Understanding America and the Bush administration

But we're not talking about defacto "negotiation." We're talking about attacking any country on the basis of fear and "our rights."

Only the right to stay alive. Negotiation is always desirable, but if it doesn't work, we are then justified in attacking a later day Hitler type who is developing doomsday weapons.

Our right to stay alive does not include our killing innocent people on presumptive fear.

Only the danger of an imminent attack could justify a preemptive strike. There has to be proof for that.

"We were afraid" is no reason to attack.

Neither is "We had to find out".

It's illegal. There hasn't been proof to justify the war. Neither before, nor after the invasion. Therefore illegal, by international law.


Imagine, Albania would say "We are afraid the US wants to attack us. They have WMD." This would be a valid reason for Albania to attack the US, following your logic.

Illegal? What "law" was violated? What court will pass judgement? The fact is our intervention was duly authorized by the U.S. Congress in accordance with the Constitution. The action was entirely legal. Some of you may condem the action - that is your right. However it was most certainly not illegal.

The benefits to the Iraqi people and to the Arab world in general are already becoming evident. The verdict of history will be known in a few decades. So far things look very good in that area.

georgeob, Wrong; congress authrized war only in the event this president could connect 9-11 to Iraq. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002149

House Passes Resolution Supporting U.S. Troops and Commander-in-Chief

108th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. CON. RES. 104

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States Armed Forces, a total force comprised of active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel, are now undertaking courageous and determined operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein's regime;

Whereas the Senate and House of Representatives and the American people have the greatest pride in the members of the Armed Forces and strongly support them;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), which provides congressional authorization for the use of military force against Iraq;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on November 8, 2002, voted unanimously that Iraq `...will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations' to disarm in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions;

Whereas Iraq remains in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

Whereas the United States has assembled and deployed an allied military coalition to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with the relevant United Nations resolutions;

Whereas on March 18, 2003, the President transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the President's determination, consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and that the President's use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;

Whereas on the evening of March 17, 2003, the President of the United States issued Saddam Hussein and his sons a final ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face United States military intervention;

Whereas, when Saddam Hussein failed to comply, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to commence military operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein during the evening of March 19, 2003, under the code name of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in order to liberate Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas the United States Armed Forces and allied forces are performing their missions with great courage and distinction in carrying out air, land, and sea attacks against Iraqi military targets; and

Whereas the ability of the Armed Forces to successfully perform their mission requires the support of their nation, community, and families: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation--

(1) to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism;

(2) to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and

(3) to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.

Thank you McGentrix. Now the question is - will Cicerone be big enough to admit his error?

McG, Your post is the authorization after the war started. Of coarse our congress is going to support our troops. Why would you think otherwise?
********************
Office of the Press Secretary
September 20, 2001



Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.


View the President's Remarks
Listen to the President's Remarks

9:00 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:

In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground -- passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. (Applause.)

We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.

My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong. (Applause.)

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. (Applause.)

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military.

Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for your service to our country. (Applause.)

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.

Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. (Applause.) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend. (Applause.)

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.)

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me -- the Office of Homeland Security.

And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend -- Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. (Applause.) He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. (Applause.)

Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. (Applause.)

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all.

The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what -- we're not going to allow it. (Applause.)

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. (Applause.)

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it.

I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. (Applause.)

And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.

Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together.

Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying, with direct assistance during this emergency. (Applause.)

We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. (Applause.) We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before they strike. (Applause.)

We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work.

Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. (Applause.) As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the world that we will rebuild New York City. (Applause.)

After all that has just passed -- all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them -- it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. (Applause.)

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (Applause.)

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. (Applause.)

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Thank you. (Applause.)

END 9:41 P.M. EDT

Too bad.

georgeob, You continue to misconstrue what had gone on. The congress approved that motion on the basis of wrong information on Saddam's WMDs. Senator Diane Feinstein subsequently said they were "lied" to and that 70 democrats would not have voted for that motion if they had known what they know 'now.' Misinformation by this president and his minions to get a vote for war under false information doesn't absolve this administration for their "mistake" in declaring Saddam had WMDs and the facilities to make them. Anything that follows is immoral. Accumulating wrong after wrong doesn't eventually make it right no matter how you wish to twist the facts. *** "Whereas, when Saddam Hussein failed to comply, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to commence military operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein during the evening of March 19, 2003, under the code name of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in order to liberate Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"[/B

If you wish to quote "in order to liberate Iraq" that was not the primary purpose of going to war. It was, I repeat, for the security of the American People.

Additionally, Tony Blair and the Brits would never have been involed in a preemptive attack on Iraq to "liberate Iraq."

Would'a, should'a don't count in the real world. The senators did vote for the resolution and Tony Blair did make his decision. Because Diane Feinstein said she was lied to doesn't make it true. The evidence very strongly points to the real conviction throughout the government that Iraq posessed the capability to quickly reconstitute its WMD capability, particularly chemical and biological weapons.

You are wrong. I still like you, but you are wrong.

georgeob, I like you too, but I also love my siblings even though they are usually directly apposed to my opinions on religion and politics. That being said, just because all this transpired on the basis of wrong intel information doesn't eventually absolve this administration of the fact that it was 'WRONG.' Quote, "Would'a, should'a don't count in the real world." But it does; many countries after having made mistakes apologized and paid reperations, as in the US to it's Japanese American citizens.

Looks like the "coalition of the willing" is falling apart.


Italy Planning to Start Pullout of Iraq Troops
By IAN FISHER

Published: March 16, 2005


ROME, March 15 - Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Tuesday that he aimed to begin withdrawing Italy's 3,000 troops from Iraq by September, in a signal that the domestic cost of loyalty to the United States over the war was growing too high.

Mr. Berlusconi, one of President Bush's few close allies in Europe, framed his words carefully, saying in brief comments on a talk show here that the timing of the withdrawal depended on the strength of the Iraqi government. Italy has the fourth largest contingent of foreign troops in Iraq, its soldiers acting largely as peacekeepers near the southern city of Nasiriya.

Advertisement


But there could be little doubt that Mr. Berlusconi was looking not only at events in Iraq, for on the same show he said that he would run for re-election in the spring of 2006. Political commentators here have long assumed that given the deep opposition to the war in Iraq among Italians, Mr. Berlusconi would be forced to begin the troop withdrawal by then.

That opposition to the war found a galvanizing new cause two weeks ago when an Italian intelligence agent was shot to death in Iraq by American soldiers after he obtained the freedom of a kidnapped Italian journalist.

While the shooting cast a shadow over relations between Italy and Washington, it was unclear how great a role it played in Mr. Berlusconi's decision, a rare nod to public sentiment against the war.

"I've spoken about it with Tony Blair, and it's the public opinion of our countries that expects this decision," Mr. Berlusconi said in the talk show Porta a Porta, referring to the British prime minister, who faces similar public disenchantment for his support of the war. "We have to build an exit strategy."

There was no immediate comment from Mr. Blair, but British opponents of the Iraq war were quick to applaud Mr. Berlusconi's action. "It is time the U.K. showed a similar resolve," said Sir Menzies Campbell, the foreign affairs spokesman of the Liberal Democratic Party, which opposed the war from the beginning and plans to fight the election expected in May in part on an antiwar platform. "Britain's objective should be to achieve the withdrawal of British forces by the expiration date of the U.N. mandate which ends in December 2005."

Mr. Berlusconi's announcement seemed a blow to the Bush administration's efforts both to keep up the number of troops in Iraq and to portray the war there as the effort of a broad coalition of nations, as other allies have said they, too, will begin withdrawing their troops in the coming months.

Britain, with 8,000 troops, the second largest contingent in Iraq after the United States' 150,000, has not announced any withdrawal date. But Poland, another important European ally, has announced it will withdraw several hundred of its 1,700 troops in July with the intent of leaving entirely around the start of the new year. The Netherlands and Ukraine have both begun withdrawing their combined 2,900 troops or plan to do so.

In Washington, the Bush administration had little to say, other than applauding the role Italy has played in Iraq and focusing on Mr. Berlusconi's promise not to withdraw precipitously. "This will be based on the ability and capability of Iraqi forces and the Iraqi government to be able to assume more responsibility and that he will work in agreement with allies in the region before taking those steps," said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman.

At the Pentagon, a spokesman said late Tuesday that news reports on the Italian withdrawal would require no immediate action or reaction by the American-led coalition forces in Iraq. "Although we are still awaiting the details of the apparent Italian policy decision, as we understand it, it would start in September with a phased or gradual withdrawal," the spokesman said. "There is ample time to work any potential issues that may arise."

Asked whether he thought Mr. Berlusconi had made his announcement because of the shooting of the intelligence agent, Mr. McClellan said, "I'm not sure I'd make a connection there."

That is not absolutely true. We are dealing here with a situation in which there was some probability of a danger. One cannot say that we cannot react based on any probability less than 100% without taking into account the magnitude of the danger. If the combination of the magnitude of the danger and the probability that it is present is large enough, and on top of that the ruler of the country is a brutal dictator subjecting his own people to hideous oppression, then an invasion would certainly be justified.

Let me paint a hypothetical scenario to illustrate that your very absolute statement is wrong. Consider the scenario that 50 years from now, a very evil dictator who is already a mass murderer (someone like Hussein) is known to have been working on the creation of several ounces of antimatter. Suppose that documents were discovered that indicated his intention was to use it to obliterate the United States in one huge explosion. We then defeated him in a war and he signed a surrender treaty promising to verifiably destroy the antimatter development programs and however much antimatter had already been created. It is now years later, and he has failed to provide such proof, but has been caught lying about the matter several times.

To say that we could not go in and make certain unless we had absolute proof that he was merely hiding it, is absurd. In the fictitious scenario I have written, it would be sheer insanity to wait longer, rather than go in and make sure. I believe this hypothetical demonstrates clearly that the blanket statement that one can't invade with less than 100% assuredness is wrong.

In the actual case we faced, we were, of course, not dealing with anything as powerful as antimatter, but we were dealing with weapons powerful enough that you could possibly get hundreds of thousands or a million dead with one use of one. The fact is that if the integrated probability and consequences are great enough, and the country is ruled by an oppressive dictator too, invasion is the only intelligent reaction. Now add in the fact that Hussein had promised to verifiably disarm under the terms of a previous surrender treaty and there was more than sufficient justification.

If the danger is grave enough, waiting for 100% proof is merely stupid. It may come in the form of a plague killing millions.


"There was a signicant chance that we were in very grave danger" is.


The situation just on its face was enough to indicate that there was a good chance he had not destroyed his WMD and development programs. As for it being illegal, it would be a grave error for the US to give any foreign body a veto on its right to deal with dangers to its people's lives.


Not at all. We are not saying that no one may possess WMD, only that a handful of people of the character of a Hitler or Hussein or bin Laden may not.

Quote, "If the danger is grave enough, waiting for 100% proof is merely stupid. It may come in the form of a plague killing millions." This is true, and nobody argues with this point. The issue is how reliable the information is that is used to determine the inevitable action of the enemy. In the case of our preemptive attack on Iraq, this administration refused to listen to the intel people that the informatin was not independently confirmed, and got most of our info from expatriates of Iraq.

What proof justifies pre-emptive strike? If the act is done, the strike is no longer pre-emptive. That being fairly obvious I will assume your objection is to any pre-emptive strike.

Let me summarize, what in my understanding is, the root cause of your objection. As you believe, that it is incorrect to punish individuals for actions they might commit before they do commit them. That is intent is not enough to merit punishment, the act must be committed.

So now lets see what this logic assumes:

1. The principles of individual justice can be applied to nation states. This is really not true. It assumes a commonly agreed upon set of laws and an unbiased system for legal overview, that is an unbiased judge. If you believe the UN fits that description, think again, asking the UN to effectively arbitrate such crises, is in terms of equivalent individual justice, expecting the defendent to get a fair trial when the jury consists of his parents, siblings and employees. Simply put, the UN in this case represented too many vested interests to really arbiter the situation. Thus in the current scenario, it doesn't seem practical to apply concepts of fair individual justice to nation states.

2. Even if you squeeze through my objection in point 1 and choose to apply the individual justice to nation states, you run into another untrue assumption, a level playing field. That is you assume that other potentially threatening countries subscribe to the same version of individual justice that you do. Simply put, no-one will attempt a pre-emptive strike against you, if you do nothing. Again, september 11th and the very existence of terrorism, which by the way are cold hard facts, completely contradict the assumption of a level playing field. This I believe is what georgeob and others meant when they asked if you would wait for an attack instead? This seems to be a perfectly valid objection.

Also in the specific case of the Bush Administration and Iraq, the situation is even more complicated.
So lets do a pointwise list again:
1. The primary responsibility of the US president is to protect the American people.

2. They had intelligence(faulty, but thats a post decision concern, to be discussed later) which indicated that Saddam was pursuing WMD's.

3. Saddam Hussein could have avoided the situation by abiding to previously signed treaties, post the first gulf war, and submitting to inspections. He has previously documented history of violence, etc. again this would be a repeat of multiple previous posts.

Given this information, Wouldn't the american president have been remiss in his duties to the American people had he chosen to do nothing?

Also, given saddam's history and record, why is the world still trying to pin the war solely on Bush?

To anyone who replied to my latest posts to this thread, I apologize for not debating the substance of the issues at this point. I was responding to a question by physgrad, who had asked what specific actions of the Bush administration made them unpopular in the rest of the world. I answered this question by listing what I see as their most important, specific, unpopular actions (some of which are unpopular with me too, some of which not). If anything about my answers is unclear, I'll be happy to clarify. But as far as this thread is concerned, I am not interested in defending the merits of my opinions about the Bush administration. I have done so in dozens of threads before, and anyone who's interested can look them up in my profile. Frankly I'm too weary of the excercise to repeat it in yet another thread. Sorry.

<falling back into observer mode>