Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 16 of 27
Quote:I do.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Bravo, you found a typo. You must feel good about yourself.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hero
You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?
Is there a secret base or giant stockpile? No. Thats silly.
*Chrisisall falls off his chair, clutches at his heart*
What...what....it can't be...
*the air is still*
Am I in....another dimension....????
This can't be the same Hero that stated last year that we'd surely find the stockpile and that it was just a matter of time....
*runs to get a newspaper, a star chart- begins pinching self*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Bush never said the threat was imminent.
Not in literal language, but he did offer up this bit of restrained, non-charged wisdom regarding Saddam's Iraq:
"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning," Bush said.
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html
Hmm...pretty much all fact and no rallying, eh? The words of an even-tempered leader, bent on enlightening his people...
NOT. Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Remember the Tonkin Gulf? The Mayaguez? Grenada? The Falklands? Panama?
Tonkin Gulf? True, you can't trust Democrats, at least not since Truman.
Mayaguez? Whats the big mystery here. There was a US civilian ship. It got stuck in the southeast Asian quagmire, so we sent in a few marines to get the ship unstuck. It was bad because we pissed of Thailand and good because it began the modernization process for planning and execution of special force missions of that nature (a process that eventually led to the Delta Force and its evolution).
Grenada? Hmmm...we went there to find the Cubans and kick them out. We found the Cubans...then we kicked them out. We were pretty up front about it and the Grenada folk (Grenadiers?) seemed to be happy about how it all worked out. We even got a crappy Eastwood movie out of the deal.
The Falklands? Ah...the famous war between the United States and Argentina...no wait, that was a basketball game. This one was a British Island with British folks on it suddenly occupied by Argentine troops. The Brits then proceeded to kick Argentine ass for a few days until the Argentines started crying ("don't cry for me..."). US involvement was limited to logistical support despite the fact that the NATO treaty would have given us common cause to pile on for some of the fun. And the Brits (and Faulkander) folk seem happy about how things worked out.
Panama? Noriega was a criminal who was messing with our control of the Canal. So we exercised our treaty rights and extradited him. And it seems the Panama folk seemed happy about how it all worked out.
Quote:
In hindsight, the "reasons" why a military action was taken don't stand up to the scrutiny of history.
Kind of a broad statement. I guess you mean that the south didn't fire on Fort Sumpter, the Japs didn't really bomb Pearl Harbor, the Germans never invaded Poland (more of a picnic that got out of hand), and so on.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And very astute wisdom it is, but it in no way suggest that Bush was arguing that Iraq was an imminent threat.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Bush never said the threat was imminent.
Not in literal language, but he did offer up this bit of restrained, non-charged wisdom regarding Saddam's Iraq:
"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning," Bush said.
On the other hand:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”
SOTU 2003, Bush
Another astute bit of wisdom, and you’ll notice you don’t have to strain a muscle trying to twist this into a discussion of the imminence of the Iraq threat, since Bush suggests in the first sentence, using the word “imminent,” that his reasons were not based on the imminence of the Iraq threat, but the potential of that imminence and the concern that we might be taken off guard by it.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to some international lawyers, the only reason for invasion is to preempt an imminent threat. According to others, even THAT reason isn't good enough.
Bush never said the threat was imminent. In fact, in the SOTU address he argued that it was not imminent – suggesting instead that we should not wait until it does become imminent and take us off guard the way Al Qaeda did on 9/ll.
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war So Bush basically engaged in an illegal war on teh basis of his "conviction" that Saddam had meaningful "stockpiles" of WMD. So:
Preemptive war (or preemptive attack) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.[citation needed] However, the legal ground for preemption remains a highly contentious issue.
How far in the future do YOU think Bush projected this perceived threat from Saddam? Five years? (Remember, he would have to develop ICBMs.)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”
So, uhh, any response would fail, in other words. It's do this, or all is lost? So, he can know the future, then. And you buy this?
Oh, you'd never believe that anyone could do that right?
So, he's blowing a situation out of proportion...uhh..on purpose? Does that constitute a lie? Or just a stupid opinion?
You can, with your words Finn, make any pile of crap smell nicer, but that don't change what it is.
He deliberately scared the American public into not opposing his military asperations.
Your playing games with the use of the word 'imminent' is merely sophmoric sophistry.
*does the Snoopy dance*
You set 'em up; I knock 'em DOWN!!!
WOOO HOOO!!!
*offers a bandaid to the bruised Finn*
No hard feelings, Finn...I just never won an argument so totally before!!!
Elated Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HERO- Altho I think it's sweet that you're trying to stick up for Finn, don't do him any favors. Your arguments just shot him in the foot.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Remember that Finn said that nobody can "know" anything, that's it's all a matter of "belief". Except President Bush, who knows all and sees all, I guess.
So, uhh, any response would fail, in other words. It's do this, or all is lost? So, he can know the future, then.
Finn, your faith in Bush is touching but its misplaced even by your own logic.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nahhh, he posted above that even Bush couldn't have known- that was the key to his downfall on this issue.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Except President Bush, who knows all and sees all, I guess.
* still snoopy-dancing*
Chrisisvictorious
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME