I see from your response that you indeed still believe that Bush is bluffing. I honestly hope that you are correct. You know the only obsession I have wrt Bush's war with Iraq is that the man keeps changing his story. Bush could at least show a little integrity with the American public before he puts our soldiers in harm's way. Last night, he changed the story yet again. Now, he says that we do not need prove of an imminent threat (since there is none to be found). Thus, the leader of the world's most powerful country told a bold face lie last fall that Saddam and Iraq were an emerging threat. I expect more from the President of the USA. I guess you don't.
it's not his lie...it's the lie of that damn illuminati, no worries!! he was forced to make the lie by a swarm of black helicopters.
Think context switch. You changed the argument from Bush's actions wrt the war with Iraq to 9-11 and OBL. BTW, I did not bring up Clinton. I only stated that Clinton did not declare an unilateral war against Iraq for the purpose of regime change.
No Worries, Bush has made his position on Iraq clear several times. The basis for it is out there in the open. What is the argument AGAINST war? That the UN isn't going along? That is extremely weak. The only good arguments I have heard are the ones in favor of war. And yes, there is a lack of evidence as to how close Saddam is to building a nuclear weapon, but Saddam is not working with the inspectors so how can we ever find the evidence?
Bush, like Clinton, has only stated that regimine change is necessary in Iraq to ensure stability to the reagon. Bush has not declared war. He's threatened to go to war (which is further then Clinton went) but that threat has made the U.N. DO THEIR FRICKEN JOB and get the inspectors back in. When you say that Bush has "declared war" on Iraq you are putting <i>your</i> words into <i>his</i> mouth to strengthen your argument. It's like you're arguing with a doll where you talk for both yourself and the doll and then pat yourself on the back for winning the argument. There is no war yet!
Originally posted by No Worries Think context switch. You changed the argument from Bush's actions wrt the war with Iraq to 9-11 and OBL. 9-11 changed everything. Threats from terrorists and their buddies are very different now. Clinton's decisions at the time did not consider 9-11; no context switch here. BTW, I did not bring up Clinton. I only stated that Clinton did not declare an unilateral war against Iraq for the purpose of regime change. It's actually not relevant whether you mentioned him first overall, but that you brought up that he did not declare a 'unilateral war'. In hindsight, his record re. military responses was poor, and even if it wasn't, he did not make his decisions in the context of 9-11.
I guess those silly troup deployments don't count. Want to bet me that Bush will not go to war with Iraq?
tough talk doesn't work real well without the real threat of force...thus, troop deployment. as for whether or not we'll go to war...who knows? i think the point we're making is that you're jumping the gun and drawing conclusions on things prematurely.
I think you're definition of "imminent threat" differs from the Bush administration's. Correct me if I'm wrong , but when you are talking about an imenent threat you are referring to rock-solid evidence that this particular group plans to strike this particular place at this particular time. I think when the Bush administration is referring to an imminent threat they are talking about the possibility of Saddam Hussein "slipping" some weapons to a couple terrorists. If Saddam has a history of supporting terrorists and it is believed he still has weapons of mass destruction, is that not an imminent threat? And I can understand where you're coming from, but do you at least acknowledge the consequences that "waiting for proof" could bring? I don't think I need to explain it.
How could you not love platypi? They're so cute & cuddly. Well, except for that little poisonous spur thingy.
Again, the axe I am grinding is that Bush is not sticking to one story. This gives the appearance that he has already made up his mind and he is just shot gunning excuses out there to see what sticks. The points you make are valid. If Saddam has WMD hidden (or will in the future have hidden WMD) and if he slips a WMD to a terorrist group who promises to use said WMD on the USA or one of its allies, the USA must act in its interests, remove Saddam from power, and destroy Iraq's WMD. Those are pretty big IFs though. Militant, conservative Islamic groups are not that fond of Saddam. Saddam has punished the conservative Shiites in southern Iraq. And he also runs a state distillery, which goes against Islamic law. Saddam would have to be extremely wary that militant Islamic groups with WMD in hand may decide it is easier to set it off near one of his palaces rather than taking it all the way to the USA.
I don't know. That's a very good question. But you have to admit that it gave a nice break from the constant squabbling in this thread. Mission accomplished.
There are troops deployed all over the world by a lot of different armies. It doesn't mean we are at war. While we may be massing for war there <i>we are not at war, yet!</i> Once again, you're giving the championship to the Knicks before game one has even started... Also, I don't believe anyone is arguing that we won't go to war or that there won't be armed conflict of some sort. But until it actually happens you have no idea what's <i>going</i> to happen.
