President Bush to Appear on Meet the Press
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
#1 Bush did go to the UN
Yes
#2 1441 was not working at all. 1441 called for a lot more than simply the letting inspectors back into Iraq.
Sorry, but 1441 got the inpectors back in...and I think the heads of the inspection teams have said they were making progress.
#3 We invaded on the fact that Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm and all methods to achieve this barring military invasion had failed.
What were the inspectors doing?
#4 He made the case for war based on "A Grave and Gathering Threat" which Saddam was.
Even Pollack says this is now wrong. He was a contained threat. As Russert pointed out....Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell shose very different language to present the case. Omitting the important part from the CIA analysis at times.
#5 The international community required Saddam to Verifiably Disarm in 1991 because it felt not requiring him to do so would be an immediate danger to the international community. No one predicted his invasions of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and attacks on Israel or his use of WMD on such a large scale. There was no room for error with Saddam and verifiable disarmament was the only way short of regime change to insure security. Unfortunately Saddam was unwilling to Verifiably Disarm which is why his removal was required.
ZZZZZZ...No disrespect intended. You know I have presented plenty of information from law sites that pretty clearly show, only the UN Security Council can decide when a member state has violated a cease fire. The UN did not authorize it. They had to withdraw their inspectors before we launched the attack.
#6 Any investigation in regards to intelligence should be done accurately and objectively and be as free of politics as possible, in order for it to be relevant and useful.
Actually, in order to restore our faith in our intelligence community since they FAILED on 9/11 and they have apparently/possibly failed in IRAQ...it needs to be determined, was the intelligence at fault, or is the President surrounding himself by buffoons. Or even worse...is the President a buffoon. Personally, I have a hunch that the intelligence comminity did NOTHING wrong, which is why they want no investigation now.
#7 No one misinterpreted the intelligence from the CIA, rather that intelligence was simply more information in the case against Saddam. Saddam was under strict obligations to comply with multiple UN resolutions and the CIA's intelligence only helps show how far he was from meeting those obligations.
To be seen.
#8 I think its a good idea to have the investigation end after the elections so it will not be used has a Democratic which hunt. We want the investigation to be objective and accurate and not be some play thing for Democrats. This is an investigation into how the intelligence agencies operated and performed in their tasks, it is not an investigation into the President or his cabnit members as some would like to have it.
yep, those evil democrats investigating a matter of national security. At least they are not investigating sex.
please, do not trreat me like I have not read your posts before. Don't treat me like I am not educated on the topic. I supported the war. I deserve answers to my questions before the election.
Yes
#2 1441 was not working at all. 1441 called for a lot more than simply the letting inspectors back into Iraq.
Sorry, but 1441 got the inpectors back in...and I think the heads of the inspection teams have said they were making progress.
#3 We invaded on the fact that Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm and all methods to achieve this barring military invasion had failed.
What were the inspectors doing?
#4 He made the case for war based on "A Grave and Gathering Threat" which Saddam was.
Even Pollack says this is now wrong. He was a contained threat. As Russert pointed out....Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell shose very different language to present the case. Omitting the important part from the CIA analysis at times.
#5 The international community required Saddam to Verifiably Disarm in 1991 because it felt not requiring him to do so would be an immediate danger to the international community. No one predicted his invasions of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and attacks on Israel or his use of WMD on such a large scale. There was no room for error with Saddam and verifiable disarmament was the only way short of regime change to insure security. Unfortunately Saddam was unwilling to Verifiably Disarm which is why his removal was required.
ZZZZZZ...No disrespect intended. You know I have presented plenty of information from law sites that pretty clearly show, only the UN Security Council can decide when a member state has violated a cease fire. The UN did not authorize it. They had to withdraw their inspectors before we launched the attack.
#6 Any investigation in regards to intelligence should be done accurately and objectively and be as free of politics as possible, in order for it to be relevant and useful.
Actually, in order to restore our faith in our intelligence community since they FAILED on 9/11 and they have apparently/possibly failed in IRAQ...it needs to be determined, was the intelligence at fault, or is the President surrounding himself by buffoons. Or even worse...is the President a buffoon. Personally, I have a hunch that the intelligence comminity did NOTHING wrong, which is why they want no investigation now.
#7 No one misinterpreted the intelligence from the CIA, rather that intelligence was simply more information in the case against Saddam. Saddam was under strict obligations to comply with multiple UN resolutions and the CIA's intelligence only helps show how far he was from meeting those obligations.
To be seen.
#8 I think its a good idea to have the investigation end after the elections so it will not be used has a Democratic which hunt. We want the investigation to be objective and accurate and not be some play thing for Democrats. This is an investigation into how the intelligence agencies operated and performed in their tasks, it is not an investigation into the President or his cabnit members as some would like to have it.
yep, those evil democrats investigating a matter of national security. At least they are not investigating sex.
please, do not trreat me like I have not read your posts before. Don't treat me like I am not educated on the topic. I supported the war. I deserve answers to my questions before the election.
najeena
War Child
People should vote their conscience, of course. I wouldn't be interested in politics if I weren't concerned about our society and our personal rights. I don't know of anything that Bush could have said that would have reassured me. The damage is done.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:
Unfortunately, this is probably too sophisticated for the general electorate. While many people research and study the candidates' positions, there are many others who simply look for a little "D" or "R" or simply reacting to the general image of one party or another.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
Ok, so I guessed wrong on the gender thing. 
My bad. I hope there are no hard feelings. Fernando, please report to FYM for antiram's spanking. 
I'll be kind and assume that you didn't intend to imply that the group of us who responded with the opinion that voting is vital aren't "principled" when you say that "sometimes principles do matter." Surely you mispoke. So let's move on to the crux of the issue. If you don't vote for someone, your voice is not heard. If you don't bother to vote, you don't get to complain if things don't go your way. Frankly, if you don't vote, you're helping Bush. Helping to preserve the status quo. Because his supporters will be voting, I assure you. How exactly then is deciding you're somehow above the whole thing "principled"? Deciding not to decide IS a decision, and it's one that those who don't vote tell themselves is a protest against the whole system, while ironically it preseves it!
sd (who actcually thinks voting is just the beginning of a citizen's obligation, but I've prolly pissed off enough ppl for one night....)
My bad. I hope there are no hard feelings. Fernando, please report to FYM for antiram's spanking. I'll be kind and assume that you didn't intend to imply that the group of us who responded with the opinion that voting is vital aren't "principled" when you say that "sometimes principles do matter." Surely you mispoke. So let's move on to the crux of the issue. If you don't vote for someone, your voice is not heard. If you don't bother to vote, you don't get to complain if things don't go your way. Frankly, if you don't vote, you're helping Bush. Helping to preserve the status quo. Because his supporters will be voting, I assure you. How exactly then is deciding you're somehow above the whole thing "principled"? Deciding not to decide IS a decision, and it's one that those who don't vote tell themselves is a protest against the whole system, while ironically it preseves it!
sd (who actcually thinks voting is just the beginning of a citizen's obligation, but I've prolly pissed off enough ppl for one night....)
Last edited:
Sherry Darling said:
I did not. I say to me, principles matter, and therefore if, say, I were to vote in this election, and say, the candidates were only Sharpton and Bush, I would not vote for either! That's my decision. Surely you have principles too which guide your actions. If your principles agree with Sharpton's or Bush's, wonderful, vote for them. I have no problem with that.
Re-read my post, please. The part where I say that I make it a point to vote? Thanks.
I am saying, that IF in a field of say 2, 3, 4, whatever candidates, there was NOBODY whom I agreed with enough to support them, I would not vote. I still have the option of working on other campaigns in the future or grassroots work, or apolitical movements. Those are my choices.
But as for the complaining - I see people here constantly complaining about what other countries are doing, people complaining about Bush who aren't Americans (myself included), people complaining about France and Germany who aren't German, people complaining about the Middle East who aren't Middle Eastern, people complaining about Israel and Palestine who aren't Israeli or Palestinian, people complaining about Islam, Conservative Christianity, on and on and on.
I'm not an American, I am not helping Bush.
But this kind of statement is from the "boo-hoo, Nader voters ruined Al Gore" camp.
I'm not even American.
And let his supporters vote. God, if he has impressed them, then let them vote!
Maybe if the Democrats and other so-called left leaning parties of the USA would impress the leftist leaning voters, more of them would show up to vote. So people should be guilted into voting for someone? So Dean and Kerry and whoever don't have to even marginally impress and yet get free votes? That's utter garbage.
I hope people expect more from their potential leaders than that.
Who is assuming now?
How do you know what people tell themselves? You don't know anything about me, for example. I have voted in every single election that I have been able to vote in except for one, where I disagreed greatly with the candidate who was running in my riding (he ended up being charged for embezzlement, great for me!), but since I did not want to support him nor a different party, I did not vote. It was not protest as you claim for who knows what reason, but it was an educated decision on my part based on the time I took to research the candidate and their position.
Oh, SD, believe me, I think it's important to vote. When I was 11, I had bombs raining on my head, blowing up people I knew to smitherines while they waited in line for bread. If you think I don't know the importance of civic duty, you're preaching to the converted. But I can also tell you from what I learned in that godforsaken war is that if you don't feel RIGHT to vote for somebody for whatever reason, DO NOT vote. I can't explain it to you, I really can't. I don't know you at all, so I'm not sure if you lived through something like that and maybe understand what I'm talking about. But it's such an important position for me, that I will never budge. Vote if you feel somebody represents you, and if you don't, then don't vote for the lesser of two evils either. Still evil at the end of the day.
We all have free will.
P.S. Hi Fernando! How are ya?
Dreadsox,
"please...for the sake of argument....
What about the evidence Powell presented was true?"
Most of it was. Saddam had failed to account for and verifiably disarm of large stocks of WMD. That situation still persist to this day.
"Sorry, but 1441 got the inpectors back in...and I think the heads of the inspection teams have said they were making progress."
1441 calls on Saddam to do more than let the inspectors back in. The inspectors made no progress in finding unaccounted for WMD nor did they find the things that Dr. Kay found that were in direct violation of 1441.
"What were the inspectors doing?"
They were engaged in a process that required cooperation from Saddam which they never received. The inspectors were unable to Verifiably disarm Saddam without Saddam's cooperation. With Saddam removed, Dr. Kay has succeeded in finding things that the inspectors were unable to that violated 1441.
"Even Pollack says this is now wrong. He was a contained threat. As Russert pointed out....Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell shose very different language to present the case. Omitting the important part from the CIA analysis at times"
If Pollack believes Saddam had VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD, he is wrong. You can argue until hell freezes over about what was said in this speach or that speach, but the presidents case for war is rock solid because its primarily based on Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions in regards to Verifiable disarmament. Name any President and any issue at any time and you can find a speech that did not include Every crumb of info here and there. I know no CIA Analysis that ever said Saddam did not have any WMD and that he was not a threat and had reliably complied with the resolutions and Ceacefire agreement.
"ZZZZZZ...No disrespect intended. You know I have presented plenty of information from law sites that pretty clearly show, only the UN Security Council can decide when a member state has violated a cease fire. The UN did not authorize it. They had to withdraw their inspectors before we launched the attack."
I'm well aware of your faith in the particular law sites who share the same view that diplomats in France, Germany and other countries had in regards to this issue. I share my governments view that they are wrong on this particular issue. 1441 mentions that Iraq was in material breech of its obligations. The UN did authorize 1441 as well as 678, and 687 all of which were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations and authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply. In addition the UN has passed multiple resolutions since Operation Iraqi freedom, recognizing and supporting the Occupation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. If the UN did not authorize or support the invasion, those resolutions since Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been approved.
If you want an example of what the UN does when it does not approve of a military action by certain countries, I refer you to the UN's response to Iraq's military invasion of Kuwait.
"Actually, in order to restore our faith in our intelligence community since they FAILED on 9/11 and they have apparently/possibly failed in IRAQ...it needs to be determined, was the intelligence at fault, or is the President surrounding himself by buffoons. Or even worse...is the President a buffoon. Personally, I have a hunch that the intelligence comminity did NOTHING wrong, which is why they want no investigation now."
I think one needs to remember how often are intelligence is successful and that intelligence is not like looking into a Crystal Ball, like many Democrats suddenly believe. Can you name an intelligence services that has NEVER FAILED before in history? I for one am a bit surprised there has not been more successful terrorist attacks in the United States.
Most of the intelligence on Iraq came from the human intelligence gathered by UN inspectors partly with the cooperation of Saddam in the 1990s. It was never incumbent upon the CIA or any other intelligence agency to prove that Saddam had WMD X Y or Z for there to be a case for war. It is probably beyond any intelligence communities ability to do so with that degree of accuracy. This is why the burdon of proof was placed on Saddam himself. It was Saddam who had to come clean and VERIFIABLY DISARM through 100% cooperation with the inspectors. It is a fact that Saddam never did this.
The intelligence community failed to predict Saddam's invasion of Iran. They failed to predict his invasion of Kuwait. They failed to assess how far along Saddam was in making a Nuclear Bomb back in 1990/1991, and their failure to see an uncountable list of things that Saddam himself and defectors gave to UN inspectors or reported to them about.
There was no margin of error with Saddam. It would have been foolish to allow Saddam to remain in power considering what had happened in the past and considering his increasing ability to gain wealth through the black market and defy both the Weapons Embargo and Sanctions. Know one knows for sure what Saddam still had intact as far as WMD at the time of the invasion. We do know he had failed to Verifiably Disarm which was the only way short of regime change to insure security in the region.
"yep, those evil democrats investigating a matter of national security. At least they are not investigating sex."
Both parties have large numbers of members that investigate things purely for political reasons in my view, something you find more often in the House than the Senate.
I will say that in terms of funding the military and National Security overall, the Republicans do have a better record than the Democrats over the past 23 years.
"please, do not trreat me like I have not read your posts before. Don't treat me like I am not educated on the topic. I supported the war. I deserve answers to my questions before the election."
I made no attempt to treat you in the way you describe. I only responded to what you had said.
"please...for the sake of argument....
What about the evidence Powell presented was true?"
Most of it was. Saddam had failed to account for and verifiably disarm of large stocks of WMD. That situation still persist to this day.
"Sorry, but 1441 got the inpectors back in...and I think the heads of the inspection teams have said they were making progress."
1441 calls on Saddam to do more than let the inspectors back in. The inspectors made no progress in finding unaccounted for WMD nor did they find the things that Dr. Kay found that were in direct violation of 1441.
"What were the inspectors doing?"
They were engaged in a process that required cooperation from Saddam which they never received. The inspectors were unable to Verifiably disarm Saddam without Saddam's cooperation. With Saddam removed, Dr. Kay has succeeded in finding things that the inspectors were unable to that violated 1441.
"Even Pollack says this is now wrong. He was a contained threat. As Russert pointed out....Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell shose very different language to present the case. Omitting the important part from the CIA analysis at times"
If Pollack believes Saddam had VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD, he is wrong. You can argue until hell freezes over about what was said in this speach or that speach, but the presidents case for war is rock solid because its primarily based on Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions in regards to Verifiable disarmament. Name any President and any issue at any time and you can find a speech that did not include Every crumb of info here and there. I know no CIA Analysis that ever said Saddam did not have any WMD and that he was not a threat and had reliably complied with the resolutions and Ceacefire agreement.
"ZZZZZZ...No disrespect intended. You know I have presented plenty of information from law sites that pretty clearly show, only the UN Security Council can decide when a member state has violated a cease fire. The UN did not authorize it. They had to withdraw their inspectors before we launched the attack."
I'm well aware of your faith in the particular law sites who share the same view that diplomats in France, Germany and other countries had in regards to this issue. I share my governments view that they are wrong on this particular issue. 1441 mentions that Iraq was in material breech of its obligations. The UN did authorize 1441 as well as 678, and 687 all of which were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations and authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply. In addition the UN has passed multiple resolutions since Operation Iraqi freedom, recognizing and supporting the Occupation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. If the UN did not authorize or support the invasion, those resolutions since Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been approved.
If you want an example of what the UN does when it does not approve of a military action by certain countries, I refer you to the UN's response to Iraq's military invasion of Kuwait.
"Actually, in order to restore our faith in our intelligence community since they FAILED on 9/11 and they have apparently/possibly failed in IRAQ...it needs to be determined, was the intelligence at fault, or is the President surrounding himself by buffoons. Or even worse...is the President a buffoon. Personally, I have a hunch that the intelligence comminity did NOTHING wrong, which is why they want no investigation now."
I think one needs to remember how often are intelligence is successful and that intelligence is not like looking into a Crystal Ball, like many Democrats suddenly believe. Can you name an intelligence services that has NEVER FAILED before in history? I for one am a bit surprised there has not been more successful terrorist attacks in the United States.
Most of the intelligence on Iraq came from the human intelligence gathered by UN inspectors partly with the cooperation of Saddam in the 1990s. It was never incumbent upon the CIA or any other intelligence agency to prove that Saddam had WMD X Y or Z for there to be a case for war. It is probably beyond any intelligence communities ability to do so with that degree of accuracy. This is why the burdon of proof was placed on Saddam himself. It was Saddam who had to come clean and VERIFIABLY DISARM through 100% cooperation with the inspectors. It is a fact that Saddam never did this.
The intelligence community failed to predict Saddam's invasion of Iran. They failed to predict his invasion of Kuwait. They failed to assess how far along Saddam was in making a Nuclear Bomb back in 1990/1991, and their failure to see an uncountable list of things that Saddam himself and defectors gave to UN inspectors or reported to them about.
There was no margin of error with Saddam. It would have been foolish to allow Saddam to remain in power considering what had happened in the past and considering his increasing ability to gain wealth through the black market and defy both the Weapons Embargo and Sanctions. Know one knows for sure what Saddam still had intact as far as WMD at the time of the invasion. We do know he had failed to Verifiably Disarm which was the only way short of regime change to insure security in the region.
"yep, those evil democrats investigating a matter of national security. At least they are not investigating sex."
Both parties have large numbers of members that investigate things purely for political reasons in my view, something you find more often in the House than the Senate.
I will say that in terms of funding the military and National Security overall, the Republicans do have a better record than the Democrats over the past 23 years.
"please, do not trreat me like I have not read your posts before. Don't treat me like I am not educated on the topic. I supported the war. I deserve answers to my questions before the election."
I made no attempt to treat you in the way you describe. I only responded to what you had said.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I've only not voted in a statewide election when it really was between the lesser of to evil's - for governor. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for someone who is just reprehensible. So I didn't vote. But in Presidential elections, I've never not voted. But I must say it's mainly because I haven't come up against the same issue's as I did in that one state election. It would be difficult for me to not cast my vote in some form or another. But that's just me. I do understand what you are all saying.
theSoulfulMofo
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,490
CONFESSION: I missed my chances to vote in Clinton/Dole and Bush/Gore.... This year is the first time I am determined to rock the vote. MY FIRST PRESIDENTIAL VOTE!!!!@
I voted last year on the recall for McClintock.
This November, I'm voting ABCDE.. Anybody but Clark, Dean and Edwards... joking joking... psyched ya out tho,
I voted last year on the recall for McClintock.
This November, I'm voting ABCDE.. Anybody but Clark, Dean and Edwards... joking joking... psyched ya out tho,
Oh My Goodness!!!!! Kay found something that the UN Inspectors did not? Do you think maybe if they had more time they might have?
Kind of hard to tell isn't it? When it was so important that we go to war because we were in danger!
You cannot have it both ways.....the UN was there, they were making progress. That progress was ENDED by the US because the President and his cabinet said we were in immediate danger. We go to war after pushing the inspectors out, and then say look what they did not find? Who knows that they would not have found this?
Kind of hard to tell isn't it? When it was so important that we go to war because we were in danger!
You cannot have it both ways.....the UN was there, they were making progress. That progress was ENDED by the US because the President and his cabinet said we were in immediate danger. We go to war after pushing the inspectors out, and then say look what they did not find? Who knows that they would not have found this?
[Q]Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "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."
President Bush: Right.
Russert: That apparently is not the case.
President Bush: Correct.
[/Q]
President Bush: Right.
Russert: That apparently is not the case.
President Bush: Correct.
[/Q]
[Q]I believe it is essential ? I believe it is essential ? that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.[/Q]
This is without a doubt proof in my mind that this President new that Saddam did not have weapons.
Why make a statement like this? If he was not imminent.....we should not have risked our soldiers lives. There was no Clear and Present danger.
He practically admits here.
This is without a doubt proof in my mind that this President new that Saddam did not have weapons.
Why make a statement like this? If he was not imminent.....we should not have risked our soldiers lives. There was no Clear and Present danger.
He practically admits here.
Dreadsox,
"Oh My Goodness!!!!! Kay found something that the UN Inspectors did not? Do you think maybe if they had more time they might have?"
Kay found "Hundreds" of things that the UN inspectors did not. I would say that is significant on this particular issue. More time for the UN inspectors that had been inspecting Iraq since when? March 1991. Kay found what he did because Saddam's capacity to conceal these things had been compromised. The UN inspectors had been inspecting Iraq for over a long period since 1991, yet had not come up with the things that Kay did.
Despite Kay's findings, it is still not known what has happened to a large amount of WMD that Saddam did posess.
"Kind of hard to tell isn't it? When it was so important that we go to war because we were in danger!"
The reason Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM in 1991 was because his possession of WMD in light of his prior behavior was viewed as an unacceptable danger.
"You cannot have it both ways.....the UN was there, they were making progress. That progress was ENDED by the US because the President and his cabinet said we were in immediate danger. We go to war after pushing the inspectors out, and then say look what they did not find? Who knows that they would not have found this?"
The UN inspectors can only make progress in a Police State such as Iraq if they have some level of cooperation from Saddam himself. Progress? I don't recall the UN inspectors making any progress at all aside from finding a Ballistic Missile that was 20 miles over the range limit.
For the UN inspections process to have been successful and for there to have not been a need for military action, Saddam would have had to resolve the issues regarding his WMD and come 100% clean. Roll out the programs in front of the inspectors and the world and resolve all issue regarding any missing material. Without Saddam's cooperation on these issues, it would be impossible for unarmed UN inspectors to accomplish these things. 100 Unarmed UN inspectors are no match for Saddam's concealment teams let alone the Security Services and Republican Guard.
Kay was the first person to conduct a search in Iraq, unhindered by Saddam or his 400,000 man military and security services.
But hey, if you don't feel that 13 years of Saddam's bullshit was enough, by all means, let the white trucks and UN teams continue to play games with Saddam and his security services while Saddam could continue to sit in power with his capabilities unknown and perhaps even unchecked, all the while UN resolutions and the concept of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT becomes a joke. I mean, whats the worst that could happen, right?
"This is without a doubt proof in my mind that this President new that Saddam did not have weapons."
"Why make a statement like this? If he was not imminent.....we should not have risked our soldiers lives. There was no Clear and Present danger."
"He practically admits here."
The correct definition of imminent danger is in fact when an attack would be in progress but had not been completed. When Iraqi Tanks rolled into Kuwait, that country was in imminent danger. When Iraqi Scud Missiles were launched towards Israel and Saudi Arabia, the citizens in those countries were in imminent danger. Responding only when one is in imminent danger will often mean one will be to late to prevent disaster and destruction from happening.
I could give lots of other examples as well. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD on hand, and it is still unknown whether he did or not. Despite not finding specific weapons, Kays team were able to eventually find hundreds of things in violation of 1441 because of the size freedom and unicumbered nature of the inspections they were able to conduct in a post Saddam regime Iraq.
Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM was seen as an intolerable danger and I agree that it was.
"Oh My Goodness!!!!! Kay found something that the UN Inspectors did not? Do you think maybe if they had more time they might have?"
Kay found "Hundreds" of things that the UN inspectors did not. I would say that is significant on this particular issue. More time for the UN inspectors that had been inspecting Iraq since when? March 1991. Kay found what he did because Saddam's capacity to conceal these things had been compromised. The UN inspectors had been inspecting Iraq for over a long period since 1991, yet had not come up with the things that Kay did.
Despite Kay's findings, it is still not known what has happened to a large amount of WMD that Saddam did posess.
"Kind of hard to tell isn't it? When it was so important that we go to war because we were in danger!"
The reason Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM in 1991 was because his possession of WMD in light of his prior behavior was viewed as an unacceptable danger.
"You cannot have it both ways.....the UN was there, they were making progress. That progress was ENDED by the US because the President and his cabinet said we were in immediate danger. We go to war after pushing the inspectors out, and then say look what they did not find? Who knows that they would not have found this?"
The UN inspectors can only make progress in a Police State such as Iraq if they have some level of cooperation from Saddam himself. Progress? I don't recall the UN inspectors making any progress at all aside from finding a Ballistic Missile that was 20 miles over the range limit.
For the UN inspections process to have been successful and for there to have not been a need for military action, Saddam would have had to resolve the issues regarding his WMD and come 100% clean. Roll out the programs in front of the inspectors and the world and resolve all issue regarding any missing material. Without Saddam's cooperation on these issues, it would be impossible for unarmed UN inspectors to accomplish these things. 100 Unarmed UN inspectors are no match for Saddam's concealment teams let alone the Security Services and Republican Guard.
Kay was the first person to conduct a search in Iraq, unhindered by Saddam or his 400,000 man military and security services.
But hey, if you don't feel that 13 years of Saddam's bullshit was enough, by all means, let the white trucks and UN teams continue to play games with Saddam and his security services while Saddam could continue to sit in power with his capabilities unknown and perhaps even unchecked, all the while UN resolutions and the concept of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT becomes a joke. I mean, whats the worst that could happen, right?
"This is without a doubt proof in my mind that this President new that Saddam did not have weapons."
"Why make a statement like this? If he was not imminent.....we should not have risked our soldiers lives. There was no Clear and Present danger."
"He practically admits here."
The correct definition of imminent danger is in fact when an attack would be in progress but had not been completed. When Iraqi Tanks rolled into Kuwait, that country was in imminent danger. When Iraqi Scud Missiles were launched towards Israel and Saudi Arabia, the citizens in those countries were in imminent danger. Responding only when one is in imminent danger will often mean one will be to late to prevent disaster and destruction from happening.
I could give lots of other examples as well. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD on hand, and it is still unknown whether he did or not. Despite not finding specific weapons, Kays team were able to eventually find hundreds of things in violation of 1441 because of the size freedom and unicumbered nature of the inspections they were able to conduct in a post Saddam regime Iraq.
Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM was seen as an intolerable danger and I agree that it was.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
theSoulfulMofo said:
It'll be mine, too. I'm pretty excited about it.
Also, Sherry, don't feel bad...I thought the same thing about anitram...
. Sorry, anitram. Angela
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
LOL Moonlight--I think it was the Tom Cruise (isn't that who that is?) avatar. Shoulda figured a guy wouldn't have that.
Dread, you're rocking this thread! Well argued!
Antriram, let me say a few things that might clear up my last post, since it doesn't seem like I was clear. First, by "you" I didn't mean YOU you, I mean "someone". Sounds like you heard me referring to you you. I you know what I mean.
Secondly, I wrote specifically with the upcoming US election in mind. It's silly to say I'm aruging you can't complain about American politics if you're German and didn't vote. No one in Germany can vote in a US election- duh. And as for my statement coming from the "Poor Gore" camp, that's incorrect. I've heard and made the same arguement long before the 2000 elections.
I'm so glad to hear you're commited to civic involvement, and in politically ravaged or grossly corrupt situations (such as it sounds like you might have been in? not sure what you're story is exactly, but I'd love to hear it) I can totally see your point about not voting. For example, I can't imagine choosing in the elections in say, Bosnia/the Balkans. But generally, I think it's laziness and cynicism to not vote. And again, I think it only serves to preserve the system that the non-voter wants to change. If you're going to abstain from voting, ask yourself what tangible good will really come from it? Are you prepared to take whatever the government hands out? (Again, not YOU you, everyone you). I know I'm not.
Finally, you mention preeching to the choir. Glad to hear it. Doesn't sound like our positions are that far apart, then, really.
sd
Moonlight, and Mofo--CONGRATS!
Dread, you're rocking this thread! Well argued!
Antriram, let me say a few things that might clear up my last post, since it doesn't seem like I was clear. First, by "you" I didn't mean YOU you, I mean "someone". Sounds like you heard me referring to you you. I you know what I mean.
Secondly, I wrote specifically with the upcoming US election in mind. It's silly to say I'm aruging you can't complain about American politics if you're German and didn't vote. No one in Germany can vote in a US election- duh.
And as for my statement coming from the "Poor Gore" camp, that's incorrect. I've heard and made the same arguement long before the 2000 elections. I'm so glad to hear you're commited to civic involvement, and in politically ravaged or grossly corrupt situations (such as it sounds like you might have been in? not sure what you're story is exactly, but I'd love to hear it) I can totally see your point about not voting. For example, I can't imagine choosing in the elections in say, Bosnia/the Balkans. But generally, I think it's laziness and cynicism to not vote. And again, I think it only serves to preserve the system that the non-voter wants to change. If you're going to abstain from voting, ask yourself what tangible good will really come from it? Are you prepared to take whatever the government hands out? (Again, not YOU you, everyone you). I know I'm not.
Finally, you mention preeching to the choir. Glad to hear it.
Doesn't sound like our positions are that far apart, then, really.sd
Moonlight, and Mofo--CONGRATS!
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Sherry Darling said:LOL Moonlight--I think it was the Tom Cruise (isn't that who that is?) avatar. Shoulda figured a guy wouldn't have that.
LOL, yeah.
.Exactly. I can definitely understand that, too. And as long as people still find ways to get involved otherwise, that's cool.
Definitely. And it's even more of a shame when you consider that the 2000 election just added to a lot of people's cynicism.
Neither am I. My dad and I have talked about this kind of thing before, and through all our talks, the same point keeps coming up, that being that so many problems in this country could be solved if more and more people would vote each year. It'd make the government more likely to take us seriously and more likely to actually do some of the things we want them to do. Right now, they tend to listen to the far right and far left, 'cause those are the ones who make the most noise, and the ones who get out and vote so often. Those of us in the middle don't have much of a voice right now, because there's a good number of us who don't go out and vote and make noise and everything. But if more and more of us did that stuff, that'd certainly help a great deal.
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
Moonlight, and Mofo--CONGRATS!
Thanks.
.Angela
najeena
War Child
We should be grateful that we CAN vote. Think of all the people who don't have that right. We should vote to honor those who can't, if not for ourselves.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
anitram said:
sd
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:
OMG. I understand completely. I wouldn't vote for any of those
bastards either.
ILuvLarryMullen
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
i would urge people if they are not satisfied with either the democratic or republican that instead of not voting to vote for a third party candidate (greens are the most prominent liberal party and the reform party is the most prominant conservative). I know that there is no chance that either one will win this election but if they get 5% of the vote they get federal campaign funding which will make them more viable in following elections. it's the only way that i can seen to break up the two party system and get some more diversity and competition in there.
this will be my first presidential election too, i was 3 weeks too young last time
this will be my first presidential election too, i was 3 weeks too young last time
meegannie
Blue Crack Addict
I agree with anitram. I don't like Bush, but I don't like Kerry either and I don't see much difference between the two major parties. I will be voting third party this year.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I'm glad you're going to vote meeganie. That's the important thing. Both my younger sisters voted for Nader in 2000. I do not agree with the that he cost Gore the election. That's just playing the blame game. 
that he cost Gore the election. That's just playing the blame game.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
najeena said:
Exactly. I also want to vote as a way of thanking all the women who fought to give me the right to do this.
That, and it's just cool to know that I now have a say in how my country's run. I like that feeling.
Angela
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Moonlit_Angel said:
Excellent point. Look at all of the women around the world who don't have this right in 2004. It's hard to imagine, but indeed our female ancestors didn't have this right.
ILuvLarryMullen
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
verte76 said:I'm glad you're going to vote meeganie. That's the important thing. Both my younger sisters voted for Nader in 2000. I do not agree with the
I agree verte. Gore lost because he was a crappy candidate. Nader got what? 1 or 2 percent? If Gore had done a decent job Nader wouldn't have had any affect on him at all. We should be blaming Gore for losing so many moderate votes and leaving the left uninterested in voting.
TylerDurden
War Child
STING2 said:
Sting, Sting, Sting.
I've done a little research, stat checking, and the results show that you have mentioned this 243,787 times over the past 10 months in over 300 threads.
But do you honestly, HONESTLY believe, deep down, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc etc went to war against Iraq to defend the sanctity of UN resolutions?
There are many people (myself included) who agree with, or simply can't argue with what you say above (not the intolerable danger part, but the 'verifiably disarm' part), but they also believe that there is a snowflakes chance in hell that that was why the US did it. They don't give a shit about the UN or it's resolutions and you know it. They only went for the last 2 because of pressure from PM Blair, PM Howard (because their countries were 90%+ against a war, dropping to 'only' 60-70%+ if it was with a UN backing) and Powell.
Surely you can see that. It doesn't make your argument null and void in anyway, it's just that I don't think you can defend their actions by saying they were just doing as the UN resolutions said they could/should/needed to. If they had a singular vote "should we go to war over it" it would never have passed. If they did in the Security Council, we know it would have been blocked by at least one country. If they did it in the General Assembly to get a true world vote, say with a 2/3 majority (as standard in situations like that) then the US would have been hammered over it. You know it.
All I'm saying is, the words in those UN Resolutions are good and true, but that doesn't mean that's what they were fighting for.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
-
