Strangelove
Member
Hoot said:Hey! I resemble that remark!
oh.sorry. I meant to type 'Whote'
Hoot said:Hey! I resemble that remark!
Bush to the UNWASHINGTON – The White House said Thursday that it had "solid" evidence Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. "Iraq has lied before, and they're lying now about whether they possess weapons of mass destruction," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
"President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." "Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush has vowed to lead a "coalition of the willing" to forcibly disarm Iraq if Saddam Hussein fails to do so voluntarily.
Address by Bush 10/7/02 (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence.
Bush, addressing the US, March 17th, 2003 (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)Quote:Q Can we presume that the President is very happy that Mr. Blix says there is no smoking gun in the search for weapons in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the problem with guns that are hidden is you can't see their smoke.
Ari Fleischer gives us THE SMOKING GUN (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
Q But Iraq is the sole goal?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made repeatedly clear to the American people, as he said in his address to the nation the other night, that the purpose of this is the disarmament of the Iraqi regime.
But, where are the weapons? Shouldn't we have known that, since we destroyed the Iraqi army a little over ten years ago, he would not be able, as a leader of a third world country, to develop any such force able to threaten the most powerful country in the history of the world? Call that rhetorical, call it whatever you want, but it presents, despite what some like strangelove say, a valid question. Is the war worth its cost( http://costofwar.com/ )? We have killed 17,000+ Iraqi civilians in the course of liberating them from a dictator that apparently had no weapons of mass destruction. The whole WMD argument is proposterous, as Bush was obviously stirring up fear in the American people by mentioning 'nuclear' and 'Saddam' in the same sentences. Would Americans have supported this war had it not been for this flawed and pressured intel about WMDs? Apparently not, as a majority of americans now, now that we know the truth,shuamort said:This is why we invaded Iraq:
Quote: (source NEWSMAX.COM)
Bush to the UN
Quote: (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)
Address by Bush 10/7/02 (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)
Ari Fleischer: (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)
Bush, addressing the US, March 17th, 2003 (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)
Ari Fleischer gives us THE SMOKING GUN (SOURCE: WHITEHOUSE.GOV)
Can't find what wasn't there. The thread began asking why we invaded Iraq. I elucidated the reason that the administration gave to invading. Bush's information (as well as Clinton's) were under the belief that Saddam had WMDs. Thems the facts.anomaly said:But, where are the weapons?
"... Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
I can't really tell if you're pro or anti-war? So fist, just to soothe my curiosity, which are you? Also, as mentioned in my last link, the CIA was 'hammered' by officials to come up with intel against Iraq or intel supporting them having WMDs. This will obviously lead to flawed intel. That's why I'm against the war, as well as the obvious human costs. Perhaps as many as 20,000 people have died so far who didn't have to, and the war is proving not to be worth its cost (human and monetary costs).shuamort said:Can't find what wasn't there. The thread began asking why we invaded Iraq. I elucidated the reason that the administration gave to invading. Bush's information (as well as Clinton's) were under the belief that Saddam had WMDs. Thems the facts.
Now whether if you agree or not with that justifying the US invasion or if the lack of the believed existance of WMDs negates the worth... the motives proffered by the administration are what was the original justification.
Of course, there's rationale that has come out since the WMDs have been coming up empty. And then there's that one interesting quote from Cheney:
(Page 26 of this pdf download)
Arch Enemy said:First let me start off by an introduction:
Hi I am Arch Enemy/Jeff
I am a 15 Year Old Student at a High School in North Carolina.
I am still leaning towards both sides of these debates (Liberal and Conservative)
In addition to the "why invade Iraq" I would like to ask... Why Invade Iraq, over Sudan where Genocide is taking place and 600,000 people are the targets?
An, I actually think that people who have experienced war DO have a better understanding and have a more vaild opinion. War is nothing to be joking about, we all love War Video Games but alot of war ends up turning into Genocide and unless we have experienced it we really have no TRUE opinion.
I don't like Bush, his cabinet, his party (execpt Rice) nor anything to do with Bush. Alas, we are at the point where if we don't support Bush that's dandy.. but never go as far as not supporting our Troops whom may have wrongfully invaded a country.
You're also right in saying that a soldier may have a biast opinion. It's my belief that a soldier, unknowingly, will force themselves to see this war as "helpful" or "justified" that is because Humans will do anything to justify their actions.. especially when it means shooting people in the face.
Concluding: It is true that the Iraqi Invasion was a mistake.. but it is also true that no Nation has been formed without a sort of war to win their "independence" and I don't critize people who believe this is an Independence War for a war-torn nation.
Arch Enemy said:I always believed that War never prevented Genocide, instead, War prolongs the intent and the man power to commit Genocide.. and in a lot of cases war trying to "prevent" suspected Genocide always fails because the Nation wanting to commit Genocide is usually the one with a bigger force and intimidates other nations.
Arch Enemy said:Genocide wasn't prevented.. Genocide or the acting of Genocide did happen.. still countless people lost their lives, I don't see that as a success.
Arch Enemy said:It was a gitty and glad for the holocaust survivors but there were other problems. People were still being killed even after the war. Russians, Japanese, Germans and other nations still suffered deaths which adds up to be more than the predicted death toll of Jews.
Either way you look at it.. war, this war in particular, never really had a happy story everyone lost.. it was a lose lose situation.
walvaro said:Hello, american people, i dont speak english very well, but illtry to do understand...
The problem that you have is that you believe too much in your country and in your flag... Please dont
In usa, there are almost 30 millones of homless, the childs wears guns to the school !, your country si in bankruptcy! but dont worry you will vote to the same ****ing conservative gov that dont believe in the people, believe in the money for himselve...
Your a country is coming to his end.
I think you, american people, are idiots, youre so blind... need to change your form of see the thinks.
Now the European Union will take the reins of the world, since you are a barbarians, an unsupportive, and a the biggest terrorists in this ****ing world...
Bush is a fascist, an assasain, and a sausage...
Como os jode que Venezuela compre barcos de guerra a España y no a USA, se os ve el plumero malditos egoistas atrasados.
Most of the things that go badly in the world is for your fault...
Arch Enemy said:Obviously you're a typical Racist who can't see other points of view and when he cannot say something reverts to critizing other peoples age.
I am talking about the total death casualties in WWII 52 million on both sides.. not including the minor countries and the holocaust victims.
I am beginning to think you are over zealous of the United States... America didn't win the war for the allies.. Russia and Luck did. The Panzer divisions were 10 miles away from Moscow when a sudden cold storm hit. The army had to pull out and while they were being pulled out, they were attacked by the Russians who fled Moscow to get away from the Panzers.
For luck... As you obviously know the Panzers were stationed at another beach for that's where they thought the attack would come.. not at Omaha. The German commander on the beaches of Omaha saw the boats coming.. he couldn't activate the Panzers to help out the beach becasue Hitler had to be the one who gave the orders to activate "elite" troops of Germany. Hitler, at the time, was sleeping peacefully and he had a policy that if someone were to awake him from his slumber they would be demoted.
Why did you bring up World War II.. this is about the Iraqi Invasion.
You are the reason why other countries hate America.. Have your head in clouds becasue we are such a "good" democracy. Obviously you've never lived in a 3rd World Country before.....
Unfotunately I haven't the time to decipher spanish, so I could not read your long list (in your previous post), but I'm sure I would have agreed with many of your points. I too fall under the label of socialist, and I've been wondring, are the socialists running your gov't so far successful? And has your life improved any under them? Basically, what do you think of the socialists so far, how good of a job are they doing?walvaro said:This is the list of political parties and coalitions with representation in the Congress or the Senate, for alphabetical order, in Spain
* Bloque Nacionalista Galego (BNG)
* Chunta Aragonesista (CHA)
* Coalición Canaria (CC)
* Convergència i Unió (CiU)
* Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC)
* Eusko Alkartasuna EA
* Izquierda Unida (IU)
* Nafarroa Bai
* Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV-EAJ)
* Partido Popular (PP)
* Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) <--- Now is in the government. Yes socialists.
And here, the political parties and present coalitions only in town halls or autonomic courts.
* Andecha Astur (AA) (Principado de Asturias)
* Bloc Nacionalista Valencià (BNV) (Comunidad Valenciana)
* Centro Democrático y Social (CDS)
* Euskal Herritarrok (EH): Nowadays prohibited by apology of the terrorism.
* Iniciativa per Catalunya - Verds (ICV)
* Iniciativa por La Orotava (IpO) (Canarias)
* Partido Andalucista (PA) (Andalucía)
* Partido Aragonés Regionalista (PAR) (Aragón)
* Partido Nacionalista Canario (PNC) (Canarias)
* Partido Regionalista de Cantabria (PRC) (Cantabria)
* Partit Socialista de Mallorca - Entesa Nacionalista (PSM-EN) (Islas Baleares)
* Tierra Comunera-Partido Nacionalista Castellano (TC-PNC) (Burgos)
* Unión del Pueblo Leonés (UPL) (León)
* Unión del Pueblo Navarro (UPN) (Navarra)
¿In USA, what number of parties there are in the congress or the senate?
walvaro said:Hello, american people, i dont speak english very well, but illtry to do understand...
The problem that you have is that you believe too much in your country and in your flag... Please dont
In usa, there are almost 30 millones of homless, the childs wears guns to the school !, your country si in bankruptcy! but dont worry you will vote to the same ****ing conservative gov that dont believe in the people, believe in the money for himselve...
Your a country is coming to his end.
I think you, american people, are idiots, youre so blind... need to change your form of see the thinks.
Now the European Union will take the reins of the world, since you are a barbarians, an unsupportive, and a the biggest terrorists in this ****ing world...
Bush is a fascist, an assasain, and a sausage...
Como os jode que Venezuela compre barcos de guerra a España y no a USA, se os ve el plumero malditos egoistas atrasados.
Most of the things that go badly in the world is for your fault...
Arch Enemy said:Obviously you're a typical Racist who can't see other points of view and when he cannot say something reverts to critizing other peoples age.
I am talking about the total death casualties in WWII 52 million on both sides.. not including the minor countries and the holocaust victims.
I am beginning to think you are over zealous of the United States...
America didn't win the war for the allies.. Russia and Luck did. The Panzer divisions were 10 miles away from Moscow when a sudden cold storm hit. The army had to pull out and while they were being pulled out, they were attacked by the Russians who fled Moscow to get away from the Panzers.
For luck... As you obviously know the Panzers were stationed at another beach for that's where they thought the attack would come.. not at Omaha. The German commander on the beaches of Omaha saw the boats coming.. he couldn't activate the Panzers to help out the beach becasue Hitler had to be the one who gave the orders to activate "elite" troops of Germany. Hitler, at the time, was sleeping peacefully and he had a policy that if someone were to awake him from his slumber they would be demoted.
Why did you bring up World War II.. this is about the Iraqi Invasion.
You are the reason why other countries hate America..
Have your head in clouds becasue we are such a "good" democracy.
Obviously you've never lived in a 3rd World Country before.....
Really? Number one in the world in autodeception? If that were a real word I'd be proud!walvaro said:The United States occupy the first place in the world only in armament, consumerism, debt and autodeception.