Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
specifically Saddam -- what exactly did he have to gain from such an alliance?

[/ QUOTE ]
A deniable way to attack the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
He surely would have much to lose, as a large Al-Qaeda presence in Ba'thist Iraq would have provided a serious competitor to his regime

[/ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda wouldn't necessarily have to be in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, Al-Qaeda could have used a haven to continue its operations after US operations in Afghanistan; however, there was certainly no reason for Al-Qaeda to believe Iraq would fulfill those needs anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
A physical location, money, weapons, etc. All things that Iraq could provide.

[ACPlayer]

We may not be talking corporations but we are talking objectives. Objectives have measurable results not statements that allow the objective to shift around depending on how you interpret the words. Surrounding an objective with vague qualifiers is for those who cannot figure out what they really want. It is acceptable to qualify an objective with a documented set of assumptions. However, the only way to understand if we are getting the benefit for the resources expended is to have clear cut well documented objectives. Your statement is not an objective (it is very subjective).

Now, if Bush comes out and says he wants us to have military bases in Iraq for the next 20 years that is an objective. If he says we want to destroy the nuclear plant in Fallujah that is an objective. If he says he wants to have "some sort of democracy" that is the talk of the fish who just wants to play some cards.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help it if your reading comprehension and vocabulary suck.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ you are stupid. Let me put it this way. A person in grave danger is at an imminent threat of the negative affects of said danger.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
A person in grave danger is at an imminent threat of the negative affects of said danger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No they are not. For example, Iran trying to build nukes constitutes a grave danger to Israel. But the threat of nuclear attack on Israel is not imminent.

If you still can't understand the difference, don't bother replying.

[ScottyP431]

RE: Imminent

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:X7O...=en&start=1

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_Xl...=en&start=3

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1Wi...=en&start=5

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2yu...en&start=11

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zTl...en&start=18

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My take on that, Russian Bear, is just this: had Saddam's regime actually been where it was believed to have been as regards WMD and/or WMD development, then all of those statements would have been appropriate. And since it was widely so believed, those statements were indeed appropriate, even if found somewhat erroneous in hindsight.

[/ QUOTE ]


1. I was responding to the post that said Bush never made such statements when in fact he had.
2. Maybe we should've made damn sure Saddam's regime was where we thought it was before making asses of ourselves.
3. It was widely believed? Other than the administration and the puppets in England, who believed that nonsense?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. OK, fine.

2. That isn't how things seem to work in international affairs, or in intelligence assessments/decisions/ national security matters. Just being "pretty sure" generally must suffice, since that is usually all you have to go on; and because: A) it is often nearly impossible to be 100% sure, and B) if you wait until you are 100% sure, it can easily be too late, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

3. Besides the USA and UK: the governments of Australia, Israel, Russia, and Germany. Probably Italy too, and some others I don't recall at the moment.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]


This just goes back again to what myself and other posters have said. Namely that threats are best dealt with when small and the price to eliminate them is less than when those threats have been left to fester (appeased) and the price becomes even greater to deal with them.

Like I said, democrats/libs are short term thinkers and fair weather soldiers.

[BCPVP]

I'm willing to grant that some of the lower people like Fleisher and McClellan used the word imminent. But Bush specifically said in the 2003 SotU:
[ QUOTE ]
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first couple links you provide are the newspaper's words, not Bush's.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

This just goes back again to what myself and other posters have said. Namely that threats are best dealt with when small and the price to eliminate them is less than when those threats have been left to fester (appeased) and the price becomes even greater to deal with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very true.

Probably the most stunning example of this principle in action (or lack of action;-)) would be Hitler and Nazi Germany. France could have kicked easily his butt back out of the Sudetenland, no? But his having been allowed to just take the Sudetenland, and to continue building his war machine without serious setback, eventually led to disastrous consequences all around.

[andyfox]

I sometimes think that the "example" of Hitler (and, more specifically, the appeasement at Munich) are worse as examples than they were as actual events. We heard the same thing throughout the Cold War: If we don't stop the Commies in Nicaragua (or Guatemala or El Salvador or Chile or . . . ), soon they'll be in Mexico and next thing you know they'll be here. Didn't we learn from not stopping Hitler?

The problem with these analogies, of course, is that Salvador Allende and Daniel Ortega were not Hitler. Nor were their countries Germany. Nor was the 1980s and 1930s.

I know you're not saying that Hussein = Hitler. But the idea that Hussein had to be stopped begs the question: stopped from what? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said Hussein was bottled up, incapable of causing much harm just a couple of months before 9/11. How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?