[N8 v2.0]

You really don't have a mind of your own do you?

Sure.

I agree with the President on this though and since we are talking specifics about who thought-what-when, then let's cut to the chase and go to the source, since afterall this is what you are asking about.

 

[Changleen]

Damn I hate that I'm in a different time zone to all you guys. I just woke up. I have SOO many points to make, and now I have a meeting to go through.

I'll be back soon.

 

[jmvar]

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

arsenal bought from where?? let's check the receipt....

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Iran? Saudi Arabia?

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America....

won't even comment......

...some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

what the hell does that mean??!?!?!?!?!?!

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

no thought was given to it when he to Rummy he was gonna do it??!?!?!? oh yeah, it was the language barrier.....

This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I*S*R*E*A*L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

what country does't?

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

He is addicted? Who is the drug dealer providing the drugs.....who was buddy buddy with him not too long ago?

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

no need the Saudis got the US with box cutters and flight school.....

done....

 

[Changleen]

In the context of Iraq, I'll let Pres. Bush define 'threat' for you as viewed from Oct 2002. It's laid out right here:

Oh, I'm glad that you can do that, that's looked like a normal Bush speech full of lies and spin to me...oh wait...

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

1) The US also has an 'Arsenal of Terror' and its bigger.
2) Iraq wasn't charged with destroying the weapons. The UN inspectors were. May sound pedantic but it's a big difference. They got most of them and Iraq then stopped telling them where they were. Possibly because there weren't that many.
2) 'Stopping support for terrorist groups' was not a condition of surrender
3) The war never officially stopped

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.

Since shown to be false, so, No it didn't.

It is seeking nuclear weapons.

No it wasn't. In fact just yesterday the BBC carried a large piece about what a load of crap this was.

It has given shelter and support to terrorism,

No it had not. This is simply a blatent lie - Bush can't even blame this on bad intelligence. And where I come from, leaders of countries are ultimatley responsible for everything done in their name, especially wars. Bush's claim's of faulty intelligence in certain areas is pathetic whining, which shows his lack of spine. Saying it's OK is apologist behaviour.

and practices terror against its own people.

And who sold them those weapons for terror? Oh wait, it was us!

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001,

Why did you bold that N8? Still trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq? Pathetic. Even Bush has given up on that one.

America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth.

Hmm, America was the center of a plot designed to either a) wake up the population to the evil that was being done over the last 50 years in their name or b) create fear, a false enemy and the conditions needed for Bush et al to further their Neo-con agenda and yurn the US into a police state.

We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America....

Better destroy the entire world then. Pathetic. If it is truely 'unacceptable' to Bush's regeime to live in a world of threats, then you guys are in a world of sh1t. That's just never going to happen. Countries always have enemies. They always have. America is no different. The only way to do this is for the US to rule the world. The American people only buy into this threat thing because of the years they've spent in ignorance of the outside world thanks to your sorry excuse for a media.

...some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

Bull****. What about, oh, so many to pick from, ...China! Loads of Nukes, Chemical and Biological weapons years ahead of Iraq, a terrible human rights record, thousands murdered or disapeered, huge groups of people, even whole segments of society denied fundamental rights. Hmm. I could go on, but..

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

American Chemical weapons, I might add. Sold to him by your Dad.

This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Again, the war with Iran was OKed by the US, and hundreds of people are hostile to the US.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Like Bush is addicted to invading counries for his own ends and telling the public something else. And who has more Nukes? Bush has his fix. Who is developing the largest conventional bombs of all time and mini nukes?

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

More Bull**** from Bush. Destroyed at every point by reality. Just like most of your arguments N8.

 

[LordOpie]

jmvar, dude, did ya forget to take your ritalin today? WTF was all that?

 

[fluff]

Following your lead:
They "had" the means before
They did not show to the world they no longer had them
They hid and protected apperantly "nothing" from inspectors
He palyed a really big game of poker and lost

They opened up every site (without exception) to the inspectors. Please feel free to check this, because it did happen. This may help:
BBC

Al Q was a threat.
They attacked the USA.
They were sought out.

We are talking about Iraq, you accuse me of being confused between Iraq and the war on terror and then post this? I have never linked the two, unlike Bush and Blair.

Iraq was in many violations of Resolution 1441 and in so opend up Saddam to be removed from power. As Resolution 1441 gave Saddam terms to to folow in order to stay in power. Saddam was then removed, much to the dismay of a UN sitting on their hands.

Resolution 1441
What were the many violations of this resolution and where does it authorise force?

Iraq was not "invaded" becuase it was a threat. Saddam was removed from power because he violated a contract with the UN that the UN could not enforce.

You are correct with the first statement, the second is wrong.

You assume Iraq and the War on terror(ism) are one and the same. You would be wrong. They are being waged at the same time. That is about it.

No I do not assume they are the same, I never have. Unlike Bush, Blair and, it seems, yourself (see above).

I will stand in front of loaded sly questions and call them out.

Loaded question? You may attempt to cast a genuine and relevant question as loaded but it was simple, straightforward and pertinent. Your answer on the other hand tries to divert it down many other routes.

You have admitted Iraq was not a threat. If you are to justify invading countries because they fail to conform with UN resolutions then why have we not invaded Israel or Turkey (two consistent offenders) to name but two?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Wow alot went down last 20 or so hours....I will have to read this stuff later....

Might be monday.