Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-16-2003, 11:43 PM   #1
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
So what's the difference
December 17, 2003 - 1:17PM

US President George W Bush today dismissed any distinction between whether former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction or planned to acquire them.

"So what's the difference?" he asked in an interview with ABC television in response to a question whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or was just trying to acquire them.

"If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," the president said. "A gathering threat, after 9-11, is a threat that needed to be dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger."

The Bush administration used claims that Iraq had hidden banned chemical and biological weapons as one of the main justifications for launching an invasion of Iraq last March.

A CIA-led search team sent to Iraq after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime has so far been unable to find any such weapons.

But in the interview Bush referred to "the possibility that he could acquire weapons."

Bush insisted that the intelligence the White House used before the invasion "was good sound intelligence" and was no different than that available to his predecessor.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat," he said. "Otherwise, the United Nations wouldn't have passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm."

Blair appears to retreat over WMD

Meanwhile Prime Minister Tony Blair sought to prepare the ground for the possibility that weapons of mass destruction will not be found in Iraq - only evidence that Saddam Hussein once possessed them.

The Prime Minister appeared doubtful whether Saddam would lead Britain and the United States to the weapons following his capture.

Mr Blair said there was evidence of a system of "clandestine laboratories" in Iraq. But he referred to the elusive weapons in the past tense.

Before the conflict, the Government claimed to have evidence that chemical weapons could be deployed at 45 minutes notice. After the war was over, Mr Blair said he was confident that they would be found, and had "absolutely no doubt" of their existence.

But eight months on from the fall of Baghdad, with no weapons yet found, the Government has begun to retreat. Ministers have talked of finding "evidence" of weapons programmes. In an interview with the BBC's World Service Arabic network, Mr Blair said the Iraq Survey Group, a team of international experts, should be allowed to complete its work.

"I'm confident that when the Iraq Survey Group has done its work we will find what's happened to those weapons because he had them. There is no doubt," he said.

In a separate interview for British Forces Broadcasting Service, Mr Blair was asked if Saddam might now reveal details of his weapons of mass destruction programme. "There's obviously that possibility there but I think in any event we have got to carry on doing the work we are doing.

"The ISG has found evidence of a massive clandestine laboratory network system, workings by scientists, plans to develop long-range ballistic missiles."
Supposing there was no difference, that the rationale of Saddam being a menace for 12 years and needing neutering is somehow good enough on its own, the Bush administration's own statements prove this was not a widely held opinion, either.

Quote:
onpoint.org
Posted September 28, 2003
What the Bush Administration Knew About Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and When They Knew It
by Bob Zimmerman


The war, war, and more war wing of the Republican Party has roundly criticized Senator Edward Kennedy for accusing the Bush administration of misleading the American people and Congress about the American invasion of Iraq. Kennedy declared that President George W. Bush had approved war plans to invade Iraq well before the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were tragically struck on September 11, 2001.

Well, hard evidence, unearthed after Kennedy’s accusation, indicates that the Bush administration may be guilty of far greater crimes than covering up just when Bush approved the invasion of Iraq. Post 9/11, the Bush administration repeatedly justified its invasion of Iraq on the proposition that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that those weapons posed and imminent threat to America and to Iraq’s neighbors.

The evidence, compiled by Australian investigative reporter John Pilger, shows that well before the American invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had affirmed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to America or Iraq’s neighbors.

In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Secretary Powell declared, “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Then, on May 15, 2001, Powell boasted that America’s containment policy had prevented Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction or restoring his prior military power. Bush National Security Advisor Rice seconded Powell saying, “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Although Pilger’s evidence was widely reported in Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, our media remains mute. If Powell and Rice knew that the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq was a lie, they should have spoken out.

If Pilger’s evidence is factual, the Bush administration has not only lied to the American people and the Congress; they have ordered our troops into harms way to prosecute a lie; they are complicit in the murder and mutilation of thousands of innocent women and children; they have burdened American taxpayers with an enormous moral and financial debt; they have reduced America’s credibility with most of the free world to near zero; and they have committed treason.

If the Pilgar evidence of Bush administration lies is solid, nothing short of impeachment is called for.
edit: fixed tags

[ 12-16-2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2003, 01:45 AM   #2
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Go visit the 40 towns Saddam bombed with mustard gas and tell them Saddam didn't have WMD. Speculation and investigation are one thing, but a picture's worth a thousand words.

Besides, this failed to quote the portion where Bush mentioned Iraq had failed to disarm for 12 years and that the US had causa belli (yes, Bush used that word, though I prolly mispelled it) to go in. He also stated he went to the UN and told them to do something or the coalition would -- he gave them the chance. As I recall it, they turned to a lengthy discussion about what the pres said rather than turning to dealing with Saddam."Feckless debate" were his words, IIRC. A very good interview, though misrepresented in the article you posted.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2003, 05:52 PM   #3
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
wow, timber. i'm impressed that your response could completely ignore the articles posted. i suspect you are playing devil's advocate, so rather than resummarise the above articles' points, let me respond to your points.

Go visit the 40 towns Saddam bombed with mustard gas and tell them Saddam didn't have WMD. Speculation and investigation are one thing, but a picture's worth a thousand words.

key word: had. there's no evidence he had them at the time the little oil monkee and his special interest buddies decided it was in their personal wealth's best interest to invade.

Besides, this failed to quote the portion where Bush mentioned Iraq had failed to disarm for 12 years and that the US had causa belli (yes, Bush used that word, though I prolly mispelled it) to go in. He also stated he went to the UN and told them to do something or the coalition would -- he gave them the chance. As I recall it, they turned to a lengthy discussion about what the pres said rather than turning to dealing with Saddam."Feckless debate" were his words, IIRC. A very good interview, though misrepresented in the article you posted.

the UN was in the process of enforcing its resolutions with the help of a group of investigators led by a fellow named hans blix. at the time of the US led invasion, there was no evidence that saddam was in contravention of the UN resolutions. it's ironic that now that the US cannot find evidence, either, they are begging for more time - exactly what the UN wanted before the texas ranger, the british avenger, and the midget of steel stormed the gates.

besides, if we are going to start invading every country that fails to live up to the letter of obligations imposed by UN resolutions, let's start with the biggest offender in history: israel.

let me be clear: i dont care if israel is jewish, muslim, christian, hindu, pagan, or raelian. what i do care about is the rampant lies and hypocrisy behind bush's administration pursuing their private agenda in the name of the american people unchecked.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2003, 01:57 AM   #4
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
I don't care to rehash all of this yet again again. Saddam's failures to comply with resolutions it agreed to accept is rather well documented, and as you said the UN addressing noncompliance at the time -- as it had been for 12 years. In a nutshell, Saddam agreed to destroy a certain amount of weapons (which it agreed it had), yet never documented any such destruction. I, for one, don't think S.H. would have destroyed them covertly -- especially since he was so adepts at calling out inspectors when he cut up a few missiles as a last-ditch effort to show a lame attempt at compliance. Ack.... I said I wouldn't get sucked in, yet there I go.

Let me just say I disagree for several reasons. Iraq is not Israel, and the misdeeds of one country cannot justify the misdeeds of another. If Israel should be accorded more attention, then so be it -- but that is a separate issue altogether.

Anyway, I'm not about to get drawn into defending W. I will note that the articles, which I may have ignored a bit, are more opinion than fact, that I prefer the hour-long Bush interview I saw as a source of information, and that however much one may mistrust Bush, there can be no doubt that the biggest liar of all is S.H. the Butcher of Baghdad. For all his faults, G.W.B. has never set weapons against his own people and he does not behead those who speak against him -- in fact he widely recognizes their right to their opinion. Comparing this man to S.H. or any other megalomaniacal dictator is an insult to my country because it so brazenly ignores so many basic facts.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2003, 05:59 PM   #5
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
opinion not fact? fine, dont read the articles, but then keep your opinions about their content to yourself.

if you had bothered to look more closely, you would have found the articles included excerpts from the very interview you say you prefer as a source of information. did you just suck up everything bush said as gospel, or did you integrate it with everything else we know about the supposed causes of the war. had you pursued this little intellectual exercise, you would have to conclude he's either a liar or a hypocrite, possibly both, who started a war without justification in the eyes of the world.

i didnt see any comparison between w and saddam at all, so i dont know where that came from. perhaps a bit of knee-jerk american-centric defensiveness? maybe it's okay for americans to criticise the little oil monkee, but not the rest of the world?

would it matter if i said i'm an american citizen? that my grand-parents came through ellis island 100 years ago? that i was born and raised in a big city, say chicago, and went to school, right through university, in illinois? would that make my opinion any more or less valid?

i'm seeing a whole lot of rationalising so you can all clear your consciences, and it's at times disconerting and other times pathetic. i, for one, will not so blithely forget. and you can bet the rest of the world wont, either. rather than bury your heads in the sand, it's time to take a cold, hard look at how exactly america is presenting itself and what this will mean to the future of foreign relations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2003, 07:32 PM   #6
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
He's probably a hypocrit, we all are. It's called being human.

He's not an intentional liar from all I've reviewed. I'd prefer to say he was, mind you.

I was just saying it was insulting to Americans, whether or not you are or are not one. It presupposes our country would allow someone to commit atrocities, which it would not. At least not on us. Yes, I did percieve the articles as comparing the two men.


Rationalizing to clear my conscious. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] What conscious? I'm amoral, don't you know? I prefer trees to people, relish the though of people dying because of the overpopulation problem, and think we'd all be better off with a good orgy in our lives every now and them. I'm also an atheist and, ergo, the antichrist, in case you haven't heard. Soothe my conscious. Pffffft.

Look, these articles center around this one excerpt:
______________________________________________
The evidence, compiled by Australian investigative reporter John Pilger, shows that well before the American invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had affirmed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to America or Iraq’s neighbors.

In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Secretary Powell declared, “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Then, on May 15, 2001, Powell boasted that America’s containment policy had prevented Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction or restoring his prior military power. Bush National Security Advisor Rice seconded Powell saying, “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
____________________________________________
Okay, never heard that before. But, I'd like to see proof from sources I trust, not liberal overreachers. The impeachment bit -- again [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] If, IF, this were true, it's Condi and Coli on the line, not Bushie.

Anyway, I have to go -- you've made me late for a date, or I guess I've made myself late.

In closing, I reiterate that the first report selectively quoted Bush, which is unfair. Second, SADDAM ADMITTED HE HAD WEAPONS, AGREED TO DESTROY THEM AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SAME, AND FOR 12 LONG YEARS DICKED WITH THE UN OVER THE WHOLE AFFAIR. It was not a Treaty or a Peace protecting him, but a Cease Fire. Invading him was NOT illegal at all. Even absent any evidence whatsoever of WMD, the fact he admitted having them is enough. If he admitting to having what he did not have, then he only got caught in his own web of deceit and got what was good for him.

In closing, I'm about sick of this whole damned forum. I've repeated myself for too damned long here, and I'm just frankly sick of getting carpal tunnel from writing the same damned thing all the damned time. I'm also sick of coming somewhere where you get beat up if you're not a left-winger, and I'm sick of how many good members you guys have run off. This whole damned forum was possibly a bad f**king idea.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2003, 08:27 PM   #7
Skunk
Banned User
 

Join Date: September 3, 2001
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
He also stated he went to the UN and told them to do something or the coalition would -- he gave them the chance.
So in other words, if the courts fail to act in a way that we see fit, we should just resort to vigilantism. That was the attitude of the 9/11 bombers and its not one that I approve of.

We have laws, treaties and courts to deal with conflicts - and if the judgement doesn't go our way, so be it. That's the difference between civilisation and barbarism.
Skunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2003, 09:04 PM   #8
johnny
40th Level Warrior
 
Ms Pacman Champion
Join Date: April 15, 2002
Location: Utrecht The Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 16,981
There's a very thin line between civilisation and barbarism though. I mean, manufacturing a bomb that destroys a metropolis.... how would you describe that ? Civilised ? Barbaric ?
__________________
johnny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2003, 10:43 AM   #9
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Judgment did and will go the US's way. The UN will think twice before putting "all measures necessary" in a cease-fire accord again, though, won't they?
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2003, 01:33 PM   #10
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
let me be clear: i dont care if israel is jewish, muslim, christian, hindu, pagan, or raelian. what i do care about is the rampant lies and hypocrisy behind bush's administration pursuing their private agenda in the name of the american people unchecked.

Well then you should quit spewing them.
You remind me of someone....Noro...something..or was that Eisen...someone? Ahh well no matter.

You really have a severe chip on your shoulder. Just a suggestion, but you should relax a bit or your gonna get an ulcer.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There's a Difference? Arvon General Discussion 3 01-16-2006 05:58 PM
You just have to know the difference... Arvon General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 8 11-06-2004 04:45 PM
Difference TheOne2k3 Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Also SoU & HotU Forum 1 08-20-2003 06:49 PM
What's the difference...... Willard General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 4 09-23-2002 10:57 PM
is there a difference? thalali Darkstone 1 01-14-2002 04:50 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved