No comment necessary

Posts : 6988

OK, Artie - Libya is in no way a threat to the United States, so I'd say it's about time to break out the Obama/Hitler comparisons, wouldn't you?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Posts : 3993

I heard on CNN this a.m., that Obambie says this is only for a few days.

Let's see..yeah, right.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: OK, Artie - Libya is in no way a threat to the United States, so I'd say it's about time to break out the Obama/Hitler comparisons, wouldn't you?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

First of all , let me state that I was not one of the posters who compared Bush to Hitler. But I don't see any parallel between the invasion of Iraq, and a the establishment of a no fly zone over parts of Libya. And there is absolutely no question that this coalition is truly "International."

Posts : 1545

You don't think that sending cruise missiles deep into another country targeting their infrastructure constitutes an invasion?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: First of all , let me state that I was not one of the posters who compared Bush to Hitler.

I never claimed that you were.

Scorpion wrote:: But I don't see any parallel between the invasion of Iraq, and a the establishment of a no fly zone over parts of Libya. And there is absolutely no question that this coalition is truly "International."

Is 'bullshit' one word or two?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: And there is absolutely no question that this coalition is truly "International."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19–May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations.
36 other countries were involved in its aftermath.
• Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
• United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
• Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
• El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
• Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
• Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04-withdrawn 12/08)
• Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04-withdrawn 12/08)
• Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 11/08)
• Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
• Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 11/08)
• Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
• Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
• Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
• Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 09/08)
• Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/08)
• Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
• Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03-withdrawn 08/07)
• Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/06)
• Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
• Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 3/05)
• Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 3/05)
• Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
• New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
• Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/04)
• Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
• Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
• Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
• Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 4/04)
• Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 2/04)
• Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03-withdrawal d

So, if the coalition for the invasion of Iraq was not 'international', then may I infer that you believe the above-named entities to be parts of the United States?
Or what exactly are you trying to say?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: OK, Artie - Libya is in no way a threat to the United States, so I'd say it's about time to break out the Obama/Hitler comparisons, wouldn't you?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

First of all , let me state that I was not one of the posters who compared Bush to Hitler. But I don't see any parallel between the invasion of Iraq, and a the establishment of a no fly zone over parts of Libya. And there is absolutely no question that this coalition is truly "International."

You may spin it however you choose, but the legal justification used by Bush to attack a sovereign nation is no different than the legal justification employed by our first affirmative-action President to attack Libya.

Posts : 3993

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: OK, Artie - Libya is in no way a threat to the United States, so I'd say it's about time to break out the Obama/Hitler comparisons, wouldn't you?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

First of all , let me state that I was not one of the posters who compared Bush to Hitler. But I don't see any parallel between the invasion of Iraq, and a the establishment of a no fly zone over parts of Libya. And there is absolutely no question that this coalition is truly "International."

You may spin it however you choose, but the legal justification used by Bush to attack a sovereign nation is no different than the legal justification employed by our first affirmative-action President to attack Libya.

AGREED...except this time Obambie claims its "just for a few days, not weeks".

Hillary supposedly talked him into it.

When is the USA gonna ever quit sticking their noses in other countries' business?

I mean 8 billion a week going towards two wars, now this?

Let them kill each other.

Watch how long we stay in this Lybia civil war, which means their war, not ours.

Dragging us down to their level is their goal.

Impeach this golf riding, basketball, party-vacation, community organizer and stick him back in the ghetto where he belongs.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: OK, Artie - Libya is in no way a threat to the United States, so I'd say it's about time to break out the Obama/Hitler comparisons, wouldn't you?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

First of all , let me state that I was not one of the posters who compared Bush to Hitler. But I don't see any parallel between the invasion of Iraq, and a the establishment of a no fly zone over parts of Libya. And there is absolutely no question that this coalition is truly "International."

You may spin it however you choose, but the legal justification used by Bush to attack a sovereign nation is no different than the legal justification employed by our first affirmative-action President to attack Libya

Yeah, well I guess I'll "spin" it this way then...

We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone...

Robin Banks wrote:: You don't think that sending cruise missiles deep into another country targeting their infrastructure constitutes an invasion?

It's an attack, to be sure, but it's not an invasion until troops are sent in. Ultimately, the only way to safely set up a no-fly zone is to take out the air defenses first. Sending in troops is an entirely different matter, and the difference is more than just semantics.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: You may spin it however you choose, but the legal justification used by Bush to attack a sovereign nation is no different than the legal justification employed by our first affirmative-action President to attack Libya

Yeah, well I guess I'll "spin" it this way then...

We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone…

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Scorpion wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:: You don't think that sending cruise missiles deep into another country targeting their infrastructure constitutes an invasion?

It's an attack, to be sure, but it's not an invasion until troops are sent in. Ultimately, the only way to safely set up a no-fly zone is to take out the air defenses first. Sending in troops is an entirely different matter, and the difference is more than just semantics.

If I am a Libyan standing in a crater that only seconds ago was my home, then I really don’t give a flaming rat’s ass whether you call it an ‘attack’ or an ‘invasion’, so screw the semantics.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Are you for or against such an invasion?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Are you for or against such an invasion?

I’m afraid I’m not well-versed enough on the subject to make that decision, but, regardless, to attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.

Posts : 289

happy jack wrote:: I’m afraid I’m not well-versed enough on the subject to make that decision, but, regardless, to attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.

I think you might be wrong...the UN and the US congress approved invading Iraq because our president, at that time, stated that there were WMD's there and they were ready to be used. (Which we all know was a lie). That Iraq was wanted to purchase nuclear supplies from Niger. (Which was also a lie). So I do not think that the two are indistinguishable.

Posts : 6988

chuckmo48 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I’m afraid I’m not well-versed enough on the subject to make that decision, but, regardless, to attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.

I think you might be wrong...the UN and the US congress approved invading Iraq because our president, at that time, stated that there were WMD's there and they were ready to be used. (Which we all know was a lie). That Iraq was wanted to purchase nuclear supplies from Niger. (Which was also a lie). So I do not think that the two are indistinguishable.

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

Posts : 694

I believe Bush misled this country that Iraq possessed wmd as a reason to invade. No such tactic has been employed by the current administration. If Obama declares mission accomplished shortly after invading Libya, then start drawing the similarities. Outrage against bush was well deserved. The president lied through his teeth for years and we are far worse off because of it.

Posts : 6988

BigFan wrote:: I believe Bush misled this country that Iraq possessed wmd as a reason to invade. No such tactic has been employed by the current administration. If Obama declares mission accomplished shortly after invading Libya, then start drawing the similarities. Outrage against bush was well deserved. The president lied through his teeth for years and we are far worse off because of it.

So what is the tactic which has been employed by the current administration?
Why are they attacking Libya?
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: You may spin it however you choose, but the legal justification used by Bush to attack a sovereign nation is no different than the legal justification employed by our first affirmative-action President to attack Libya

Yeah, well I guess I'll "spin" it this way then...

We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone…

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Yeah. Well this is also what one expects to see when a "modern day" no-fly zone is being established

So again, if you feel the need to make comparisons, a more correct parallel would be the setting up of the no-fly zone in Iraq in order to protect the Iraqis from Saddam.

IMHO, it's simplistic and premature to try to equate what's happening in Libya with the invasion of Iraq.

Heretic wrote:: Are you for or against such an invasion?

I won't hedge on my answer to that question. I am totally opposed to a US invasion of Libya.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: IMHO, it's simplistic and premature to try to equate what's happening in Libya with the invasion of Iraq.

Looked at from a strictly military standpoint, yes, there are differences, operationally.
Looked at through the prism of motivation, however, the situations are morally indistinguishable.

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Can you point out even the slightest difference in the above justifications for attack?
And, as I said earlier, the largest difference is in the attitude.
Those who, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, heaped vitriol on Bush are now either throwing rose petals in Obama's path or are remaining silent.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: IMHO, it's simplistic and premature to try to equate what's happening in Libya with the invasion of Iraq.

Looked at from a strictly military standpoint, yes, there are differences, operationally.
Looked at through the prism of motivation, however, the situations are morally indistinguishable.

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Can you point out even the slightest difference in the above justifications for attack?
And, as I said earlier, the largest difference is in the attitude.
Those who, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, heaped vitriol on Bush are now either throwing rose petals in Obama's path or are remaining silent.

So you're pulling out partial quotes, completely out of context, and saying that there is no difference between the "justifications" for the invasion of Iraq, and the imposition of a no-fly zone over a portion of Libya?

Give me a frickin' break! It looks like you're totally ignoring history in a ham-handed attempt to equate the invasion of Iraq with Obama's support for a no-fly zone in Libya to protect the Libyan opposition.

The situations are totally different. It's not just a question of "operational" differences. And I hate to shatter your illusions, but people were not opposed to the invasion of Iraq just because Bush ordered it.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: So you're pulling out partial quotes, completely out of context, and saying that there is no difference between the "justifications" for the invasion of Iraq, and the imposition of a no-fly zone over a portion of Libya?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Both situations involved attacks on sovereign nations which were purportedly no threat to the United States. (You may call one situation “the imposition of a no-fly zone” and the other an “invasion” – fine. But hopefully you will, at the very least, be honest enough to admit that the United States is attacking Libya, a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the United States.)
There are no differences – none – in the above justifications set forth for these attacks, justifications which were not taken out of context.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So you're pulling out partial quotes, completely out of context, and saying that there is no difference between the "justifications" for the invasion of Iraq, and the imposition of a no-fly zone over a portion of Libya?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Both situations involved attacks on sovereign nations which were purportedly no threat to the United States. (You may call one situation “the imposition of a no-fly zone” and the other an “invasion” – fine. But hopefully you will, at the very least, be honest enough to admit that the United States is attacking Libya, a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the United States.)
There are no differences – none – in the above justifications set forth for these attacks, justifications which were not taken out of context.

If you mean "military threat" then I agree that Libya does not pose a direct military threat to the United States. Does the outcome in Libya affect US interests? Yes, it does.

But I still fail to see your point in comparing these two quotes. These quotes do not, by themselves, tell us anything worthwhile about the justification for military action. Do you know why? Because they are taken out of context. Leaving aside the obvious fact that you're using partial quotes, and ignoring the rest of both speeches, what's much more important is the fact that you're ignoring the events surrounding these quotes.

How can you honestly believe that these quotes reflect the complete justification for intervention, in either case? Hell, I would argue that neither of these quotes are, by themselves, even remotely adequate as "justifications."

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: If you mean "military threat" then I agree that Libya does not pose a direct military threat to the United States. Does the outcome in Libya affect US interests? Yes, it does.

Which U.S. interests are affected, and are the interests sufficiently crucial to justify a military attack on a sovereign nation which poses no military threat to the U.S.?

Scorpion wrote:: These quotes do not, by themselves, tell us anything worthwhile about the justification for military action. Do you know why? Because they are taken out of context. Leaving aside the obvious fact that you're using partial quotes, and ignoring the rest of both speeches, what's much more important is the fact that you're ignoring the events surrounding these quotes.

You seem to be supremely confident that these quotes have been “taken out of context”, which leads me to believe that you have inside knowledge (how, I cannot fathom) of what each of these two men was actually saying and/or thinking at the time he made these declarations.
Could you please tell me what these guys are really saying?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Posts : 6988

chuckmo48 wrote:: I think you might be wrong...the UN and the US congress approved invading Iraq because our president, at that time, stated that there were WMD's there and they were ready to be used. (Which we all know was a lie).

Well, if it was a lie, I guess then-governor Bush was lying to Congress as far back as 1998, and they were swallowing everything he told them and repeating it in public.
That's certainly a good amount of influence a mere governor managed to wield over a body as large as the U.S. Congress, wouldn't you say, chuckmo?

"[W]e 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

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

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: You seem to be supremely confident that these quotes have been “taken out of context”, which leads me to believe that you have inside knowledge (how, I cannot fathom) of what each of these two men was actually saying and/or thinking at the time he made these declarations.
Could you please tell me what these guys are really saying?

What? I've already told you how I view these quotes...

Quote :: Leaving aside the obvious fact that you're using partial quotes, and ignoring the rest of both speeches, what's much more important is the fact that you're ignoring the events surrounding these quotes.

How can you honestly believe that these quotes reflect the complete justification for intervention, in either case? Hell, I would argue that neither of these quotes are, by themselves, even remotely adequate as "justifications."

What's so difficult for you to understand? It doesn't take "hidden knowledge" to realize that these statements didn't take place in a vacuum. There were a series of events that led to the invasion of Iraq. There were a series of events that led to the current intervention. You need to look at the events in order to decide if an action is justified, or not. You can't make any decision about whether an action was justified based on these quotes alone.

Do you "get it" now? I certainly hope so, because I don't know how much more simple I can make it.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: There were a series of events that led to the invasion of Iraq. There were a series of events that led to the current intervention. You need to look at the events in order to decide if an action is justified, or not.

Let me break down the timeline of the events for you, along with the subsequent actions taken based upon those events.

Let’s begin in 2003:
Saddam has been killing his own people – Bush says a mission has been undertaken because he believes he will be able, “… to disarm Iraq, to free its people…”

Fast forward to 2011:
Gaddafi has been killing his own people – Obama says a mission has been undertaken because he believes he is “…answering the calls of a threatened people…”

Rewind to 2003:
Bush becomes part of a coalition to attack Saddam, and says, “American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations…”

Fast forward to 2011:
Obama becomes part of a coalition to attack Gaddafi, and says, “Today we are part of a broad coalition…”

Rewind once more to 2003:

Bush believes he is acting in the best interests of the world and claims that he is, “… defend(ing) the world from grave danger…”

Fast forward once more to 2011:

Obama believes he is acting in the best interests of the world and claims that he is, “… acting in the interests of the United States and the world ...”

Aside from a few issues as far as choice of wording (and the fact that Bush secured congressional approval prior to his actions), I see very little difference between what both men said and did.
So, you have looked at the events. Have you decided whether the actions were justified?