Runsfeld Clears Things Up

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Quickly, to list a few provocations:

-firing daily on US planes in no-fly zones

-many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated

-encouraging and helping fuel the cottage industry of Palestinian suicide-bombing with 50K payments to families of suicide-bombers

[/ QUOTE ]

first, a comment on the OP. rumsfeld's answers were ridiculous. i don't think he answered a single thing. i felt bad for the general who was with him. he at least tried to make a case for something, not useless rhetoric.

secondly, if a US plane is in a no-fly zone, aren't they breaking a treaty themselves? if an iraq plane showed up in a no-fly zone over DC, they would just fire at it. they'd blow it up four times before it hits the ground.

sure, iraq ignored UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors. it warrants action against iraq, perhaps even a full invasion, but the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians, together with the actual cost of the war suggests a harder diplomatic effort was in order.

US planned, tried, and successfully assasinated many different foreign leaders, many of those were democratically elected. a purported plot to assasinate bush #1 is the case for tougher security around the president, not invasion of iraq.

the biggest surporter of palestinian terrorist movement (freedom fighters my ass) was probably not sadaam. it is probably extreme factions in saudi arabia and iran. i can't back that up with facts, but i will stand corrected if you can prove the opposite.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
first, a comment on the OP. rumsfeld's answers were ridiculous. i don't think he answered a single thing. i felt bad for the general who was with him. he at least tried to make a case for something, not useless rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stop the presses! a politician giving ridiculous answers to questions?! Perish the thought!

[ QUOTE ]
secondly, if a US plane is in a no-fly zone, aren't they breaking a treaty themselves? if an iraq plane showed up in a no-fly zone over DC, they would just fire at it. they'd blow it up four times before it hits the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not all that familiar with the exact terms of the treaty, but I believe the U.S./U.K. were permitted to enforce the No Fly Zones in the treaty. We have no treaty with Iraq that says they may fly over restricted airspace in the U.S. that I'm aware of. I think attacking one's army is all the declaration of war we need.

[ QUOTE ]
sure, iraq ignored UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors. it warrants action against iraq, perhaps even a full invasion, but the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians, together with the actual cost of the war suggests a harder diplomatic effort was in order.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Iraq was ignoring the UN resolutions, what makes you believe a "harder diplomatic effort" would work? What does "harder diplomatic effort" even mean?

[ QUOTE ]
US planned, tried, and successfully assasinated many different foreign leaders, many of those were democratically elected. a purported plot to assasinate bush #1 is the case for tougher security around the president, not invasion of iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I thought one of the anti-war points was that Saddam wasn't a danger to any U.S. citizens. Clearly that's not the case if he's allowed to assassinate our citizens, least of all ex-presidents!

[ QUOTE ]
the biggest surporter of palestinian terrorist movement (freedom fighters my ass) was probably not sadaam. it is probably extreme factions in saudi arabia and iran. i can't back that up with facts, but i will stand corrected if you can prove the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why even mention it then? The point of mentioning Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was to show exactly that: he's no stranger to terrorism. Is it so incredible to believe that Saddam would support terrorist that would attack Americans? I think it's clear that that has already happened.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I think attacking one's army is all the declaration of war we need.

[/ QUOTE ]

this happens every day. i fear of living in a world where wars get started every day. scratch that, i fear we are already living in a world like that.

nothing in this administration's actions suggests that any diplomacy took place.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly that's not the case if he's allowed to assassinate our citizens, least of all ex-presidents!

[/ QUOTE ]
i never suggested this. sadaam's lack of ability to assasinate anyone is what makes him a weak threat.

[ QUOTE ]
Why even mention it then? The point of mentioning Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was to show exactly that: he's no stranger to terrorism. Is it so incredible to believe that Saddam would support terrorist that would attack Americans? I think it's clear that that has already happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a dozen governments that support terrorists and would attack americans if given the chance. of course we can't ignore them, but it does not imply we should invade all or any of them. invasion without an imminent threat is short-sighted at best. it breeds even more terrorists and hardly scares any other nation from harboring them.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
this happens every day. i fear of living in a world where wars get started every day. scratch that, i fear we are already living in a world like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think a *credible* threat of invasion would deter these attacks? If I'm in a room full of 10 year olds and say "If anyone touches me, I'll punch them in the face" and follow up on that threat when someone violates it, it seems intuitive that you will not be "touched" by anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
nothing in this administration's actions suggests that any diplomacy took place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haven't we tried diplomacy for the better part of 13 years? What evidence is there it would have worked this time?

[ QUOTE ]
saddam's lack of ability to assasinate anyone is what makes him a weak threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, he's tried to. Not being successful in his attempt to assassinate a former president doesn't make him a weak threat. I'd say that makes him a bigger threat.

[ QUOTE ]
there's a dozen governments that support terrorists and would attack americans if given the chance. of course we can't ignore them, but it does not imply we should invade all or any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating immediate invasion of any government that supports terrorism. Iraq had many other factors going for it that made invasion a better option.

[ QUOTE ]
invasion without an imminent threat is short-sighted at best. it breeds even more terrorists and hardly scares any other nation from harboring them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell that to Libya.

[cdxx]

in your post you suggested that

- iraq may have had a credible invasion threat to the US

- punching 10 year olds is a valid method of education

- ignoring that in 13 years since first gulf war sadaam was essentially incapacitated, which is further supported by no findings of WMD's

- went from a purported assasination plan to an actual attempt

- attributed Libya as a success of the war in iraq. if we ignored arguments that it is another incapacitated dictator nation, we still couldn't overlook that Libya is not actually in the middle east and that it was denouncing terrorism and giving up suspected and accused terrorists since the late 1990's (source ). the restatement of its policy after the iraq invasion does nothing to thwart insurgency, terrorism, or anything else.

i'll save space in this forum and just bulk your statements together as false.

edit : i am done with this thread. don't bother responding.

[adios]

.............