Bush says we will nevr back down.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

We can all agree that at one time Saddam "had" WMDs and programs. That's the reason why the UN Inspectors were looking for them to destroy - the same thing they did after Gulf War I.

"Had" is not a justification to start any war that has the potential to kill innocent people. It's a very simple international rule and moral imperative. Only immanent threat that can be proven with irrefutable evidence by many sources can justify a preemptive attack.

He "had" WMD, and then promised to destroy them verifiably. He then spent years lying and hiding. In an age where one single weapon can obliterate a city and a half million lives along with it, the idea that no use of the military is permissible barring 100% proof that a dictator is still lying, is foolish. The very first time he interfered with inspectors and the UN falied to act, we would have been justified in invading.

You have just provided justification for any country to attack the US. Without 100% proof that we didn't lie to invade Iraq we have opened ourselves up to any attack by others if your standard is really a standard and not a excuse.

Bad, bad, silly logic. I am not saying that anyone with less than 100% proof of any proposition is justified in invading the country in question. I am saying that if the consequences of a proposition, should it be true, are awful, such as the obliteration of cities full of people, then less than 100% proof of the proposition may be required to justify acting.

The US has weapons that can obliterate a city. The US has shown a willingness to use those weapons on a city. The US invaded a country without provocation only a few years ago.

The US doesn't have to live up to the standard you set for others. I see it isn't a standard at all. It is an attempt to excuse the behaviour and justify it after the fact. The logic isn't bad at all. Your standard is bad since you aren't really willing to apply it objectively.

Your repeated inability to even repeat my position accurately is a scream. We aren't saying that no one may have WMD. We are saying that of all the entities that are seeking them or will seek them, a small minority should be denied them such as, for instance, mad, evil, dictators.

He had the weapons in 1991 and promised to disarm verifiably as a portion of his surrender treaty. We then spent years and years trying to get him to do it, and finally had had enough. What was not incorrect was the fact that he had had WMD and programs to make better ones, had hidden the WMD and lied about them, and a dozen years later, we had still not succeeded in verifying his disarmament. The fact that a few pieces of intelligence turned out to be wrong in no way negates this basic situation. This alone was sufficient grounds for invasion.

As I describe above, at the time we invaded, the basic situation presented a very reasonable probability that Hussein was simply continuing to lie, and since the stakes were so high, that was unacceptable.

It's one thing to argue with my opinion, but rather pathetic to keep misstating it after all these many threads and posts.

Quote:
"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of the steady progress, the enemy is wounded, but the enemy is still capable of global operations."

freedom4free

Quote:

Quote:
"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of the steady progress, the enemy is wounded, but the enemy is still capable of global operations."

Whether true or not what does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq. Except to make Al Qaeda stronger and more potent. The invasion of Iraq was and is the best present Bin Laden could have received.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your repeated inability to even repeat my position accurately is a scream. We aren't saying that no one may have WMD. We are saying that of all the entities that are seeking them or will seek them, a small minority should be denied them such as, for instance, mad, evil, dictators.

And the point I am making is that your standard is YOU get to decide who is a mad evil dictator without any objective criteria other than what justifies your own actions after the fact.

If I told you a country had used WMD on citizens of another country, had invaded a country without provocation and continued to have WMD would that not meet your standard? Or is "mad" and "evil" the criteria you want to use?

Why would I waste my time trying to convince you irrational Bush loyalists/apologists? The facts have been laid out countless times, and by those here who are very capable of explaining things and citing sources.

You want more?

You're gullible. What did P.T. Barnum say?



You continue to cling to your desperate love of the Little Emperor's "administration." It's tedious.

Again, you are pathetic and laughable.

Carry on, carry your torch for the Little Dictator.

Brandon9000 wrote:

He had the weapons in 1991 and promised to disarm verifiably as a portion of his surrender treaty. We then spent years and years trying to get him to do it, and finally had had enough. What was not incorrect was the fact that he had had WMD and programs to make better ones, had hidden the WMD and lied about them, and a dozen years later, we had still not succeeded in verifying his disarmament. The fact that a few pieces of intelligence turned out to be wrong in no way negates this basic situation. This alone was sufficient grounds for invasion.

Perhaps you can start by telling us what intelligence turned out to be right. The fact that he had WMD in 1991 before he was told to get rid of them was not a justification for invading. He HAD programs in 1991.. He HAD them BEFORE he was told to get rid of them.

NOW.. what intelligence was RIGHT in 2003? The FACTS including the UNSCOM reports show that Saddam had eliminated all his WMD but some items were unaccounted for. Most of the unnaccounted for items were NOT WMD at all. They were precursors with dual purpose and explanations HAD been given for why they were no longer available. Some were destroyed without UN supervision. Some were accidently destroyed in accidents.

So which intelligence in 2003 specifically was RIGHT? You keep claiming the majority of it was but have NOT presented a single piece of intelligence to back up your claim.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I describe above, at the time we invaded, the basic situation presented a very reasonable probability that Hussein was simply continuing to lie, and since the stakes were so high, that was unacceptable.

It's one thing to argue with my opinion, but rather pathetic to keep misstating it after all these many threads and posts.

He was continuing to lie about what? What evidence was shown to have some legitimacy?

What is pathetic is your claim that only a few pieces of intelligence proved to be wrong but you can't cite any that were right and were used as justification for the invasion.

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your repeated inability to even repeat my position accurately is a scream. We aren't saying that no one may have WMD. We are saying that of all the entities that are seeking them or will seek them, a small minority should be denied them such as, for instance, mad, evil, dictators.

And the point I am making is that your standard is YOU get to decide who is a mad evil dictator without any objective criteria other than what justifies your own actions after the fact.

If I told you a country had used WMD on citizens of another country, had invaded a country without provocation and continued to have WMD would that not meet your standard? Or is "mad" and "evil" the criteria you want to use?

Are you denying that there are people who truly present a large chance of using WMD, and not in self-defense, should they acquire them? What's next, repeat felons should be allowed to possess guns because we can't define who's dangerous?

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

He had the weapons in 1991 and promised to disarm verifiably as a portion of his surrender treaty. We then spent years and years trying to get him to do it, and finally had had enough. What was not incorrect was the fact that he had had WMD and programs to make better ones, had hidden the WMD and lied about them, and a dozen years later, we had still not succeeded in verifying his disarmament. The fact that a few pieces of intelligence turned out to be wrong in no way negates this basic situation. This alone was sufficient grounds for invasion.

Perhaps you can start by telling us what intelligence turned out to be right. The fact that he had WMD in 1991 before he was told to get rid of them was not a justification for invading. He HAD programs in 1991.. He HAD them BEFORE he was told to get rid of them.

NOW.. what intelligence was RIGHT in 2003? The FACTS including the UNSCOM reports show that Saddam had eliminated all his WMD but some items were unaccounted for. Most of the unnaccounted for items were NOT WMD at all. They were precursors with dual purpose and explanations HAD been given for why they were no longer available. Some were destroyed without UN supervision. Some were accidently destroyed in accidents.

So which intelligence in 2003 specifically was RIGHT? You keep claiming the majority of it was but have NOT presented a single piece of intelligence to back up your claim.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I describe above, at the time we invaded, the basic situation presented a very reasonable probability that Hussein was simply continuing to lie, and since the stakes were so high, that was unacceptable.

It's one thing to argue with my opinion, but rather pathetic to keep misstating it after all these many threads and posts.

He was continuing to lie about what? What evidence was shown to have some legitimacy?

What is pathetic is your claim that only a few pieces of intelligence proved to be wrong but you can't cite any that were right and were used as justification for the invasion.

Before I clarify what I actually meant, I should say that there were undoubtedly many, many pieces of government intelligence about Iraq's WMD, and I am no more familiar with them than you are. If you surprise me by being an expert on it, then list every bit of intelligence which suggested Hussein still had WMD, so that I may see that every bit was not merely misleading, but completely false. No, the fact is that neither you nor I has much familiarity with the intelligence that existed on the subject except for a few high profile pieces that have been shown to be invalid.

However, that wasn't really what I meant. I meant that even the fact that Hussein had had WMD in 1991, had subsequently been caught obstructing inspectors and lying, and had not proven that he had disarmed was enough to produce an unacceptable level of possibility that he was continuing to do the same thing.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Bomb blasts killed six Marines in western Iraq, and U.S. forces killed 29 militants in U.S. offensives aimed at uprooting al-Qaida insurgents ahead of the country's vote on a new constitution, the military said Friday.

The American deaths brought to 1,950 the number of U.S. troops who have died since the beginning of the war in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Spending for Iraq, Afghanistan wars would exceed $350 billion

Friday, October 7, 2005; Posted: 10:27 a.m. EDT (14:27 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Friday to give President Bush $50 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. military efforts against terrorism, money that would push total spending for the operations beyond $350 billion.