Jump to content

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi killed


Guest BengalBacker

Recommended Posts

Guest BlackJesus

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='279463' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:08 PM']Canada's like a nerdy little kid who brags about his pacifism. Of course the only reason he doesn't get his ass kicked every day is because his big brother, who he loves to insult as being a bully, watches out for him.[/quote]

[b]
you've have obviously never traveled overseas .... where the U.S. state Dept tells Americans to claim they are Canadians ...

Canadians don't get their asses kicked because they don't usually use their military as a instrument of imperialism like we do .....

But then again maybe they will adobt the Bush doctrine and since they found potential terrosist in Canada ... maybe they'll invade Fiji [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img]


:rolleyes: [/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BengalBacker

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='279467' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:12 PM'][b]
you've have obviously never traveled overseas .... where the U.S. state Dept tells Americans to claim they are Canadians ...

Canadians don't get their asses kicked because they don't usually use their military as a instrument of imperialism like we do .....

But then again maybe they will adobt the Bush doctrine and since they found potential terrosist in Canada ... maybe they'll invade Fiji [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img]
:rolleyes: [/b][/quote]


Sounds like a good place for you.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='279469' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:13 PM']Sounds like a good place for you.

:)[/quote]


[b]Believe me I've thought about it ..... and will be on my way if I see Jeb or Hillary win in 08'

[/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='279474' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:15 PM'][b]Believe me I've thought about it ..... [color="#000099"]and will be on my way if I see Jeb or Hillary win in 08'[/color]

[/b][/quote]



Wolnt happen, remember I'm trying to get a gig with special forces.























:ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]1. No link ?[/quote]

Sorry, subsription required, I do not have one, but I can pick of from Armed Forces Information site.
[url="http://ebird.afis.mil"]http://ebird.afis.mil[/url]

[quote]2. All the images I used are from the shock and awe campaign or of US military which are verifiable (abu Ghraib)... not the insurgency[/quote]

Doesn't matter, the point was made.

[quote]3. Who cares that they are savage .... that doesn't give us the cover to be so .... the purpose of the U.S. military is not to stop foreign savagery ..... Conservatives used to understand that .... [/b][/quote]

Sounds like something Chomsky would say, hey wat a minute...

[url="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318"]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008318[/url]


White Guilt and the Western Past
Why is America so delicate with the enemy?

BY SHELBY STEELE
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.

For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.

Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.





Why this new minimalism in war?
It began, I believe, in a late-20th-century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism: the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty. This idea had organized the entire world, divided up its resources, imposed the nation-state system across the globe, and delivered the majority of the world's population into servitude and oppression. After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria and from Indonesia to the American civil rights revolution, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy, if not the idea itself. And this defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins. Today, the white West--like Germany after the Nazi defeat--lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation. There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority.

I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience but because people stigmatized with moral crimes--here racism and imperialism--lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not.

They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness. So when America--the greatest embodiment of Western power--goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus, in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.

The collapse of white supremacy--and the resulting white guilt--introduced a new mechanism of power into the world: stigmatization with the evil of the Western past. And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world. In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy. Europe would scorn. Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq but in so doing dispelled the imperialist stigma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy. Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us.

Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work--something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty--war as the Great Society.

This does not mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq. It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy.

White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.

Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.





America and the broader West are now going through a rather tender era, a time when Western societies have very little defense against the moral accusations that come from their own left wings and from those vast stretches of nonwhite humanity that were once so disregarded.
Europeans are utterly confounded by the swelling Muslim populations in their midst. America has run from its own mounting immigration problem for decades, and even today, after finally taking up the issue, our government seems entirely flummoxed. White guilt is a vacuum of moral authority visited on the present by the shames of the past. In the abstract it seems a slight thing, almost irrelevant, an unconvincing proposition. Yet a society as enormously powerful as America lacks the authority to ask its most brilliant, wealthy and superbly educated minority students to compete freely for college admission with poor whites who lack all these things. Just can't do it.

Whether the problem is race relations, education, immigration or war, white guilt imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger and deepen. Our leaders work within a double bind. If they do what is truly necessary to solve a problem--win a war, fix immigration--they lose legitimacy.

To maintain their legitimacy, they practice the minimalism that makes problems linger. What but minimalism is left when you are running from stigmatization as a "unilateralist cowboy"? And where is the will to truly regulate the southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots? This is how white guilt defines what is possible in America. You go at a problem until you meet stigmatization, then you retreat into minimalism.

Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.

This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is author, most recently, of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," published this week by HarperCollins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BengalBacker

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='279467' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:12 PM'][b]
Canadians don't get their asses kicked because they don't usually use their military as a instrument of imperialism like we do .....
:rolleyes: [/b][/quote]


Yeah, I'm sure their being left alone has nothing to do with their proximity to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[b]Candian Air Force[/b]



[img]http://www.hitjokes.com/pics/Humour/Canadian_Air_Force.jpg[/img]



[b]Canadian Navy [/b]


[img]http://www.p8ntball226.com/fp0052.jpg[/img]



[b]Candian Paratroopers[/b]


[img]http://upload.localnetsys.com/upload/july05/poncholiner.jpg[/img]


[b]And Canada`s "finest"[/b]



[img]http://www.drunkdwarves.com/images/ddmail/canadian.jpg[/img]







So much to "fear" ...:pointlaff:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='BlackJesus' post='279338' date='Jun 8 2006, 10:47 AM'][center][img]http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/10955412_l.jpg[/img][/center][/quote]



Better than where you have your head...



[img]http://www.cs.utah.edu/~luke/Images/rcinversion.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='BK Cincy Connection' post='279361' date='Jun 8 2006, 11:30 AM']Most of you are naive...

you still trust the media? if they did their jobs in the first place we wouldn't be in that stupid ass war...

anyway, isn't this all familiar?

we conquered Baghdad...
caught Uday and Qusay...
Got Sadaam...

Killing Zarqawi means nothing...it was a misguided war and still is...the only thing that will stop the bloodshed is when the US withdrawls its "imperial" troops from that soil...(which I'm not banking on happening inthe next 10 years)

the media esp. fox will continue to give Bush major head even though most of the country sees this administration as incompetent and a joke...[/quote]



[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img]


Yeah the U.S. had no right taking Saddam out. Even though they "allowed" him to
remain in power under the terms of his [b]surrender[/b].

They also had no right taking him out, even though for 12 years, he did everything
in the power the U.S. "allowed him to have, to make the World think he had WMD`s.

They also had no right taking him out, awww fuck it...

[url="http://www.starterupsteve.com/flash/html/americafy.shtml"]Americuh FUCK YEAH ![/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the US going into Afghan with the support of the entire world...what about the Gulf War, where the world including the middle east supported that action...


No "white" guilt there...what guilt is there if any invasion is just? As for cases where the circumstances around invasion are shaky at best there should be guilt...

If the shoe fits...

And exactly how are we holding back in Iraq? From everything I've heard and seen our military is stretched thin around the world (remember lack of national guardsmen in New Orleans for our domestic emergency?) We don't seem to have more bodies to put there and thank God the public opinion has a little sway in our action or else it could be worse.

How many megatons of bombs have we dropped on that country? Just questions in my mind from reading the "white guilt reason US tippytoes in war since WWII)

Maybe its war has changed and people realized how you defeat industrial nations is by not going head up, it is to stick and move...wear down public opinion in US etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='279524' date='Jun 8 2006, 04:00 PM'][img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img]
Yeah the U.S. had no right taking Saddam out. Even though they "allowed" him to
remain in power under the terms of his [b]surrender[/b].

They also had no right taking him out, even though for 12 years, he did everything
in the power the U.S. "allowed him to have, to make the World think he had WMD`s.

They also had no right taking him out, awww fuck it...

[url="http://www.starterupsteve.com/flash/html/americafy.shtml"]Americuh FUCK YEAH ![/url][/quote]

Old my point was that Sadaam w/o war was checkmated-couldn't do shit-military at 10% of what it was before the 1st gulf war

the FACTS: He was not a threat to the US, his neighbors or anybody...for that matter

BTW I like that song, America, Fuck Yeah! I like going after terrorists who kill innocents, but we created that mess in Iraq. No terrorists while Sadaam was in power...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='279507' date='Jun 8 2006, 03:09 PM']Yeah, I'm sure their being left alone has nothing to do with their proximity to us.[/quote]

As it seems to be sweeping generalizations day on this board today:


The fact that Canada's also a fully paid up members of NATO helps a litte bit as well.

The US also has a complicit interest in protecting it's #1 supplier of oil and energy. So it's not all just out of the goodness of everyone's respective hearts.

Another thing which I just find funny in the way it seems to have come up lately...

Canadian troops have been involved in every single NATO and US sanctioned mission that's taken place in the last 30 years. Haiti, the Balkans, Somalia, Rwanda, even in Afghanistan for the past three years and going to be there upto 2009, without much fan fare, despite the occasional blowing away of Canadian troops by that wonderful US friendly fire people have come to love and expect.

But just because Canada doesn't commit troops to the invasion of Iraq (which for some reason a lot of the rest of the world and even many US allies didn't), 1 conflict out of the last 20 or so...the whole Canada hates us reactionary hubris seems to arise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fredtoast
[quote name='Lawman' post='279491' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:29 PM']Yet a society as enormously powerful as America lacks the authority to ask its most brilliant, wealthy and superbly educated minority students to compete freely for college admission with poor whites who lack all these things. Just can't do it.

One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.

This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.[/quote]

What a load of horse shit. What exactly is he proposing that we do in Iraq. Nuke the whole damn country?

The comment about minority students is totally off base. No one is worried about the WEALTHY minorities. College admisson standards are designed to take into account that an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of minority students do not have the resources to compete with even middle class white students.

But the biggest bullshit line in there is the fact that there are no serious racists left in the U.S.. The KKK is still very popular around here. I've actually attended one of the rallies that they have in Newport, TN every year around MLK day. I bet i can also find an exclusive all-white country club in every major city in the U.S. I remember back in the early 1990's (NOT 1950's) when the University of Tennessee made Wade Houston the first black head basketball coach in the SEC. Every head coach at UT received a membership in the exclusive Sequoya Hills Country Club as a perk. Well Wade was refused because he was black. It was a big wake up call to alot of people around here. These country club members were some of the most powerful business owners in Knoxville. Do any of you believe that they treated African Americans fairly in their business dealings when they wouldn't even allow a wealthy, highly successful man like Wade Houston join their social club? Since 2000 there have been multiple examples of the prevailence of racism in America today. The Chief of the Chicago Fire Department had to step down because of racial problems on his force. The Los Angelas Police Department also was also torn apart by racial problems among employees. Multiple police forces have admitted to racial profiling. Racism is EVERYWHER in America today. Just because many racists try to keep a lower profile does not mean that it has gone away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
The U.N. was profitting from Saddam being in power.
Ever heard of the Oil for Food scandal ?


A 3rd of the troops in Iraq are the National Guard.
That would mean that roughly 40,000 National Guardsmen
are in Iraq.

Nearly 124,000 troops were available for duty in the 17 states along the Katrina`s projected path. That averages to 78 percent of those states’ total Guard strength.

More than 6,200 Army and Air National Guard troops were on duty in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida the Monday that Katrina struck.



Anyway... these are some quotes from the President...

"Iraq has abused its last chance"



'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

Along with Prime Minister (Tony) 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,"


The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

"Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them."

Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in."

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors,"

"In halting our airstrikes 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," the president explained.


Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.


Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.


Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.


Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.


"We had to act, and act now," he said.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons,"





Of course those words came from Presidetn CLINTON in 1998, talking about Operation Desert Fox...
a full 5 years before the U.S. finally invaded...



[url="http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/"]http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I think we're making some progress here. GWB [b]did not[/b] go macho and say "Mission Accomplished" when he found out that the [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html"]psyops campaign[/url] was brought to a successful conclusion.

Now if that ain't a "lesson learned," then I don't know what is. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
The President addresses the Nation about the attack on Iraq...


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.

I 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.

[b]Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM.[/b] 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 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

[b]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. [/b]

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.

At 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's 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.

[b][size=4]The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government[/size] -- 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.[/b]

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.


[url="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html"]http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html[/url]


Sure sounds like shit George W. Bush would say huh ?

What changed between 1998 and 2002 ? Nothing as far as how Saddam was.
But we did have something happen to us that changed the way we had to deal
with Saddam...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='279546' date='Jun 8 2006, 03:42 PM']Hey, I think we're making some progress here. GWB [b]did not[/b] go macho and say "Mission Accomplished"[/quote]



I always thought the "Mission Accomplished" sign was because the
Mission of overthrowing Saddam`s regime was Accomplished...


Now if the sign would have said "The War is over ... we won !"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]What changed between 1998 and 2002 ? Nothing as far as how Saddam was.
But we did have something happen to us that changed the way we had to deal
with Saddam...[/quote]


Christ, are you still buying that garbage about Sadam having [i]anything[/i] to do with 9/11? I mean when you and I discussed this back in the day on JT's site I could at least understand the sentament even if it wasnt true, a good number believed it to be, however most know it not to be today and your still believing it??? :blink: :blink: :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='279550' date='Jun 8 2006, 03:58 PM']Christ, are you still buying that garbage about Sadam having [i]anything[/i] to do with 9/11? I mean when you and I discussed this back in the day on JT's site I could at least understand the sentament even if it wasnt true a good number believed it to be, however most know it not to be today and your still believing it??? :blink: :blink: :blink:[/quote]



I don`t believe and I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

I said something happened to us that made us change the way we had to deal
with Saddam.



If you`re sucker punched... you tend to look a at any and all threats
of being sucker punched in the future... a little different... that`s all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='279551' date='Jun 8 2006, 05:02 PM']I don`t believe and I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

I said something happened to us that made us change the way we had to deal
with Saddam.
If you`re sucker punched... you tend to look a at any and all threats
of being sucker punched in the future... a little different... that`s all.[/quote]


Yeah but the Championship fighter knows its a "sweet science" and chooses his best punches as opposed to just swinging like a madman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='steggyD' post='279537' date='Jun 8 2006, 03:33 PM']I'm cool with Canada. There's some hot girls up there. Love Halifax, mmm, great place.[/quote]


[quote name='Jamie_B' post='279544' date='Jun 8 2006, 03:41 PM']Yeah I love our friends to the north.[/quote]


Hey I love Canada too. I have nothing against the Country or it`s people.


But I hate Canadians that look down their noses, act like their
Country is superior to ours in every way, root on the "Freedom Fighters"
and cheer for the death of U.S. soldiers.



But I also hate all Americans who talk/think that way...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...