A dozen years is rather a long time to wait for someone to fullfill a promise to disarm. The point is that Iraq had a history of seeking WMD.
Neither you nor anyone else can show that no WMD have been produced since the first Gulf War, even now with the benefit of post-invasion hindsight, which we did not possess when we invaded. It is impossible to "contain" someone who has the option of sending an agent to sneak a WMD into your country and killing a huge number of people with that single weapon.
In an age when your 100% certainly might come in the form of a mushroom cloud rising over what used to be Washington, DC, or a report on the morning news of a mysterious deadly plague breaking out in New York City and starting to spread to the rest of the country, we can no longer wait for utter certainty
Oh please! We have far more worries of attack with people right here in this country and from terrorist getting weapons from our ALLIES then we did iraq. It's dishonest to tie Iraq to terrorism they are two different wars I don't care how you try and twist yourself into a pretzel tyring to connect the two.1. No containment when one weapon smuggled into your country could kill a million people.
2. Even after the invasion, we're not sure that WMD were never developed after the first Gulf War, and certainly weren't convinced of it based on the information we had when we invaded.
3. I disagree that he proved no threat.
If several particularly noxious dictatorships are acquiring WMD, they are all threats and all must be dealt with.
So we should go play shoot em up in every country. Just curious with what troops and money are you proposing we do this? while we are busy playing cowboy who is going after the terrorist cells that exist all over the world?Show me where I said that Iraq helped to plan 9/11. I was talking about a future danger from WMD.
What kind of evidence do you want him to show to support his assertion that Kerry hasn't done much important in the Senate? You seem awfully reluctant to cite a few examples of Kerry's achievements.
Why is it that the left,when Clinton was in his first term,accepted everything Morris said as gospel,but now he is a right wing hack?
That doesnt make sense.Either he is reliable,or he never was reliable.Which is it?
Red,
You say that Kerry only had a certain amount of time to make his speech,and that his record in the Senate speaks for itself.
Let me ask this,the only way we can judge how a person will act is to look at how they have acted in the past,so therefore,the only way to judge Kerry's ability to be president is to examine his record as a Senator.
Also,Kerry said on Sunday on the Brinkley show that he has more experience then Bush,and that he has spent 20 years in the Senate "negotiating and fighting for treaties and other agreements with different countries".
He has missed most of the votes in the Senate,he has not introduced any lasting legislation,he has voted exactly opposite how he said he would vote,he tried to gut our intelligence agencies with a bill that was so bad that even Kennedy opposed it,he voted "for the 87 billion before he voted against it",and yet you expect everyone to fall over themselves voting for him?
I know your mind is made up,and that the facts wont sway you,but the rest of us will base our vote on facts,not hatred of the president.
Quote:A dozen years is rather a long time to wait for someone to fullfill a promise to disarm. The point is that Iraq had a history of seeking WMD.
No I believe the POINT was supposed to be that they HAD them and intended to use them in 2004. What they had in the 80's and what they might have possibly someday wanted are completely different then them actually producing them and there being a threat. 1441 was passed in Nov. 2002, Inspectors went into Iraq shortly after. We expelled them in March and invaded. This shows to anyone with reason that we could have waited to allow the inspections to procceed.
Fact is that N. Korea and Iran are much further along in their production of WMD and Nuclear Weapons then Iraq was and Iraq was contained thus no threat. It's disengenious to try and claim they breached the exact same resolution that WE breached or to even use the UN considering we keep running them down.
Israel has been in breach of UN resolutions so why didn't we invade them? Nothing you put forth holds any water and you and the administration attempt to use SEVERAL YEAR old intel to prove a case now. It's lying no matter how you try to paint it.
Quote:Neither you nor anyone else can show that no WMD have been produced since the first Gulf War, even now with the benefit of post-invasion hindsight, which we did not possess when we invaded. It is impossible to "contain" someone who has the option of sending an agent to sneak a WMD into your country and killing a huge number of people with that single weapon.
It's impossible to contain him even though we did? There was an easy bloodless way to find out if he had them..........inspections. Since NO ONE including his neighbors considered him a threat there was NO reason to invade in March. Inspections could have proceeded why we made a real case based on real evidence of this actual decade.
Quote:In an age when your 100% certainly might come in the form of a mushroom cloud rising over what used to be Washington, DC, or a report on the morning news of a mysterious deadly plague breaking out in New York City and starting to spread to the rest of the country, we can no longer wait for utter certainty
Quote:1. No containment when one weapon smuggled into your country could kill a million people.
I have no idea what this means, you keep trying to imply weapons existed that didnt' exist while you ignore the fact that they exist elsewhere.
Quote:2. Even after the invasion, we're not sure that WMD were never developed after the first Gulf War, and certainly weren't convinced of it based on the information we had when we invaded.
Well YOU may not have been but most experts, and the scientist there did say they didn't exist. Also the inspectors who were IN IRAQ UNTIL 1998 said they didn't exist and guess what ? we went in and THEY DON'T EXIST.
Quote:3. I disagree that he proved no threat.
Disagree until you are blue in the face but fact show he wasn't.
Quote:
If several particularly noxious dictatorships are acquiring WMD, they are all threats and all must be dealt with.
Quote:Show me where I said that Iraq helped to plan 9/11. I was talking about a future danger from WMD.
Ok so you didn't say it, Bush did, cheney did and every Republican out there is trying to make the connection but YOU didn't say that.
Quote:
What kind of evidence do you want him to show to support his assertion that Kerry hasn't done much important in the Senate? You seem awfully reluctant to cite a few examples of Kerry's achievements.
I don't have to cite examples it's Dicks job. I love how you guys always change the rules depending on what excuse you are trying to make. First you will yell "prove it"! then when you are asked to prove it you turn it around and tell us to prove the negative. You honestly think this makes you appear clever when all it does it make you appear lazy and in denial. If Dick is going to claim these things to be true then he should show them to be true, his just claiming it doesn't make it so. That is the point.
You had previously taken exception to my statement that Iraq had long history of seeking to acquire WMD. You asked me in what way a decade or two qualified as a long history. When I said, "The point is....," my reference was specifically to that query and that one alone, not to the entire topic. I consider it to be relevant to the decision to invade that Iraq is known to have sought WMD, and sought also to conceal their WMD and WMD programs.
No one in the government said that Iraq intended to use the weapons in 2004. What the president actually said, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
At the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was known that North Korea actually claimed to have several working nuclear weapons, developed while the Clinton administration slept. That meant that it was simply too late, and invasion would not be an option. If we were to attempt to invade, they could kill a million of our soldiers and/or South Koreans in the first hour. Now we have to negotiate with the North Koreans no matter how unreasonable or unyielding their demands, or how improper their actions. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from acquiring the same level of near invulnerability.
We didn't invade Iraq merely because it was in breach of UN resolutions. We invaded Iraq because it was in breach of UN resolutions regarding WMD, and we believed that Iraq's WMD posed a deadly future threat to the US and the West. We used the best intel we had available, and millions believed that Iraq still possessed WMD and WMD programs, which they may well have possessed. Where is the lying you refer to?
How do you contain someone who always has the option of sneaking a hidden WMD into your country and killing a huge number of your citizens with even one such weapon, then denying responsibility? All he would have to do is sneak just one single WMD of any type past you to strike a crippling blow against you? How do you contain someone in an age when this is an option for the person you are trying to contain? It's not like he would need to use ICBMs. You act as though the last round of negotiations was the beginning of the story. Hussein had been playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors for over a decade. I have seen films of the inspectors being stopped outside a facility they are trying to enter and not allowed to enter with no explanation until some mysterious task inside is finished. Had Hussein been secretly retaining and further developing WMD, we would have had a finite window of opportunity before he simply became too strong to challenge. A small country possessing stockpiles of WMD, can defend itself rather well against anyone.
First of all, I have never claimed that Iraq was in on 9/11, although it certainly had ties to terrorists. There is much evidence of this, including Russia's warning to us that Hussein planned terrorist attacks against the US. If Iraq had still had its stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and been continuing its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapon development programs, then it would have been a very significant threat, well worth acting on. We went to war because the totality of the history with Iraq implied a real likelihood that it did have these things, as it may indeed have. In an era when a small, unstable dictatorship, or terrorist group can harm us greatly by smuggling a single WMD into our country, we cannot afford to wait for total certainty, if we wish to survive.
I am making the abstract statement that you cannot contain a nation which has had WMD and WMD programs, when that nation can damage your country severely by smuggling a single WMD into your country, setting it off, then denying responsibility.
Prove to me that they weren't developed after the first Gulf War and then later destroyed or shipped out of Iraq for safekeeping. Iraq is about the size of California. Prove that they aren't merely well hidden.
am not proposing anything at all in that statement. I am saying that any particularly bad dictator in possession of WMD is a threat that must be faced and protected against. You show some signs of being unable to understand extremely simple English sentences.
To the best of my knowledge, neither Bush nor Cheney said that Sadam was in on the planning of 9/11. They may have said that he could have been, as he could have, but I don't think they said that he was. Please cite your source for this claim.
This is highly illogical. What kind of examples do you want Morris to cite to show that Kerry never did much of significance during his Senate career. The only one who could cite examples would be someone who claimed that Kerry did do a lot of significant things.
Quote:...I consider it to be relevant to the decision to invade that Iraq is known to have sought WMD, and sought also to conceal their WMD and WMD programs.
When was all this proven?
Quote:No one in the government said that Iraq intended to use the weapons in 2004. What the president actually said, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
HUH? No you are right they didn't say it they would use them in 2004, they started saying they would use them "soon" in 2000 on through 2003. It's clear when 75% of Americans after 9.11 think Saddam was part of 9.11 and ready to attack us that the administration succussfully convinced some Americans that not only was Saddam ready to bomb our ass but that he alone caused 9.11. Anyway you twist it , it was misleading.
Quote:At the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was known that North Korea actually claimed to have several working nuclear weapons, developed while the Clinton administration slept. That meant that it was simply too late, and invasion would not be an option. If we were to attempt to invade, they could kill a million of our soldiers and/or South Koreans in the first hour. Now we have to negotiate with the North Koreans no matter how unreasonable or unyielding their demands, or how improper their actions. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from acquiring the same level of near invulnerability.
The Clinton administration slept? so what was Bush's reaction to N. Korea? Well he walked away from the table and told them to go F themselves. Then recently what did he do? EXACTLY WHAT CLINTON AND CARTER DID. You guys slay me with your hypocrisy.
NOW we invaded Iraq to PREVENT Saddam from aquirring weapons. So we have to now invade N. Korea, Syria, Iran and countless other countries in order to make sure they don't possibly get WMD? Wait I thought we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people? are you saying Bush lied? NO wait we invaded because he was ready to send a "mushroom cloud" in the words of Rice. No wait we invaded because he didn't abide by the UN resolution.
Fact is brandon the reasons for invasin change as quickly as the so called intelligence.
Quote:We didn't invade Iraq merely because it was in breach of UN resolutions. We invaded Iraq because it was in breach of UN resolutions regarding WMD, and we believed that Iraq's WMD posed a deadly future threat to the US and the West. We used the best intel we had available, and millions believed that Iraq still possessed WMD and WMD programs, which they may well have possessed. Where is the lying you refer to?
Now wouldn't you have to PROVE THEY HAD THE WMD for them to actually be in breach of the resolution? What we did is say they had them, and then not allow them to prove the didn't and then attacked them for something that proved to be false. That is what happened.
Quote:How do you contain someone who always has the option of sneaking a hidden WMD into your country and killing a huge number of your citizens with even one such weapon, then denying responsibility? All he would have to do is sneak just one single WMD of any type past you to strike a crippling blow against you? How do you contain someone in an age when this is an option for the person you are trying to contain? It's not like he would need to use ICBMs. You act as though the last round of negotiations was the beginning of the story. Hussein had been playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors for over a decade. I have seen films of the inspectors being stopped outside a facility they are trying to enter and not allowed to enter with no explanation until some mysterious task inside is finished. Had Hussein been secretly retaining and further developing WMD, we would have had a finite window of opportunity before he simply became too strong to challenge. A small country possessing stockpiles of WMD, can defend itself rather well against anyone.
How do you contain someone? Well go back under the Clinton years and read up on it? Fact is that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD, and we did manage to prevent him from aquiring them. What was running around in his evil little brain about wanting them is irrelevant.
Fact again Brandon is that we invaded on something that we couldn't prove and now we are trying to change the reasons we went in. You keep working off the idiotic premise that NO WMD means they exist. I don't know how anyone with an ounce of logic can honestly say with sincerity that our not finding any WMD proves that he was a threat. How the hell does that work?
Quote:First of all, I have never claimed that Iraq was in on 9/11, although it certainly had ties to terrorists. There is much evidence of this, including Russia's warning to us that Hussein planned terrorist attacks against the US. If Iraq had still had its stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and been continuing its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapon development programs, then it would have been a very significant threat, well worth acting on. We went to war because the totality of the history with Iraq implied a real likelihood that it did have these things, as it may indeed have. In an era when a small, unstable dictatorship, or terrorist group can harm us greatly by smuggling a single WMD into our country, we cannot afford to wait for total certainty, if we wish to survive.
Certainly had ties to terrorist? From what information source do you come by this? Russia warned us prior to 9.11 that we would were going to be attacked with planes being used as missles. Besides you aren't actually going by all that Russsia said but are instead picking the parts you want to use to try and excuse the actions of the administration.
There is NO way in hell Saddam was going to attack the US. He was evil not freaking stupid!
Isn't it odd that you would think our going into Iraq which caused us to be less safe is somehow beneficial to us. How does that work brandon?
Quote:I am making the abstract statement that you cannot contain a nation which has had WMD and WMD programs, when that nation can damage your country severely by smuggling a single WMD into your country, setting it off, then denying responsibility.
huh? that was a pretty abstract statement I have to give you that one
Quote:Prove to me that they weren't developed after the first Gulf War and then later destroyed or shipped out of Iraq for safekeeping. Iraq is about the size of California. Prove that they aren't merely well hidden.
Prove to me that you are not a rapist, its the same kind of twisted logic. You want me to prove the negative.
Quote:I am not proposing anything at all in that statement. I am saying that any particularly bad dictator in possession of WMD is a threat that must be faced and protected against. You show some signs of being unable to understand extremely simple English sentences.
And you seem to be under the impression that terrorism is a simple proposition where all we have to do is go in with our guns blazing and show our testorone and all will be right with the world. Even when the opposite is being shown to be true.
Quote:To the best of my knowledge, neither Bush nor Cheney said that Sadam was in on the planning of 9/11. They may have said that he could have been, as he could have, but I don't think they said that he was. Please cite your source for this claim.
You know if you aren't going to be honest then what's the point on contining this discussion. I won't even attempt to show you to be a liar because I think we both know you are.
Quote:This is highly illogical. What kind of examples do you want Morris to cite to show that Kerry never did much of significance during his Senate career. The only one who could cite examples would be someone who claimed that Kerry did do a lot of significant things.
Geez I don't know maybe he could actually cite dates, events and actions and then go onto outline how this supports his claims. No wonder Bush gets away with lying and flip flopping without notice of his flock, when you have to ask how to show something then that tells me that you dont' understand or have forgotten what actual fact consists of. Talk about illogical.
