Siddhartha
Lifer
It is about time Bush took responsibility for what he says and does. I wonder why it took him so long to do it.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Bush Takes Responsibility for Iraq Claim !
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Siwy answered a number of your points well. Here are mine, the same basically or not.
UQ: The answer is not irrelevant because it added to the body of evidence that we had that said the SH had WMD.
M: Irrelevant because it wasn't about WMD, it was about the immediate threat of WMD. Preemptive war is illegal without that threat.
It was about both. The answer is not to wait to get struck before you act.
M: It was not about both because the threat was not real. It can't be about two things when one isn't actual. It was about the pretence that it was real. If the answer is not to wait, then the US needs to be destroyed by anyone who can before we get them. Ultrasecret projects have probably begun all over the world. No international law leaves the cleverest and most evilly devious alive. We aren't good enough to play and win that game.
UQ: Bush never said that Iraq was going to launch WMD at the US in 45 ins.
M: Make it three days. I always said three days till the British came up with 45 minutes. The point is we should have been hit with WMD as soon as we attacked. All those tons of chemicals they knew were there should have hit us right away. You don't roll over and take defeat when they are coming to kill you.
I have no idea why he didn't use them, if he even had any. He didn't use them in the first Gulf War either which kind of nullifies your theory.
M: You have no idea why he didn't use them. He didn't have them to use. I specifically pointed out that we were going for the kill this time around. The first war was strictly to remove him from Kuwait. Please, this was rather easy and obvious. Are you arguing to be arguing throwing nonsense at any point. I don't what to play if so. I take back the concession on PNAC I made.
UQ: He said Iraq was a threat to the region and our national security.
M: He lied. His neighbors didn't see a threat. Israel, who would have flattened them if they were a threat, didn't see a threat. The Admin didn't see a threat. They invented it to sell a war. We have their words on that, it was what would sell. We saw oil and a New American Century.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, UAE would disagree.
M: So we didn't bribe and cajole and twist arm after arm, right. Everybody was hot to kill and we sort of went along. Please, there was nobody but us screaming for war.
UQ: He was. (A threat)
M: Rather than repeat he was not a threat, lets clarify. He wasn't a nice guy. He didn't like us. He probably went to bed at night thinking bad thoughts about us. He was somebody who wished us ill so naturally fearful people could feel threatened. He was a threat on that level. He could make the weak at heart loose some sleep. He was not a threat on the level that would justify an illegal war. He posed no immediate threat other than his hostility and our imagination. We had him thoroughly tied down and defanged. Our fear was played upon by the Admin
We had him tied down? Yes for the time being. Two countries were enforcing the no-fly. Sanctions were killing how many of his people? Many countries were trading around the sanctions. Some were calling for the end of sanctions. It was just a matter of time before he was let out of the doghouse.
When are we attacking China for it's potential threat. How about NK. We're trying to tie them up in commerce and negotiations but you just never know when they'll break out. China is about a million times the threat of Iraq. And the Russians could go south. You sound more paranoid than rational.
UQ: A threat to our national security does not necessarily mean LCAC's are rolling onto Miami Beach.
M: Of course not; that is what, a red herring? A threat sufficient to justify preemptive war has to be real and immediate, nothing else but that will do.
No it's not a red herring. It's an attempt to make you see there are more threats to national security than armed force.
M: How about showing me a real one if you want me to see. Popping my Miami Beach bubble didn't set off any new alarms.
UQ: You continue to reference the PNAC, a document(s) that last I heard you've never read. I'll discuss it with you when you have.
M: Still true. I can't read PDF. I have heard it summarized. You can have this point. My summary is good enough for me.
You're summary isn't based in fact and I'm claiming all the points.
M: You don't know my summary so you can't say and I'm taking back my points cause I suspect foul play. 😀
UQ: If Bush is a liar prove it.
M: What do you mean by proof? It took 30 years before McGruder finally admitted Nixon ordered the break in. That recent admission is all there is in real eyewitness proof. Everything else was just the appearance of wrong and the fact that Nixon erased the tape. What does it take for you to see that you've been snookered? Proof is something you may not have for years and years and years. You have to rely on instinct, and when you have a pile of irresistible circumstantial evidence, the smell it leaves in your nose. It's all a duck test, see. Proof will come all in good time. But how it could be more obvious now I'll never know.
The same pile of irrestible circumstantial evidence exists that justifies our action. Plus some.
M: My opinion did not lead to the death of thousands of people. It doesn't make me a mass killing psychopath. Sorry, for war you need more that irrational fear suspicion and gutless cowardice.
UQ: It certainly appears that we were wrong about a lot of things in Iraq but so were a lot of other people which doesn't lend itself to the theory that we just made all the intel up.
M: This is also irrelevant. You can't start a preemptive war against an immediate threat and then turn around and say OOPS.
It's not irrelevant. It is directly related to the evidence that we had before we started the war. If other countries had come forward and said "they don't have that anymore." this whole situation would have been completely different.
M: The continued weapons inspections would have been just fine. By the way, you have no idea if Iraq would have slipped its noose. It's pure conjecture.
UQ: If we did, so did a lot of other people, in a lot of other countries.
M: Yes but none of those countries started an illegal war.
Neither did we. The argument was never about whether or not he had WMD, it was what to do about it.
M: Yes, after he used WMD as a fraud to freak everybody out. What to do about them is about them, and they were not there. It was all a big fat hype.
UQ: Saddam had a lot of time and chances to do what he was supposed to do. He did not and the rest is history.
M: Yes and what is also history is that the United states squandered 50 years of emphasis on the international rule of law and played cowboy. Bush is
without question the worst President the US has ever had. He has damaged our country immeasurably. He is a disaster.
We squandered nothing. We, and Great Britain, did what needed to be done. Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better because of it.
M: Come on, look at the opinion of the world. We are a laughing stock, lead by the world's biggest clown. It's profoundly sad. And you can't see? Unbelievable to me.
UQ: I don't know why we keep talking about this. It's not like anyone is going to change their mind.
M: Really? Look at the polls, I think lots and lots of Americans are beginning to see.
UQ: The answer is not irrelevant because it added to the body of evidence that we had that said the SH had WMD.
M: Irrelevant because it wasn't about WMD, it was about the immediate threat of WMD. Preemptive war is illegal without that threat.
It was about both. The answer is not to wait to get struck before you act.
M: It was not about both because the threat was not real. It can't be about two things when one isn't actual. It was about the pretence that it was real. If the answer is not to wait, then the US needs to be destroyed by anyone who can before we get them. Ultrasecret projects have probably begun all over the world. No international law leaves the cleverest and most evilly devious alive. We aren't good enough to play and win that game.
UQ: Bush never said that Iraq was going to launch WMD at the US in 45 ins.
M: Make it three days. I always said three days till the British came up with 45 minutes. The point is we should have been hit with WMD as soon as we attacked. All those tons of chemicals they knew were there should have hit us right away. You don't roll over and take defeat when they are coming to kill you.
I have no idea why he didn't use them, if he even had any. He didn't use them in the first Gulf War either which kind of nullifies your theory.
M: You have no idea why he didn't use them. He didn't have them to use. I specifically pointed out that we were going for the kill this time around. The first war was strictly to remove him from Kuwait. Please, this was rather easy and obvious. Are you arguing to be arguing throwing nonsense at any point. I don't what to play if so. I take back the concession on PNAC I made.
UQ: He said Iraq was a threat to the region and our national security.
M: He lied. His neighbors didn't see a threat. Israel, who would have flattened them if they were a threat, didn't see a threat. The Admin didn't see a threat. They invented it to sell a war. We have their words on that, it was what would sell. We saw oil and a New American Century.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, UAE would disagree.
M: So we didn't bribe and cajole and twist arm after arm, right. Everybody was hot to kill and we sort of went along. Please, there was nobody but us screaming for war.
UQ: He was. (A threat)
M: Rather than repeat he was not a threat, lets clarify. He wasn't a nice guy. He didn't like us. He probably went to bed at night thinking bad thoughts about us. He was somebody who wished us ill so naturally fearful people could feel threatened. He was a threat on that level. He could make the weak at heart loose some sleep. He was not a threat on the level that would justify an illegal war. He posed no immediate threat other than his hostility and our imagination. We had him thoroughly tied down and defanged. Our fear was played upon by the Admin
We had him tied down? Yes for the time being. Two countries were enforcing the no-fly. Sanctions were killing how many of his people? Many countries were trading around the sanctions. Some were calling for the end of sanctions. It was just a matter of time before he was let out of the doghouse.
When are we attacking China for it's potential threat. How about NK. We're trying to tie them up in commerce and negotiations but you just never know when they'll break out. China is about a million times the threat of Iraq. And the Russians could go south. You sound more paranoid than rational.
UQ: A threat to our national security does not necessarily mean LCAC's are rolling onto Miami Beach.
M: Of course not; that is what, a red herring? A threat sufficient to justify preemptive war has to be real and immediate, nothing else but that will do.
No it's not a red herring. It's an attempt to make you see there are more threats to national security than armed force.
M: How about showing me a real one if you want me to see. Popping my Miami Beach bubble didn't set off any new alarms.
UQ: You continue to reference the PNAC, a document(s) that last I heard you've never read. I'll discuss it with you when you have.
M: Still true. I can't read PDF. I have heard it summarized. You can have this point. My summary is good enough for me.
You're summary isn't based in fact and I'm claiming all the points.
M: You don't know my summary so you can't say and I'm taking back my points cause I suspect foul play. 😀
UQ: If Bush is a liar prove it.
M: What do you mean by proof? It took 30 years before McGruder finally admitted Nixon ordered the break in. That recent admission is all there is in real eyewitness proof. Everything else was just the appearance of wrong and the fact that Nixon erased the tape. What does it take for you to see that you've been snookered? Proof is something you may not have for years and years and years. You have to rely on instinct, and when you have a pile of irresistible circumstantial evidence, the smell it leaves in your nose. It's all a duck test, see. Proof will come all in good time. But how it could be more obvious now I'll never know.
The same pile of irrestible circumstantial evidence exists that justifies our action. Plus some.
M: My opinion did not lead to the death of thousands of people. It doesn't make me a mass killing psychopath. Sorry, for war you need more that irrational fear suspicion and gutless cowardice.
UQ: It certainly appears that we were wrong about a lot of things in Iraq but so were a lot of other people which doesn't lend itself to the theory that we just made all the intel up.
M: This is also irrelevant. You can't start a preemptive war against an immediate threat and then turn around and say OOPS.
It's not irrelevant. It is directly related to the evidence that we had before we started the war. If other countries had come forward and said "they don't have that anymore." this whole situation would have been completely different.
M: The continued weapons inspections would have been just fine. By the way, you have no idea if Iraq would have slipped its noose. It's pure conjecture.
UQ: If we did, so did a lot of other people, in a lot of other countries.
M: Yes but none of those countries started an illegal war.
Neither did we. The argument was never about whether or not he had WMD, it was what to do about it.
M: Yes, after he used WMD as a fraud to freak everybody out. What to do about them is about them, and they were not there. It was all a big fat hype.
UQ: Saddam had a lot of time and chances to do what he was supposed to do. He did not and the rest is history.
M: Yes and what is also history is that the United states squandered 50 years of emphasis on the international rule of law and played cowboy. Bush is
without question the worst President the US has ever had. He has damaged our country immeasurably. He is a disaster.
We squandered nothing. We, and Great Britain, did what needed to be done. Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better because of it.
M: Come on, look at the opinion of the world. We are a laughing stock, lead by the world's biggest clown. It's profoundly sad. And you can't see? Unbelievable to me.
UQ: I don't know why we keep talking about this. It's not like anyone is going to change their mind.
M: Really? Look at the polls, I think lots and lots of Americans are beginning to see.
UltraQuiet
Banned
Last word since apparently I am both paranoid and a coward. We had an overwhelming body of evidence that said Saddam had WMD. He refused to play ball. It is easy to say "well he was contained". Who was doing the containing? The two countries who decided it was time for him to go that's who. Why should we listen to countries and people who aren't willing to do anything to keep him in check? Saddam would still be in power today if he had decided to fully cooperate. He did not. He's gone. If left to his own devices he would have become more of a threat to the region and the world. Past performance being the best indicator of futiure action. We cannot allow someone to destabilize a region of the world that is vital to our, and many other countries, economic and national security. We did the right thing.
Paul Wolfowitz does not agree with that statement! Last time I heard him speak he said that the evidence was "murky". Your overwhelming body of evidence was partly based on forged documents as well as Iraqi defectors who no doubt had their own agendas.
"The whole purpose, if you think about it, for Iraq constructing mobile units to produce biological weapons could only have been to be able to hide them. We know about that capability from defectors ..." Paul Wolfowitz
"Having concluded that international inspectors are unlikely to find tangible and irrefutable evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration is preparing its own assessment that will rely heavily on evidence from Iraqi defectors, according to senior administration officials. " NYTimes
The part you're missing is that USA didn't really want him to cooperate. America was undermining his cooperation by spying through inspections as well as claiming that no matter what Saddam did the sanctions would not be removed.
"U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has obtained what he regards as convincing evidence that United Nations arms inspectors helped collect eavesdropping intelligence used in American efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime, according to confidants who said he is deeply alarmed by the implications of the relationship for the world body." WashingtonPost, 1999
Later on when Saddam was considering letting the inspectors in, Ari Flesher made a threatening statement that a "cost of one bullet" would be substantially less than a war. TheAge October 2002
Sure a great way to ensure Saddam's cooperation....
Yes, you finally got something right 🙂
If he was to be left or not should have been decided by international community. He was well contained for the time being, as you agreed in the previous post.
Lets get some things straight because it seems like the arguments are going in circles:
Saddam was contained for time being - True or False?
Containment means there is no imminent threat - True or False?
Preemptive war can only be started on the grounds of an imminent threat to the nation - True or False?
That's right. With Bush it's all show and no go. Just enough to satisfy the people who believe he can do no wrong.
Karl Rove has his hand up Bush's A$$ animating the brainless puppet.
Do you people who support Bush and his lies realize it's Karl Rove who is really running the country?
phillyTIM
Golden Member
THANK GOD you are not running our country.
That's a sadistic, imperialistic, terroristic way to run a country. It breeds hate, and more terrorism against the state. Why do you think the US and Bush are so despised and hated by the majority of the World?
You need to stop taking whatever drugs you are on Michael, grow up and get an education.
Michael
Elite member
phillyTIM - I guess I should take direction from outright liars like you?
The US (and other countries) have continuously gone to war without there being an "imminent" threat.
We hadn't gone to war with anyone and we were attacked anyway. The people we're fighting hate us for our way of life and our beliefs. Chances are that they respect us more now that they're reminded of the iron fist we have. If they thought we were run by people like you, the invasion would have started ages ago.
At least the US is a Democracy and going to war was debated and discussed before it happened. And even cretins like you can bleat away freely.
Michael
sorry. missed Czar's question:
The debate used to be whether wars were moral. What the heck is a "legal" war? As I have pointed out dozens of times, the President was given authorization to use force by the Congress. Under US law, the actions were legal.
What is your dfinition of a "legal war" and why should it apply to the USA?
The US (and other countries) have continuously gone to war without there being an "imminent" threat.
We hadn't gone to war with anyone and we were attacked anyway. The people we're fighting hate us for our way of life and our beliefs. Chances are that they respect us more now that they're reminded of the iron fist we have. If they thought we were run by people like you, the invasion would have started ages ago.
At least the US is a Democracy and going to war was debated and discussed before it happened. And even cretins like you can bleat away freely.
Michael
sorry. missed Czar's question:
The debate used to be whether wars were moral. What the heck is a "legal" war? As I have pointed out dozens of times, the President was given authorization to use force by the Congress. Under US law, the actions were legal.
What is your dfinition of a "legal war" and why should it apply to the USA?
Inspections were ongoing and no WMD was found. None has been found since Bush decided to ignore the UN and invade on false evidence.
The last time Iraq used WMD was over 12 years ago. You can't claim clear willingness to use WMD when there is no WMD present.
The lie about Saddam and his link to terrorism has been disproven many times. By our own intelligence agencies. But evidence from US intelligence counter to Bush's plans never stopped Bush from lying.
And how the hell was Saddam going to "deal a major blow to the worlds oil market immediately while in power" when sanctions insisted on by the US kept him from selling his oil? Was the US behind a plan to deal a major blow to the world's oil market? You're just being ridiculous now.
And if "yes the CIA questioned it, Bush used it anyway, and took FULL RESPONSIBILTY, get over it" is true I'll get over it as soon as Bush tenders his resignation. He just admitted lying about national security issues to illegally invade another country.
I'd like to hear what you'd have to say if Clinton had perpetrated lies of this magnitude.
But it's clear you'll believe anything Bush tells you. You're blinded by partisanship.
Hi, Alistar7. My name is George Bush. I have a lovely bridge I'd like to sell you.
You are wrong, it has to be imminent. Unless you are planning on redefining international law?
Read Charter of United Nations, Chapter VII
Michael
Elite member
You're assuming I care about the UN.
To be more clear - US Law does not require UN approval. This actually was debated. Nor does the UN Charter stop other countires from going to war.
"International Law" is a very fuzzy concept and has proved to be very fungible throughout history.
Michael
To be more clear - US Law does not require UN approval. This actually was debated. Nor does the UN Charter stop other countires from going to war.
"International Law" is a very fuzzy concept and has proved to be very fungible throughout history.
Michael
phillyTIM
Golden Member
Bush shore as heck made out the IRAQ threat to be IMMINENT...
remember about the TONS of chem/bio weapons that were ready to be used, and that Saddam was "45 minutes away" from launching an attack upon the US or partner nation?
That was why BUSH pushed this war so hard, if you recall.
remember about the TONS of chem/bio weapons that were ready to be used, and that Saddam was "45 minutes away" from launching an attack upon the US or partner nation?
That was why BUSH pushed this war so hard, if you recall.
Michael
Elite member
phillyTIM - Can you show where Bush said that Iraq was "45 minutes away from using WMD"? I bet this is just another lie from you. I think it was Blair and the UK that came up with the 45 minutes line.
I looked into the 45 minute claim a little more. The claim was 45 minutes to military use and the whole file where the claim came from was disproved, the "dodgy dossier". This was debated in the UK and investigated and the government cleared.
Your lies just keep piling up.
Michael
I looked into the 45 minute claim a little more. The claim was 45 minutes to military use and the whole file where the claim came from was disproved, the "dodgy dossier". This was debated in the UK and investigated and the government cleared.
Your lies just keep piling up.
Michael
Michael
Elite member
"It's quiet a simple concept, really"
It doesn't make much noise?
You're also wrong. US law doesn't stop at the US. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a great example. There a tons of others.
The use of military force almsot always would be outside the USA. The US laws that govern when it can be used are the US law on this.
We should probably start a different thread if you want to debate the UN and its role.
Michael
It doesn't make much noise?
You're also wrong. US law doesn't stop at the US. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a great example. There a tons of others.
The use of military force almsot always would be outside the USA. The US laws that govern when it can be used are the US law on this.
We should probably start a different thread if you want to debate the UN and its role.
Michael
Yeah, Blair told the 45 minute lie. Bush told, among other lies, the Iraq has drone aircraft they're planning to use to drop WMD on the USA lie.
Michael, you are among the most gullible partisans I have ever heard.
From the liar's own mouth.
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
The 45 minute claim was, as I said, from PM Blair. Bush's accomplice in the lies about Iraq.
Don't be foolish. The quotes I posted are from Bush. They aren't "throwing a litle (sic) FUD around" they are Bush's own words. And they are outright lies. Anyone, even a complete partisan sellout such as yourself, must recognize that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
