I just watched the live telecast of the joint news conference by President GWB of the US of A and President Arroyo of the Philipinnes. It was just a sentence and I am quoting from memory. If I have misquoted, pleased do bring it to my notice. This is what I heard President GWB say.
nb: all emphases are mine
Thank you Mr. President. I stand vindicated.Quote:
...we will assist the Philipinnes Government in the their war against terror, when asked
And this means?
X
1) No Unilateralism. If the Philipinnes says (She won't but nevertheless) "Thank you, but not thank you. We can manage by ourselves. Please do enjoy the weather in Florida.", the US of A will have a good day in Florida and not force themselves on the Philipinnes.
2) Understanding and respecting geographical boundaries: Therefore clarity over who is the boss in that region.
3) Acceptance of the fact that the decision to save Mr. A's posterior is to be made by Mr. A and Mr. A only. Messrs B, C, D, E and F can help, assist, facilitate, but not decide.
4) There is a large world out there. We are just a part of it.
:)
KayJay, have you read the recent issue of Outlook? It carries the complete text of Arundhati Roy's speech delivered I think on May 13 at Harlem, New York. The start of the speech mentions an incident in the times of GB Sr.
An American warship shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft carrying 260-odd passengers. When asked about a reaction to this piece of news, George Bush Senior said, "I won't apologise for it. I don't care what the facts are."
.
I did HB. In fact he said "I won't apologise for America. I don't care what the facts are." Truly and comendably patriotic.
America has never forced itself upon any country unless that country is percieved as a threat to it. Beleive you me, if the Phillipines are ever percieved as a National threat against the US we won't ask, we'll do.
Ah! I get it now!
Sextagenarian Saddam Huessein's Iraq in 2003
3000 miles away with his rag-tag, demotivated and starving army in a land with over 60% of its population living on hand-outs, cash strapped treasury, a pariah in his own neighbourhood, his postualted WMD whose movements across the length and breadth of the country watched by numerous eyes in the skies right down to the number plates of the vehicles, the north and south skies of his country constantly buzzing with lethal aeroplanes, half his people wanting him dead and the other half wanting him alive and paraplegic........
was a National threat to the US of A in 2003
with its humungous arsenal of nuclear weaponery, a larger one of the conventional variety, largest navy on this planet, hundreds of thousands of motivated and die-hard men of war, enjoying huge support with the world in general, purchasing power to purchase at least half a continent if not a whole one, enormous influence in political circles, permanent member of that exclusive policy making history making think-tank, intelligence agencies with dark but extraordinary capabilities, a population who with not one person to the contray will rise up in arms against a common enemy should the need arise........
The US of A can bet her sweet little
fundament that I believe you. Of course she will not ask if a National threat is percieved by her. Of course not! What was I thinking!
Just curious: Can you please define "National" and "Threat" for me?
National Threat means that the Iraqi government (not the country of Iraq) posed a threat to countries (including ours) via checmical, biological weapons etc
please don't get into the "no weapons were found yet yada yada"
I believe they will find them and you can't deny that Saddam was AT LEAST in hot pursuit of them...
Saddam and his government were also a threat to Iraq itself... or did you change the channel when they showed citizens digging up over 10,000 bodies from a mass grave of people who didn't agree with Saddam...
just think about it like this... if you didn't like what your goverment was doing.. and tried to say something about it.. they come take you from your house and that is the last your family ever sees you... man there would be a lot less members on this forum
//3000 miles away with his rag-tag, demotivated and starving army in a land with over 60% of its population living on hand-outs, cash strapped treasury, a pariah in his own neighbourhood, his postualted WMD whose movements across the length and breadth of the country watched by numerous eyes in the skies right down to the number plates of the vehicles, the north and south skies of his country constantly buzzing with lethal aeroplanes, half his people wanting him dead and the other half wanting him alive and paraplegic........
//was a National threat to the US of A in 2003
If you read Hans Blix' assessment of the state of the inspection program and came away with that, then you got a very different meaning out of his words than I did. According to Dr. Blix' report:
- Iraq likely had 6500 bombs loaded with VX nerve gas, "one of the most toxic ever developed"
- Iraq likely had at least 8500 litres of refined anthrax, and probably had more than that due to higher production than it declared
- Iraq retained the growth media to produce another 5000 litres of anthrax
- Iraq had rebuilt some of the missile production equipment that UNSCOM had declared proscribed, and which was destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; said equipment "could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km. [the range limit set for Iraq's missiles by previous resolutions]"
- Iraq was STILL researching the development of nuclear weapons
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
None of these things are threatening?
why do we have to get attacked before people will deem it is justified to take action???
all that does is cost more lives...
well being that I live in the vicinity of NYC.. I dont really want another 911 so whatever my country can do to prevent that is fine by me
I've never questioned the facts of WMD. My emphases was on the monitoring and/or knowledge of those weapons. Iraq had WMD, had wanted WMD, has WMD, will have WMD. That was not my point. So had-has-will have, India, Pakistan, Iran, UK, Germany, France, the US of A, Israel, Russia. My point was how is that a threat to the US of A? I could understand the explicit threat to Israel made by Saddam Hussein. But Israel did not seek pre-emptory intervention. How was the US of A threatened by Iraq in Spring '03?
A suitcase full of VX or anthrax in sealed containers isn't a threat? The big problem with highly lethal agents (especially VX, but the same applies to anthrax) is that they are easily portable and deployable. You don't need a B52 or and ICBM to deliver them. You just need a guy and a bag. Couple that with a government that is a) a proven aggressor (cf. Kuwait) and b) blatantly anti-US (and if you don't believe this I can cite many sources for you), and you have a very real threat.
And then there's his worrisome pursuit of nuclear weapons, which I hope I don't have to explain to you...
Slow_Learner, Kleinma: C'mon! 11/09/2001 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. And you know that. It just was not. 11 September 2001 was from a totally different enemy of the US of A.
And I do not believe that the US of A is that inexperienced in international politics and that feeble minded to be intimidated by impotent statements from a vanquished and powerless enemy. If at all Iraq was a threat to the US of A, it was his stated assasination attempt of a former President of the US of A, something every President in every nation has to deal sometime or the other. Even then the US of A could have just financed and aided just a coup as they did earlier, and ended Saddam Hussein. Son revenging the Father. Fair enough. But not in the manner as he actually did it.
because Saddam attacked Kuwait, UN resolutions required him to disarm. It was not the US's will.
I sort of skimmed through this earlier. On second reading....
nb: all emphases are mine
Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
National Threat means that the Iraqi government (not the country of Iraq) posed a threat to countries (including ours) via checmical, biological weapons etc
A nation's government is the face of the country. If its not the face that country wants, that country will change it. Oh! including ours? Pal. you sure have one very very very large nation!
please don't get into the "no weapons were found yet yada yada"
I believe they will find them and you can't deny that Saddam was AT LEAST in hot pursuit of them...
Enough said on both sides.....
Saddam and his government were also a threat to Iraq itself... or did you change the channel when they showed citizens digging up over 10,000 bodies from a mass grave of people who didn't agree with Saddam...
The people of Iraq never asked for the assistance of the US of A. So, I stand by what I said in my first post.
just think about it like this... if you didn't like what your goverment was doing.. and tried to say something about it.. they come take you from your house and that is the last your family ever sees you... man there would be a lot less members on this forum
Absolutely true.
1) Saddam hussein is a threat to the US and the world because he has unaccounted chemical and biological weapons.
2) Saddam is a threat to mankind because he brutally oppresses and murders his own people
Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
because Saddam attacked Kuwait
Over and done with. Did I miss an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 2002-03?
UN resolutions required him to disarm
Yes. And UNMOVIC was doing its job in its own preoffesional way and in its own proffesional time. It having the manadate and the right to choose its way and time
It was not the US's will.
ROTFLMMFAO!
I do not agree he was a threat. But I am a very brave man. If Saddam Hussein was percieved a threat and his removal was percieved as the only solution, can't the world's largest and most capable intelligence agency take care of one man? Ok. 10 men. Why bulldoze?Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
1) Saddam hussein is a threat to the US and the world because he has unaccounted chemical and biological weapons.
2) Saddam is a threat to mankind because he brutally oppresses and murders his own people
Those that asked for US help inside Iraq were slaughtered. As for those outside Iraq, they have always been asking for US help.Quote:
The people of Iraq never asked for the assistance of the US of A. So, I stand by what I said in my first post.
And anyway, is very well know that the Iraqis are thankful to the US in getting rid of saddam. All they want now is the US to make a quick exit which the US plans to do.
Could you elaborate and provide references for requests from within Iraq? I have not come across any, except from the Kurds and then again only of late.
Beside the point: Have I improved?
The CIA has been trying to assasinate Saddam ever since 1995 if I recall. Discovery actually ran a serial on how difficult it was kill saddam because of a number of factorsQuote:
Originally posted by KayJay
can't the world's largest and most capable intelligence agency take care of one man? Ok. 10 men. Why bulldoze?
You can laugh but you cant prove.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
ROTFLMMFAO!
Shia revolt 1992. They rose against saddam and were actively calling for US or external help. The were slaughtered, and their remains have become a legacy of Saddam's rule.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Could you elaborate and provide references for requests from within Iraq? I have not come across any, except from the Kurds and then again only of late.
Beside the point: Have I improved?
Have you improved? I won't answer that. Have you ever seen me use sarcasm to prove my point?
Point noted ;) My apologies if I have hurt you :oQuote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
.........
Have you improved? I won't answer that. Have you ever seen me use sarcasm to prove my point?
well saddam basically spent all his countries money on underground bunkers and tunnels and other things that make it hard to just kill him... especially since if the CIA was going to do it.. it would have to be undetectableQuote:
Originally posted by KayJay
I do not agree he was a threat. But I am a very brave man. If Saddam Hussein was percieved a threat and his removal was percieved as the only solution, can't the world's largest and most capable intelligence agency take care of one man? Ok. 10 men. Why bulldoze?
Did you see the mass graves of the people that had asked for help before? Did you not see the celebrations in the streets after Saddam was removed from power? You can stand by your point all you want but you are still wrong if you look at the actual facts and not your own personal belief of how things happened inside Iraq.Quote:
The people of Iraq never asked for the assistance of the US of A. So, I stand by what I said in my first post.
People inside Iraq that defied Saddam were killed. Iraqi’s that had escaped and left the country formed opposition groups and asked for help to free the Iraqi people from Saddam. Perhaps you missed that as well?
The fact is the Jews during WWII didn’t ask for help while the Nazi’s was butchering them. Did that mean they didn’t want help? No, it meant that they didn’t have a voice and couldn’t ask for help. The evidence of people wanting Saddam out of power was in the celebrations inside Iraq after Saddam was gone. The evidence is in the groups that escaped Iraq asking for assistance. The evidence is in the mass graves of those that asked for help before and were slaughtered because of defying Saddam. If you can’t see that then you are truly blind.
Over and done with huh. I bet you would have said the same thing about Hitler and WWII. You would have been one of those people cheering for Neville Chamberlain and his “peace in our time” speech. Ohh Hitler and Germany are over and done with! No need to worry about Germany ever again! We have him contained and he’s signed this treaty! You really should look at history and try to learn something instead of going through life with your head in the sand.Quote:
Over and done with. Did I miss an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 2002-03?
Ordinary Guy is correct in saying it was not the US’s will. It was the will of the UN and the resolutions that were passed against Iraq. Perhaps you didn’t read them? That wouldn’t surprise me as your posts are usually light on any actual facts and high on rhetoric. If you read the actual resolutions you will find that the world found Iraq and Saddam in material breech of the cease-fire reached in 1991 and that “serious consequences” would follow if he were to be in continual breach of the Gulf War cease-fire. Just because the UN didn’t have the guts (no surprise there) to follow through on its own resolutions doesn’t mean the US and 50 other countries around the world should stand for the inaction of the UN.Quote:
ROTFLMMFAO!
X
A personal note on style: I generally do not quote reams of "facts" as I presume in an intelligent discussion, "facts" are on hand with both (or more) parties, and the discussions are to identify the reasons behind those "facts" and effects thereof, and not to debate the validity of "facts".
Rhetoric Vs. Emotionalism.
Its incorrect to state that atrocities towards Jews was the trigger for WWII. It was invasion of sovereign nations that led to that bloodbath. That Jews were saved and protected and liberated by the Allies is laudable and comendable and absolutely "right". But that, I believe, was not the "cause" for WWII. So goes with my full support for Gulf War I and my opposition to Gulf War II. Human Rights need to be protected. Torture and Murder is to be condemened and despised and obliterated. But a sovereign (or its people) has to take the responsibility to initiate the process. Not an external agent.
how can they??? how can the people do anything when they are dirt poor and saddam spends all their oil money on his own things?
There are always certain base facts that must be taken into consideration before forming any opinion on a subject. If you form an opinion and present it without taking into consideration even the base facts behind an issue then your opinion is inherently flawed.Quote:
A personal note on style: I generally do not quote reams of "facts" as I presume in an intelligent discussion, "facts" are on hand with both (or more) parties, and the discussions are to identify the reasons behind those "facts" and effects thereof, and not to debate the validity of "facts".
It was always Hitler’s plan to use the “invasion of sovereign nations” as you put it to exterminate the Jews. If you read any of his writings or captured documentation released after the war you will find this to be truth. It can be easily argued that this was all part of Hitler’s master plan.Quote:
Its incorrect to state that atrocities towards Jews was the trigger for WWII. It was invasion of sovereign nations that led to that bloodbath.
My point was that during the war the Jews were not asking for help or to be saved from Germany. Your point about the Iraqi’s not asking for help goes along with my point which is had the Jews been able to ask for help they would have done so just as the Iraqi’s would have done. They never asked because of some external force preventing them from doing so.Quote:
That Jews were saved and protected and liberated by the Allies is laudable and comendable and absolutely "right". But that, I believe, was not the "cause" for WWII.
What if the people are incapable of asking for help? Do we then ignore them and just leave them to a life of misery? Do we ignore the mass graves and genocide if the people don’t ask for help? Isn’t it simple logic to assume that they want help and would ask for it if they could? You don’t think a brutal dictator that controls the population with death squads, torture, rape, and murder to be a factor in why people didn’t ask for help? That’s some lesson to tell the dictators of the world. As long as you can maintain total control over your nation so people cant ask for help feel free to slaughter your own people because Kay Jay thinks its wrong to interfere because who knows the people might actually like living under a brutal dictator that tortures, rapes, and murders it’s own people.Quote:
So goes with my full support for Gulf War I and my opposition to Gulf War II. Human Rights need to be protected. Torture and Murder is to be condemened and despised and obliterated. But a sovereign (or its people) has to take the responsibility to initiate the process. Not an external agent.
The evidence after this current Iraqi War all points to the people being happy that Saddam is gone. People thanked the coalition forces for removing him. This in conjunction with Iraqi’s that had escaped Saddam’s regime asking for help to remove Saddam and return Iraq back to the people. You cannot discount these 2 facts. Therefore your initial argument and assertion are totally erroneous.
X
I don't think anyone had said in this thread that Iraq was behind September 11 (I certainly did not) - I said that things like large floating quantities of VX nerve gas and anthrax in the hands of a country that is a) a proven aggressor and b) blatantly anti-US is a serious threat.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Slow_Learner, Kleinma: C'mon! 11/09/2001 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. And you know that. It just was not. 11 September 2001 was from a totally different enemy of the US of A.
Have a snootful of VX gas and see how powerless and impotent it is. Doesn't take much to kill you, only one milligram - and only a billionth of a gram of anthrax will kill you. Considering the US' inability to keep relatively harmless and detectable things like cocaine and marijuana out, how much luck do you think we'd have keeping out bags of VX and anthrax?Quote:
And I do not believe that the US of A is that inexperienced in international politics and that feeble minded to be intimidated by impotent statements from a vanquished and powerless enemy.
A personal response on your style: You're quite in the dark about what constitutes a threat to the United States. While I wouldn't ask you to quote reams of facts in response to a particular post, I think you ought to take a little time to familiarize yourself with some of the documentation being presented to you before you automatically discount it, simply because you are "brave". I mean, you agree that Iraq had WMD (at least Hans Blix presented a pretty convincing case to such) and you don't see how dangerous it is to leave that in the hands of an aggressive and strongly, overtly anti-American government?Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
A personal note on style: I generally do not quote reams of "facts" as I presume in an intelligent discussion, "facts" are on hand with both (or more) parties, and the discussions are to identify the reasons behind those "facts" and effects thereof, and not to debate the validity of "facts".
This bothered me. So I researched it. Apparently you're referring to this incident. It would not surprise me especially if George Bush Senior wouldn't apologize for it, since he was not president at that time (Ronald Reagan was - and by the way Mr. Reagan did apologize for it). I'd still like to see your source for that quote.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
KayJay, have you read the recent issue of Outlook? It carries the complete text of Arundhati Roy's speech delivered I think on May 13 at Harlem, New York. The start of the speech mentions an incident in the times of GB Sr.
An American warship shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft carrying 260-odd passengers. When asked about a reaction to this piece of news, George Bush Senior said, "I won't apologise for it. I don't care what the facts are."
.
Wow Honeybee's facts are wrong again.... no surprise there. As I have always said his posts are very low on any factual content and high on anti-American rhetoric. I pretty much discount anything he says as being wrong right away :)Quote:
Originally posted by Slow_Learner
This bothered me. So I researched it. Apparently you're referring to this incident. It would not surprise me especially if George Bush Senior wouldn't apologize for it, since he was not president at that time (Ronald Reagan was - and by the way Mr. Reagan did apologize for it). I'd still like to see your source for that quote.
I had remembered that story but didn’t have a chance to look into it again. Seems as if the Iranians had fired upon a US ship (the USS Stark) with 2 French made missiles earlier (the French sure do love selling weapons to those terrorists countries and dictators). Reading the story of what actually happened I can understand how the civilian liner was downed and the mistake made.
X
Actually I ran across one or two cites of a Newsweek article in which G. Bush Sr. said something very like what Honeybee quotes, but I can not find the actual article and there is no context or even a rough date (could have been said last month if at all). It seems unlikely to me that his statement was "in reaction to the news", considering Pres. Reagan's reaction to the same news (an immediate apology and condolences for the accident).
I doubt there is any argument that Saddam Hussein is a terrible man and has commited many atrocities. However, there are many other horrible men in this world who have missued their power at the expense of their subjects lives.
The issue whether or not to invade Iraq is not as simple as is he a bad man and if so elliminate him.
Most importanly there is a difference between supporting war against Iraq and supporting THE war against Iraq.