TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
I've edited my post above to be a little less combatitive. I also cut down on the labels a bit too - I think we can both agree that such rhetoric and words really don't get us very far in a discussion/debate.
I realize I'm plenty guilty of that which I charge, so I'll continue to try to be better in the future.....
Rice for Powell is a stupid choice. It's very well documented that Powell wasn't going to be asked back to the position, which is unfortunate. The Secretary of State has always been a position held by people with strong diplomacy skills and respect from foreign nations.
The sad thing is that Condi gets no respect from the rest of the world because she's basically Bush's bitch... lying and feeding bullshit left and right to help Bush's cause.
-Your Mother
Must just say that i love your posts Opus, keep up the good work 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo it didn't take much to convince the Security Council either |
Re: Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spacey Orange Is this a good or bad choice? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Must just say that i love your posts Opus, keep up the good work oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Don't pull revisionist history on us - we know damn well why we went to war |
| quote: |
| President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly September 12, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20020912-1.html If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. |
), nor the UN Security Council pulled the wool over any ones eyes as a collective understanding to preface a war over WMD's. they all assumed in good judgement, independently and collectively. but only one party out of those three was willing to use strength as a mean to Saddam's end.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i know why we went to war, and whether it's revisionist or not, all criteria were met for war that is to include the UN with the understanding that removing Saddam was the ultimate goal, |
| quote: |
| and all subsequent action regarding Iraq would involve nuetralizing the country as threat known, or not known. period. all other arguments regarding Iraq and their capabilities, known or not known, have been proven with the simple fact of soveriegnty given to them by men (and women) much stronger than you or i. |
| quote: |
| you can talk yourself out of being a liberal blame shifter till your blue in the face. |
| quote: |
| the truth is that not this administration, nor the previous one (Clinton), nor the UN Security Council pulled the wool over any ones eyes as a collective understanding to preface a war over WMD's. they all assumed in good judgement, independently and collectively. |
| quote: |
| but only one party out of those three was willing to use strength as a mean to Saddam's end. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo what do you not understand about the word unanimous? what about "serious consequences"? if you understand them and take them seriously, then the UN is a feckless and meaningless organization, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... |
)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If that was the "ultimate goal", then surely Bush would have said as such in your citation. Lo and behold that was not stated at all - rather, the disarming of Saddam from his WMD was stated. Well, tell me something - how does one disarm someone from something which they do not possess? And considering there was plenty of counterevidence that clearly stated doubts that actual WMD stockpiles existed or that Saddam was at that time capable of producing such WMD, especially nukes which were the primary scare factor (how many Administration folks said "mushroom cloud"?), why was that not considered at all in his statement, or even Powell's statement to the UN prior to invasion? And actually your statement speaks volumes and reiterates my point exactly - *what was the first criterion mentioned? -disarming Saddam from WMD What have we found in Iraq so far? *what was the 2nd criterion mentioned? -stop supporting terrorism What part of "no collaborative operational relationship" with Al Qaeda members is not coherent? *what was the 3rd-5th criteria mentioned? -stop being an inhumane sum bitch Which IMO was pretty much the only true and proven legitimate reason for invasion. Funny how this factor was subsequent to the top 2 fallacious factors. Translation: any arguments, no matter how sound or substantial they may be against the President's rationale, or lack thereof for invasion, are therefore discarded because forcing our brand of Democracy on a sovereign country is always and will forever be justified. Nice. Do I hear an echo? Must be my old ears..... I call Bullshit once again here. I don't deny that Clinton saw Saddam as a threat and felt that he needed to be dealt with. I don't deny that Clinton also thought Saddam's WMD production and capability were worth dealing with. I also don't deny that the UN had similar sentiments as Clinton. But they didn't push the little red button, did they? They were not in charge, were they? They didn't have the unfortunate burden of examining the counterevidence I posted above, and had to weigh that with the supposed claims coming from that lying shithead Chalabi, did they? No, that was all Bush, bub. Say, who's "blame shifting" here? You really trying to reach out to former Administrations and the UN for the onus of proof which lies solely on Bush here? For shame. You seemingly continue to confuse "strength" with obfuscation and blind idealism. At first it was kinda cute, but now I'm really beginning to wonder..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Didn't the UN authorize our right to mobilize troops and send their weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq, and to use force only as a last resort? Was that met? Was it truly a last resort? Perhaps they too had a problem with us kicking their inspectors out before they could complete their job. Perhaps this was why they would NOT approve the use of force - because it was clear that it was NOT a means of last resort, at least not yet (at that time). |
| quote: |
| Is this a good or bad choice? Is she the best person for the job? The correct person? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Epicurus The best choice/best person/correct person are all inconsequential questions. With the neo-cons, if the Secretary of State is pro-administration, like she is, she will toe the official line. If they are not, they will be marginalized, like Colin. Either way, the State department is negligeable when it comes down to it, since the White House gets their way regardless. As a side note, she is one ugly bitch. I can't believe we have to be subjected to her face more than ever in the next four years. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Didn't the UN authorize our right to mobilize troops and send their weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq, and to use force only as a last resort? Was that met? Was it truly a last resort? Perhaps they too had a problem with us kicking their inspectors out before they could complete their job. Perhaps this was why they would NOT approve the use of force - because it was clear that it was NOT a means of last resort, at least not yet (at that time). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo sounds like someones backing down on the whole "deception for war" tip. now you just think it was wrong. i'm not gonna try to convince you it wasn't. never have...much. |
| quote: |
| Powell: "I think we ought to declare (the containment policy) a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." ��(Saddam) is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" ��he threatens not the United States." http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/931.htm http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm |
| quote: |
| Cheney: "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresi...vp20010916.html |
| quote: |
| blind idealism? tell that to men and women that have made the tough decisions. i sure as hell didn't make them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i could hire 1 million lawers and and you could hire the same and it would take us 12 years to figure out whether or not "last resort" or "serious consequences" means what the members of the Security Council thinks it means. bottom line is, force was the serious consequence used as the last resort. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka You're right--we skipped right over the chess tournament and just attacked them instead--that would've been a last resort. There were 12 years worth of resolutions and inaction on Saddam's part. |
| quote: |
| He kicked weapons inspectors out in '98--why? Well obviously it was so they couldn't watch him destroy all of those weapons that he was obstructing them from viwing in the first place. To some of us, it was pretty obvious that the weapons inspections leading up to the war were a mere formality and were nothing more than lip service since it was known that Saddam wouldn't produce any real evidence anyway. |
| quote: |
| Remember that 12,000 page report full of bullshit? |
| quote: |
| How long would it take someone to actually comb through that amount of nonsense? I read Atlas Shrugged in about 2 months--granted, I'm a slow reader at times, but it was complex reading. That book was 1100 pages. Now imagine you ask me to read 12,000 pages of oh so riveting cyrillic bullshit. |
| quote: |
| Remember the rockets that had been modified that Iraq dragged its feet to destroy? Remember those high-grade aluminum tubes(Higher grade than any U.S. standards to which Powell commented that "It strikes me as quite odd that these [aluminium] tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so."? |
| quote: |
| But another expert familiar with Iraq's previous nuclear program said it was also typical of Iraq to "over-specify" when ordering common weapons materials and parts. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said Iraq's use of increasingly higher standards in ordering aluminum tubes stemmed from technical problems with its rocket production: Rockets made of lesser grades of aluminum were getting stuck in the launcher tubes. "The tubes are an important indicator, but they are not specific to centrifuges," Albright said. "I would not feel comfortable arguing on this basis that Iraq has a nuclear program -- even though I personally believe it does." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer |
| quote: |
| Remember Hans Blix also reporting that Iraq was not cooperating on issues of substance? Oh, and this one is a jewel from Blix: "To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist." OK, sure, but that's not exactly a safe assumption to make about a brutal, dictatorial regime that has a history of invading other countries and lying. |
| quote: |
| I AM angered on our methodology and expressed rationale in doing so - I AM angered by the circumvention and embellishment of intelligence to bolster a case for war to the public, press, and Congress, I AM angered by us taking our eye off of the piece of shit that actually DID attack us on our soil in order to prepare for war elsewhere, I AM angered by the fact that there was no clear reason why we rushed out UN inspectors and kept them from finishing their job (with all our guns pointed at Saddam�s head), and I AM angered by our Administration and Pentagon�s arrogance and negligence in creating a viable post-war plan. |
| quote: |
| In any event, it seems to me that the global community got its panties in a bunch because someone finally decided to put some muscle behind 12 years of empty threats by the UN. |
| quote: |
| Additionally, aside from the WMD issue, there are long-term ancillary strategic goals/reasons for taking action which we probably won't fully realize until our own children are our age. |
If you really want to get down to brass tacks I say we could have let Saddam have all the damn weapons he wanted and Iraq still wouldn't have posed a threat to the United States. When prompted about support for the war in Iraq many people I know and have talked to bring up the 9/11 attacks. Lets face the facts here the american people needed some blood. Rove is a genius, there is no way Bush would have stood a chance at re election without a war. Manufactured war isn't anything new either, its been standard practice for a very long time now.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Invading a country on the basis of failure to comply with UN Resolutions is a bit of a stretch of rationale to me, esp. when our methodology and embellished |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka At least you acknowledge that the UN serves no real authoritative position in world affairs! Man, controversial presidents are the best ones. Who really remembers much about James Garfield except that someone eventually named an orange cat after him? |
Just to add, Clinton pulled out the inspectors in 1998, not Saddam.
| quote: |
| PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. President ClintonI want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. President ClintonAt the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it. Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So why did we do it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo for the greater good. for securing definative knowledge. to take him and his heirs out of the greater Middle East peace equation. We did it for this. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly September 12, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20020912-1.html If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. the greater good has not yet been achieved, but eventually opus, you will have to come to terms with this. |
| quote: |
| Look, I�m not angered by the mere fact that we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam � of course we�re all better off by his removal. I AM angered on our methodology and expressed rationale in doing so - I AM angered by the circumvention and embellishment of intelligence to bolster a case for war to the public, press, and Congress, I AM angered by us taking our eye off of the piece of shit that actually DID attack us on our soil in order to prepare for war elsewhere, I AM angered by the fact that there was no clear reason why we rushed out UN inspectors and kept them from finishing their job (with all our guns pointed at Saddam�s head), and I AM angered by our Administration and Pentagon�s arrogance and negligence in creating a viable post-war plan. If you still do not understand my position at this point, I really don�t know what else to say. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.