Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (106129)	7/17/2003 8:32:32 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, could you link me to a few direct quotes from Administration officials prior to the war where "imminent threat" was used in the context of Iraq being an "imminent threat" to the US, the region, etc. In the State of the Union Address, I see one use of "imminent" that cannot in any way be construed to be Bush claiming the US needs to act to an "imminent threat" from Iraq. In fact it clearly seems that Bush warned against waiting until there was an imminent threat. <font size=4> ....Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.<font size=3> Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option..... whitehouse.gov <font size=4> However, the following days (after the SOTUA) many democrats used the word "imminent" & "imminent threat" quite a bit in expressing their concerns. These democrats spoke as though Bush had raised concerns of Iraq posing an "imminent threat".<font size=3> Perception is reality...... regardless of the facts. Right now I think the democrats created this perception by using those words frequently & attributing it to Bush. Perhaps you can straighten me out on this. TIA

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (106129)	7/17/2003 9:00:37 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush does discuss a grave threat to peace, albeit not an "imminent threat". In fact the wosrt Bush does is to call this threat "significant". Big difference IMO. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat Remarks by the President on Iraq October 7, 2002 whitehouse.gov ....."We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror....." "....While 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....." <font size=4>...."Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?">font size=3> ...."And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups...." ...."Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror....." <font size=4> ...."Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun --....."<font size=4> ...."Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring...." <font size=5> ...."I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult..... If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail."<font size=4> ...."The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities....."

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (106129)	7/17/2003 9:04:29 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

<<Any poster here who wants to, can find 100 quotes from top Administration officials, saying the threat was immanent. Which have been posted already, the last 15 times you did this "what is the definition of is" routine. Just drop it, please.>> And all that replying to your BS,

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (106129)	7/18/2003 6:14:51 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

You are quite wrong.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (106129)	7/18/2003 6:25:18 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

By the way, here is something I posted many months before giving my take on the situation: Message 18509125 The United States is the chief status quo power, that is, despite its own reformist agenda, it largely supports the international system, and tries to keep change peaceful and incremental. Iraq, after the demise of the Soviet Union, appears to be emerging as the chief revisionist power, bent on upending the international system. (Although China has regional aspirations, it appears to be content to integrate within the international system). The United States is thus, automatically, the enemy of Iraq. The Iraqi Ba'athist regime must not be mistaken for the Syrian regime, which has regional ambitions (to create a "Greater Syria"), but not global ambitions. Saddam subscribes to the view that the Arab people are a kind of master race, and should play a dominant role in the world. Although his version is secular, it obviously speaks to the sentiments of Islamofascists, who think the international system should be dominated by shari'ah states. World War Two showed us that revisionist regimes will often work together against a common foe. Stalin preferred Hitler, despite Hitler's avowed anti- Communism, although the Western powers wooed him too. Hitler allied with Japan, despite his racism. During the '80s, there is ample evidence of cooperation among terrorist groups as far- flung as the IRA, Basque separatists, Black September, and the Baader- Meinhof gang. There is also a lot of evidence of bankrolling, training, and arming coming from the Eastern bloc, primarily from the Soviet Union and Bulgaria (the Turk who shot the Polish Pope had ties to the Bulgarian secret service). It appears to be the case that certain rogue regimes, like North Korea and Iraq, have been cooperating on a number of enterprises, and that Saddam has ties to many terrorist groups. Iraq appears to be the focal point of revisionist aspirations. Not only is there danger of an accelerated nuclear arms program, along with biochemical stockpiling, but Saddam could easily walk over the regimes in the Arabian peninsula, and gain effective control over the oil economy, to either amass wealth to fund his ventures, or use to wreak Western economies. Suppose that there were a concerted series of biochemical attacks on our troops in the region? How long before there was a call to withdraw them, leaving Saddam with a free hand? This, of course, touches on the possibility of containment. When a principal part of the "coalition" against the United States is terrorist organizations, with the possibility of irregular, dirty warfare involving WMDs, delivered by supposed freelance groups, without clear assignment of responsibility or ability to make a clearcut retaliation, there is no effective deterrence. Without effective deterrence, there are only two alternatives: at some point, we go in with guns blazing, or we keep taking it on the chin until blood gushes and we throw in the towel. Containment is not really an option.