not matter.
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.
Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush. Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck.
As Gilsch said read what you've said, and then repeat the I'm not a Bush supporter.
Next, your assertion that other reasons for the war were given is technically correct, but lets look at the 2003 sate of the union address to see how much weight was given to WMD versus those other reasons (highlghted in red).
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.)
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. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
Hmmmm, so much was said about WMD and how SH used WMD, but so little was said about the human rights. I wonder why that is? It kind of puts the Bush administrations focus into perspective when you look at how much was said about WMD and how much was said about "other".
I'm with Gilsch again. I gave GW the benefit--I voted for him. He dragged us into a war while the real bad guy prances and writes poetry in Afganastan/Pakistan. He's added massave ammounts of debt for your children to pay off. He's sending $$$ overseas to rebuild another country while 5.6% (this number would be much higher is job market drop out were factored in) of the US is unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278231.shtml
You can proclaim to be protecting the man with out alterior motives (why someone with zero vested interest would do such a thing is well beyond me) but at some point you have to say "Wow that's a good valid point. I'll look into that" I was big enough to say that point 2 was your strongest point, yet I've never seen you say "Wow man, I never thought that so many people would be jumping ship from the administration. Maybe they ARE right."
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok let's see how honest you are.
Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?
Did he lie also?
Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?
If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?
I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.
I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.
I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no. All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop. I am disappointed that so few of you can rise above and be civil, fair, and honest. I am glad that I do not base my view of humanity and the good that exists in people. But unfortunately, the attitudes and general disrespect found in AO in particular is a bad example for anyone who happens upon it.
We all should be ashamed about the state of these political threads.
1) Clinton sold us a war based on humanatarian reasons and sanctioned by the UN, and NATO. I'm not saying this acceptance is required for an act of protection, but for conflicts of convenience it sure as hell helps to have 30 countries actually footing the bill unlike our current coalitions.
Again with Clinton!!! Man just drop it already. He's out of office. He wont hex your children. He wont be making sex with interns in the oval office anymore. He wont be sending children back to Cuba anymore. He wont be commander-in-cheif anymore. He's old news and out of office. Just give it a break and focus on the issue. Why are we at war in Iraq instaed of hunting OBL with every resource available? Why did we find SH in less than a year but not OBL in over two years? Why did we spend more money investigation why the space shuttle blew up than investigating intelligence failures leading to the Iraq conflict?
Get over Clinton already.