Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-09-2004, 09:37 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
yes, that's what I'm starting to fear
I would fear if that was all that was used to determine if war was necessary. Detecting WMD which is easily hidden is unbelievable difficult with outside intelligence means. Such intelligence failed to see that Saddam was months away from having a Nuclear Weapon back in 1990.

For these reasons, the central criteria for further military action against Saddam was never based on CIA or NSA intelligence, but on Saddam's cooperation with United Nations inspectors in achieving Verifiable Disarmament.


paxetaurora,

As I recall, they said a grave and gathering threat. An imminent threat would essentially be an attack that is already in progress. The Presidents central case for military action is found in the UN resolutions, not in cherry picked words from speeches, who's meanings are mis-construed and context lost for the purpose of those opposed to the administrations policy to remove Saddam.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:02 AM   #47
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:14 PM
Determining if war is necessary is kind of like asking how long a piece of string is. Asking if removing people like Saddam from power is necessary is easy to answer, as it is yes. To remove any chance of him using his stockpile of weapons, if he indeed has them, then yes. To be comfortable with the idea of a war being the means to this is harder for people to agree with. But then, they're military people. It's what our military do. They go and fight wars decided by other people, in this archaic and violent way. Its stupid you know, we teach our kids to not resolve fights in the school yard with their fists, but then our kids grow up and join the military and fight for their country for a 'disagreement' (for want of a better term) between 2/more nations or whatever.

There's no sense in the actions. Sense in the reasons, yes. Splitting hairs over semantics like the diference between grave and gathering, and imminent is really more of asking how long this piece of string is. To continually be saying those opposed to the war are opposed to the removal of Saddam is either really a case of not listening, or just...I dont know. Its not the case STING. I dont know how many ways people can say this, or how often it has to be repeated over and over and over again before it sinks in, but it is plain and simply NOT the case. Why is it not enough for people to say "I agree getting rid of him is a great thing, but the violence of war is something I can never like"? Why is THAT misconstrued to be some weird arsed approval and support of Saddam?

__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:53 AM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Cherry picked words?

WTF?

The case was sold that we were in immediate danger.
He had WMD was the case.
They could use them or give them to TERRORISTS was the case.

Acting without the UN was alright if the above were true.

The American people were not interested in enforcing UN resolutions without the UN. The American people were not interested in violating international law unless we were in immediate danger. The American people voted for GWB in a campaign where he said the US forces SHOULD NOT BE USED for NATION BUILDING.

There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.

The rest of the stuff that is spewed out about Saddam being a bad man, while true, was NOT the reason.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 12:56 PM   #49
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:14 AM
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/colum...188191,00.html
...

There is a multiplicity of different possible mechanisms to bring about a negotiated, orderly withdrawal and free elections. Tony Blair calls that "running away" and admitting "we have got it all wrong". But he and Bush did get it wrong: there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq wasn't a threat, there was no UN authorisation, and the invasion was manifestly illegal. Foreign troops in Iraq are not peacekeepers, but aggressors. The lessons of empire are having to be learned all over again.

s.milne@guardian.co.uk
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 01:01 PM   #50
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 613
Local Time: 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Cherry picked words?

WTF?

The case was sold that we were in immediate danger.
He had WMD was the case.
They could use them or give them to TERRORISTS was the case.

Acting without the UN was alright if the above were true.

The American people were not interested in enforcing UN resolutions without the UN. The American people were not interested in violating international law unless we were in immediate danger. The American people voted for GWB in a campaign where he said the US forces SHOULD NOT BE USED for NATION BUILDING.

There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.

The rest of the stuff that is spewed out about Saddam being a bad man, while true, was NOT the reason.
Thank you!! I agree! Is there any chance you could "run" for president?

As for the words imminent and grave, let us look to their definitions:

GRAVE: with possible harm or danger: causing, involving, or arising from a threat of danger or harm or other bad consequences

IMMINENT: Impending. In imminent danger.

Both seem to suggest "possible danger" It doesn't matter which words we "cherry pick" or "apple pick" or "nose pick". They both basically mean the same thing, for f*ck's sake!
__________________
tackleberry is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 01:42 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Cherry picked words?

WTF?

The case was sold that we were in immediate danger.
He had WMD was the case.
They could use them or give them to TERRORISTS was the case.

Acting without the UN was alright if the above were true.

The American people were not interested in enforcing UN resolutions without the UN. The American people were not interested in violating international law unless we were in immediate danger. The American people voted for GWB in a campaign where he said the US forces SHOULD NOT BE USED for NATION BUILDING.

There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.

The rest of the stuff that is spewed out about Saddam being a bad man, while true, was NOT the reason.
Exactly. I wasn't sold on the WMD argument, and that's why I demonstrated against the war before the invasion. I was *not* in favor of keeping Saddam in power, but that's not what Bush and Co. used in their arguments to go to war. They used "imminent threat", etc, etc. GWB campaigned against nation building in his campaign, then he ended up trying to do it. These sentiments don't mean I supported Saddam. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but the Administration used the WMD/"imminent threat" argument.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 07:08 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Cherry picked words?

WTF?

The case was sold that we were in immediate danger.
He had WMD was the case.
They could use them or give them to TERRORISTS was the case.

Acting without the UN was alright if the above were true.

The American people were not interested in enforcing UN resolutions without the UN. The American people were not interested in violating international law unless we were in immediate danger. The American people voted for GWB in a campaign where he said the US forces SHOULD NOT BE USED for NATION BUILDING.

There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.

The rest of the stuff that is spewed out about Saddam being a bad man, while true, was NOT the reason.
Yep, cherry picking is what many democrats opposed to the war have done, although its a basic political tactic of any party searching for a way to be critical of a sitting administration.

The United Nations determined that Saddam's possession of WMD was an intolerable danger to the region and the world. That is why Saddam's was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face military action that would insure that he was disarmed.

To this date it is unknown what Saddam had at the time of the invasion, but it continues to be a fact that vast stocks of WMD remain unaccounted for, but Saddam and his regime no longer have access to them.

The United Nations approved the military operation against Iraq with 3 different resolutions, 678, 687, and 1441. It then has approved 3 more resolutions approving the occupation that was a result of the invasion.

The American people were supportive of the use of military force to enforce these resolutions because these resolutions involved the verifiable disarmament of Saddam which was vital to the security of the region and the world.

The operation did not violate international law, it enforced it. The American people do support the enforcement of international especially in cases that are so vital to security.

GWB was against Nation Building that did not involve US Security needs. The Nation Building that is occuring in Afghanistan and Iraq is important to US and International Security.

The American people after 9/11 are unwilling to allow danger to American security to become imminent because acting at that point is simply acting to late.

The American people before the war and after the war have consistently supported the removal of Saddam insuring that he is disarmed. They understand especially after 9/11, that failing to insure the disarmament of Saddam's regime would be an unacceptable danger to the USA and the rest of the world!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 07:16 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


Exactly. I wasn't sold on the WMD argument, and that's why I demonstrated against the war before the invasion. I was *not* in favor of keeping Saddam in power, but that's not what Bush and Co. used in their arguments to go to war. They used "imminent threat", etc, etc. GWB campaigned against nation building in his campaign, then he ended up trying to do it. These sentiments don't mean I supported Saddam. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but the Administration used the WMD/"imminent threat" argument.
The administrations arguements are consistent with US policy since the March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. It was always known since then that military force may have to be used to ensure that Saddam was disarmed. If that was not the case, UN resolutions would not have been passed under Chapter VII rules. 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, everything short of the use of military force to remove Saddam had been used and failed to accomplish the vital security goals of the resolutions.

GWB was against nation building that he claimed was not in the security interest of America. Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq are in the security interest of America.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 07:31 PM   #54
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Sting,

I just have to ask is


is 95% (it's just a rough estimation so don't expect any articles stating this, it could be 60% for all I care) of the world population who feel like this war was presented to us as the only way to fight the imminent thread that Iraq was supposed to be merely delusional?

or is there another reason why this seems to be the opinion of a vast majority?
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:27 PM   #55
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.

"The American people"?

Not this American person.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-10-2004, 12:13 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Can anyone else smell the bullshit that's being shoveled here?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 04-10-2004, 12:37 AM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora


"The American people"?

Not this American person.
Well, if it were NOT the American people, I hope that if this were not supported by a majority of Americans, they would vote out not only the President, but the congress as well, since they, who represent US and vote for US gave this administration the authority to wage war.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-10-2004, 12:45 AM   #58
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Well, if it were NOT the American people, I hope that if this were not supported by a majority of Americans, they would vote out not only the President, but the congress as well, since they, who represent US and vote for US gave this administration the authority to wage war.
Weren't they shoveled the same bullshit that everyone here is.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-10-2004, 12:47 AM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 06:14 AM
There may be some good news...

Quote:
(CNN) -- Americans appear divided over how well President Bush is handling his job as president, while support for his Iraq policy is slipping, according to a recent poll.

In addition, the CNN/Time poll showed that Bush didn't pick up significant support for his handling of the economy despite the robust March jobs report announced last week.

The telephone poll of 1,005 adult Americans was taken Thursday night. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

It shows that 49 percent of those polled approve of the way the president is handling his job, while 47 percent do not.

The poll was taken after national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. It also followed increased violence in Iraq. (Full story)

The approval rating for Bush's terrorism policy dipped from 58 percent in a CNN/Time poll taken two weeks ago to 55 percent now, within the margin of error.

A steeper decline can be seen in support for the president's handling of Iraq.

In the March 26-28 poll, 51 percent approved of Bush's handling of the war. In the most recent poll, 44 percent said they approve.


The economic numbers were virtually unchanged, with 41 percent expressing approval and 54 percent disapproval, both down 1 point.

On April 2, the Labor Department reported that the economy added 308,000 nonfarm jobs in March -- more than six times the growth reported one month earlier. (Full story)

When asked how things are going in the country, 51 percent answered "well" and 48 percent said "poorly."

Those numbers were significantly different from February, when 60 percent said things were going well and 39 percent said they were going poorly.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-10-2004, 09:54 AM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The United Nations approved the military operation against Iraq with 3 different resolutions, 678, 687, and 1441. It then has approved 3 more resolutions approving the occupation that was a result of the invasion.
Play again....this is your opinion(and that of the US).


The Security Council did not authorize the US to take action.
I do not feel like derailing this thread with yet another argument about the intent of the resolutions.

This is the first time a CEASE FIRE was broken and force not authorized by the SECURTIY COUNCIL.


The only reason that I supported the invasion was because the administration led me to believe we were in immediate danger, and I do not believe we need permission to defend ourselves from the Security Council. Now that were were clearly wrong, I wish a competant candidate had been chosen from the Democratic side, because I would vote for them.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com