CIA never called Iraq immediate threat

[PatPatriot]

X..they never said immediate but certainley made the implication...but then again when were the hijackers attacks imminent or immidiate? When they were plannig in the mideast? Or at 15,000 feet over NY?
UN 17 resolution said they (Iraq) were threat or why the inspections?Clintons statements and all the dems from the 90's said Iraq was a threat....A case could be made for imminent but not immediate thats for sure.

 

[Shotgun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:
The CIA never claimed Iraq was an immediate threat, and neither did Bush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And herein lies the problem: if the Bush administration didn't feel that Saddam was an imminent threat, then the war is an act of _aggression_ not an act of preemptive defense. Democratic countries simply do not engage in this type of activity -- the US cannot just 'rewrite' the rules of engagement to suit their hegemonic purposes.

[This message was edited by xpanda on February 06, 2004 at 09:30 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

News anchor Dan Rather, The Reverend Jesse Jackson, NPR reporter Cokie Roberts, and an American Marine were hiking through the jungle one day when they were captured by cannibals. They were led to the village and brought before the chief.
The chief said, "I am familiar with your Western custom of granting the condemned a last wish. Before we kill and eat you, do you have any last requests?"

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili." The chief nodded to an underling, who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."

Jesse Jackson said, "You know, the thing in this life I am proudest of is my work on behalf of the poor and oppressed. So before I go, I want to sing "We Shall Overcome" one last time." The chief said, "Go right ahead, we're listening." Jackson sang the song, and then said, "Now I can die in peace."

Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."The chief directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy.

The chief turned and said, "And now, Mr. Marine, what is your final wish?" "Kick me in the ass," said the Marine. "What?" said the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?" "No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the chief shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.

The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shot the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the cannibals with gunfire. In a flash, the cannibals were dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Marine was untying the others, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?"

"What!?" said the Marine, "And have you jerks call ME the aggressor?!"

 

[xpanda]

The way that terrorists should be dealt with is entirely different from the way that states should be dealt with. Unless and until you can prove that a country is harboring or supporting terrorists, you must treat them as a country, not as a terrorist organization. Therefore, the 'imminent' must be clearly visible and 'preemptive' action should only be considered as a last resort.

The American public should be enraged by this, instead it's spending it's time searching through speeches to see if he used the word imminent or not. Jesus, that's like the prosecution trying to prove self-defense on behalf of the defendant. If Bush is re-elected, without another election to worry about, who will be next? Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? By his new standards for war, nearly every Middle Eastern country qualifies for invasion.

 

[PatPatriot]

X...I agree with you, but don't you think that Saddam and his regime was a terrorist himself?
And he did harbor terroist..Abu Nidal was an international terroist that had a safe house there....He was killed by Saddam..probably for not compling to Sad's intrest.
If Saddam complied with UN resolutions...the US wouldn't have the excuse to go after him.

 

[xpanda]

* noun:   ter·ror·ism   

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By that definition, I can rhyme off many many many governmental leaders who qualify as terrorists who the US aren't planning to attack anytime soon (in fact, you could even make an argument that Bush fits this definition.) Worse than that, though, is that Saddam was already engaging in the acts that you qualify as 'terrorist' long before he was ever invaded -- in fact, we all know the US supplied him with many of the means to further his 'terrorist' agenda (using your term, not mine.) However, there is still nothing, positively nothing, evident to suggest that Saddam was a threat to anyone outside of his own nation ... if the US is in the business of rescuing civilians from their corrupt leaders, then why would Wolfowitz be so supportive of Suharto of Indonesia until he was overthrown? Suharto is thought to have killed twice as many of his own people as Saddam. Isn't he a terrorist, too???

(There are terrorists living in the US, with US asylum, by the way. There is not a government on this planet who is so altruistic as to be above 'all of that.')

The question of why Saddam didn't implicitly comply with the UN is obvious -- in a region where no leader is a true ally of another, where corruption and tyranny run amok, and given the insurgent uprising on Saddam (many analysts surmise that he would have been overthrown within a couple of years), is it any wonder that Saddam was reluctant to provide solid evidence that he was practically defenseless? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

 

[Shotgun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
The way that terrorists should be dealt with is entirely different from the way that states should be dealt with. Unless and until you can prove that a country is harboring or supporting terrorists, you must treat them as a country, not as a terrorist organization. Therefore, the 'imminent' must be clearly visible and 'preemptive' action should only be considered as a last resort.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xpanda, Iraq consistently flaunted its agreements signed at the end of the Gulf War 1. Gulf War 1 essentially ended with Hussein being on probation- behave, or else lose your power. Iraq had to prove its innocence; they didn't have to be proven guilty. That was already a foregone conclusion.

Your immminent threat argument may have worked before 9-11. It may work against countries like Libya, Iran, and North Korea (provided they don't sign agreements to disband their nukes then renege on those agreements). But Iraq is a totally different subject, and your mantra denouncing US hegenomy shows that you are likely ignoring or unaware of the facts regarding Iraq's behavior following Gulf War 1.

It is also interesting how the left on here have brayed for so long about 'Bush lied...Iraq wasn't an imminent threat', then abandons that argument once it has been shown he never said they were. How about some consistency here?

 

[xpanda]

Shotgun: Bush may not have used the word 'imminent' but he certainly implied it. However, I have long maintained that his choice of words is hardly the point -- I have never believed that Iraq was an imminent threat against the US or any Western country, and that Bush has fabricated evidence and used the 'post 9/11' fear of the MidEast to let the public make a mental connection between Saddam and terrorists.

As horrible as 9/11 was, and as much as it has changed the way you, the citizen, views your sense of national security, Saddam did NOT become more of a (real, not perceived) threat after that day. In early 2001, both Powell and Rice told the World Economic Forum that Saddam had been 'levelled' and was 'no longer a threat to anyone'. Unless Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11 (which most will concede he was not) what suddenly changed in a matter of months, besides the level of fear among Americans?

Your real enemy are the underground organizations who have a massive hatred toward the West, especially the US. The attack on Iraq will only fuel their hatred, and Bush has solidly put your country at greater risk or terrorist attack -- while furthering his oil-lead agenda. ('Unrest' in the MidEast means a shaky market for oil companies.)

Look, I will buy the argument that Saddam had to go and I will also buy the argument that settling the region in the interest of the energy supply are vital reasons to have an interest in what is going on over there ... but to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, and using false pretenses and public fear to justify and gain support for war, is horrendous.

 

[xpanda]

My understanding is that this never really made the news much in the US, so here you go:

Link to Powell's speech in 2001

Snippet:

Powell: "We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors ... May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways." February 24, 2001, six months before 9/11

 

[Shotgun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Shotgun:..As horrible as 9/11 was, and as much as it has changed the way you, the citizen, views your sense of national security, Saddam did NOT become more of a (real, not perceived) threat after that day. In early 2001, both Powell and Rice told the World Economic Forum that Saddam had been 'levelled' and was 'no longer a threat to anyone'. Unless Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11 (which most will concede he was not) what suddenly changed in a matter of months, besides the level of fear among Americans?

Look, I will buy the argument that Saddam had to go and I will also buy the argument that settling the region in the interest of the energy supply are vital reasons to have an interest in what is going on over there ... but to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, and using false pretenses and public fear to justify and gain support for war, is horrendous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expanda, reading Powell's speech (thanks for the link) the U.S. thought containment might keep Hussein in check until 9-11. Obviously everything changed once the planes hit; until then fighting terrorism was more of a law-enforcement process rather than a military one. Japan was no more of a danger to the US on December 6 than they were on Dec 8 1941, but the circumstances certainly changed. We badly underestimated Saddam's weapon research in early 1990's, and 9-11 taught us that we had better err on the side of caution rather than simply hope for the best. The US simply couldn't do that knowing Hussein's history.

You can cry all you want about the 'false pretenses' of the war, but it rings hollow when the vast majority of the world community believed Iraq was secretly arming itself with chemical and biological weapons. If I say New England is going to cover the 6.5 line in the Super Bowl, does it mean I lied when the Patriots won by 2?

And please quit with this phony charade of "thousands of innocents" dying. It never seemed to bother the Left that 5000 children per month in Iraq were dying from malnutrition and improper health care. Now all of a sudden there is a discovery of 'humanity'?

 

[xpanda]

The 5,000 children per month who died of malnutrition can chalk a great deal of their suffering up to the sanctions imposed by the US, as discussed in the link I provided. (And you've got it totally backwards ... the Lefts of the world, namely Amnesty International, The Red C****, the UN, etc., were infinitely concerned with the plight of the Iraqi people -- it was the World Trade Organization, led largely by the US that routinely justified the sanctions and went to great lengths to block their removal. So really, when you discuss the 'sudden discovery of humanity' you're really talking about Bush et al.)

And the only thing that changed after 9/11 with regard to Iraq and Saddam was the new 'invisible link' that Bush knew he could attribute ... Saddam can be painted as a monster (fair enough) and let the public draw their own conclusions with regard to his link to terrorism.

The point is simply this: unless and until you have proof of malice or intent to be malicious, you simply don't wage war. I worry significantly that if Bush is elected to another term that he won't have the fear of re-election to keep him from waging war on whatever new 'imminent' enemy his administration dreams up. The US government, in almost all ways pertaining to its foreign policy, is one of the most dangerous, ergo hypocritical, governments the world has ever seen. George Bush is effectively making this world a much more dangerous place.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by Patriot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And he did harbor terroist..Abu Nidal was an international terroist that had a safe house there....He was killed by Saddam..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the word "harbour" has taken on a new meaning in the last three years, sort of like like the word "threat," the word "freedom," the word "security," the word "privacy," the word "terrorist," the word "justified," the word "justice," the word "patriotism," the word "intelligence ..."


Phaedrus

 

[Shotgun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
The 5,000 children per month who died of malnutrition can chalk a great deal of their suffering up to the sanctions imposed by the US, as discussed in the link I provided. (And you've got it totally backwards ... the Lefts of the world, namely Amnesty International, The Red C****, the UN, etc., were infinitely concerned with the plight of the Iraqi people -- it was the World Trade Organization, led largely by the US that routinely justified the sanctions and went to great lengths to block their removal. So really, when you discuss the 'sudden discovery of humanity' you're really talking about Bush et al.)

And the only thing that changed after 9/11 with regard to Iraq and Saddam was the new 'invisible link' that Bush knew he could attribute ... Saddam can be painted as a monster (fair enough) and let the public draw their own conclusions with regard to his link to terrorism.

The point is simply this: unless and until you have _proof_ of malice or intent to be malicious, you simply don't wage war. I worry significantly that if Bush is elected to another term that he won't have the fear of re-election to keep him from waging war on whatever new 'imminent' enemy his administration dreams up. The US government, in almost all ways pertaining to its foreign policy, is one of the most dangerous, ergo hypocritical, governments the world has ever seen. George Bush is effectively making this world a much more dangerous place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

XPanda, there were 3 choices that US administrations had regarding Iraq. 1) Remove the sanctions despite Iraq's blatent violations, allowing Hussein to sell oil for hard cash that will enable him to further develop his nukes/chemical weapons programs 2) keep the sanctions on in order to put political pressure on Hussein at home, knowing all the while that thousands of Iraqis will die 3) Go to war and remove Hussein

Clinton chose option #2. Bush chose option #3. Which policy resulted in more deaths?

You also ignore the massive shift in American policy that 9-11 brought about. Bush, with the willing support of an overwhelming number of the Congress, clearly stated this shift. Your attempt to trivialize this policy change to a "Get Iraq" obsession ignores the facts.

The proactive policy regarding rogue states has resulted in A) multinational negotiations with North Korea regarding its nuke program B) Libya abandoning its WMD program C) Pakistan arresting the father of its nuclear program, promising total cooperation with the US to track down the nations that may have benefitted from the sale of Pakistan's nuke technology, D) will likely lead to the inevitable fall of Iran's radical leadership. You may believe that this hasn't made the world safer, but that explains more your prejudice against the US than it does the actual facts.

Your arguments regarding Arab hatred of the US hold no water; if it did we certainly shouldn't have gone after Bin Laden. He has far more admirers around the Arab world than Saddam ever did. The speculation that "Arabs now hate the US" has been true since we recognized Israel in 1948...if they didn't hate us for Iraq they would hate us for any other variety of other things. What else is new?

 

[xpanda]

Shotgun: while your arguments would be valid if based solely on the points I've expressed in this thread alone, you ignore that I have routinely expressed a distinct disdain for American foreign policy from the end of World War II and forward.

Not only am I not ignoring the 'massive shift in American policy that 9/11 brought about,' but I am blatantly appalled at the ease of which this policy was enacted. Not only does it infringe on the civil rights of your citizenry, but it also blatantly states the new American hegemonic mandate.

I have an exceedingly deep concern when Americans and other democrats focus their opinions of the war in Iraq solely on the end result -- Saddam is gone, Lybia disarmed, etc. while simultaneously ignoring the motives, deceit, and ultimate increase in terror sponsorship that all cloud the war effort. While certainly a move to disarm is an impressive and reasonably admirable goal of this administration, I don't see it in the altruistic eyes that you apparently do.

The failure of Americans and their government to understand how their foreign policies, especially from WWII onward, have created enemies where none existed, encouraged current enemies to increase arms spending, and left allies uneasy, is, in the end, proving to make the US its own worst enemy is stunning. As Dr. Phil would say: how's that workin' out for ya'?

I don't support war unless self-defense (or ally-defense) is evident -- and I certainly do not support a war led by a man who first claims that 'we much change the definition of imminent threat' (National Security Strategy 2002) and then claims 'I never said imminent.' Apparently changing the definition meant wiping it out the need for just cause. The US has been slowly changing the rules for decades, and Bush has used the recent increase in fear among his citizens to propel that advance at an alarming pace. Given the side of the fence where you reside, this may not worry you. Try, though, to put yourselves in the shoes of internationals who aren't in any hurry to become American(ised). Many of us in the international community are sick of the 'Might Makes Right' American value system -- and on his policies and actions of the past two years, Bush needs to be told that he's gone too far.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many of us in the international community are sick of the 'Might Makes Right' American value system -- and on his policies and actions of the past two years, Bush needs to be told that he's gone too far <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Too many spineless people out there for that.
You may not like violence but if you feel we're a violent bully, that's the only effective way to deal with us.