U.N. Passes Resolution To Support U.S. in Iraq

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

My point was that I don't remember making deadly chemical and biological agents when I was in high school, so maybe something a little more important was found. I figured that would be easy to see, but you're obviously too busy patting yourself on the back for getting one over on me. Here's a hint: you didn't. You're just being a cretin.

 

Of course, the argument is acknowledged, but you could still produce chemical weapons in any labratory in America if you had the stuff. He didn't infer that they had the stuff.

[Justice 0]

The above one was for shits and giggles.

 

I'm still trying to find a piece of your argument that is backed up by any solid evidence outside of percieved logic and total inferrence.

And I'm still looking for evidence showing they didn't have the weapons in question. All your 'proof' has been on the developmental side, not on the stock side. If they already have a sufficent amount of Chemical weapons, why develop anymore?

 

And Tyler: You still haven't given me a good reason for the World to give a fuck about Iraq.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And I'm still looking for evidence showing they didn't have the weapons in question. All your 'proof' has been on the developmental side, not on the stock side. If they already have a sufficent amount of Chemical weapons, why develop anymore?

 

Here's one: we haven't found anything.

 

Therefore, the ball is in your court.

 

And Tyler: You still haven't given me a good reason for the World to give a fuck about Iraq.

 

Because, as has been my rationale for hating Saddam, he's a terrible dictator and deserved to die. However, that argument wasn't made by the U.S., and it isn't used as rationale by the administration (well, until after the war anyway). The rationale was that he was a direct and imminent threat to our country.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Rabbit season.

[Justice 0]

And I'm still looking for evidence showing they didn't have the weapons in question. All your 'proof' has been on the developmental side, not on the stock side. If they already have a sufficent amount of Chemical weapons, why develop anymore?

 

Here's one: we haven't found anything.

 

Therefore, the ball is in your court.

"Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence."

 

Everyone and their brother knew that Iraq had Chemical and Biological weapons. It's practically impossible to find someone who says otherwise before this whole war started. Everyone knew this through their intelligence agencies. Now, after three months of searching, we are to say that they all this is wrong?

 

Tyler, you have the burden of proof as well. You haven't given anything substantial to say that Iraq didn't have weapons. Common knowledge suggests they do. Development doesn't have anything to do with actually having the bombs. Give me actual evidence that they don't have them, otherwise you are as wrong as I supposedly am.

 

Because, as has been my rationale for hating Saddam, he's a terrible dictator and deserved to die. However, that argument wasn't made by the U.S., and it isn't used as rationale by the administration (well, until after the war anyway). The rationale was that he was a direct and imminent threat to our country.

 

Tyler, we've known that he was an evil dictator for a decade. But his country was still represented in the UN, and I'm pretty sure they recently had a seat on teh Human Rights committee. If everyone knew this, why didn't anyone try and make a motion before? Get in touch with reality: No one outside of us cared. Otherwise you'd have seen soldiers in Iraq much earlier than 2003. People don't want a war, Tyler, no matter the reason. They want the status quo. Convince me otherwise.

[Justice 0]

Rabbit season.

*Fires and hits Tyler in the leg*

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Everyone and their brother knew that Iraq had Chemical and Biological weapons. It's practically impossible to find someone who says otherwise before this whole war started. Everyone knew this through their intelligence agencies. Now, after three months of searching, we are to say that they all this is wrong?

 

Tyler, you have the burden of proof as well. You haven't given anything substantial to say that Iraq didn't have weapons. Common knowledge suggests they do. Development doesn't have anything to do with actually having the bombs. Give me actual evidence that they don't have them, otherwise you are as wrong as I supposedly am.

 

Give me actual evidence that they did.

 

RABBIT SEASON.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

and I'm pretty sure they recently had a seat on teh Human Rights committee

 

You're thinking of Syria.

[Justice 0]

and I'm pretty sure they recently had a seat on teh Human Rights committee

 

You're thinking of Syria.

Was it just Syria? I'm almost dead sure we had a whole bunch of offenders sit on the committee. It was embarassing.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

and I'm pretty sure they recently had a seat on teh Human Rights committee

 

You're thinking of Syria.

Was it just Syria? I'm almost dead sure we had a whole bunch of offenders sit on the committee. It was embarassing.

Naw, pretty sure it was just Syria. Iraq wasn't on the committee anyway, that's for sure.

 

Maybe China too, which would be kinda bad.

[Justice 0]

Give me actual evidence that they did.

 

RABBIT SEASON.

Would you be willing to accept old CIA reports? I do have those. And...

 

Give me proof that he didn't.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Duck season, motherfucker.

[Justice 0]

Duck season, motherfucker.

*Fires*

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hey guys. We were told that Saddam could launch WMD in... How many hours? I remember Rumsfeld talking like he knew right where they were and could find them if he were in Iraq that instant.

 

There's gotta be more than a lab and just a few samples. Just saying that Iraq had an active research WMD program is violating some UN charter, but I want to see what we were being fed when Americans, not just the rest of the world, were being told when sold this war.

[Guest jpclemmons]

Thats the main reason that I hate politics. The hypocracy of it all. 

 

First one side says that UN inspectors can't find WMD because they gave the Iraqis too much of a warning and a chance to hide them and that the searches weren't thorough enough.  "We can't just stand by and wait for them to use them  while you guys take forever looking."  Then after the war its "This place is huge.  We need time to find the weapons. 

 

The other side said "Hey, give the inspectors more time to continue their inspections let them try to find something. That place is huge." Post war: HEY, ITS BEEN 3 whole weeks.  Why haven't you found the weapons!!! OMG  LIARS!!!

 

And don't get me started on the people defending Arnold after blasting Clinton for basically the same accusations.  And those defending Clinton blasting Arnold. 

 

Fuck both the parties.

 

I'm voting for the first hippie I see.

I'm with you on that they are both the same shite in a different toilet.

Edited October 17, 2003 by jpclemmons

[Guest jpclemmons]

I wasn't oppposed to taking out Saddam. but this administration has fumbled the ball on Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we(the taxpayers) are spending $165 billion we could use for schools, homeland security(which is a joke), and updating the power grid.

[Guest MikeSC]

When I was in high school chem, I spilled some substance on me that turned my skin green for a few weeks.

 

That's all...

I made some stuff that caused rashes to pop up in unusual places.

 

Might've been the girl I was dating, though.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And by the way, GOD ;wlkadsjfsao;dkjf;lskadjfING CHRIST.

 

The point of this -- and it ISN'T disputable, regardless of how many high school labratories we've found -- is that Iraq WASN'T an imminent threat to our nation. Believe it or not, we could've waited for multilateral support before we decided to take out their leadership. They certainly didn't have nukes on them, and they likely didn't have any more than a warhead or two of mustard gas. With the U.N. inspectors in the country forcing them to move shit around quite a bit, God knows they weren't getting any work done. Why the hell couldn't we have built up a United Nations-backed coalition based on the premise that Saddam Hussein is a horrible despot who needed to be removed?

 

Why lie and say Iraq has "tons of VX gas" etc. like Rummy did? Why go in front of the U.N. and parade falsified documents about buying uranium from Africa?

Last time I checked, Bush never said they were an "imminent threat". As he said, imminent threats from terrorists tend to involve LOTS of deaths, so we took PRE-EMPTIVE action (remember, action people have been BITCHING wasn't taken pre-9/11?).

 

We HAD int'l support. We didn't go into Iraq alone. You mean could we get U.N approval --- and the answer is no, we couldn't. France and Russia were so deep in bed wth Saddam it is laughable. We had numerous resolutions that stated that if Iraq didn't completely comply -- and NOBODY claimed that they HAD complied --- they would suffer consequences.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I wasn't oppposed to taking out Saddam. but this administration has fumbled the ball on Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we(the taxpayers) are spending $165 billion we could use for schools, homeland security(which is a joke), and updating the power grid.

Spend more on schools? Well, the federal gov't gives about 7% of a school's total budget, so it won't do much good. And God knows we don't want the federal gov't getting involved in something that THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED IN.

 

Spend more on homeland security? God knows people don't bitch about THAT?

 

Upgrading the power grid? You know, you might want to spend a little time figuring out HOW to do it before you do it.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Last time I checked, Bush never said they were an "imminent threat"

 

Wrong like usual, Mike.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

 

Take any number of quotes from that thread. As usual, you're full of shit; this is ONE SPEACH, and he declared it VERY often before the war.

[Firestarter 0]

Take any number of quotes from that thread. As usual, you're full of shit; this is ONE SPEACH, and he declared it VERY often before the war.

First of all, it's a speech, not a "speach." Second, there is precisely one instance of the word "imminent" in it, and it does not refer to the threat in Iraq ("Approving this [uN Security Council] resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable"). Third, in the President's State of the Union on 28/01/03 he explicitly classified Iraq as a threat which was not imminent and could not be allowed to become imminent:

 

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

 

 

 

Mike isn't wrong, Tyler. You are.

[Guest MikeSC]

Last time I checked, Bush never said they were an "imminent threat"

 

Wrong like usual, Mike.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

 

Take any number of quotes from that thread. As usual, you're full of shit; this is ONE SPEACH, and he declared it VERY often before the war.

"This is the speech you linked:

 

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

 

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

 

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 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.

 

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. 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. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

 

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

 

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

 

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."

 

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?

 

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

 

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

 

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

 

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. 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. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

 

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

 

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

 

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.

 

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

 

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

 

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

 

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

 

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.

 

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

 

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. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

 

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. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

 

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

 

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

 

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

 

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

 

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

 

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.

 

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

 

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

 

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

 

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

 

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

 

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

 

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

 

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

 

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

 

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

 

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

 

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

 

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

 

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

 

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

 

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

 

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

 

May God bless America."

 

 

 

As usual, Tyler, you prove me correct. Thanks again. You make my job REAL easy.

 

He never said they were an "imminent" threat. Read the entire speech yourself before making comments you cannot possibly hope to back up. He, flat-out, says that this is a pre-emptive strike. I bolded this in the speech, but to make it clear:

 

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

 

ALSO...

 

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?

 

Let's not forget...

 

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein

 

Not quite "imminent" threat, is it? Sounds, to me, like pre-emptive strike. Probably reads like that to, well, anybody with a rational bone in their body.

 

And you ignore his OTHER reasons for the war --- just as everybody on the left seems to do. So, even though I italicize it elsewhere, here ya go:

 

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

 

You cannot disprove any of this. I find it amazing that inspectors were finding this stuff in 1998 --- but all of a sudden, in 2003, it's TOTALLY gone? Saddam couldn't really DISPOSE of it without people knowing. It's not easy to dispose of biochem weaponry without SOMEBODY knowing about it.

 

You know, for all of the bashing of Bush's speeches, this is a better speech than anything Clinton ever churned out. And it actually was about something.

-=Mike

...Care to try again?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

First of all, it's a speech, not a "speach."

 

Wow, that's terribly relevant to the argument at hand. HOLY SHIT A TYPO.

 

Forgive me for not taking the time to read a 3,000 word speech. I googled "Bush" "imminent threat" "Iraq" and that popped up, among other things. Hot damn, he didn't say it in that exact language. That proves what?

 

Regardless, I said "administration", and not Bush himself. Some of the more blunt "grave threat" type of comments are made by general Republicans and Generals, not Bush himself. Again, whoopity frickin' do. There are PLENTY of quotes that insinuate that much -- regarding the WMDs and their "capabilities" and how we're all going to die if we don't kill Saddam now -- that should now be brought into question. How about these?

 

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

 

...or others that say we know they have them and we know where they are? Whether he used the words "imminent threat" or not is irrelevant; that was CLEARLY the message presented by the administration, and your claims to the contrary are absurd.

 

http://www.lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx

 

So where are those WMDs again?

[Red Baron 0]

If I was the U.N. leader I would say in the lines of "Your mess...your fault."

[Firestarter 0]

that's terribly relevant to the argument at hand. HOLY SHIT A TYPO.

Just as relevant as your silly directionless carping. It's simply comical now.

 

Forgive me for not taking the time to read a 3,000 word speech.

No. Reasonably, I won't. I can't. You claimed that the President said something he did not. You slandered him with no basis but your ignorance because of your hatred for him. You've done the same thing countless times in the past. I won't give you a free pass on your lies, your laziness, and your ignorance. I won't forgive you. No one without an ideological motive will. If you make a claim you have a responsibility to back it up.

 

And the very document you cited proved you wrong without a shadow of a doubt. That's pretty sad, Tyler, but it's not unprecedented. Remember all the crap you were spewing a month or so ago about United States citizens being executed without trial? It's an exact parallel.

I googled "Bush" "imminent threat" "Iraq" and that popped up, among other things. Hot damn, he didn't say it in that exact language. That proves what?

That you are a liar.

 

Regardless, I said "administration", and not Bush himself.

Another lie. Proof:

Last time I checked, Bush never said they were an "imminent threat"

Wrong like usual, Mike... he declared it VERY often before the war

You said that the President of the United States had stated that Iraq presented an imminent threat. You were wrong. And now you are lying. As usual.

 

Whether he used the words "imminent threat" or not is irrelevant

No. You made it the crux of your argument. And you were wrong. You don't get to change your claims in mid-argument after you've been proved wrong, and then claim you were right all along. The DNC may do business that way, but you will be held to a higher standard on this board. Get used to it.

 

that was CLEARLY the message presented by the administration, and your claims to the contrary are absurd.

The President and the President alone defines the message "presented by the administration."

[Firestarter 0]

For anyone who doesn't understand my references to Tyler McClelland's previous documented lies, kindly read this thread, especially my last post to him on the second page.

All allegations are proven and thoroughly substantiated, often through Tyler's own words, and sometimes through external sources, such as official records of pending legislation, and transcripts and articles culled from liberal mainstream media (such as CNN, rather than FNC).

Edited October 18, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest JMA]

Wow. A feud this INTENSE~! deserves its own thread in the NHB folder. I get the feeling that the figurative "punches" are being pulled right now...

[Firestarter 0]

It doesn't belong in NHB at all. I have no interest in trading insults right now; I am simply pointing out Tyler's errors, deliberate lies, and patterns of behaviour. All of these are fully documented and need be buttressed by neither invective nor rhetorical tricks. The evidence is plain to see.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

First of all, it's a speech, not a "speach."

 

Wow, that's terribly relevant to the argument at hand. HOLY SHIT A TYPO.

I guess Tyler could care less about TYPOs now...

[Guest jpclemmons]

So where are those WMDs again?

6 months and they still haven't found any WMD

 

or Bin Laden

or Saddam