Justice and an Illegal war. - Page 4

Originally Posted by lokstah

Originally Posted by zapper

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction! ."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Originally Posted by jhuskey

Well thats one way to end a conflict turn the Middle east into a parking lot but who decides who gets it first.And do we stop there.
What would be the criteria for such a strike and would it be selective or total genocide. Heres another quote.

"I am become death,shatterer of worlds". Robert Oppenheimer(father of the A-Bomb) quoted from the ,Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the Atomic test.

Originally Posted by jhuskey

[I would just NUKE them

Originally Posted by limerickman

Zapper :

The only real information that the above information proves is :
1.That both sides in the USA political debate discussed SH
2.That both sides were entirely wrong about SH capabilities.

Look, your country has had unfettered access to the entire Iraq region since
March 2003.
As I write in Sept 2004, your country has still been unable to provide an
hard evidence to show WMD :
No documentation from within Iraq has been uncovered by your country showing the records of WMD program.
No physical evidence from within Iraq has been uncovered by your country
of WMD stockpiles.
Your country hasn't produced reports of radioactivity of Uranium (and essential ingredient) for the making of WMD (radioactivity denoting the presence of Uranium is emitted for hundreds, if not, thousands of years).

It's a falsehood to hold that WMD were ever in Iraq.
The lie of the Bush goverment has been exposed.
18 months of unfettered access - and not one scintilla of proof of any WMD.

The issue here is judgement.
And unknowingly, you have, by listing those quotes, shown how inept Bush was.
Both sides of the house made statements about SH and WMD.
But it wasn't Clinton who made the decision to go to war in Iraq.
It was Bush.
This decision to go to war, was premised upon intelligence that was found to be wanting.
Bush however knew that the intelligence was wanting because his predecessor did not act on that intelligence.
What's more, Bush and his people deliberately ommitted to tell the nation that the intellegence was flaw.
Instead, Colin Powell doctored evidence in February 2003 to try to bolster the weak intelligence.

Bush's decision has cost 12,000 lives directly and thousands of seriosly injured people.
By going to war, Bush has also deliberately taken resources away from hunting down Al Qaeda.
In my view, these reasons alone are ample evidence that Bush is not competent enough to do his job.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Well thats one way to end a conflict turn the Middle east into a parking lot but who decides who gets it first.And do we stop there.
What would be the criteria for such a strike and would it be selective or total genocide.
Heres another quote.

"I am become death,shatterer of worlds". Robert Oppenheimer(father of the A-Bomb) quoted from the ,Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the Atomic test.

Originally Posted by wanderer390000

"It's a falsehood to hold that WMD were ever in Iraq" what more proof do you need . did you not see the kurd laying there dead after S\H used them or were you on another planet

Originally Posted by limerickman

Nuke them.
It is a terrible saying and it evokes terrible consequences.
Look at Japan today - thousands of people still suffering from the attacks in 1945.
Birth defects - hereditary genetic problems.
The USA, in fairness, provide substantial financial assistance but nearly 70 years later, the effects of those two nuclear bombs still resonate.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Pearl Harbor still reasonates after 70 years.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Pearl Harbor still reasonates after 70 years.

Originally Posted by pomod

Anyone who proclaims "just Nuke 'em" as a solution to anything is simply, an ignorant asshole.

Originally Posted by pomod

.(Japan had essentially given up, but for negotiating the status of Emperor)

Originally Posted by lokstah

Any inevitably controversial debate over Hiroshima aside (though I don't disagree with you), this statement is undeniable. Anyone who utters "just nuke 'em" with any seriousness doesn't deserve to have much influence in this life.

Originally Posted by pomod

Pearl Harbour, without justifying the attack, was at least military target. The Atomic bomb that dropped on Hiroshima detonated over a hospital, in an densely populated urban area. In addition, little or no information was provided to the victims, a disproportionate number were civilians, as to what even hit them, no medical attention was allowed to them, other than to observe the long term effects of the radiation. The victims of the A-bomb were in a sense, guinea pigs. Did the bomb end the War in the Pacific? Not really, or maybe a few weeks earlier than it would have anyway (Japan had essentially given up, but for negotiating the status of Emperor) Was it a retaliation for Pearl Harbour? Probably, seeing the decision to drop it on Japan rather than Germany was made in the spring of '42 shortly after the attack. Was it a flexing of muscle to Stalin who was more a concern to the US than Japan at that point? Yes. Was it a war crime? Definitely; as was the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities (over 130 000 people died in a single night in Tokyo alone). Robert McNamara himself admitted as much. Japan was far from blameless in the WWII, and committed it's fair share of atrocities to be sure, but, make no mistake, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much more a political decision than a strategically military one and in my opinion is right up there with the holocaust as one of the most shameful and cowardice acts of the last century.

Anyone who proclaims "just Nuke 'em" as a solution to anything is simply, an ignorant asshole.