Sure Tico.
Whatever you say.
You're right, I'm wrong.
Saddam was a threat, but not an imminent one.
He was a serious threat, but not quite serious enough to be called imminent.
He was considered to be one of the "greatest threats of our times", but not so great a threat as to be regarded as an imminent one. Obviously being "the greatest threat of our time", or being a "serious threat to our country and our allies" is so far removed from being an imminent threat that I realize that I now need rehab to resolve my delusions.
The whole world knows that if something is a threat, there are varying degrees and levels of that threat.
It was worth noting the degree of his threat to the United States and the international community and it was imperative to remain clear that he posed a threat to the security of the entire world, and he was a madman....but not an imminent threat.
Gotcha.
Bush is the is the only real terrorist threat to America. Everybody realizes that know.
Amigo, You got that figured out right; Bush is the only one that will start a war on "fear" alone.
cicerone imposter wrote:Is it true that we still have containers coming into our country from all over the world without any inspection?
How is that security for America?
Just wondering.
Yeah, there's too many to open up, c.i. I agree it's a problem. And no, it doesn't translate into security for America.
But I can just see the headline splashed on the front of the New York Times if the government were to step up such a program:
Quote:Container Ships Secretly Searched by U.S. to Fight Terror
No Warrants Obtained
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
candidone1 wrote:Sure Tico.
Whatever you say.
You're right, I'm wrong.
Saddam was a threat, but not an imminent one.
He was a serious threat, but not quite serious enough to be called imminent.
He was considered to be one of the "greatest threats of our times", but not so great a threat as to be regarded as an imminent one. Obviously being "the greatest threat of our time", or being a "serious threat to our country and our allies" is so far removed from being an imminent threat that I realize that I now need rehab to resolve my delusions.
The whole world knows that if something is a threat, there are varying degrees and levels of that threat.
It was worth noting the degree of his threat to the United States and the international community and it was imperative to remain clear that he posed a threat to the security of the entire world, and he was a madman....but not an imminent threat.
You initially said you remember a time when Saddam was considered an "imminent" threat. I asked you to explain when he was considered an "imminent" threat, and by whom. You then listed a bunch of quotes from people referring to Saddam as a lot of things, but not an "imminent threat." You then tried to sell me a bill of goods that the words "serious," "greatest," "terrible," "real," "significant," "unique," and "grave," were synonymous with the word "imminent," which is clearly pure fantasy on your part. I then pointed out that Bush specifically made the point in his 2003 SOTU speech that the US shouldn't wait until Saddam
became an imminent threat. Finally, I am able to peer through your sarcastic voice in your above post, and see that are now arguing that because of the words used by the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War, the only reasonable conclusion you could reach is that Saddam was, in fact, an imminent threat.
And thus it appears my question is finally answered:
You considered him an imminent threat.
I have a feeling you dream of the day when you might really deserve to say "gotcha" to me, but alas, today is not that day.
Thanks cicerone, nice to see you buddy.
The Bush people are only here the service there lies. It is there strongest allie. They are a personification of lies, they would not exist without them.
It is pointless to argue with them. They are reaching and developing new highths in denial and trickery in avoiding truth and facts witch is why we get so pissed off and end up breaking the tos rules.
And here again is the truth;
BUSH IS THE ONLY BIGGEST TERRORIST THREAT TO AMERICA!
AND I LOVE AMERICA!
TRUTH TO POWER!
cicerone imposter wrote:Amigo, You got that figured out right; Bush is the only one that will start a war on "fear" alone.
Regardless of the public debate about the threat posed by Saddam and Iraq, the deliberations in the US Congress had nothing to do with the imminence of Iraq's threat to the US. You might want to refresh your memory by reviewing the full text of the
"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,"dated October 2, 2002, which mainly references Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions.
Amigo wrote:They are reaching and developing new highths in denial and trickery in avoiding truth and facts witch is why we get so pissed off and end up breaking the tos rules.
Another example of the way a liberal thinks: Rather than put the blame where it belongs, you blame the conservative posters for your lack of self-control.
This kind of thinking is the reason leftists blame the government for not handing them the American Dream, and blame Bush for Nick Berg's murder.
They gave weapons inspectors 48 hours to get out of the country shortly after Iraq complied.
They didn't want the weapons inspectors to do there job and tell Americans and the world there was no threat for the same reason every time the C.I.A. took the Niger claims out of the state of the union the neo-cons put them back in.
Because the WMD lie would get them the war they wanted.
As is stated in their agenda in the PNAC.
ticomaya, Get your head out of the sand:
Amigo wrote:As is stated in their agenda in the PNAC.
You mean regime change in Iraq? Draw your attention to
Public Law 105-338.
Quote:"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."
Signed by President Clinton.
BUSHLIES.NET TOP 10 22 LIES
#22 - Withdrawing Troops From Iraq
(a) Will Withdraw if Asked
President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."
(b) Iraqi's Oppose Withdrawal Timetable
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Could you characterize the worry you heard from Iraqi leaders about U.S. troop levels that you first mentioned on the flight home from Iraq? And here in the Rose Garden a week ago, you said that Zarqawi's death is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle. After your visit, do you truly believe that the tide is turning in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: First part of the question? I'm sorry.
Q About the worry that you --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No question, there are concerns about whether or not the United States will stand with this government. And I can understand why. You know, ours is a society that encourages debate and people are free to express themselves. And they do so; they say, look, this is my view of how we ought to go forward, this is what I think. And the willingness of some to say that if we're in power we'll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq, because they understand our coalition forces provide a sense of stability, so they can address old wrongs and develop their strategy and plan to move forward. They need our help and they recognize that. And so they are concerned about that.
Rose Garden Press Conference (June 14, 2006)
THE FACTS
The Bush administration has ignored repeated requests to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
June 2005: Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). "We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored," read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.
November 2005: Leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish majority and Sunni minority call for the withdrawal of foreign troops "according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks
June 2006: When George Bush visited Baghdad on June 13, Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The following day, President Jalal Talabani released a statement expressing his support for the vice-president's request. Then in an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 20, Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, called for a significant reduction in US troops this year, with most leaving next year. "We envisage the US troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007," wrote Dr. Al-Rubbaie. Al-Rubaie said that Iraqis now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators, and that their removal will strengthen the fledgling government by legitimizing it in the eyes of the Iraqi people.
Asked about the article by the Financial Times, the State Department official reaffirmed the US position that withdrawal would be based on conditions, not timelines. The Bush administration's refusal to set a timeline for withdrawal puts it on a collision course with the Iraqi government, which is increasing trying to "gain its independence from the United States," as Dr. Al-Rubbaie said in his op-ed.
# 21 - We Do Not Engage in Torture
We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." - President Bush (Nov. 7, 2005).
THE FACTS# 20 - Finding WMDsTHE FACTS
The Washington Post reported an explosive story that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team "transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003."
Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months.
(Center for American Progress)
Ticomaya wrote:
I have a feeling you dream of the day when you might really deserve to say "gotcha" to me, but alas, today is not that day.
You arrogant prick.
I said gotcha as if to say "I now understand".
Example:
Frank: Hang a left at the 7-11
Joe: Gotcha
Get over yourself already.
realjohnboy wrote:My God!!!
This effort, so far, has cost us 2500 American's lives.....
So, you oppose all wars, under any circumstances, right?
realjohnboy wrote:billions of dollars and severe damage to our reputation with the rest of the world......
It shouldn't have, because we were right.
realjohnboy wrote:And it all boils down to semantics? And the meaning of the word that may or may not have been used? Imminent.
No, the reasons for the invasion have nothing to do with this argument over who did or didn't use the word imminent.
NickFun wrote:The Bushites blindly follow Bush to the grave. Allow me to clarify. Saddam was no threat TO THE UNITED STATES! He was not involved with Al Queda. He possessed no WMD's. He never even threatened to attack the US! Show me justification for this war.
People have shown you the justification over and over, but you seem to have amnesia:
He had possessed WMD and WMD development programs, had concealed them, and lied about them. Much time had passed. He might have still been doing this. Since he provided no real verification that these things had been destroyed, we couldn't take the risk, since, had he still been developing WMD secretly, the consequences down the road might have been catastrophic almost beyond comprehension.
cicerone imposter wrote:I'm just curious, because Bush keeps saying he'll protect the American People, but we have illegal immigrants coming into our country by the thousands every year. How does that translate into "security?" Are they catching all the "terrorists" that come across our borders illegally?
Is it true that we still have containers coming into our country from all over the world without any inspection?
How is that security for America?
Just wondering.
This is all completely true. The immigration problem, while not created by Bush, is his responsibility, and he has failed to address it adequately.
The part about containers that might contain WMD coming into our ports uninspected is also not a problem he created, and not an easy problem to solve, but it must be taken very seriously. At least we know that those containers won't contain any WMD from Iraq, because Hussein's WMD development programs no longer exist.
candidone1 wrote:Sure Tico.
Whatever you say.
You're right, I'm wrong.
Saddam was a threat, but not an imminent one.
He was a serious threat, but not quite serious enough to be called imminent.
He was considered to be one of the "greatest threats of our times", but not so great a threat as to be regarded as an imminent one. Obviously being "the greatest threat of our time", or being a "serious threat to our country and our allies" is so far removed from being an imminent threat that I realize that I now need rehab to resolve my delusions.
The whole world knows that if something is a threat, there are varying degrees and levels of that threat.
It was worth noting the degree of his threat to the United States and the international community and it was imperative to remain clear that he posed a threat to the security of the entire world, and he was a madman....but not an imminent threat.
Gotcha.
This is false logic. The most serious threat in the world would not necessarily be imminent.
NickFun wrote:The Bushites blindly follow Bush to the grave. Allow me to clarify. Saddam was no threat TO THE UNITED STATES! He was not involved with Al Queda. He possessed no WMD's. He never even threatened to attack the US! Show me justification for this war.
Brandon9000 wrote:People have shown you the justification over and over, but you seem to have amnesia:
He had possessed WMD and WMD development programs, had concealed them, and lied about them.
And it has been explained to YOU over and over again that inspectors were on the ground in Iraq, they were producing evidence that the WMD's had been destroyed, and Bush ordered them out.
If he had weapons development systems underway-and there doesn't seem to be any evidence he really did-he was in no position to go forward with them since the inspectors, in the latest round, had complete access to the country, both in public and private lands. In fact, the grounds for inspection the Iraqis agreed to could not happen in the US, since searches of private homes were allowed and it would be unconstitutional over here.
Yet, in the middle of the search, he tells the invaders to get out of Iraq and invades. Just at the time it was becoming evident that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
It is YOU who have amnesia, Brandon.
Bush had the country all keyed up to invade against Iraq's WMD threat,and when the inspectors were turning up evidence there were none, he figured he'd better invade soon before people start losing their enthusiasm for the invasion.
The preamble to the
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
Quote: Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions 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 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
It cites
several factors -- not just one -- to justify military action against Iraq:
Quote: * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
* Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
* Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations"
* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
It passed the House on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate the next day, by a vote of 77-23.
