The Blue Site

"claiming that Bush said Iraq and Hussein was an imminent threat (he specifically told the country, he wasn't, but that we should act so that he doesn't BECOME one"

- Well he didn't use the word "imminent", but the implication was fairly clear. Bush said the threat was "urgent", Rumsfield said the threat was "immediate", and Cheney said the threat was "mortal". I think it's easy to figure out how that "liberal radio talk show guy" came to his seemingly accurate conclusion. I've provided several links below:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020918-secdef2.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)

sorry. like the radio host, you lose...bush made it clear the threat wasnt imminent. he said we should go in and force the regime to comply with over 15 UN resolutions (1441 being the final one) BEFORE they became an imminent threat to the US or any of our allies...or for that matter, any other nation in the region...since we dont want to allow hussein to destablize the area more than it already is.

if you dont think that defying 16 UN resolutions over a period of 12 yrs isnt urgent, then i dont know what to tell you. there have now been ties exposed with al qeada and attah, the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks...he openly supported terrorism across the globe- especially in israel where he paid the families of homicide bombers. the regime knew about and supported terrorist training camps in the country.

with all of that alone (plus the WMD that every sec council member agreed hussein had)...the situation was, indeed, urgent.

so, since the radio host said that bush said iraq was an imminent threat- an outright falsehood...i would hardly claim that he was correct in doing so. you cant say someones correct in saying something that the president SPECIFICALLY said WASNT the case.

either way...in the end, what other solution was there. iraq is free from a brutal regime...democracy might have a chance in that nation, and it might take hold in the entire middle east over time. the people will have free elections...there is no threat from WMD from hussein anymore...the nation of iraq cannot start wars with anymore nations, nor can they attempt to take over any other nations. id say all of that is a pretty good thing...and further sanctions that hussein would have ignored, and further inspections that would have taken decades was clearly not the answer. and on top of that- hussein would still be in power, he would still be hungry for war, he would still be pushing for development of a nuclear program, he would still be killing innocent people, gasing his own people, etc.

liberals in this country have no agenda. they have the 'i hate bush, bush has done everything wrong, bush is awful, bush has made this country horrible' etc view. the radio host on fox was no exception. id be angry too if i hated the president for no clear reason, and he had high numbers, people liked him and trusted him, and the economy was picking up...

[if you dont think that defying 16 UN resolutions over a period of 12 yrs isnt urgent, then i dont know what to tell you.]

Well, what are your opinions on a country in violation of 69 UN resolutions since 1967? (Please answer)

[there have now been ties exposed with al qeada and attah, the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks...]

That's incorrect. Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3909150&p1=0

I don't disagree with you for the sake of it...I disagree because you're wrong. Get it straight.

please dont start with the anti-israel stuff. its nonsense.

actually, i believe the washington post...or maybe it was the wash times reported a number of links between iraq and the terrorist group. other news agencies have reported top level meetings between attah and the iraqi regime as well. plus, we know hussein supported and promoted, and even funded terrorism.

btw read your source before you use it. powell said he thinks there are links, but he has not personally seen any smoking gun links between the terrorist group and the iraqi regime. its not a far fetched idea...and others have reported the links are there. it doesnt matter either way- hussein admittedly funded terrorism with a number of groups.

[btw read your source before you use it.]

-Oh, I read it very well.

[said he thinks there are links, but he has not personally seen any smoking gun links between the terrorist group and the iraqi regime.]

-said he thinks there are links, but he has not personally seen any smoking gun links between the terrorist group and the Iraqi regime.

[other news agencies have reported top level meetings between Attah and the Iraqi regime as well.]

No, you're wrong. Don't say "the regime" as if everyone had ties with everyone. I read the same one you did with Atta. It stated he was seen meeting in a hotel with an intelligence official who worked for Saddam. It was one man who had one meeting for all we know could have been for personal gain. No information was released or perhaps known about what took place so don't assume you know what's going on.

[please dont start with the anti-israel stuff. its nonsense.]

Please don't start with the double standards because you don't want to face the facts that the US administration is extremely hypocritical when it came to UN resolutions and their "duty to uphold international" when it came to Iraq, but blind eye when it comes to Israel.

I'm not anti-Israel. I agree with their right to exist. I believe the Israeli people have fallen victim to "US administration syndrome"

The people are honest hard working people, but their government is a total screw up, in turn making Israel a continuous target of attacks, just how the US is, and much how you can hardly go anywhere in the world and safely say you're American.

[its not a far fetched idea...and others have reported the links are there.]

Now you're talking semantics. "Oh sure, the idea sounds good on paper, and it's not that far fetched, so we'll say it's true"

That’s a dangerous policy.

I can talk semantics too. To this day, the Bush family still has business ties with the Bin Laden family. That’s a clear tie between Bush and terrorism if you ask me. Perhaps international forces should roll into Washington and "liberate" the American people...

In case it goes over your head, I feel I must point out to you something in my above post. In my following quote:

[said he thinks there are links, but he has not personally seen any smoking gun links between the terrorist group and the iraqi regime.]

I just quoted it again in my response. I want you to read that paragraph over and over and tell me what conclusion you come to in the end.

trust me. nothing you have said or will ever say could possibly be over my head.

trust me. nothing you have said or will ever say could possibly be over my head.

im not sure that bush has ties with the bin laden family one...and two- even if they did have ties, that would mean nothing. they dont support their sons behavior last i checked. youre whole liberation of the american people (quite possibly the most "free" people on earth) is just an other showing of your hatred for america and bush himself. not to mention, its stupid.

i didnt read one story about attah...ive read a number of them from various sources that have talked about attah and others from the terrorist group in iraq. hussein openly supported, promoted, and funded terrorism. thats not secret.

israel has not violated all these UN violations. if you want to listen to the anti-semites tell the story- sure, theyve violated every one on the book and they should all be killed and dumped into the red sea...but, as i have mentioned numerous times, and as everyone but you and buddy lowdown are aware- the UN is and always has been very anti-israel. no nation in the middle east truly accepts the state and their right to exist. much of europe is anti-semitic. anti-israel as well, so dont look to them to help the situation. you sound silly comparing the brutal regime in iraq to the peaceful, democratic nation of israel. you do it all the time, your underlying hatred for israel, tho you try to deny it, shows.

to blame the israeli and american governments for terrorism is also silly. people hate americans because theyre just plain jealous for the most part. arabs hate americans for the same reason, and for the fact that entire nations of people in that part of the world are as backward as you can get...

people who hate israel hate them because its a jewish state...not because the govt is screwing things up. theyve bent over backwards time and time again to make arafat and his henchmen happy- giving them all they demanded (no other nation on earth faces such demands) and much much more...yet the violence continues. why? because the muslims in the area refuse to accept the jewish people living in "their" land.

[im not sure that bush has ties with the bin laden family one...]

Have a look for yourself.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml

http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm

Consider yourself a more informed person now.

[and two- even if they did have ties, that would mean nothing. they dont support their sons behavior last i checked.]

And last I checked, Saddam didn't support Bin Laden. They are two very different ideologies. Saddams is a Shia Islamic ideology whereas Bin Laden is a strict Muslim radicalism. The two hate each other almost as much as Arabs hate Jews.

So that very meeting points most likely to personal gain for a single individual (the Intel official who met with Atta) and not a "clear link" between the regime and Al'Queda.

[hussein openly supported, promoted, and funded terrorism. that’s not secret.]

Well, that can be argued in many forms. Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers. That’s about it. If they US wants to go after a REAL enemy of the west, they would set their sights on the Saudis...the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

And it can work both ways too. The US supported terrorists in the past as well. They funded, trained and armed Contras in Nicaragua in turn causing the death of upwards to 30,000 innocent civilians. Again, does the US now require a regime change?

[to blame the Israeli and american governments for terrorism is also silly.]

Have a look at US foreign policy towards Arabs since the end of WW2.

It went from great to terrible. Arabs praised the US and it's stance towards the middle east for a long time...then things changed. I'm not going to give you a history lesson because you will most likely dismiss it as silly, but if you really want to inform yourself, you will look it up yourself.

[trust me. nothing you have said or will ever say could possibly be over my head.]

Well, apparently it did.

[[said he thinks there are links, but he has not personally seen any smoking gun links between the terrorist group and the iraqi regime.]]

I repeat, he said he THINKS there are links. That doesn't mean there are. And the fact that he himself has seen no smoking gun only further proves my point to the fact that there was no visible link and anything coming out of the Whitehouse is hearsay...(and don’t argue with me. The white house itself thinks so and you look "silly" arguing against the Whitehouse)

[you do it all the time, your underlying hatred for israel, tho you try to deny it, shows.]

Almost as bad as your underlying hatred for arabs and blacks huh?

lol. see? you make yourself look like an ass again. my hatred for blacks and arabs? funny. i have no hatred for either group. i hate blacks so much, i nearly dated a black girl a few months ago until it turned out she was going for some other guy. deep down, i just wanted to date her, so i could lynch her, i guess. hang her from a tree maybe.

only fools try to win an argument by calling the other person a racist, bigot, nazi. especially without proof of any of those.

youre a child...and since you refuse to talk like an adult, i guess ill have to go back to blocking you again.

"sorry. like the radio host, you lose"

- I care little for who you perceive to be "losing". I'm having a discussion, not a boxing match.

"bush made it clear the threat wasnt imminent. he said we should go in and force the regime to comply with over 15 UN resolutions (1441 being the final one) BEFORE they became an imminent threat to the US or any of our allies"

- Didn't you already say this? Why are you simply restating your thesis instead of refuting the evidence I provided that disproved your argument?

- I will repeat myself only once. Here is what Bush said in the link I provided, "We are united in our determination to confront this URGENT threat to America"... Now, here's what you said in your blog... "claiming that Bush said Iraq and Hussein was an imminent threat (he specifically told the country, he wasn't.."

- So you claim he didn't say Iraq was an "imminent" threat, yet according to the official whitehouse website he did say the Iraqi regime posed a "urgent" threat to America. Don't these two statment contradict each other?

"if you dont think that defying 16 UN resolutions over a period of 12 yrs isnt urgent, then i dont know what to tell you"

- You don't have to tell me anything since I that has nothing to do with what I said. I said Bush had in fact implied (meaning he used a synonym of imminent) that Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Then I gave you several links to official government websites that proved my claim. The issue isn't whether or not you and I think Iraq was an "urgent" threat, it's whether or not Bush implied, as that "liberal radio guy" said, that Iraq was an imminent or urgent threat.

- But... since you brought it up, what do you make of the 32 resolutions Israel violates? Oh right, some vague claim of "anti-isrealism".. Okay fine, what about the 24 resolutions Turkey violates? Or what about the 17 resolutions Morocco has ignored? Is there some sort of "anti-Turkey/ anti-Morocco" conspiracy within the UN? Why is breaking 16 UN resolutions an "urgent" matter, but breaking 32, 24, or 17 resolutions not?

"so, since the radio host said that bush said iraq was an imminent threat- an outright falsehood..."

- You can only truly believe this to be a falsehood if you believe that there is some sort of meaningful difference between the word "imminent" and "urgent" or if you completely ignore this sentence: "We are united in our determination to confront this URGENT threat to America". So then which is it?

"either way...in the end, what other solution was there. "

- There were other solutions that had proved effective on other murderous dictators. If you really want to know, I'll list and explain them for you, but it will take great effort and time on my part, so just ask again so I can have some assurance that you sincerely want to know.

"you refuse to talk like an adult, i guess ill have to go back to blocking you again"

- Do you think it's fair to accuse him of hating a given cultural entity (in this case Isreal) and then go and block him when he essentially does the same thing?

Sorry Josh, I forgot to post some links:
http://amenusa.org/Iraq15.htm
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0210unres.pdf

-These are for the UN Resolutions

bush said the threat WAS NOT IMMINENT and that we had to act before it BECAME IMMINENT IN THE FUTURE. there was a danger from hussein...to his neighbors, to any nation, since he supported terrorism.

israel defies UN resolutions that the UN would never impose on any other nation on earth. the palestinians have been offered everything they wanted, numerous times, yet refused to accept a deal. they dont want to live in peace, which is why they refuse any deal that comes across the table to them.

the UN is now, has always been, and will always be anti-israel for the most part. israel defends itself by going after terrorists that plan bombings that kill children and their parents just out on the street in israel, and the UN passes pointless resolutions condemning the actions. no other nation deals with that nonsense from the UN...as israel has every right and every obligation to protect its citizens.

watch the UN and their response next time isreal defends itself after one of the numerous homicide bombings that are sure to take place...something any other nation on earth can do without being attacked by the UN---but, watch their response and their attacks on israel. going on and on about israel "defying" all these various resolutions is nonsense, since israel couldnt arrest a terrorist leader in undisuputed territory without being attacked by the UN and "defying resolutions" this worthless body passes.

btw-
urgent means important/very pressing, immiment is something that is definitely going to take place. so, in the case of iraq, of course it was urgent (he supported, funded terrorism/terrorists, was known to have a large cache of weapons *many of the inspectors agree with that, and the sec council agreed with that stance* that he could have easily passed onto terrorists- a number of reports came out that linked the regime to many terrorist groups- and we know hussein hates the US and the Bush family in particular)

the threat was not imminent in that there was no specific threat against the US that on this day, in this manner, by this group...etc.

of course there was an urgent threat with his ties to terrorism and his refusal, for over a decade, to comply with the WMD issue in the UN.

there were not other solutions. the only other solution anyone came up with was- more inspections, lasting god only knows how long. 12 more yrs? 12 more yrs WITHOUT 100% cooperation?

none of this matters. the UN, a world body that should back up its threats with actions, called for "serious consequences", NOT if they found WMD...but, if hussein refused to finally comply 100% with the demand of the world community. blix said he didnt fully comply and many things were unaccounted for. thus, serious consequences were due. the US simply put actions behind the UN's words...blocked by the germans and the french who both said they would veto any measure put on the table by the US no matter what it was. yet, idiot protestors, war opponents blame the US, when the UN was the body that basically threatened regime change themselves in 1441. the UN is a worthless organization that refuses to act when the time comes to do so. inspections was the only other option to force hussein to comply...he was never going to fully comply, and ousting him was, in the end, the only viable option.

"bush said the threat WAS NOT IMMINENT"

- Bush also said the threat was "urgent". I'm arguing that these two statements contradict each other.

"israel defies UN resolutions that the UN would never impose on any other nation on earth"

- This is simply not true, which might explain why you've never once attempted to prove it.

Here's a look at the resolutions Israel has defied:

Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"

- Is cooperating with peacekeepers such an unfair demand?

Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention

- Is abiding by the rules of the Geneva convention something the UN would "never impose on any other nation on earth"?

Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians

- Is it too much to ask Isreal to not deny people "human rights"?

http://www.mideastfacts.com/resolutions.html

"urgent means important/very pressing, immiment is something that is definitely going to take place."

- That is your definition of the word. But do you really believe that a person would have to be dishonest (as you say that "liberal radio guy" is) to believe use the words "urgent" and "imminent" interchangeably?

"there were not other solutions"

- I have to assume that you've done a great deal of painstaking research to make such an assertion so confidently. Have you visited libraries or searched the internet for solutions that have been used in the past? Have you visited any one of the many anti-war websites that provided alternatives to war that had proved effective and not without precedent?

"called for "serious consequences", NOT if they found WMD...but, if hussein refused to finally comply 100% with the demand of the world community"

- Resolution 1441 warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate obligations spelled out in that resolution. However, the words "all necessary means" are the ones traditionally used to legally justify the use of force. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti. The words "Serious consequences" do not necessarily equal legal justification for war.

This is all very interesting, how Josh posts his opinions on things, then you two attempt to counter, and he simply shouts down from above "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!" It's a deaf man shouting at two guys that can't just walk away. And I'm the jackass throwing my hat into the ring...

I get a good feeling for what your case for war was, and agree or disagree, we've done it. So now I think my question to all of you, and particularly to Josh, would be how you feel about the situation as it stands? Does it matter that we've found no WMD? What impact does the capture of Hussein have? Is there a peaceful resolution for the nation of Iraq in the forseeable future?

lol. all i do is say YOURE WRONG? hardly. let me guess...youre clearly a friend of the two here already. since, no one else would claim i just say youre wrong. either that, or you cant read, because i said a lot more than that. its okay tho, i wouldnt expect you to understand much of it.

That was a pretty understanding response. I was actually referring to things like "sorry. like the radio host, you lose" which seem to be peppered throughout your posts. I apologize for not taking the time to be more specific :)

As for these other two, I've never heard of them any more than I had of you before today. I can't actually remember how I stumbled in here, but I got caught up reading some of the Israeli-Palestinian pieces and decided to see what else was here. I hestitated to post at all, not because of what you might say, but because only the other two seemed to respond to anything.

Now that I've posted, I have a question or two. You incorporate a great deal of factual evidence, whether objectively empirical or subjective statistics, in most of you opinions. You have at least some basis for nearly everything you say here that I've seen.

What I don't understand from you yet is why you say things like, "youre clearly a friend of the two here already" and "i wouldnt expect you to understand much of it" based on a 5 line post I made (which of course in no way involved me with them any more than you), and then expect anyone to listen to you. I'm not sure this can be satisfactorily explained, but I'm willing to find out :)

Thanks, and try to keep in mind that I already referred to myself as the jackass willingly jumping into this conversation; I'm not so much throwing stones as trying to figure this out. Call it an academic exercise or something.

well, i took it you knew the two here...and since ive deleted about 8 million of the same posts in the past week from them- id think that anyone that is friends with them wouldnt understand the argument to begin with. i apologize tho, since you dont know them.

plus, the fact that you claim that i dont ever have an argument besides- YOURE WRONG says to me that you havent read much of what i have said, because i have facts to back up what i say, and i offer them all the time (in the posts themselves and the comments.) and if you have read much of the stuff ive written on the site here, then it seems odd youd make the claim that YOURE WRONG is my only argument.

as for your question. i think we need to figure out the intel failure (if there was one...from what im reading, different people are saying different things about how "complete" the search is.) i think it was still a just war, since no one disagreed with the intel (from the US, from the UN inspectors, and from other sec council nations)...with what we had to go on, hussein had the weapons. we know he had them throughout his reign, since he used them on his own people and on the iranians...plus, UNSCOM destroyed large stockpiles of WMD in the 90's on different occasions. so, of course it was a just war. i think taking out all brutal regimes around the globe is the way to go, and they would all be just wars.

the capture of hussein- well, hes out of the way, and the iraqi people wont live in fear of him in particular anymore. i think the situation in iraq isnt going so bad...you hear it is all the time from the media, but ive seen a number of military guys on the ground in iraq say that its just not true, and that things ARENT so bad. so, the situation isnt perfect, but its not terrible either.

i think peace can come about in iraq...with the war on terrorism underway, we can defeat the terrorists in that nation and others around the globe. not that itll be easy, but itll happen.

"and since ive deleted about 8 million of the same posts in the past week from them"

- Josh, all you had to do was ask me to stop posting and I would have. All I would have asked for in return was an explanation.

"think that anyone that is friends with them wouldnt understand the argument to begin with"

- What does that mean?

"Does it matter that we've found no WMD?"

- Truthfully, to me, it doesn't. As much as I like to watch the Bush administration squirm, I would have been opposed to the Iraq conflict even if WMD's had eventually been found. It seems only logical to expect the US to prove their allegations BEFORE they start invading countries, not after. Besides, the US's previous policy of "containment" (and Saddam's insanity/incompetence) helped make Iraq one of the weakest countries in the middle east. Isreal, who actually have WMD's, could have blown them into oblivion.

"What impact does the capture of Hussein have"

- It is a great thing. It would have been even better if the Reagan administration had decided not to actively support him while he commited his worst atrocities. A lot of damage may have been prevented..

"Is there a peaceful resolution for the nation of Iraq in the forseeable future?"

- That's a pretty tough question, Daniel. I have no idea; I'm not sure many other people do either.

"I'm not so much throwing stones as trying to figure this out"

- I don't think either Hoodlum or myself expect to change Josh's mind about anything. That just doesn't seem realistic. Personally I consider sparring with Josh to be a intellectual exercise. It keeps me sharp and helps me learn to express my arguments in a calm and coherent manner. This way, when I'm arguing with someone I actually want to convince, I'm well rehearsed. For Josh's part, I might speculate that it's in his best interests to respond to our arguments. I believe that it would be intellectually dishonest of him to not hear "the other side's" response to his often inflammatory declaration's.

I don't really have time to respond right now, but will make time later today. In the meantime, I've found that this speech best expresses my thoughts prior to the war.

I'll drop back later today when work clears.

Oops, no html tags here :( URL to speech:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.cook.speech/index.html

[bush said the threat WAS NOT IMMINENT and that we had to act before it BECAME IMMINENT IN THE FUTURE.]

Yeah, and Bush also said the following...

((("I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000)))

Bush has been known for saying things that don't make sense and "act on an urgent threat before it became imminent in the future" doesn't make much sense either..

Using the term urgent implies a close, lingering threat. Either way you look at it, it will be imminent. Think about it..

[the UN is now, has always been, and will always be anti-israel for the most part.]

Explain to me how the UN is anti-Israel when it was essentially the UN that created Israel.

I agree certain countries within the UN are anti-Israel (namely middle eastern countries that hold no real power) but the countries that for the most part call the shots (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China) they can hardly be considered anti-Israeli at all since all countries enforce strict punishment for anti-Semitic actions.

So I ask again, please explain and cite examples backed with links.

[watch the UN and their response next time isreal defends itself after one of the numerous homicide bombings that are sure to take place...]

You're confused. When I see Israel carpet bomb a neighborhood, I see condemnation from many leaders who look down on such actions (Even the US at times)....when Israel defends itself following a condemned suicide bombing, its usually the same old middle eastern nations who fuss....that's about it.

It's never suddenly the world against Israel.

[urgent means important/very pressing, immiment is something that is definitely going to take place.]

You're half right, but half wrong.

IMMINENT: Impending; threatening; near; at hand

URGENT: compelling immediate action; "too pressing to permit of longer delay";

So as you can see, the term urgent implies an imminent danger weather you want to admit it or not.

Also, you didn't answer Lowdown’s question about the violations Turkey et'al are in violation of.

Should they be invaded as well? They are defying the UN.