In article , Renata wrote:
OK.. From the speech (see snippets below) the threats, very
specifically, we significant danger to the USA, RIGHT NOW, from
WMD, missiles, support of (one) terrorist, and half a sentence
referring to terrorism against it's own people.
Hmm. So, where ARE those WMD, missiles, nuclear facilities (of which
we have actual photos), in-progress nasty facility building, etc.?
Beats me, but Syria would be a good guess. Maybe still in Iraq; the SOB had
more than a decade to hide them, after all. Some of that stuff may be in Iran,
too. I never understood why, but during the 1991 Gulf War, the SOB had his air
force fly a lot of jets to Iran. The Iranians never gave them back. I *do*
understand that one. :-) Maybe that's how the Iranians were able to get their
own nuke program ramped up so quickly: by using Saddam's equipment. Hell,
maybe he *sold* it to them.
It could be *lots* of places.
Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?
Ummm... let me see if I've got this straight. The President did the wrong
thing by invading Iraq. And he's doing the wrong thing by *not* invading
North Korea. Riiiiiiight. I got it.
It is unbelievable to me that you can read this speech and use it as
justification for attacking Iraq in view of current knowledge.
It's unbelievable to me that you can read what I have written and think that
I'm using that as "justification ... in view of CURRENT knowledge" [emphasis
added]. I never said that, or anything remotely similiar. I *do* think that it
was justified in view of what we knew, or thought we knew, _at_that_time_.
There
are lots of bad people in the world; it's simply not our
responsibility to keep them in line unless there are indeed an urgent
threat to the US.
And it appeared _at_that_time_ that there was such a threat.
Bush's justifications (clearly spelled out below)
have fallen apart around him and some folks still seem inclined to
ignore this reality.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could see into the future as clearly as you
see into the past. You're ignoring a basic reality: that *nobody* can make
decisions based on anything other than what is known to him at the time of the
decision.
I ask again - SH was a threat to the US how? Please elaborate
yourself, since your referenced speech does anything but give said
justification.
Absolutely that speech gives justification, in light of what was known
_at_that_time_. No further elaboration is needed.
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
" 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. 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."
"We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every
threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering
to America."
"We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and
atomic weapons. "
""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.""
" 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?"
" And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding
facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological
weapons.
....
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of
miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other
nations..."
" And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's
links to international terrorist groups. "
" Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack
America without leaving any fingerprints."
"... the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon
no later than 1993...
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program. "
" Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem,
why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've
experienced the horror of September the 11th. ...
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud. "
" After eleven years during which we have tried containment,
sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result
is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and
is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever
closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article , Renata
wrote:
So, SH was a threat to the US how?
A few days ago, in this thread, Nate posted a link to the speech in which the
President explained that very clearly. Nate didn't read it, though, and I
guess you didn't either.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?