What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-15 14:25:39

If I recall, and please do me the favor of correcting me if I am mistaken, but didn't the President tell the American public that the reason we needed to invade Iraq, and that we needed to invade now, against the advice of our allies, and without credible international support, and without hard factual data, was because Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Huissen posed a credible and immediate threat to the entire Western Civilization, including America, by his possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction capable of being launched within an hour and also capable of reaching our friends and allies, if not our own shores.

In a word, no. To my knowledge Iraq was never called an "immediate threat" by anyone in the Administration. The phrase "gathering threat" was used profusely. No one but media pundits ever suggested Iraq was hours away from annhilating the Western world. See, that's what's really wrong here, before the war Bush was talking about gathering threats and long struggles and difficult tasks while jabbering heads were all over the cable news networks talking about what a 'cakewalk' it was going to be. Then we go and have to slow our advance due to a sandstorm and actually meet some resistance... all of a sudden it's a quagmire, Bush lied to us, he said it was gonna be easy...

Is it just my default assumption that everyone is an ignorant jackass that enables immunity to the words of the telescreen?

Present company exempted from that 'ignorant jackass' comment, of course.

So I guess finding one old mortar shell with unknown origins or history is cause for a preemptive strike upon another nation and reason enough to spend our politcal and goodwill capital with the world.

You have a point, but how much is too much?

clark · 2004-06-15 14:45:29

Which President of the United States said the following in an address to the Nation?

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 9.html]The Answer

Thank you for correcting this ignorant jackass.

The information that Powell brought to the UN was either false, or lacking. Time has shown that the "gathering" threat was little more than bombast.

The world said, wait, give us time. And Bush siad, no, we will wait no longer.

I ask you, why? Why did we have to rush? I will fall behind you, march in step, if I am given reason enough. I was given reason enough for our expedition to Afghanistan. I desperately want to wave my flag for what we do in Iraq, but I am left wondering why we have done what we have done as we have done when it seems that there was no pressing need other than the opportunity of the moment.

Is that it? An opportunity, taken even though the cost?

clark · 2004-06-15 14:50:39

The ignorant jackass remarks, :laugh:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-15 15:06:59

"Serious and mounting threat" eh? No imminent doom there.

I ask you, why? Why did we have to rush? I will fall behind you, march in step, if I am given reason enough. I was given reason enough for our expedition to Afghanistan. I desperately want to wave my flag for what we do in Iraq, but I am left wondering why we have done what we have done as we have done when it seems that there was no pressing need other than the opportunity of the moment.

I'm not even going try and convince you. I'm not going to pretend that we had to do this when we did, nor that everything went perfectly. But here's how I see it: We are fighting an enemy centered in the Middle East, a region full of thug dictators who would very much like to see us tumble in flames save for the one saving grace in their eyes, we buy their oil. Eventually we're going to have to deal with the lot of them if we want to win the war.

Iraq was a thorn in the side of the US for over a decade. Iraq had nasty weapons it used on occasion. Iraq supported terrorism. Everyone knew what a bastard Saddam was. Deep down good people around the world wanted Saddam taken out.

Iraq also had three other things going for it.

1. It was in the very heart of the region, bordering Saudi Arabia, arguably the biggest problem. A free republic in Iraq has the potential to destabilize the local thug dictators to no end. Iraq also would allow a base of operations right were the US military needs to be.

2. We needed to make an example of somebody. Iraq fit the bill perfectly.

3. Yes, oil... If we could make an ally of the nation sitting on the second largest oil reserve on the planet, and reach an understanding that keeps them out of OPEC, we can seriously screw with certain other parties in the Kingdom of Saud.

Many people don't think it was worth it. Fine, I can respect that if they're honest about the facts. Unfortunately, the opposition too often tries to turn it into "Bush lied to steal oil." He drinks it, you know. That, and the blood of the innocent.

In any case we've removed a brutal tyrant and given millions of people a chance for a better future while at the same time advancing on our enemies. We've done something good and noble, even if it was despite ourselves. To this day I support that action. If you don't that's fine, neither of us is going to be hauled away in the night to be tortured. And neither will millions of Iraqis, thanks to us.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-15 15:15:09

The ignorant jackass remarks,

Alright, I retract it, they're raving loons.

But then I never really bought the whole WMD as sole justification angle anyway.

Whoa, feelin' like a real politician now.

clark · 2004-06-15 15:16:14

As always, the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Many people don't think it was worth it. Fine, I can respect that if they're honest about the facts. Unfortunately, the opposition too often tries to turn it into "Bush lied to steal oil." He drinks it, you know. That, and the blood of the innocent.
In any case we've removed a brutal tyrant and given millions of people a chance for a better future while at the same time advancing on our enemies. We've done something good and noble, even if it was despite ourselves. To this day I support that action. If you don't that's fine, neither of us is going to be hauled away in the night to be tortured. And neither will millions of Iraqis, thanks to us.

And since agreement is boring when talking politics...

"Serious and mounting threat" eh? No imminent doom there.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

But then I guess it is a question of what you mean by is. :laugh:

we make a good team Cobra, the crack pot and the crank. I'll leave it to you to figure out whose who.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-15 16:15:05

we make a good team Cobra, the crack pot and the crank. I'll leave it to you to figure out whose who.

Well, at least we can agree that it's hard tell.

clark · 2004-06-15 16:19:26

Oh now, I know which I am, I just wish I knew who I was! :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-06-18 16:09:17

When in a hole, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 60863]stop digging!!

???

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-18 18:08:59

This whole 'Saddam was behind 9/11' is madness. Did anyone actually believe that?

Think about the implications for democratic government before answering.

But to the real issue here, we're in the middle of history, events are still unfolding. Bush doesn't know all the facts, and we know less than he does. We're wandering amongst the trees in the valley of darkness. We have no idea what things will look like from the next hill.

clark · 2004-06-19 11:28:11

Bush doesn't know all the facts, and we know less than he does.

Now I am scared. :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-07-02 18:48:32

*Bill O'Reilly is selling "Boycott France" bumperstickers. French flag is on the left-hand side of the sticker, with a big red circle and diagonal slash like this -> \ <- on it.

I'm being a very BAD American by his standards. I've been purchasing French products since before the Iraq war started and through to now.

We've been in this war so long now and the French/German thing is -old news-. O'Reilly should just get over it. I'm surprised he doesn't call for a boycott of Japan next...I mean, it's still under 70 years since they attacked Pearl Harbor.

And why just pick on the French? The Germans sided with them after all and the UK's BBC is no friend to America. I'm surprised he hasn't called for a boycott on them as well (I'd ignore that too).

Time to be mending fences, not creating more strife.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-07-03 00:18:19

It's things like this that give the average American a bad name in Europe.

Like it or not, people tend to generalise, and the perception of things like this...

By the way, we *Belgians* are credited for inventing 'french' fries, even by the french. It a big part of our national 'identity,' so to speak. British have fish and chips, we have our fries and our Belgian beer. 'They' should think before making a fool of themselves. Morons, baptizing it Freedom fries, because too fat-addicted to go the whole mile and outright boycott it, pussies.

Palomar · 2004-07-09 11:03:23

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … oincidence?

*I doubt it.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-07-09 11:38:32

The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said

Very fishy.
Properly processed microfilm has a stability-record that is so superior to anything else, even in this day and age, certain organisations have switched back to using it, instead of digital back-up systems.
Microfilm *is* inherently properly processed, that's the whole point of microfilm: longetivity.
The only factor possible to degrade microfilm faster than usual is bad environmental storage variables (relative humidity, acidity, temp.,) but those are easily controlled.
Destroying microfilm during an attempt to rescue it?
Either they hired a real ignorant company to do it, or they tried it themselves. Probably a bleaching/redevelopment that went wrong, but even then: you should *at all times* take a visual copy before attempting such a risky attempt at restoration.

For once, I'm glad I can say I speak with authority. This field is supposed to be my speciality.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-09 19:33:31

Want a good laugh, go to google, type in "miserable failure," and press the "I'm feeling lucky" button. Keep in mind that this button searches all of the billions of websites around the world and then finds the one that it thinks most fits the description of the keywords.

Happy hunting! :laugh:

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-09 19:42:05

3. Yes, oil... If we could make an ally of the nation sitting on the second largest oil reserve on the planet, and reach an understanding that keeps them out of OPEC, we can seriously screw with certain other parties in the Kingdom of Saud.

Wow, oil? So we went and invaded Iraq, and now we get lots of cheep oil from it, do I understand you right, Cobra? That sounds great, how do I help the cause!? Except for one problem. Where is the cheep oil? Before we invaded Iraq gas cost a buck fifty. A few months ago it was pushing three dollars. The price has deflated a little bit, but it's not bellow $2.00 yet. You seriously still believe that we'll come out ahead in the oil situation here? There's an emoticon that describes what I feel like right now:

:laugh:

Do you still think that we'll find WMDs over there in the fertile crescent? Now, you are absolutely sure that you are neither George Bush, Dick Cheney, or John Ashcroft? Because you could play the part pretty well.

P.S. No offense, Cobra, I know I've been giving you a hard time lately, but everyone's so pumped up about the election you've gotta take it out somewhere. I'm just playin' around here, please don't take any of my comments personally against you as an individual. You as a voting citizen, perhaps, but not you as a fellow alt. space advocate.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-10 18:16:50

I reckon there will be no cheap oil from Iraq for quite awhile yet, and actually, by the time it starts getting pumped in quantity we may in fact never see that cheap oil (assuming 10-15 years down the line, which I admit is a pessimistic outlook).

But the real reason gas is expensive now (at least in the US, it's always been expensive elsewhere), I would wager, is because we're exporting the stuff to Iraq at pennies on the gallon. So the real solution here isn't to get Iraqi's oil moving, it's to get Iraqi's refineries back into shape.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-11 02:05:45

Iraq was a founding member of OPEC from its inception in 1960.
Is it still technically a member or, since the overthrow of Saddam, are all bets off?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-28 09:26:06

A United States President banned from much of the internet but he still has a blog?

and people can share or mirror his posts

The Justice Department and FBI are “leaking” at levels never seen before - and I did nothing wrong!!!

45th President

Meanwhile social media allows people to do performances with Skulls from Ukraine-Russia Warzones, the Taliban and other jihadists have social media accounts.

Russian mercenary made performance with skull of killed Ukrainian soldier
https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/08/28/ … n-soldier/

Sultan a name that means Ruler or King, Sultan Al Neyadi
https://www.axiomspace.com/news/axiom-s … -astronaut

Biden's move to compensate Taliban victims leaves 9/11 families seething
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli … s-seething

One Reason Why Artemis Is Not Apollo
https://nasawatch.com/artemis/one-reaso … ot-apollo/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-28 09:27:43)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-04 08:03:19

'Winter' games in Saudi? this has to be a sick joke right?

games in Lebanon in 2009 were considered, they ultimately did not take place they could only find sand and no snow and Lebanon has more or less collapsed today, in 2020 Port of Beirut in the capital city of Lebanon exploded, causing at least 218 deaths, 7,000 injuries, and US$15 billion in property damage, as well as leaving an estimated 300,000 people homeless.

Perhaps the conspiracy theorists are not too far wrong, giving it to Saudi? maybe world is becoming a backward place, de-evoling, no more common sense and becoming mentally retarded or run by a demonic pedophile terroristic cult.

Saudi Arabia wins bid to host 2029 Asian Winter Games
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ … om-trojena

Asian Winter Games to be held in Trojena, Saudi Arabia in 2029
https://www.bbc.com/sport/winter-sports/63131479

Yemen Truce Has Expired With No New Pact Reached, UN Envoy Says
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … s-l8t0cftf

Trump pal Thomas Barrack accused of being United Arab Emirates agent and trying to influence US policy for ‘power and money’
https://www.aol.com/news/trump-pal-thom … 00507.html

PFI’s alleged links in Turkey and Qatar being probed
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ … 951983.ece

OPEC’s Revenge
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investi … s-revenge/

28 pages refers to the final section of the December 2002 report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This section is titled "Part IV: Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters," and summarizes investigative leads suggesting possible financial, logistical and other support provided to the hijackers and their associates by terrorist pedophile Saudi Arabian officials and others suspected of being Saudi agents.
PDF from blog
https://28pagesdotorg.files.wordpress.c … spart4.pdf

Saudi prince has immunity in Khashoggi killing lawsuit, say lawyers
https://www.euronews.com/2022/10/04/saudi-usa-prince

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-04 08:05:52)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-03 12:16:29

Secularism is a dead concept in space.
How ISIS and al-Qaeda Exploit the Earthquake in Turkey to Mobilize Support
https://www.hstoday.us/featured/how-isi … e-support/

Documenting Yazidi Victims of ISIS
https://www.lse.ac.uk/middle-east-centr … on-project

‘ISIS bride’ Shamima Begum loses appeal over loss of British citizenship
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-isis … tizenship/

It looks like two Turks might be on Axiom Mission 3 or Ax-3?

Ghaffari an Arabic name? or Michael T. Suffredini is doing everything in his power to establish an islamo presence in Space and put jihadi Mosque 'culture' across the Solar System?

three mohammedan launches in a row, is this an islamic theocratic space agency company from headquartered in Houston, Texas?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-06-15 14:25:39

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#152 2004-06-15 14:45:29

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#153 2004-06-15 14:50:39

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#154 2004-06-15 15:06:59

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#155 2004-06-15 15:15:09

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#156 2004-06-15 15:16:14

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#157 2004-06-15 16:15:05

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#158 2004-06-15 16:19:26

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#159 2004-06-18 16:09:17

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#160 2004-06-18 18:08:59

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#161 2004-06-19 11:28:11

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#162 2004-07-02 18:48:32

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#163 2004-07-03 00:18:19

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#164 2004-07-09 11:03:23

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#165 2004-07-09 11:38:32

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#166 2004-07-09 19:33:31

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#167 2004-07-09 19:42:05

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#168 2004-07-10 18:16:50

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#169 2004-07-11 02:05:45

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#170 2022-08-28 09:26:06

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#171 2022-10-04 08:03:19

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#172 2023-03-03 12:16:29

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

Board footer