Bush on Broadband → Re: Yeah right

said by SRFireside:

---

Most likely to make sure there is something in place in case Saddam goes back to his old tricks. The fact of the matter is Iraq's war machine has been severely crippled since after the first war. No stockpiles of chemical weapons, nuclear testing facilities or even missiles that could go beyond 100 miles were found. The U.N. enacting preventive measures doesn't automatically make Iraq an official threat.

---

Apparently you haven't read the UN resolutions. They specifically state that Iraq was to PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DISPOSED OF THEIR WMDs. Why do you think they tried to send inspectors if they didn't think Iraq had WMDs? Why wouldn't Saddam let the inspectors in if he was complying? So he move the WMDs and we haven't found them yet, unless you've got evidence that he disposed of them instead of hid them.

said by AIN Tech:

---

They specifically state that Iraq was to PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DISPOSED OF THEIR WMDs. Why do you think they tried to send inspectors if they didn't think Iraq had WMDs?

---

The fact still remains that there is absolutely no evidence of there being any WMD's. Well over 80% of Iraq has been searched with no to much as even a hint of evidence. You can hypothesize all you want about why Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in. Maybe he was just powertripping. Maybe he was selling the weapons off. Who knows? The end result is still the same, which is no WMD's have been found. Saying it's there doesn't make it so.

But yet just this week, Richard Clark confirmed meetings in the late 90's between Saddam's head of weapons development and scientists running a chemical factory funded by Al Queda.

Can you back this up with a link to the article because this is the first I heard of it. The only thing even close to what you said I have heard is that the WMD investigation will now include finding evidence of whether or not there was intent to create any WMD's. And once you get that proof I'm asking for tell me how talks with a chemical factory equate to clear and eminent threat.

It depends on what your definition of 'Clear and Eminent Threat' is because there wasn't any more 'Clear and Eminent Threat' concerning Al Queda before 9/11 then there was for Iraq. In fact, according to the link below, there was MORE evidence of 'Clear and Eminent Threat' from Iraq then there was from Al Queda:

»www.allamericanpatriots. ··· 682.html

Oh my goodness. You link an article from an extreme right wing web site and expect me to consider it objective? Hindsight certainly is 20/20, but that's no excuse for just taking down anybody you see as a "potential" threat. Again I ask why didn't Bush go after North Korea, who was making loud noises about building their nuclear arsenal? Would that fall under your definition of clear and eminent threat?

Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of the fact the CIA had information about terrorist activity before 9/11 but someone, somewhere ended up dropping the ball. So yeah... we did know of the clear and eminent threat. We just didn't do anything about it. I still can't fathom where you are getting clear and eminent threat from a country with a broken military, embargoed economy and .... wait for it.... no weapons of mass destruction.

said by SRFireside:

---

Oh my goodness. You link an article from an extreme right wing web site and expect me to consider it objective?

---

And you haven't been linking articles from extreme left wing web sites? At least the website I linked to gave the Testimony to the US Congress by Mr. Charles Duelfer in it's entirety instead of just giving the opinion of the writer like all your links.

said by SRFireside:

---

Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of the fact the CIA had information about terrorist activity before 9/11 but someone, somewhere ended up dropping the ball. So yeah... we did know of the clear and eminent threat. We just didn't do anything about it.

---

But yet the evidence against Iraq is not considered 'clear and eminent threat'? Should we have waited for Saddam to detonate a briefcase nuclear bomb in New York and then have a committee determine that UN Resolutions 678 and 781 was enough evidence and we should have done something about it before hand?

Sounds like your going in circles. We should have connected the dots and stopped Al Queda before 9/11 but God forbid we connect the dots and stop Saddam before another 9/11 happens. If we had attacked and stopped Al Queda's plans before 9/11, you would be arguing the same point against attacking Al Queda as you are now about stopping Saddam .

said by AIN Tech:

---

And you haven't been linking articles from extreme left wing web sites? At least the website I linked to gave the Testimony to the US Congress by Mr. Charles Duelfer in it's entirety instead of just giving the opinion of the writer like all your links.

---

Excuse me, but I haven't linked ANY articles in this thread. Where the heck are you getting this from? When I do link articles they come from legitimate news sources and not politically slanted web sites.

said by AIN Tech:

---

But yet the evidence against Iraq is not considered 'clear and eminent threat'? Should we have waited for Saddam to detonate a briefcase nuclear bomb in New York and then have a committee determine that UN Resolutions 678 and 781 was enough evidence and we should have done something about it before hand?

---

That's just it. Saddam didn't have the resources (nor the balls) to do such a thing. As much as the government has tried they still can't tie Iraq to any terrorist activity for the past ten years. And AGAIN I mention North Korea. Why didn't we do anything about them, especially when they had a most definite show of being a threat than your hypothetical assumptions?

said by AIN Tech:

---

Sounds like your going in circles. We should have connected the dots and stopped Al Queda before 9/11 but God forbid we connect the dots and stop Saddam before another 9/11 happens. If we had attacked and stopped Al Queda's plans before 9/11, you would be arguing the same point against attacking Al Queda as you are now about stopping Saddam .

---

The difference is we had dots to connect in regards to 9/11. There simply are no dots in Iraq. No WMD's, no terrorist activity or plans, nothing. Al Queda on the other hand had a long history of terrorism and a history of terrorism against the United States. Iraq has absolutely no history of ever being a threat to the U.S. and that includes back when he DID have WMD's. You're the one going in circles.

said by SRFireside:

---

Excuse me, but I haven't linked ANY articles in this thread. Where the heck are you getting this from? When I do link articles they come from legitimate news sources and not politically slanted web sites.

---

It must have been another forum that I saw your link on. I'm sorry for the confusion. But your telling me that any website that holds a different view then you do, especially if it's factual, must be 'extreme right wing'? Doesn't sound very unbiased to me.

said by SRFireside:

---

That's just it. Saddam didn't have the resources (nor the balls) to do such a thing. As much as the government has tried they still can't tie Iraq to any terrorist activity for the past ten years. And AGAIN I mention North Korea. Why didn't we do anything about them, especially when they had a most definite show of being a threat than your hypothetical assumptions?

---

So Saddam invading Kuwait, trying to start a Holy War with Israel, firing at our planes in the no fly zone several times over the last 10 years, and constantly defying the demands of UN resolutions 678 & 781 (including not letting inspectors in several suspected WMD sites) is considered 'not having the balls'? Have you even looked at the UN resolutions?

As for North Korea, we should have put an end to that regime back during the Korean War. I still agree that we should take steps in removing them as threats. I think that was one of many of Bush's bad decisions.

said by SRFireside:

---

The difference is we had dots to connect in regards to 9/11. There simply are no dots in Iraq. No WMD's, no terrorist activity or plans, nothing. Al Queda on the other hand had a long history of terrorism and a history of terrorism against the United States. Iraq has absolutely no history of ever being a threat to the U.S. and that includes back when he DID have WMD's. You're the one going in circles.

---

Again...Saddam invaded Kuwait, fired at Israel hoping to start a Holy War, fired at our planes in the no fly zone, tortured and TERRORIZED his own people. These are not dots? President Clinton must have connected the 'non-existent dots' when he fired Cruz missiles into Iraq to take out the WMD factories back in '98.

Listen to what you are saying. Saddam invaded Kuwait, messed with Israel, tortured his own people. None of this applies to being a threat to the United States. Besides all that stuff happened before the first Iraq War, which made Iraq militarily impotent. Do you know how many countries have committed atrocities to their neighboring countries and fellow citizens out there? Do we call them a threat to national security just because they are mean to people?

As for shooting at our planes you are talking about limited engagements that have nothing to do with national defense. Any military person can tell you that. As for bombing WMD factories this is the first I heard of it. Do you have a news link?

The website you shown me was not a well known news source and I have seen nothing regarding that article from any other site. After reading more on that site it does seem on the outside they don't show favoritism to either bi-partisan party so I am wrong about them being extreme left (though it's hard to tell with the Republican catch phrases slapped all over the frames). Still it's not a source I am comfortable with, especially with the full page "help by clicking our sponsor" redirect you get.

said by SRFireside:

---

Listen to what you are saying. Saddam invaded Kuwait, messed with Israel, tortured his own people. None of this applies to being a threat to the United States. Besides all that stuff happened before the first Iraq War, which made Iraq militarily impotent. Do you know how many countries have committed atrocities to their neighboring countries and fellow citizens out there? Do we call them a threat to national security just because they are mean to people?

As for shooting at our planes you are talking about limited engagements that have nothing to do with national defense. Any military person can tell you that. As for bombing WMD factories this is the first I heard of it. Do you have a news link?

---

Here's a link to Clinton's attacks on Iraq back in 9/96. I think you will consider this a reputable source:
»www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/0 ··· dex.html

Here's one in '97 with Clinton stating the importance for Saddam to allow the inspections for WMDs. If Saddam didn't have WMDs after the first Gulf War, why is he pressing the matter?
»www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/0 ··· dex.html

And here's the kicker. Full coverage on Clinton's Strike against Iraq in 1998. Note the 'Strike Impact' like that shows that the Clinton Administration identified quote "11 facilities where weapons of mass destruction were produced". Keep in mind that this was 7 years after the first Gulf War.
»www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/

I'll quote your own sources. Here's regarding the 1996 attacks:

-"To demonstrate once again that reckless acts have consequences, to reduce Saddam's ability to strike out again at neighbors, to increase America's ability to prevent future acts of violence and aggression," Clinton said in explaining the attacks.-

-The White House believes the real long-term regional threat from Iraq remains the same as it was before the Gulf War -- against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Gulf states.-

Sounds like they weren't doing it to protect the U.S. from any threat. Here is the gist of that 1997 article:

-On Monday, the U.N. Security Council will decide what action it will take in response to Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspection teams with American members to operate in Iraq.

The White House wants tough new economic sanctions -- and a clear statement that a military response is also possible.-

We already discussed this regarding the weapons inspections and no fly zone retaliations. It doesn't show any real threat to the U.S. and there was absolutely no mention of there ever being one.

And finally the 1998 bombings:

-18 command and control facilities including TV and radio transmitters, security headquarters and the directorate of military intelligence
• 19 security facilities where Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard units were based
• 11 facilities where weapons of mass destruction were produced.
• Eight regular army or Republican Guard facilities
• One "economic" target: the al-Basra refinery

Key word on those facilities is "were". What gets me is Bush Jr. makes absolutely no mention of any actual WMD's being found between 1996-1998 or anytime after the first Gulf War. The only reason he wouldn't is because none were found. Weapons inspectors DID have a chance to check out some of these facilities during this time.

Yet again, what does this have to do with being a threat to the U.S.? Yes the Clinton administration was giving Saddam a beating (interestingly enough the Republican party at the time accused Clinton of abusing his military authority), but as it was clearly stated he did so to help protect the countries CLOSE to Iraq.

»www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/0 ··· dex.html
The bottom of this link shows Colin Powell backing Clinton's use of force. There were Reps that backed Clinton just like there are Dems that back Bush (Zell Miller of Ga. is one). There's always going to be some like Kerry and Daschle that will argue that peanut butter is the major component of airplanes if the incumbent says otherwise.

What about this report?
»www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/ ··· dex.html

Notice it clearly says quote "Both the United States and Britain say that without the presence of U.N. inspectors, Iraq has the ability to secretly develop usable weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems within months...

...Hussein 'almost certainly retains' some biological-warfare equipment, stocks of agents and weapons, despite the efforts of United Nations inspectors".

This clearly outlines the Strike against Iraq by Clinton was related to WMDs. If Saddam was no threat and had no resources for WMDs, then why was there weapons inspectors? Why was Clinton worried about him? I think this link tells all. Bush is just finishing what Clinton started in '98 to get rid of Saddam's ability to develop WMDs. Proof that even Clinton thought that Saddam was a threat AFTER Gulf War I.

You keep going on about this, but the fact remains Iraq was not a threat. Bush demanded weapons inspectors go in and Saddam let them in. They didn't find any WMD's but only a few SCUDS that "could" have their range extended beyond 100 miles, but not much. Bush demanded the SCUD missiles be dismantled and they started dismantling them. Bush even demanded Saddam leave Iraq in 48 hours... only Bush bombed the country in less than 24 hours. So far Iraq was complying with everything.

Yeah there was talk in the past about the risk but that still doesn't discount the fact there isn't anything here and now, which is what the war was about. I still don't see the threat.

And where's your sources for this?

»www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m ··· dex.html
says that quote "The 33-page document, mandated by Congress, declared the United States must adapt its forces and planning towards favouring pre-emptive action against hostile states that possess, or are developing, weapons of mass destruction, as well as targeting terrorist groups."

»www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI ··· dex.html
shows that Congress approved an attack against Iraq FOUR MONTHS before the attack began on the basis that Iraq fell under the above document, proving that this was not just agenda by Bush and that 77 Senators (including 28 Dems since there were 50 Dems and 49 Reps in the Senate at that time) believed that Saddam possessed or had the ability to create WMDs and was a threat to the US.

»www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLI ··· dex.html
states that Bush fulfilled all obligations given in Congress's approval and said that the deadline for Saddam to leave was that Wed. by 8pm EST.

»www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/m ··· dex.html
specifically states "Air raid sirens were heard in Baghdad at about 5:30 a.m. Thursday (9:30 p.m. Wednesday ET) about 90 minutes after the U.S. deadline for Saddam to step down or face a U.S.-led military attack."
which disproves the statement you made saying:

said by SRFireside:

---

Bush even demanded Saddam leave Iraq in 48 hours... only Bush bombed the country in less than 24 hours.

---

If you have any evidence to back your statement up, please feel free to post it.

PS. Al Queda didn't even have SCUDs...How could Saddam not be seen as a threat if he had even more resources then Osama?

Okay here we go again. Lets do this article by article then.

- The military preparing for a pre-emptive strike is not declaring Iraq an iminent threat. It's the military trying to anticipate Bush's plans, and considering all the sword rattling he did then this is natural.

- The second article was written on October 2002, which is more than just a couple of months before the military action and before any weapons inspectors went to Iraq to find anything.

- This is just Bush playing up the terrorist card in front of the public. The fact of the matter is Saddam complied with every demand from the U.S. but Bush still wanted blood.

- I remember hearing the 48 hour announcement by Bush one day and then bombings the very next day. Apparently time went nuts on my side of the world, but this only means we attacked them after the deadline. I don't buy the "we must act quickly" talk. What's Saddam going to do two hours after the deadline that would make a difference? Leave? I thought that was the general idea.

None of this changes anything. No matter how much Bush and his cohorts want to paint the picture that Saddam was a threat he wasn't. As a matter of fact Bush's new statements about Iraq is that we freed the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator as if all that "imminent threat" talk never existed.

This is my last post as this discussion is going nowhere. You have yet to show me any real validation for a pre-emptive war. I have articles I can send you myself but you will have to wait until Monday when I am back home where my links are. If you really want to continue this then send a private message.