"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 http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0930-05.htm
US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. BBC 6/2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854092/posts
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_9_10/ai_59021377
the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time since iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.....
blame saddam for iraq%u2026%u2026. Even clintoon and the dems wanted the resumption of hostilities back in 1998
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
"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." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
WASHINGTON (Feb. 18) -- In preparing the nation for a possible war with Iraq, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
How many Americans & Iraqi innocent women & children have died unecessarily & will die unecessarily simply because of republican obstructionism.
Imagine how far Iraq would be if these republicans allowed debate on Iraq years ago as America was demanding --- These problems would have been solved.
The Kurds won't be standing for much anyway, the Turks are invading northern Iraq to finish what Saddam, with logistics help from the CIA, started with the gas. Strange that the US doesn't seem to care about the Kurds dying now that Saddam is dead...
Posted by brianbwb at 03:16 AM : Jul 22, 2007,,,
The U.S. is in a very tricky situation in regards to Turkey. The U.S. has military bases in Turkey and an important air base, in addition Turkey is a U.S. ally. If Turkey crosses the Iraqi border the U.S. may have to confront them and Turkey has an estimated 140,000 Troops massed, almost the same number of U.S. forces in all of Iraq. The only thing probably giving Turkey pause from a full invasion of Iraq is the 2 U.S. Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in the region with a 3rd Aircraft Carrier Battle Group en route and about to join the other 2 within a week. I don't think the U.S. will fight with Turkey, but Turkey needs to understand the U.S. will protect its forces in Iraq and with 3 Carrier Battle Groups and an increased U.S. Air Force presence in the region, the U.S. won't have any problems doing it, but I really hope it never comes to that.
The "American" oil companies make more money selling it to oil hungry China then refining it and selling it to the US! Most of the oil we import and refine actually comes from Canada, strangely enough. Posted by RandalDS"
Which also disproves the "America's vital interests" rationale for the war, the only rationale still pretending to stand after all the others were shown to be lies.
"It is in Muqtada al-Sadr's long-term interests for the U.S. to leave. Al-Maliki is supported by al-Sadr, and al-Sadr is supported by Iran. Posted by gdmoore2"
You mean the same Muqtada Al Sadr that Bush handed Saddam over to so he could be lynched? The Al Sadr whose name was chanted as Saddam dangled on the end of Bush's rope?
"...nor the Kurds will stand for Al Qaeda in their villages after the U.S. leaves. Posted by gdmoore2"
The Kurds won't be standing for much anyway, the Turks are invading northern Iraq to finish what Saddam, with logistics help from the CIA, started with the gas. Strange that the US doesn't seem to care about the Kurds dying now that Saddam is dead...
And Iraq's big oil contracts go to ... Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts. But don't write off Big Oil just yet. http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/ne
ws/international/iraq_oil/index.htm"
Posted by lars008 at 05:52 PM : Jul 21, 2007
That was because the US didn't want to deal with Saddam, so he dealt with China and India instead Lars because he needed outsider help. Iraqis see this as a chance for them to explore and develop their own resources, but Bush is insisting he do it instead. So much for democracy over dictatorship. Posted by SamTheTVCat at 06:01 PM : Jul 21, 2007
And, surprise surprise, most of the oil we pump out of Alaska goes to China too! The "American" oil companies make more money selling it to oil hungry China then refining it and selling it to the US! Most of the oil we import and refine actually comes from Canada, strangely enough.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0930-05.htm
US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. BBC 6/2000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854092/posts
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_9_10/ai_59021377
Adversarial Myopia
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8570
the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time since iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.....
blame saddam for iraq%u2026%u2026. Even clintoon and the dems wanted the resumption of hostilities back in 1998
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
"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." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
WASHINGTON (Feb. 18) -- In preparing the nation for a possible war with Iraq,
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
Posted by brianbwb at 03:16 AM : Jul 22, 2007,,,
The U.S. is in a very tricky situation in regards to Turkey. The U.S. has military bases in Turkey and an important air base, in addition Turkey is a U.S. ally. If Turkey crosses the Iraqi border the U.S. may have to confront them and Turkey has an estimated 140,000 Troops massed, almost the same number of U.S. forces in all of Iraq. The only thing probably giving Turkey pause from a full invasion of Iraq is the 2 U.S. Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in the region with a 3rd Aircraft Carrier Battle Group en route and about to join the other 2 within a week. I don't think the U.S. will fight with Turkey, but Turkey needs to understand the U.S. will protect its forces in Iraq and with 3 Carrier Battle Groups and an increased U.S. Air Force presence in the region, the U.S. won't have any problems doing it, but I really hope it never comes to that.
Posted by RandalDS"
Which also disproves the "America's vital interests" rationale for the war, the only rationale still pretending to stand after all the others were shown to be lies.
You mean the same Muqtada Al Sadr that Bush handed Saddam over to so he could be lynched? The Al Sadr whose name was chanted as Saddam dangled on the end of Bush's rope?
"...nor the Kurds will stand for Al Qaeda in their villages after the U.S. leaves. Posted by gdmoore2"
The Kurds won't be standing for much anyway, the Turks are invading northern Iraq to finish what Saddam, with logistics help from the CIA, started with the gas. Strange that the US doesn't seem to care about the Kurds dying now that Saddam is dead...
Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts. But don't write off Big Oil just yet.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/ne
ws/international/iraq_oil/index.htm"
Posted by lars008 at 05:52 PM : Jul 21, 2007
That was because the US didn't want to deal with Saddam, so he dealt with China and India instead Lars because he needed outsider help. Iraqis see this as a chance for them to explore and develop their own resources, but Bush is insisting he do it instead. So much for democracy over dictatorship.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 06:01 PM : Jul 21, 2007
And, surprise surprise, most of the oil we pump out of Alaska goes to China too! The "American" oil companies make more money selling it to oil hungry China then refining it and selling it to the US! Most of the oil we import and refine actually comes from Canada, strangely enough.