 |
euphorbia
caustic milk - hybrid
Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 18810
|
House Approves Iraq Resolution
By Jim Abrams
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 10, 2002; 3:15 PM
WASHINGTON –– The House on Thursday authorized war-making powers for President Bush, giving him the extra muscle he needs is his determination to free America and the world from what he says is the growing threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The 296-133 vote was a solid endorsement of Bush's insistence that he will work with the United Nations if possible, or alone if necessary, to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. A majority of Democrats voted against the resolution even though their House leader, Dick Gephardt, was one of its authors.
"Mr. President we are about to give you a great trust," said Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas.
The Senate was prepared to act in chorus, rejecting by a 75-25 vote a bid by opponents to slow down a final vote and picking up the vital support of the Senate's top Democrat, Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
"It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war if necessary that peace becomes possible, said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.
Bush has stressed he has made no decision about using military force against Iraq. It could take months, once that decision is made, for the military to prepare for an all-out strike.
With Congress behind him, Bush will press his case with the United Nations Security Council that it must approve a tough new resolution holding Iraq to unfettered inspections and disarmament and promising force if Iraq does not comply.
House Democrats urged the president to work closely with the U.N. before making a decision to go it alone against Iraq. "Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment," said Gephardt.
While concerns remained about the dangers of going to war against Iraq without a strong international coalition, Thursday's vote showed stronger support for the president than his father, the George H.W. Bush, received in 1991. The House then voted 250-183 to endorse using American troops to drive Iraq from Kuwait.
Despite efforts by party leaders to defuse Iraq as a political issue four weeks before the election, 126 of the House's 208 Democrats voted against it.
The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.
The House earlier rejected, by 270-155, the main challenge to the White House-backed resolution, a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats that obliged the president to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of American force against Iraq after he decides that cooperative efforts with the United Nations are futile.
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said that without a multilateral approach, "this will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world."
The Senate, on a key test vote, choked off delaying tactics by a few Democratic opponents and made it all but certain that the Senate would pass the measure.
Only two Republicans voted against bringing debate to a close: Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Daschle's support was crucial to the administration's hope for a substantial vote and brought him praise from the White House. He was the last holdout among major Democratic congressional leaders.
"The president appreciates Senator Daschle's decision to vote with the president on this matter," Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
Supporters of the resolution fought back efforts in both chambers to weaken the resolution.
Approval of the Iraq resolution in the GOP-led House was expected later Thursday. The Senate, which has been debating the measure for a full week, was expected to approve it late Thursday or early Friday. That could put the resolution on Bush's desk by the weekend.
By a 66-31 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. – the most outspoken Senate opponent of the war resolution – that would have ended the authorization for him to use force against Iraq after two years.
Minutes later, the House also turned back, by 355-72, an alternative offered by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would have committed the United States to the U.N. inspections process but not authorized unilateral force. "I plead with you to avoid this rush to war," Lee said.
Bipartisan support for Bush's request for war authority was growing steadily, and chances seemed good he'd have the measure on his desk by week's end to put the nation on combat-ready footing.
"The president hopes this will send a strong message to the world, and to Iraq, that if Iraq does not obey the U.N. resolutions, that the United States is prepared to enforce the peace," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
Bush, who has stressed that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, has urged Congress to stand with him as he presses the U.N. Security Council to approve a new resolution demanding that Iraq abide by comprehensive inspections and disarmament or face the consequences.
Progress was slower on the diplomatic front, where three members of the U.N. Security Council – France, Russia and China – continued to hold out against a U.S.-British proposal sanctioning military action if Iraq does not comply with coercive inspections.
A 25-minute telephone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday failed to yield a breakthrough over wording of a new Security Council resolution to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations," White House spokesman Sean McCormack said.
In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered. In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov relayed a similar stance.
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. He said he considers Saddam "deterrable and containable at this point."
"I'm not convinced we need to do this now," Zinni said during a question-and-answer session at a Middle East Institute forum.
Debate in the House went deep into the night both Tuesday and Wednesday, with nearly every member intent on expressing the necessity, and gravity, of granting authority to send Americans into war.
"I know the heartache and pain of the families that are left behind," said a tearful Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., who was a pilot in the Vietnam War.
But Cunningham and almost every Republican backed the president. "It's time we go straight to the eye and dismantle the elements from which the storm of brutal, repressive tyranny and terrorism radiate," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., He said that as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, "I can attest to the evilness of Saddam Hussein."
__________________
taste the fucking rainbow & dont touch my junk.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
10-10-2002 09:28 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Itch
De Oppresso Liber
Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543
|
Did you watch it? There were some truly great speeches and an attitude of seriousness that went beyond anything I'd ever seen in the House. Armey actually broke into tears at the end of his speech as he spoke of an old veteran with his hand on the shoulder of the veterans grandson, a young soldier, saying how the young soldier is "the best we have to give you, Mr President"...Armey started choking up at this point when he finished the story saying, "Mr President, we put the trust in you that that soldier will be able to return home to someday put his hand on the shoulder of his own grandson..." thats not an exact quote but gives an idea of what he said. At the very end, Armey was actually in tears and almost coulden't finish the speech. I wish I could find his speech online. It was one of the most sober, serious and eloquent speeches I've ever heard in my life. I even got a little choked up at the end.
Minority Leader Dick Gephardt even gave a great, empassioned speech.
I've watched alot of cspan and never saw anything like what I saw in the House today. It made me think of how congress should do things. Little ideology and a very frank, concerned discussion of the facts. And YES, the importance of post-Hussein Iraq was discussed in depth.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-10-2002 10:00 PM |
|
|
| |
|
greenleakynipples
What a cock
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1581
|
quote:
Originally posted by Itch
Little ideology and a very frank, concerned discussion of the facts.
Is that what you saw? I saw a precursor to midterm elections.
leaky.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-10-2002 10:49 PM |
|
|
| |
|
euphorbia
caustic milk - hybrid
Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 18810
|
quote:
Originally posted by Itch
Did you watch it? There were some truly great speeches and an attitude of seriousness that went beyond anything I'd ever seen in the House. Armey actually broke into tears at the end of his speech as he spoke of an old veteran with his hand on the shoulder of the veterans grandson, a young soldier, saying how the young soldier is "the best we have to give you, Mr President"...Armey started choking up at this point when he finished the story saying, "Mr President, we put the trust in you that that soldier will be able to return home to someday put his hand on the shoulder of his own grandson..." thats not an exact quote but gives an idea of what he said. At the very end, Armey was actually in tears and almost coulden't finish the speech. I wish I could find his speech online. It was one of the most sober, serious and eloquent speeches I've ever heard in my life. I even got a little choked up at the end.
I have been pretty busy but I saw a bit; I teared up on that speech too. It was good to see and good to know that consideration of those matters go with sending them in if it comes to this rather than "thats what they are trained for" or "thats their job" disposable hero shit youll hear from some people. Anyway, good rant itch...I agree.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-10-2002 11:35 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Nutrimentia
plata o plomo
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9566
|
It couldn't have been that well argued with a lack of ideology because the measure passed. Any sane person not involved in partisan politics in an election year or able to rise above the 9/11 emotion driven path of retribution who looks at history and facts should be able to plainly see that 1) giving any president (much less an ignorant one with a warmongering cabinet) powers that Congress is supposed to have is stupid and 2) war with Iraq doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding beyond the November election results.
I haven't been on the forum at all lately (hopefully I can find time to come back to this thread) but I assumed that phorbie would be gung ho for the Iraq invasion. Good to see that you've got you wits about you, girl  , and are opposed to needless sacrifice of human (Iraqi too) lives in a war that is utterly unnecessary at this point in time.
__________________
The Law of Fives is never wrong. CzEch yerself b4 joo rEck yerself. Hi-yo!
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 02:03 AM |
|
|
| |
|
euphorbia
caustic milk - hybrid
Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 18810
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nutrimentia
It couldn't have been that well argued with a lack of ideology because the measure passed. Any sane person not involved in partisan politics in an election year or able to rise above the 9/11 emotion driven path of retribution who looks at history and facts should be able to plainly see that 1) giving any president (much less an ignorant one with a warmongering cabinet) powers that Congress is supposed to have is stupid and 2) war with Iraq doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding beyond the November election results.
I haven't been on the forum at all lately (hopefully I can find time to come back to this thread) but I assumed that phorbie would be gung ho for the Iraq invasion. Good to see that you've got you wits about you, girl , and are opposed to needless sacrifice of human (Iraqi too) lives in a war that is utterly unnecessary at this point in time.
I disagree and think we have waited too long to oust saddam but I can tell by your word choices debate with you is futile. Bush said nothing Clinton didn’t in 1998 only Clinton didnt do anything about it...but now that a republican suggests it it becomes somehow sinister. Yeah...Bush beats up old ladies and likes pie made uf little Muslim boys yadda yadda...spare me the same old baseless crap. I say that with love.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 02:26 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Nutrimentia
plata o plomo
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9566
|
My word choices indicate debate is futile? When has debate with you ever had a chance of changing your mind?
Thanks for assuming that I automatically think that Clinton was right but Bush is wrong. Can you link me to the information where Clinton was planning a pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation with the intent of incading the country, killing the president, and setting up 'democracy' in the region? Also, I'd love to read up on whatever theories supporters of this idea have about why they think that Iraq is a fertile site for democracy to be set up.
I don't think that Saddam isn't dangerous. I do think that we set an unacceptable precedent if we unilaterally attack. I think a policy of pre-emptive military strikes is ignorant. The world was safer with a balanced bipolar community keeping each other in check than with a maverick super power that thinks God is on its side.
You and I both know we hold our beliefs dearly and that when the stakes are this high, emotions keep pace. Let it be stated here and now that you and I are friends and I respect your opinion, even though I'm likely to insult you (and you, me) if we keep up this conversation. Doesn't mean we aren't on the same side.
I also realize that there has likely been plenty of excellent discussion on these topics that present my ideas better than me. U4B (and others) is probably tired of repeating herself so I udnerstand if you don't want to keep talking about it. I just haven't had anyone to talk to about this and its kind of pent up inside. Advance apologies if I end up coming off a little too strong when I talk about this stuff.
Synopsis of my current opinion: Saddam is dangerous but isn't worth destablizing the world over. Military action is an option, but one of last resort. The United States people and government need to begin thinking internationally and long term instead of domestically and shortterm. And we have to maintain our moral and cultural integrity and don't violate those precepts that make us proud to be who we are.
(I hope the love spills out of your computer and knocks on the floor )
__________________
The Law of Fives is never wrong. CzEch yerself b4 joo rEck yerself. Hi-yo!
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 05:09 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Mordecai
X-Ray Cat
Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 23030
|
I'd have voted for the alternative that left out the unilateral action part. I find myself very reluctant to condone action without UN approval. Why? I don't see Iraq as an immediate threat to the US. I do think Saddam's regime presents a threat to other countries perhaps, and if the UN, based upon inspection results, decides not to take action against Saddam, then we best abide by their decision. However, this doesn't mean I think we should sit on our fat asses and do nothing. Continued intelligence gathering, and maintaining a state of readiness, and updated plans of attack would be the order of the the day in such a case. Then, IF, and only if, Saddam proves himself to still have some bite(I.E. using biological/chemical/nuclear weapons), then we could say, "I told you so.", and then go beat his ass down. Kind of a shitty way to look at it, but flying in the face of world opinion isn't going to do much to increase 'homeland security'. Just my two cents.
-m
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 05:11 AM |
|
|
| |
|
skalie
happily ignorant
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 18582
|
quote:
Originally posted by Itch
Armey actually broke into tears at the end of his speech as he spoke of an old veteran with his hand on the shoulder of the veterans grandson, a young soldier, saying how the young soldier is "the best we have to give you, Mr President"...Armey started choking up at this point when he finished the story saying, "Mr President, we put the trust in you that that soldier will be able to return home to someday put his hand on the shoulder of his own grandson..."
.. as he gets sent off to do battle on foreign shores.
The US ain't going to stop are they, ever?
It's stuck in a vicious circle, it's economy can't survive without war, can it?
Oh, joy.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 05:59 AM |
|
|
| |
|
euphorbia
caustic milk - hybrid
Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 18810
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mordecai
I'd have voted for the alternative that left out the unilateral action part. I find myself very reluctant to condone action without UN approval. Why? I don't see Iraq as an immediate threat to the US. I do think Saddam's regime presents a threat to other countries perhaps, and if the UN, based upon inspection results, decides not to take action against Saddam, then we best abide by their decision. However, this doesn't mean I think we should sit on our fat asses and do nothing. Continued intelligence gathering, and maintaining a state of readiness, and updated plans of attack would be the order of the the day in such a case. Then, IF, and only if, Saddam proves himself to still have some bite(I.E. using biological/chemical/nuclear weapons), then we could say, "I told you so.", and then go beat his ass down. Kind of a shitty way to look at it, but flying in the face of world opinion isn't going to do much to increase 'homeland security'. Just my two cents.
-m
We have the support of atleast 10 other countries, new word tonight that even france maybe coming around.
And Nute just do a google search here is a speech he made....(back in 1998 mind you before the 4 years of no inspections what so ever)
Text of President Clinton’s Address on Iraq
By The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 17, 1998; 1:32 p.m. EST
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:
Please be seated. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.
Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb -- thank you for being here -- and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism -- both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.
I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent -- the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.
I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.
I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.
Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.
Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.
So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.
This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers -- economic, political and social -- that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.
But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.
We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
I want the American people to understand first the past -- how did this crisis come about?
And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.
Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded -- not the United States -- the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days -- this is way back in 1991 -- within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.
The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it --not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.
And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.
Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.
For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability -- notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say -- UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.
Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors -- the eyes and ears of the civilized world -- have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.
This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.
Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.
By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large -- by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about -- how many acres did you tell me it was? -- 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.
The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.
It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days -- within 15 days -- of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.
But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.
I ask all of you to remember the record here -- what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.
That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.
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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.
I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.
And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.
The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all UN resolutions.
Consider this -- already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.
We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.
Now, let me say to all of you here -- as all of you know -- the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.
You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.
No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.
When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.
When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.
When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.
But there is no better example, again I say, than the UN weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.
But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and -- when necessary -- action.
In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.
If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do have support of some countries, some that cant be to vocal about their support as well for obvious reasons, I do not think our national security policies should be hanging on the approval of the UN. One country can veto...fuck that, if those with the access to the info say we are in danger and infact the world is in danger they best do something about it...thats what the feds are for.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 06:57 AM |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
funkyrooster
King Leer
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nutrimentia
My word choices indicate debate is futile? When has debate with you ever had a chance of changing your mind?
Bingo
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorbia
I have been pretty busy but I saw a bit; I teared up on that speech too. It was good to see and good to know that consideration of those matters go with sending them in if it comes to this rather than "thats what they are trained for" or "thats their job" disposable hero shit youll hear from some people. Anyway, good rant itch...I agree.
Firstly, its exactly what they are trained for and, you guessed it, it is their job. No point in having an armed forces if you aren't willing to accept that. The Royal Marines who came back from Afghanistan were upset because they didn't get to kill anyone. They love it. Its their job. We're just lucky it wasn't the Para's out there otherwise they would have started killing each other after a while. And were any of them to be killed, you just take it on the chin. The media and public here does.The risks are made perfectly clear to members of the armed forces when they join up. And I find your attitude curiously at odds with your present (and probably permanent from what I've seen) "War at all costs" mentality. You seem hell bent on putting these guys directly in harms way, and then bitching if any of them get scratched.
And regarding that speech, what a load of puke. Its frightening to know that mawkish emotion can play such a large part in such serious matters, and the fact that you were so obviously swayed by it is troubling. Difficult to imagine masters of statescraft such as Bismark or Machiavelli bursting into tears in such a situation.
One last matter. You stated in another thread that you were constantly kissing Smugs arse and telling him how wonderful he was. Well don't. I lived with the guy and I've seen the state of his boxer shorts.
__________________
Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster
Last edited by funkyrooster on 10-11-2002 at 08:50 AM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 08:32 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Itch
De Oppresso Liber
Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543
|
quote:
Originally posted by greenleakynipples
Is that what you saw? I saw a precursor to midterm elections.
leaky.
Of course you did. Congress is a group of blackhearted pirates with absolutely no good in them at all and are completely unable, ever, to rise above poltitics. Political debate in congress usually orients one party against the other along ideological lines. This was not the case today.
har har
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 09:23 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Itch
De Oppresso Liber
Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543
|
>>>>>
1) giving any president (much less an ignorant one with a warmongering cabinet) powers that Congress is supposed to have is stupid and
2) war with Iraq doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding beyond the November election results.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 09:34 AM |
|
|
| |
|
ItsJustLogan
le pour soi
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: baton rouge, la
Posts: 4103
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkyrooster
The risks are made perfectly clear to members of the armed forces when they join up.
i think we're still more than a little scarred from the vietnam draft. military service is still looked upon as something you're forced into and then have to make the best of.
__________________
(now cue the ass parade of ditto-heads and commissars and pricks to drown out this faintest threat of commie faggot heretics)
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 09:48 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Itch
De Oppresso Liber
Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkyrooster
Bingo
Firstly, its exactly what they are trained for and, you guessed it, it is their job. No point in having an armed forces if you aren't willing to accept that. The Royal Marines who came back from Afghanistan were upset because they didn't get to kill anyone. They love it. Its their job. We're just lucky it wasn't the Para's out there otherwise they would have started killing each other after a while. And were any of them to be killed, you just take it on the chin. The media and public here does.The risks are made perfectly clear to members of the armed forces when they join up. And I find your attitude curiously at odds with your present (and probably permanent from what I've seen) "War at all costs" mentality. You seem hell bent on putting these guys directly in harms way, and then bitching if any of them get scratched.
And regarding that speech, what a load of puke. Its frightening to know that mawkish emotion can play such a large part in such serious matters, and the fact that you were so obviously swayed by it is troubling. Difficult to imagine masters of statescraft such as Bismark or Machiavelli bursting into tears in such a situation.
One last matter. You stated in another thread that you were constantly kissing Smugs arse and telling him how wonderful he was. Well don't. I lived with the guy and I've seen the state of his boxer shorts.
I'm biting my lip hard...this wasn't addressed to me and I wasn't quoted but...but... this was to euphorbia so I'll just sit down an stare a hole in someones head.
Us "mawkish emotional" Americans....god if only we essentially ruled the world and...oh wait, we do! hahaha Ya, I am much more apt to shed tears over those who fall on fields of battle than some crusty old aristocrat..."queen mum"...gimme a fukin break. Talk about a load of long-eared, tea sipping, inbred-looking, crooked toothed, stiff puke. In its history, more english blood has been shed for kings and queens like so many turds flushed down a toilet. Here we offer our blood on the altar of freedom, and ya it is worth that blood and that blood worth our tears. We even offered it for YOUR freedom.
and ya, I aid, "like turds down a toilet"...the toilet of monarchy.
God save the toilet. The toilet is dead, long live the toilet. "The Toilet Marines"? Might as well be, as "royalty" is no more honorable than a good shit. It might feel good but it just ain't right. I suppose thats why you guys have a representative Government now but still like to bandy about names like "Royal this" and "The Queens that". Fuck the Queen. May all crusty old kings and queens get bent. Sic semper tyrannis- as true in 2002 as it was in 1776.
bah.
sorry for the insults but I'm just a damn emotional American. I'm sure you can take it on the chin, verbal jabs certainly can't be worse than the deaths of your own countrymen.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 10:08 AM |
|
|
| |
|
funkyrooster
King Leer
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141
|
Doesn't bother me mate. You just proved my point. Its nice to know that representatives of the most powerful country on earth can get wound up so easily. So reassuring.
"Here we offer our blood on the altar of freedom"
Classic quote. I think I'm going to use that one again.
As for the deaths of my own countrymen, I'm not British. You twat.
__________________
Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 10:23 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 36242
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkyrooster
Well don't. I lived with the guy and I've seen the state of his boxer shorts.
Might I add that we were flatmates. Not lovers.
Secondly, I should point out that funkyrooster was simply jealous of the state of my boxer shorts, envious as he was of my mastery of the washing machine.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 01:29 PM |
|
|
| |
|
funkyrooster
King Leer
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
Might I add that we were flatmates. Not lovers.
Didn't stop you trying
quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
Secondly, I should point out that funkyrooster was simply jealous of the state of my boxer shorts, envious as he was of my mastery of the washing machine.
We had a washing machine? Where was it hidden?
__________________
Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 01:59 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 36242
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkyrooster
We had a washing machine? Where was it hidden?
Past the fridge; problem was, that you were never able to walk past a fridge.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 02:27 PM |
|
|
| |
|
funkyrooster
King Leer
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141
|
I'm surprised you noticed as you were so heavily engaged making child pornography
__________________
Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 02:33 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Itch
De Oppresso Liber
Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkyrooster
Doesn't bother me mate. You just proved my point. Its nice to know that representatives of the most powerful country on earth can get wound up so easily. So reassuring.
"Here we offer our blood on the altar of freedom"
Classic quote. I think I'm going to use that one again.
As for the deaths of my own countrymen, I'm not British. You twat.
Nahh...I just vented the frustration I've been holding back at reading so much ill-considered stupidity over the past week or so. I'm not so easily wound up. Ok, your not a Brit and I'm a twat for assuming you were in my anger.
Its irritating that it is so obvious that we highly value the lives of our troops and are only sending them to war under what we perceive to be the most serious and justified of circumstances and yet we are called warmongers and are said to have a "cowboy" attitude, acting rashley with little thought as to the consequences. Funny how you so easily smack aside the notion of sentimentality of sending our sons and daughters and brothers and fathers off to war and instead of seeing this sentimentality as reassurance of how serious and deliberate we are you dismiss it as "mawkish emotion". That really fucking sickens me.
OF COURSE the risks are perfectly clear, we all fucking know that, its why we get emotional when we send our boys off to fight. There is no bitching and whining when they get "scratched" but rather only the well deserved adoration of heros. And yes, of course we will pressure government to make sure our troops are as safe as possible, of course we will want to see our casualties minimized. That only makes sense.
Funny how so many in the world still, STILL fail to take the United States seriously and look at everything we do with the utmost contempt. That is a huge mistake. The more Americans that realize just how much contempt is fel for the US outside its borders, the less we as a Nation are compelled to care what other Nations think. For most of us it boils down to petty "European" drivel.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 05:09 PM |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
skalie
happily ignorant
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 18582
|
quote:
Originally posted by Itch
Funny how so many in the world still, STILL fail to take the United States seriously and look at everything we do with the utmost contempt. That is a huge mistake. The more Americans that realize just how much contempt is fel for the US outside its borders, the less we as a Nation are compelled to care what other Nations think. For most of us it boils down to petty "European" drivel.
Who the FUCK do the US think they are?
American soldiers should be immune to war crime tribunals was one issue that came to my attention quite a few months back.
Now the gung ho, we don't have to listen to the rest of the world, we'll just do whatever we want to, when we want to.
That is where the contempt originates. The US isn't playing by the rules anymore.
Thank fuck that France, Russia and China still have the power of Veto in the UN.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 06:09 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 36242
|
quote:
Originally posted by skalie
Thank fuck that France, Russia and China still have the power of Veto in the UN.
This thread is about the US going in without the UN, though.
I think that Itch misunderstands the 'contempt' and its origin, that is felt by Europe, though. There is no doubt that the US is the most unpopular nation on earth (the UK would come in second there, partly because of our history of wrongdoing and partly because we are allies of the US), but why? Either people are wrong to dislike the US or their dislike has some basis.
The more you hate us, less we care' argument in itself would mean that the US was inward looking and petty minded; sure, if it is groundless criticism then ignore it, if it has a point maybe you should listen to it, but ignoring it just because it is strong is, in my opinion, wrong. Perhaps what Itch means to say is that the US feels that it has had a succession of wrongful criticism from outside and therefore has lost respect for those opinions, which would be more understandable than a 'the more you say that I am wrong, the less I listen' approach, which effectively makes dialogue of any sort impossible eventually.
The thing is, that people outside the US aren't any more or less stupid or clever than people inside; it would be odd if all the criticisms were invalid. The 'European attitude' that Itch talks about (that is held by many other countries too, I gather, and also not held by some countries in Europe) is a perfectly defensible position, as is the US position. I know that Europeans in general take a strong interest in world affairs; I can't speak for the US population, but I am not aware that they have more of an interest in following world affairs, in general, than Europeans do. Equal ability, (hypothetically) equal education about the world outside, both have important points of view that are of worth.
What is certainly true that some of the reasons that I have seen previously (mostly on another board) about why the US is unpopular, where people put it down to envy, socialism, groundless fear, are not reasons that I think make up the majoritu of opposition to the US; it is pretty much based on what the US has done and whether or not those people thought that it was the right thing to do, or a bad thing, or whatever.
I would certainly concede Itch's point that the US can be driven into isolationist or unilateralist policies by a feeling that the outside hates them; I can certainly see the UK being driven into the EU (the opposite effect, integrationism, as we are a smaller and less powerful country) if the UK population feel that US policy is too far from what they think is right and therefore that the ties to the US, which in some part justify our standoffish approach to the EU, are not viable. I have real concerns, as a eurosceptic, that this is going to happen; part of this problem is the awfully low public opinion of George Bush so that they don't trust what he says and don't trust his reasoning, but Bush will be in power (I should have thought) for another term and that is long enough to move the UK into the clutches of the EU.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
10-11-2002 06:57 PM |
|
|
| |
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
