Author Topic: Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?  (Read 1457 times)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2004, 01:16:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Too soon to tell. The grand notions of "democratizing" the region and all...

Let's just say I'm not optimistic and leave it at that. :)



It is a big risk, I agree. But its worth a try, and I know its certainly better than installing a military strongman type - which would be the easy way to go about "pacifying" a country. I loke the idea for its boldness.

I remember Secretary of State Albright talking about Kosovo in 1999, saying things like "multiethic democracy" and such. Well recent reports show that turned out, dont we. So I know it wont be easy, heck it took the USA 200+ years to become that...

I think we need to stay there and endure for the long term and help these people. We ruled Japan for 7 years until they got independance and a form of "democracy" and similary with germany. Both people had ;ittle knowlege of democracy, both were inflamed with racial/religious prejudices, bioth were militant, Japan had a totally alien culture and language (much more so than iraq/arabs or islam to us today) and of course both were involved in bitter war with USA and had family die of it. So we have to try and there is hope. The worst thing we can do is pull out and abandon them now or weaken our resolve to keep on fighting.

The problem now, and the one that does make it different than Japan or Germany is the level of military resistance by the terrorists. But there just that, terrorist scum and just beacuse we havent quite figured it all out yet does not mean we should pull out, doesn not mean we should stop, and certainly should not allow ourselves to lose hope on account of them.

I am optimistic that we will be OK if we keep trying and keep presenting the iraqi people with the option of hope and proseperty compared the option of death and despair presented by the terrorists and the defeatists.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2004, 01:22:25 AM »
One thing to consider... terrorism isn't an idealogy. Outside of delusional *******s trying to make a political point, it's a method of waging war against a superior foe (actual or even perceived).

It's not going to go away, ever.
sand

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2004, 01:30:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
One thing to consider... terrorism isn't an idealogy. Outside of delusional *******s trying to make a political point, it's a method of waging war against a superior foe (actual or even perceived).

It's not going to go away, ever.


That very permance might make it a nonfactor in the equation then but simply a constant that we deal with as we move on.

I'm curious why do you say "outside of guys making political points"  Isnt that the whole point of resistance? That these guys are offering an opposing view to the that presented by the suerior force, isnt ideology implied in resistance and thus terrorism? And I do understand that yo are saying terrorism is a tactic, rather than an ideolgy in itself, but the ideolgy is what drives the terrorism. People dont organize and go terrorist without some agenda to drive them and fight for.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2004, 01:46:59 AM »
I dunno... the distinction can be hard to make. We oft hear, "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" and I think it probably has some truth to it.

The difficulty comes in determining whether it's right or wrong to aim for the soft, unprotected side of your enemy. I think it's a gross oversimplification to simply state that "terrorism is evil" without recognizing that it has it's place with the rest of the tools of war.

What's the agenda? That's the best question. Here is where we will find the "evil".
sand

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2004, 02:16:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I dunno... the distinction can be hard to make. We oft hear, "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" and I think it probably has some truth to it.

The difficulty comes in determining whether it's right or wrong to aim for the soft, unprotected side of your enemy. I think it's a gross oversimplification to simply state that "terrorism is evil" without recognizing that it has it's place with the rest of the tools of war.

What's the agenda? That's the best question. Here is where we will find the "evil".



"one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist"

Thats true 100% of the time, otherwise people wouldnt be figting.

Determining the nature of "evil" is key. For example I'm 100% sure that some neo-nazi fanatic like McVeigh considered himself a freedom fighter as did his supporters. But just that he consired that to be freedom it does not mean its no evil.  This is where morals come in to play a bit but also more importatly this is where we as a society have to decide what we stand for.

Now of course both sides in a conflict go through this process of decing what they stand for and of course they reach different conclusions. Which is right, which is wrong, which is just which is evil? Which sides stands for the good?

Well, personally I would tend agree with the side that is more democratic, open, and offeres more personmal liberties which allow people to chose. Obviously also we have to consider how each side treats human life. While all sides in a war take human life, there is a big difference between for example gassing 6 million jews or crashing civil airliners into civilan bulings with 20,000 people and attacking military targets. So I would say the former are the bad guys, and yes they are less right. Though it wouldnt be so clear cut if the bad guys just attacked military targets, but thats not the case here.

And we must  recognize that resistance even against ( pr perhaps especially) a stringer force need not be violent. Look at ghandi and MLK, they achieved great sucess and change without violence. And i would say that non violence makes them morally superior than if they had bombed their oppents.  For example I'm convinced that if Arafat was more like MLK and gandhi than like he is, then palestinenas would have had a state long ago.

Basically I think there are ways to objectively determine of somebody is "evil" that do not have to even the basis of the disagreement between conflicting parties.

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2004, 02:22:35 AM »
Iraqs refusal to abide by the 1991 cease fire agreement (by uncease firing on coalition aircraft), was lawful reason enough.  WMDs and iminent threat were icing on the cake, if it were needed as insurance but it was not.  Only to de-testicle the ignorant is all I can think of.

"Leftist chamberlains will always attempt to populate intelligent thought in spite of themselves"
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2004, 02:41:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
Iraqs refusal to abide by the 1991 cease fire agreement (by uncease firing on coalition aircraft), was lawful reason enough.


BS.  The country of Iraq had a cease fire argeement with the United Nations.  The United Nations was the only body that could determine wether or not Iraq was in violation of that agreement and what action to take if it was determinded that Iraq was in fact in violation.  This was reaffirmed in the United States sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, which was not only sponsored by the United States but which in fact the United States voted for.


Quote
WMDs and iminent threat were icing on the cake, if it were needed as insurance but it was not.  Only to de-testicle the ignorant is all I can think of.


BS mk2. It wasn't at all the icing on the cake.  If the United  Nations Security Council determinded that Iraq was following "orders" under resolution 1441, then the United States couldn't attack Iraq, under the United Nations charter.  The only time a nation state can fight against other, without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, is for self-defence or mutual self-defence (a la NATO).  

The Bush administration tried a new doctine of "pre-emptiveness".  They tried to prove that Iraq was an threat to the US that had to be delt with immediately (certainly no time to the UN inspectors finish their job) or the US would be attacked with WMD through Iraq's supposed terrorist connections.  To pretend otherwise is...desparate.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2004, 02:43:54 AM »
""Iraq as an imminent threat

The matter of whether or not the United States rightfully considered Iraq as an imminent threat is once again an issue for international discourse.

The National Security Strategy of September 2002, "outlined the U.S. government's policy for national defense. In it, the Bush administration argued that the concept in international law of 'imminent threat' -- which allows countries to defend themselves against opponents who are poised to attack them - must be given a new meaning in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:[1]


"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction-weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning...

"...The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his October 7, 2002, remarks at the Cincinnati [Ohio] Museum Center at the Cincinnati Union Terminal -- identified on the White House web site as "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat" -- President George W. Bush made the following statements:

The threat comes from Iraq. ... The Iraqi regime ... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. ... Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. ...

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action ... the threat from Iraq stands alone ..

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. ... America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
A comment from Lean Left, October 21, 2003, reinforces the idea that Bush intended to convey a sense of "imminent threat": "Anyone who says things like 'Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud' is arguing that something must be done now. No amount of parsing can change that."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On October 8, 2002, the day after the President's speech, Andrew F. Tully, writing for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, commented in his article "Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat": "Bush also contended that Hussein works closely with terrorists, including Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's network that has been blamed for the attacks on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. There has been no evidence, however, that Hussein was in any way involved in those attacks, and Bush offered none last night."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Just Left of Center comes the astute observation that "While the word Imminent is not present, it’s clear that’s what the message was. ... Here’s what Bush has said about Iraq leading up to the war."

Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Letter to Congress 7/30/2002.

President Bush declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and polices of the Government of Iraq. 8/2/2002.

Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world. He's a threat to the neighborhood. He's a threat to Israel. He's a threat to the United States of America. And we're just going to have to deal with him. And the best way to deal with him is for the world to rise up and say, you disarm, and we'll disarm you. And if not -- if, at the very end of the day, nothing happens -- the United States, along with others, will act. 10/1/2002.

The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again. 10/5/2002.

Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. He's terrorized his own neighborhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late. 1/29/2003.

The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. 2/26/2003.

MoveOn U.S. presidential election, 2004: Democrat Campaign Ads: "Censure President Bush". Film footage shows Donald Rumsfeld's interview on Face the Nation regarding Iraq as an imminent threat. 3/17/04.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the March 15, 2004, Sunday morning edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice said that "the overthrow of Saddam had 'greatly served' the fight against terrorism. ... 'I believe to this day that it [Iraq] was an urgent threat,' she said. 'This could not go on and we are safer as a result because today Iraq is no longer a state of weapons of mass destruction concern.'" [2] "

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraq_as_an_imminent_threat

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2004, 02:44:49 AM »
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."

- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

- President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

- President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

- President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

- President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

- President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."

- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

- President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

- President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

- President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

- President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

- President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

- President Bush, 10/16/02

"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 could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

- President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

- President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

- President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2004, 03:20:31 AM »
Now please be kind enough do the same for all the similar Iraq is quotes from the clinton adminstartion...

Offline Frogm4n

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2004, 05:42:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
so what?

I know you were a saddam groupie frogface, but he is gone, get over it

I don't know what we are waiting for, we should be in Iran by now. See,, we waited too long and darn libya waved the white nuke flag before we could carry out military exercises in his palaces ... get on with it, let's replace every turban with a cowboy hat, the sooner the better. when the draft you frog, you can request cook or latrine duty, something safe and away from the fightin


You such a good christian eagler. Im sure your war god will be happy once all the muslims are gone. Then we can all get together drink cyanide and enter heaven together.

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2004, 07:51:27 AM »
Nice Eagler. And quite sad too. What have you against Sikhs? These guys had similar ideas to yours:



Onward Christian soldiers...

I thought most of us had learnt from that episode of history.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2004, 08:02:42 AM by Dowding »
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline maslo

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 321
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2004, 10:02:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
so what?

I know you were a saddam groupie frogface, but he is gone, get over it

I don't know what we are waiting for, we should be in Iran by now.


because Us doesnt have millitary power to fight agains Iran.
And whats even bigger fun, US have no any money left :D

So you can just sit home and watch, how iranian goverment dont give a watermelon if you will or not allowe them to develope nuclear technology


Invazion to Afghanistan... naaa there were only few bombs throwen on capital and around, few soldiers were out for a mountain tour and nothing has change. The only one secure area is capital and this can be so only because of NATO(german ) soldiers...

Iraq is similary comedy
« Last Edit: March 20, 2004, 10:07:24 AM by maslo »

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2004, 10:06:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by maslo
because Us doesnt have millitary power ro fight agains Iran.
And whats even bigger fun, US have no any money left :D

So you can just sit home and watch, how iranian goverment dont give a watermelon if you will or not allowe them to develope nuclear technology


Invazion to Afghanistan... naaa there were only few bombs throwen on capital and around, few soldiers were out for a mountain tour and nothing has change. The only one secure area is capital and this can be so only because of NATO(german ) soldiears...

Iraq is similary comedy


Boy are you getting bad information.

Offline maslo

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 321
Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2004, 10:08:46 AM »
ok .. so give me some correct informations.