Changing the reasons for war once again

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?
---------------------------
Probably because of his wife. :D

I'd accept that:D

Ready to conceed WMD yet?
or do you need proof that the UN said he had them and used them?

CkG

Interesting statement that follows the word 'or'. It includes the word 'had'. Has would justify whereas had has us where we are today. no?

Edit.. wait ... wait... till I get my popcorn out...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Care to hear the words instead of read them?

Click to hear Clinton's "big lie"
full text
Buahahaha!:D

"With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly...."-Clinton

"...and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."-Clinton

CkG

And all the security counsel had to do in 1441 or subsequent was give explicit authority to invade at the will and timing of the enforcer (s).

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
Please show me where Clinton destroyed the Iraqi government by using the lie they were an immediate WMD threat with tons and tons of weapons ready to go. Please show me where Clinton started a preemptive war based on a lie. But if you don't want to accept the fact that your gullibility allowed Bush to murder by using a lie you bought, keep looking for any rationalization you can. I'm used to it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
And more importantly, what about 'implied infered'. Did I win that one too. :D

With eels one needs a firm grasp. Ahahahahaha.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Please show me where Clinton destroyed the Iraqi government by using the lie they were an immediate WMD threat with tons and tons of weapons ready to go. Please show me where Clinton started a preemptive war based on a lie. But if you don't want to accept the fact that your gullibility allowed Bush to murder by using a lie you bought, keep looking for any rationalization you can. I'm used to it.

rationalization? Who seems to be grasping at straws? I have facts, you have speculation. :D

Clinton attacked Saddam using the same rational that you accuse Bush of Lying about. Care to address that? Or are you going to weasle around your accusations again and again when they are destroyed by evidence?

World credibility? Straight from Slick Willy's mouth:
In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed,
- Clinton

Regime change Bush's Idea?
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,
- Clinton

Bush made up WMD hysteria?
Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,
-Clinton

I'll leave you with one more powerful quote from the rather eloquent Clinton.
Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.
So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.
This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

-Clinton

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
WMD not an international threat?

READ

A statement issued at a summit in France, G8 leaders said the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their delivery means, along with terrorism, was "the pre-eminent threat to international security."

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Please show me where Clinton destroyed the Iraqi government by using the lie they were an immediate WMD threat with tons and tons of weapons ready to go. Please show me where Clinton started a preemptive war based on a lie. But if you don't want to accept the fact that your gullibility allowed Bush to murder by using a lie you bought, keep looking for any rationalization you can. I'm used to it.

rationalization? Who seems to be grasping at straws? I have facts, you have speculation. :D

Clinton attacked Saddam using the same rational that you accuse Bush of Lying about. Care to address that? Or are you going to weasle around your accusations again and again when they are destroyed by evidence?

World credibility? Straight from Slick Willy's mouth:
In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed,
- Clinton

Regime change Bush's Idea?
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,
- Clinton

Bush made up WMD hysteria?
Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,
-Clinton

I'll leave you with one more powerful quote from the rather eloquent Clinton.
Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.
So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.
This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

-Clinton

CkG

The difference, of course is that Bush invaded Iraq, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. Clinton limited our agression to targeted airstrikes -- deadly to be sure, but a walk in the park compared to the war. Clinton's approach followed with renewed inspections under Bush seemed to be containing Saddam effectively. The terrible bloodshed was unjustified.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WMD not an international threat?

READ

A statement issued at a summit in France, G8 leaders said the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their delivery means, along with terrorism, was "the pre-eminent threat to international security."

CkG

As the article explicitly mentioned, this has nothing to do with Iraq.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The difference, of course is that Bush invaded Iraq, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. Clinton limited our agression to targeted airstrikes -- deadly to be sure, but a walk in the park compared to the war. Clinton's approach followed with renewed inspections under Bush seemed to be containing Saddam effectively. The terrible bloodshed was unjustified.

Distinction without a difference in my opinion. Clinton used military action against Iraq "without express written consent" of the U.N. but justified it using the breech of the original cease-fire agreement. Clinton used the same arguments(WMD) to justify the attack that Bush has used. Clinton stuck without "direct provocation". The only thing Clinton didn't do was to finish the job. :)

But for entertainment purposes, if Bush would have just been content to lob a couple hundred cruise missles at Iraq - you'd be O.K. with that?
Hold on, let me finish drinking before you respond so I don't choke on it during my fit of laughter:p

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The difference, of course is that Bush invaded Iraq, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. Clinton limited our agression to targeted airstrikes -- deadly to be sure, but a walk in the park compared to the war. Clinton's approach followed with renewed inspections under Bush seemed to be containing Saddam effectively. The terrible bloodshed was unjustified.

Distinction without a difference in my opinion. Clinton used military action against Iraq "without express written consent" of the U.N. but justified it using the breech of the original cease-fire agreement. Clinton used the same arguments(WMD) to justify the attack that Bush has used. Clinton stuck without "direct provocation". The only thing Clinton didn't do was to finish the job. :)

But for entertainment purposes, if Bush would have just been content to lob a couple hundred cruise missles at Iraq - you'd be O.K. with that?
Hold on, let me finish drinking before you respond so I don't choke on it during my fit of laughter:p

CkG
rolleye.gif

Unbelievable. I'm sorry if this difference is beyond your partisan comprehension. There are a few hundred thousand troops who understand the difference vividly, as well as a few million Iraqis and a few billion other people around the globe.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The difference, of course is that Bush invaded Iraq, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. Clinton limited our agression to targeted airstrikes -- deadly to be sure, but a walk in the park compared to the war. Clinton's approach followed with renewed inspections under Bush seemed to be containing Saddam effectively. The terrible bloodshed was unjustified.

Distinction without a difference in my opinion. Clinton used military action against Iraq "without express written consent" of the U.N. but justified it using the breech of the original cease-fire agreement. Clinton used the same arguments(WMD) to justify the attack that Bush has used. Clinton stuck without "direct provocation". The only thing Clinton didn't do was to finish the job. :)

But for entertainment purposes, if Bush would have just been content to lob a couple hundred cruise missles at Iraq - you'd be O.K. with that?
Hold on, let me finish drinking before you respond so I don't choke on it during my fit of laughter:p

CkG
rolleye.gif

Unbelievable. I'm sorry if this difference is beyond your partisan comprehension. There are a few hundred thousand troops who understand the difference vividly, as well as a few million Iraqis and a few billion other people around the globe.

rolleye.gif
<-I can use it too ;)

Read what Clinton was doing and saying. Nothing is different except for the placement of actual troops on the ground which are require to FINISH THE JOB. The reasoning is exactly the same! and that reasoning is exactly what you people are claiming Bush is lying about.

Billions around the globe? Did you read the G8 statement? They too claim that WMD pose a worldwide security threat.

CkG

<- goes off to lick his "partisan" wounds
rolleye.gif
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
Seems to me there were no inspectors in Iraq at that time saying "Hey where are the weapons, we don't see them? Give us time to complete the inspections before you go to war cause we don't see them", RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT? The inspectors had been pulled. Bush had on the ground evidence of no weapons but that's not what he wanted to hear. He wanted to use WMD as the lie to stampede the American people into allowing him to murder American soldiers in a battle field situation having nothing to do with the defense of the United States.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Seems to me there were no inspectors in Iraq at that time saying "Hey where are the weapons, we don't see them? Give us time to complete the inspections before you go to war cause we don't see them", RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT? The inspectors had been pulled. Bush had on the ground evidence of no weapons but that's not what he wanted to hear. He wanted to use WMD as the lie to stampede the American people into allowing him to murder American soldiers in a battle field situation having nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

Huh? Are you saying there weren't Inspectors on the ground 4 days before Clinton struck? Sure they were wrapping up that session of inspections, but according to this 140 were staying, and only 2 of the 3 teams had left. Atleast Bush had the decency to tell all the UN people to GTF out of Iraq cuz the storm was coming.

Why did Clinton strike if there wasn't a comprehensive review as to Iraq's compliance? Was he then lying too?

But anyway...so let me get this straight.
Now Bush lied because inspectors said they needed more time? or is it the timing? So if we had let the inspectors finish up just this "last"(actually the last last last of the last last last) round of inspections and then struck - you'd be OK with it and then Bush wouldn't have lied?

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
The inspectors couldn't be permitted to finish up the inspections because there were no WMD and Bush would have lost his primary and most potent lie.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I normally have something to add when posting an OP-ED piece but I think I'll just let this one stand on it's own.

'You Lied to Us'

By William Safire
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
Monday, June 2, 2003 Posted: 6:56 AM EDT (1056 GMT)

Quick what was the biggest intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War II?

It was the nearly unanimous opinion of the intelligence community, backed by the U.S. and British military, that the 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.

Our military plan was based on this cautious assessment. That presumption of a bloody, last-ditch defense was also the basis for objections to the war: in street fighting, opponents argued, coalition casualties would be horrific, and tens of thousands of civilians would be sacrificed.

Happily, our best assessment was mistaken. Saddam's supposed diehards cut and ran. Though Baghdad's power and water were cut off, civilians were spared and our losses were even fewer than in Gulf War I.

What if our planners had believed Kurdish leaders who predicted that Saddam's super-loyalists would quickly collapse? We would have sent fewer combat troops and more engineers, civilian administrators and military police. But the C.I.A. and the Pentagon had no way of being certain that the information about the Republican Guard's poor morale and weak discipline provided by Kurds and Iraqi opposition leaders was accurate.

With thousands of lives at stake, optimism was not an option. Sensibly, we based our strategy on the greater likelihood of fierce resistance. That decision was as right when made as it was mistaken in retrospect.

Turn now to the charge heard ever more stridently that U.S. and British leaders, in their eagerness to overthrow Saddam and to turn the tide of terror in the Middle East, "hyped" the intelligence that Iraq possessed germ and poison-gas weapons.

"Hype" means "exaggerate." As used by those who were prepared to let Saddam remain in power, it is prelude to a harsh accusation: "You lied to us. You pretended to have evidence that you never had; you twisted dubious intelligence to suit your imperialistic ends, so we were morally right and you were morally wrong."

Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 300,000 victims, which together with the million deaths in his wars make Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history. Never mind his undisputed financing of suicide bombers and harboring of terrorists, from Al Qaeda's Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to the veteran killer Abu Nidal (the only "suicide" with three bullets in his head, dispatched in Baghdad probably because he knew too much.)

And never mind our discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria and death in any city in the world. Future discoveries will be dismissed as "dual use" or planted by us.

No; the opponents of this genocidal maniac's removal now accuse President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of a colossal hoax. Because Saddam didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq never had them. If we cannot find them right away, they don't exist. They believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason at all.

A strong majority of Americans believe he did have a dangerous program running, as he did before. Long before the C.I.A. dispatched agents to northern Iraq, Kurdish sources were quoted in this space about terrorist operations of Ansar al-Islam, whose 600 members included about 150 "Afghan Arabs" trained by Al Qaeda; after our belated bombing, some escaped to Iran.

As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry. It took seven years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years to catch the Unabomber; the location of Saddam and Osama bin Laden won't remain a mystery forever.

In the meantime, as the crowd that bitterly resents America's mission to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, remember the wise "mistake" we made in overestimating the fighting spirit of Saddam's uniformed bully-boys.

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax."

William Safire is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times.



 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Read what Clinton was doing and saying. Nothing is different except for the placement of actual troops on the ground which are require to FINISH THE JOB. The reasoning is exactly the same! and that reasoning is exactly what you people are claiming Bush is lying about.
Nothing is different? Right, nothing is different ... except for that little bit about the invasion. Oh, and you forgot the heavy bombing of Iraqi cities, the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, and the occupation, to name a few. Nothing is different my eye.

And to state what is likely obvious to everyone else here, "FINISHing THE JOB" is the whole point of contention. Many (including the U.N. you keep misrepresenting) feel that containing Iraq was sufficient; the death and destruction was unauthorized and unjustified.

Billions around the globe? Did you read the G8 statement? They too claim that WMD pose a worldwide security threat.
Repeating the same lie -- or at least the same misinformation -- over and over doesn't make it true. As I already pointed out in this thread, the article you linked explicitly mentions that it doesn't include Iraq.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The inspectors couldn't be permitted to finish up the inspections because there were no WMD and Bush would have lost his primary and most potent lie.

It would have taken years for them to search every nook and cranny for the blasted WMD. In the end they would have been seen with egg on their face for having wasted all that money and time. Saddam simply had none... none ready made.. they were disguised as other things ready for put-to-gether on the moments notice. We've found them all over the place when you realize they ain't what they are.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I can't seem to get in to the site. It requires an id and pw
is there another way?
help!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Read what Clinton was doing and saying. Nothing is different except for the placement of actual troops on the ground which are require to FINISH THE JOB. The reasoning is exactly the same! and that reasoning is exactly what you people are claiming Bush is lying about.
Nothing is different? Right, nothing is different ... except for that little bit about the invasion. Oh, and you forgot the heavy bombing of Iraqi cities, the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, and the occupation, to name a few. Nothing is different my eye.

And to state what is likely obvious to everyone else here, "FINISHing THE JOB" is the whole point of contention. Many (including the U.N. you keep misrepresenting) feel that containing Iraq was sufficient; the death and destruction was unauthorized and unjustified.

Billions around the globe? Did you read the G8 statement? They too claim that WMD pose a worldwide security threat.
Repeating the same lie -- or at least the same misinformation -- over and over doesn't make it true. As I already pointed out in this thread, the article you linked explicitly mentions that it doesn't include Iraq.

Listen to me closely. the REASONS for the attacks are the same. Obviously the weapons we used were different, Saddam is gone isn't he?
I'm not arguing the actual tools used in the invasion - I was arguing the REASONS for the invasion with moonbeam - who thinks that it was all just one big lie made up by Bush.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
It ain't that hard to find the kinds of mass immediate threat to our survival that Bush and league were talking about. The Iraqi streets were paved with WMD. I can see Bush passing up and down in the white house screaming find those god damned WMD god damn it. :D He should have to personally tell the parents of our dead soldiers that he had to trick them for their own good or their kids would still be alive and the New American Century would still be just an unbegun dream. And Israel thanks you, too.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It ain't that hard to find the kinds of mass immediate threat to our survival that Bush and league were talking about. The Iraqi streets were paved with WMD. I can see Bush passing up and down in the white house screaming find those god damned WMD god damn it. :D He should have to personally tell the parents of our dead soldiers that he had to trick them for their own good or their kids would still be alive and the New American Century would still be just an unbegun dream. And Israel thanks you, too.

Keep feeding yourself lies to keep yourself aloft, we don't need you back here on earth.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD,
Following directions from Etech I got to this site local for all the resolutions

un resolutions by year...

I hope I did this right

EDIT.... nope it still says no authorization... got in once but not now... geez I hate being dumb.

EDIT 2... I think it is the firewall in XP that causes the issue
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: HJD1
I can't seem to get in to the site. It requires an id and pw
is there another way?
help!

me too

I can't find my other link to that resolution.:(

CkG


Sorry guys, the page opens right up for me. I did get the latest adobe reader recently. That might be the problem.

Without checking every word, this does seem to be the same.
CNN