27
   

Throwing Shoes at President Bush

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 07:28 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
And if Saddam Hussein had been continuing his former nuclear and biological weapons research just a little bit better hidden than before, as so many people thought he was, how much of a threat would that have posed?


Probably as much of a threat as President Bush, had he really been the fascist bent on taking over every country in the Middle East that so many people thought he was.

So you agree that had Saddam Hussein actually been doing what many people thought he was, secretly continuing to work on WMD, then he would have been a very serious threat. My point exactly. The idea that Iraq was no threat to us on the eve of invasion, based on what was known at the time is ludicrous. An aggressive amoral dictator, with a proven track record of invading neighbors, in possession of nuclear and biological weapons would have been a terrible, terrible threat.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 09:07 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
The idea that Iraq was no threat to us on the eve of invasion, based on what was known at the time is ludicrous.

On the contrary, even if Iraq was working on nukes, it didn't have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking the US. Iraq was never a threat to the US, even in your most perfervid imaginings.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 09:28 am
@joefromchicago,
What it never was has nothing to do with what it might become. Sitting ducks preen on the branch.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 09:46 am
@Brandon9000,
Iraq was never a threat to the US, Brandon. At no point did they possess the capacity to attack us with any level of strength.

He was not a fascist bent on taking over the middle east, even if he had WMD. See, it's just that you, and others like you, are using him as an excuse, a moral shield, to cover your errors in judgment.

I believe it would be too damaging for you, after all those years of arguing one way, to admit that you're wrong. Even though in your heart you know you are. So you twist yourself in these knots of fantasy, protecting your psyche.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 10:51 am
@joefromchicago,
They have short memories; Iraq barely had rockets that reached Israel during the first gulf war. Most of their weapon systems were destroyed between the first war and the second, GWBush, war. We had UN Weapon's Inspectors in Iraq when Bush chased them out to start his illegal war.

Those are simply the facts. Brandon, et al, remembers nothing.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:05 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The idea that Iraq was no threat to us on the eve of invasion, based on what was known at the time is ludicrous.

On the contrary, even if Iraq was working on nukes, it didn't have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking the US. Iraq was never a threat to the US, even in your most perfervid imaginings.

But they could bring the nuke into the US in pieces and detonate it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would be even easier.

I hope we don't have to go through some dreary and ludicrous discussion about all the ports being inspected.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:06 am
@Brandon9000,
Gee, Brandon, do you sleep okay at night? ROFL Your imagination exceeds you reality.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Iraq was never a threat to the US, Brandon. At no point did they possess the capacity to attack us with any level of strength.

He was not a fascist bent on taking over the middle east, even if he had WMD. See, it's just that you, and others like you, are using him as an excuse, a moral shield, to cover your errors in judgment.

I believe it would be too damaging for you, after all those years of arguing one way, to admit that you're wrong. Even though in your heart you know you are. So you twist yourself in these knots of fantasy, protecting your psyche.

Cycloptichorn

He could have smuggled the components of the nuke into the target country and detonated it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would have been even easier. Surely you're not arguing that one single nuke or plague in a populated area wouldn't be serious.

Furthermore, even if he only had the weapons and didn't use them, he could have used the mere knowledge of their existence to force his neighbors to give ground to his will repeatedly. This is all incredibly obvious stuff.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:09 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Gee, Brandon, do you sleep okay at night? ROFL Your imagination exceeds you reality.

If so, you should be able to defeat my argument about smuggling the weapons into the target country very easily. I'm waiting.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:14 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, the libs are laughing at Dick Cheney right now for fear mongering, warning over possible attacks in coming years. We will just have to accept the fact that these people do not live in reality. I am reading books on WWII, and the same mindset existed then, they could not believe Hitler would be that mean and actually do harm to anyone, so they basically advocated doing nothing. He thus took over some countries in hours, not even days or weeks.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:32 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
But they could bring the nuke into the US in pieces and detonate it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would be even easier.

Well, any country with nukes could do the same. Why haven't we invaded Pakistan or North Korea yet?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:34 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
He could have smuggled the components of the nuke into the target country and detonated it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would have been even easier. Surely you're not arguing that one single nuke or plague in a populated area wouldn't be serious.

Furthermore, even if he only had the weapons and didn't use them, he could have used the mere knowledge of their existence to force his neighbors to give ground to his will repeatedly. This is all incredibly obvious stuff.


Brandon, you're either dumber than a sack of hoe handles or an incredible liar, not to mention a despicable "human being". Why would you defend the needless slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents all for a pack of lies.


Quote:
THE BIG LIE


JOHN PILGER REVEALS WMDs WERE JUST A PRETEXT FOR PLANNED WAR ON IRAQ

Exactly one year ago, [2002]Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."


Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.


An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.


Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11, 2001, that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.


In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."


This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.


Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15, 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".


Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."


So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/1132




cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:57 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:
"..dumber than a sack of hoe handles..."


I like that! LOL
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 12:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
General Attitudes Toward Iraq

Most Americans take an extremely dim view of Iraq-probably more so than of any other country. Overwhelming majorities believe the US has a vital interest in what happens in Iraq and see the US as threatened by Iraq. A strong majority continues to support economic sanctions on Iraq.

Polls show that Americans have an extremely negative view of Iraq and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein - almost certainly the most negative perceptions of any country or leader. In a Gallup question asked several times over the past few years, nearly 9 in 10 have consistently rated Iraq as at least "somewhat unfavorable." In all but one instance, a majority rated Iraq as "very unfavorable." In the Gallup polls, fewer than 10 percent have given Iraq a very or somewhat favorable rating since at least 1996. In the most recent assessment (February 2002), just 6% rated Iraq favorably - lower than all others, including "axis of evil" cohorts Iran (11% favorable) and North Korea (23%). [1] With regard to Iraq, when respondents are given just two options - favorable or unfavorable - responses are likewise overwhelmingly negative. Iraq's favorable and unfavorable ratings are virtually the same both before and after the September 11 attacks. [2]

Other types of questions have also revealed extremely negative responses about Iraq. Every four years since 1994, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) has taken 'thermometer' ratings of Iraq, asking respondents to rate the country on a scale from 0 to 100 degrees, with 100 most favorable. On this scale, the mean ratings have ranged between 23 and 25 degrees, with nearly 70% rating Iraq 30 degrees or below. [3] Gallup has also used a scale system, with ratings ranging between +5 and -5, with +5 the most favorable. In early 2001, the mean response was -3.2, with nearly 7 in 10 rating Iraq -3 or lower. [4] When asked in a February 2002 CNN/USA Today survey whether or not they would describe Iraq as "evil," 82% said they would; just 13% said they would not. [5]

Attitudes are even more negative about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In polls by Fox News, Gallup and American Viewpoint dating from mid-2002 back to late 1998, unfavorable responses have been in the near-unanimous range of 96% to 97%. Favorable attitudes ranged from just 1% to 2%. On CCFR's thermometer scale Hussein scored a mean of just 8 degrees in 2002 and 12 degrees in 1998. [6]


Vital Interests At Stake

An overwhelming majority thinks US vital interests are at stake in Iraq. In CCFR's 2002 survey, more than three-fourths of respondents (76%) said the US has a "vital interest" in Iraq based on "political, economic, or security reasons." Only 21% felt that is not the case. In June 1999, Potomac Associates and Opinion Dynamics offered four responses, but came up with similar results. At that time, 69% said he US had a "very strong vital interest" (36%) or "fairly strong vital interest" in Iraq. Twenty-seven percent felt the US had "not much" or no vital interests there. [7]


Iraq Seen as Threat

A variety of polls show that an overwhelming majority feels Iraq poses a threat to the United States, and a majority now feels it is a "major" or "very serious" threat, which is substantially higher than in recent years. However, when compared to other countries it is not seen as the biggest threat.

The most recent surveys find about 8 in 10 saying that Iraq poses a threat to the US or to US national security. When asked in an August 2002 ABC/Washington Post poll simply whether "Iraq does or does not pose a threat to the United States" 79% said it did. Other questions have also tried to gauge how much of a threat Iraq poses. In May 2002, a Time/CNN poll showed that 84% believed Iraq to be a very serious (59%) or moderately serious (25%) threat to the US. Similarly, in December 2001, a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion Strategies poll found 86% thought Iraq to be a "serious" threat (56%) or "moderate" threat (30%) to US national security. In March 2001, a Yankelovich Partners poll found virtually the same percentage (85%) classifying Iraq as an "extreme threat" or "somewhat of a threat." [8]

Polls that offer just three response options, such as Fox and Pew polls that ask whether Iraq is "a major threat, a minor threat, or no threat at all," reveal very similar results. In July 2002, Fox found 55% saying Iraq is a major threat, another 35% saying it is a minor threat (90% total), and just 4% responding that Iraq is not a threat. When a May 2002 Pew poll asked about the threat of "Saddam Hussein's continued rule" in Iraq, the responses were roughly the same: 58%, 29% and 6%. [9]

Other question varieties find fairly consistent responses as well. An Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor survey asked respondents to rank the "extent" to which Iraq is a threat on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 meaning "no threat" and 7 meaning "very serious threat". In February 2002, 44% rated the level of threat as a 7, and 81% rated it a 3 or higher. [10] (For questions related to perceptions of threat of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, see "Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.")

Perception of Iraq as a serious threat appears to have risen substantially after the September 11 attacks. In the 1999 and 2000 Time/CNN polls, about one-third of respondents chose both "very serious" and "moderately serious" to describe the threat posed by Iraq. Yet, in the 2002 survey, the percentage choosing "very serious" nearly doubled to 59%. Meanwhile, the percentage saying Iraq was "just a slight threat" or "not a threat" fell from a combined 31% in 1999 to just 14% in 2002 (see data in note above).

Though about eight out of ten Americans say Iraq is a threat, when they are asked to compare various states' potential as military threats, Iraq is not seen as the prime military threat to the US. China has held that position for several years now, and has maintained it after September 11. A Fox News question that asks about the "greatest military threat to the US today" found in February 2002 that China still tops the list at 28%, with Iraq a close second at 23%. No other country is in double-digits. This is remarkably consistent with results from February 2001, when 30% cited China and 24%. [11]


Economic Sanctions Still Favored

To keep the Iraqi threat in check, strong majorities favor maintaining economic sanctions against the Iraqi regime. In CCFR's mid-2002 survey, two-thirds (66%) favored the "use of economic sanctions" against Iraq; 27% were opposed. This is virtually unchanged from the results CCFR obtained in 1998: 67% in favor and 22% opposed. In the 2002 poll, 72% also opposed "having trade relations" with Iraq. Also, in Gallup surveys taken in 1999 and 1998, very strong majorities also favored maintaining economic sanctions until Iraq complies with the UN resolutions that stemmed from the Gulf War. [12] However, when asked to choose between sanctions and military force to deal with Hussein and Iraq, majorities have preferred the use of force since mid-1998 (see "Invading Iraq").

When arguments for and against sanctions are included in the question, support for sanctions remains robust. In October 2001, just weeks after the September 11 attacks, a Pew question told respondents, "Supporters say the sanctions restrain Saddam Hussein and Iraqi government. Opponents say the sanctions hurt the ordinary people in Iraq." It then asked whether they favored or opposed lifting the sanctions. Based on these arguments, 60% opposed lifting the sanctions, while 27% favored doing so. Earlier, in March 2001, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had found the public very divided as to the "best approach" President Bush should take on sanctions, given the fact that most US allies were no longer enforcing them. At that time, 43% wanted the US to "continue trying to enforce broad economic sanctions", but an equivalent 42% felt the US should "reduce the economic sanctions to a few key items in the belief that they will be more effective because allies will go along with them." Of course, while Americans always prefer acting in concert with allies, this divided response was obtained before the September 11 attacks and the renewed focus on going after Iraq. [13]

Finally, it is important to note here that just because Americans take a very negative view of Iraq and want to continue enforcing sanctions against the current regime, a majority does not believe we should have no diplomatic contact with Iraq. In the 2002 CCFR poll, 49% favored having diplomatic relations with Iraq, just slightly more than the 47% who opposed doing so. [14]

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/genAtt.cfm.

That was the general feeling in 2002. Obviously, they were wrong. However, do not sit back and say no one felt they were a threat.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 12:24 pm
@Woiyo9,
The premise of the whole article is based on lies provided by the Bush administration. This misinformation was the cause of most Americans to feel Saddam was a threat. However, for the people who kept up with the news about Iraq, the majority in this world knew a preemptive war against Iraq was wrong. The whole world demonstrated against this war, but Bush ignored not only "polls" but world opinion against this war.

Trying to re-write history about the Iraq war is just garbage in-garbage out.

Even congress was mislead into approving the war, and Bush continued to claim that congress had the same intel as the administration - which turned out to be lies.

Some people are not capable of learning the truth if their lives depended on it.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 12:29 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
But they could bring the nuke into the US in pieces and detonate it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would be even easier.

Well, any country with nukes could do the same. Why haven't we invaded Pakistan or North Korea yet?

First of all, I never said anything about invasion. I described smuggling a weapon into a country and setting it off from within, mosty likely anonymously. What would have made the nukes dangerous in Saddam Hussein's hands was his bad character and apparent amorality. The idea, obviously, is that nuclear weapons are more dangerous than usual in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein, than in the hands of most nations. If we were talking about Canada or something, the problem wouldn't exist.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 12:35 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, You have a one track mind; we are the aggressors against Iraq; we preemptively attacked a sovereign nation, and ended up killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqis.

You head is screwed onto your arse, and you really need to correct that!

Do you remember Cheney saying "they're going to welcome us as liberators?"

Instead, it turned out to be a six year nightmare that's still on-going.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 12:47 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

]First of all, I never said anything about invasion.

Sure you did.

Brandon9000 previously wrote:
The idea that Iraq was no threat to us on the eve of invasion, based on what was known at the time is ludicrous.

I mean, we're talking about the Bush administration's rationale for invading, right? This isn't just academic exercise in debating whether Iraq actually had WMDs or not, is it? Because we already know the answer to that question.

Brandon9000 wrote:
I described smuggling a weapon into a country and setting it off from within, mosty likely anonymously. What would have made the nukes dangerous in Saddam Hussein's hands was his bad character and apparent amorality. The idea, obviously, is that nuclear weapons are more dangerous than usual in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein, than in the hands of most nations. If we were talking about Canada or something, the problem wouldn't exist.

And Kim Jong-Il is less amoral and dangerous than Saddam Hussein?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 12:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Stop the Blame Bush nonsense.

The PREMISE of the article comes from years of dealing with the Iraqi regime from the Carter years right through Clinton and the last Bush.

You blowhards have a very short attention span if you think GW was THE ONLY ONE to be wrong in the overall assessment.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 04:30:40