Proof of WMD...
- Thread starter Raven
- Start date
The Other One
Banned
Unfinished Business from Long Ago
Why question the reason the US went to Iraq? Only those who hate President Bush care. Isn't it a fact that the anti-war/anti-America crowd would rather see Iraq the way it was under Saddam? They'd be perfectly happy with the former status quo, wouldn't they? ("Many would watch the night descend on others in far-away countries of which they know little without any feeling that perhaps they should do something to halt it and that not doing so might be a perilous option. Far from assisting, they might even devote their energies to preventing others from doing something.....We cannot wait for disaster to awaken them from their dreams of summer. Instead, we must expose them to the dangers of a rough reality, for only with the ensuing abrasions is there hope that their comforting illusions can be worn away. The alarm has already begun to sound, but, as yet, it remains unheard.")
When Clinton announced Operation Desert Fox in December of '98, he said: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."
Hmm. Second verse, same as the first. Why would one administration's decision to attack Iraq (based on the same reasons, no less) receive support but not the other?
Why question the reason the US went to Iraq? Only those who hate President Bush care. Isn't it a fact that the anti-war/anti-America crowd would rather see Iraq the way it was under Saddam? They'd be perfectly happy with the former status quo, wouldn't they? ("Many would watch the night descend on others in far-away countries of which they know little without any feeling that perhaps they should do something to halt it and that not doing so might be a perilous option. Far from assisting, they might even devote their energies to preventing others from doing something.....We cannot wait for disaster to awaken them from their dreams of summer. Instead, we must expose them to the dangers of a rough reality, for only with the ensuing abrasions is there hope that their comforting illusions can be worn away. The alarm has already begun to sound, but, as yet, it remains unheard.")
When Clinton announced Operation Desert Fox in December of '98, he said: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."
Hmm. Second verse, same as the first. Why would one administration's decision to attack Iraq (based on the same reasons, no less) receive support but not the other?
freako104
Well-Known Member
Re: Unfinished Business from Long Ago
not sure where the hell you got the idea that the anti war want sadam in power. most of us if not all hate him we just dont like the idea of using violence to acheive goals.its good to see hes out of power but look at the fucking consequences. america looks like a goddamn bully now. yes we did the right thing by getting him out of power but did we do it the right way?The Other One said:
Re: Unfinished Business from Long Ago
The idea that those who opposed war want saddam in power is usually a stretch to show that either we take him out or he stays in power. Which, in reality, is the basic truth.
This is a world governed by the use of force, like it or not. There are plenty of factions in the world, al-Qaeda for one, who will go to great lengths to hurt &/or destroy us, using whatever means necessary. Very few like war but it is a necessary evil & the use of it is an ocassional requisite to the overall goal of peace.
Did we do it the right way? Well, hasn't Iraq been a problem most of your life? It was time to either shit or get off the pot. When the UN declares some country as a threat & imposes rules to lessen that threat, and the country ignores the impositions, should we, or they (the UN) continue to slap wrists forever? At some point, ation becomes the only remaining option.
As for those who think we look like a bully consider how incompetent we'd look if we followed "your" advice & just up & left. saddam would be back & all hell would break loose.
What do you think the guerrila fighting is all about? Lessen the Americans resolve & we have another Vietnam. Have the President order our troops to turn tail & run (Somalia ring a bell?) & our credibility is shot. We said we were going in to depose a tyrant, remove his henchman (the Ba'ath party) & "impose" freedom & democracy to the Iraqi people. So far, we've managed two of three & the third is coming along, maybe like dragging a stubborn mule but it is coming along. It's been 2.5 months since teh war officially ended. A majority of people in Iraq are glad we're there & don't want us to leave, yet. When it's time, we'll be out of there.
Until then, explain why this is a bad war & Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo & Bosnia weren't.
freako104 said:
The idea that those who opposed war want saddam in power is usually a stretch to show that either we take him out or he stays in power. Which, in reality, is the basic truth.
This is a world governed by the use of force, like it or not. There are plenty of factions in the world, al-Qaeda for one, who will go to great lengths to hurt &/or destroy us, using whatever means necessary. Very few like war but it is a necessary evil & the use of it is an ocassional requisite to the overall goal of peace.
Did we do it the right way? Well, hasn't Iraq been a problem most of your life? It was time to either shit or get off the pot. When the UN declares some country as a threat & imposes rules to lessen that threat, and the country ignores the impositions, should we, or they (the UN) continue to slap wrists forever? At some point, ation becomes the only remaining option.
As for those who think we look like a bully consider how incompetent we'd look if we followed "your" advice & just up & left. saddam would be back & all hell would break loose.
What do you think the guerrila fighting is all about? Lessen the Americans resolve & we have another Vietnam. Have the President order our troops to turn tail & run (Somalia ring a bell?) & our credibility is shot. We said we were going in to depose a tyrant, remove his henchman (the Ba'ath party) & "impose" freedom & democracy to the Iraqi people. So far, we've managed two of three & the third is coming along, maybe like dragging a stubborn mule but it is coming along. It's been 2.5 months since teh war officially ended. A majority of people in Iraq are glad we're there & don't want us to leave, yet. When it's time, we'll be out of there.
Until then, explain why this is a bad war & Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo & Bosnia weren't.
The Other One
Banned
Squiggy said:Well spoken...TOTAL bullshit...But well spoken...
The Other One
Banned
Re: Unfinished Business from Long Ago
Was there another way?
freako104 said:
Was there another way?
freako104
Well-Known Member
Re: Unfinished Business from Long Ago
i cant justify any of those wars gonz. im against war in general so to me all wars in their own right are bad. however in a case like this and WWII where a madman got put out offpower i can justify it to that extent just rather not use violence.Gonz said:
flavio
Banned
I don't see anything well-spoken about it. He pulled a big quote from the opening remarks of U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde during a House International Relations Committee without giving any credit.Squiggy said:Well spoken...TOTAL bullshit...But well spoken...
Pretty weak:
http://www.us-mission.ch/press2003/0221hyde.htm
I will address the bs he actually wrote himself though:
Equating people that are against the war with "anti-American" is tired and just makes you look foolish at this point. You're defending a president who used lies and propaganda to fool half the public into going to war.
I'd say that's anti-American.
and your vague oversimplification is serving you well either. Here I'll try iy too. -> Isn't it a fact that the pro-war/anti-America crowd would rather have a president lie to them to get an excuse to kill Iraqis?
The presidential lies to the public is encouraged with your group eh?
ris
New Member
Squiggy said:
it sits on neither man's body count, the pressure exhibited on kelly came about because of a long running and increasingly acrimonious spat between the bbc and the government here over a story that attacked elements of the september 'dodgy' dossier.
it is more to do with how the commitee of mp's, the mod and the press have been hounding him around the news for a fortnight and the constant war of words over who alledgedly wrote what in the sept document.