Gimpy: " O'Neill stated, " "the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is really a huge leap." (A position vaguely similar to the one the Japanese used to "justify" THEIR attack on Pearl Harbor?)"

Are you REALLY comparing President Bush to Emperor Hirohito? No big surprise,I suppose,given the Dem`s remarks concerning Adolph Hitler.
Ho Hum...You guys tire me.

KEITH -

"What's not to agree with?"

Yeah, Hussein had WMDs. They are probably now buried in Syria!

As far as standing up to bullies, no one would agree with this more than I! However, will this be the logic used every time Halliburton etc., needs to increase their net worth! There is a time for war, and agreed again, that time came in 1991, a war that has (in effect), continued on for some 13 years to this point in time!!

If the reasons for continued engagement in 2003 were indeed valid, then why were these same reasons not just as valid in 1991? And don't tell me it was because of Middle Eastern concerns, U.N. pressure, or other vested factors!

This current war was inevitable and needed (opinion) from the very minute that we pulled out the first time! I will not, however, ever believe that at least part of the reason for re-engagement, at the time that it was undertaken, was not purely political and financial in nature!!

And again, one can not be a Domestic Conservative, and a Foreign Liberal, all at the same time! Not in my opinion anyway!?

:r:

VERITAS

GRIZ
 

NO............I am NOT comparing Bush to Hirohito. But, YOU TELL ME..............is "pre-emptive warfare" not the same "reasoning" behind BOTH of these???

We the U.S.A. had completely stopped selling of "scrap metal" and/or steel & iron to Japan along with convincing other countries to do the same. And, also had begun to deny Japan their ability to have "free trade" with other nations.....Not to mention supplieing China with arms, military supplies & pilots to attack Japanese forces??? They (the Japanese) wanted to eliminate OUR "weapons of mass destruction".......our Battleships & our Aircraft Carriers so they could continue their "expansion" and protect "their people", right??

Look.............I'm NOT saying this justified the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or ANY OTHER attack they made to start WW II. BUT, THEY SURE AS HELL THOUGHT WE WERE A "THREAT" to THEM........and IT APPEARS that GEE-W and HIS BUNCH have used that same "justification" to take us to war, HUH??? Sooooo, what makes US any different??

I DON'T think the Japanese were "justified".........and I sure as hell don't think WE WERE EITHER!!

Hey Doc,
 

Here's another QUOTE for you....and I quote YOU,"The sources that you are fond of quoteing keep stateing as fact that we went to war because of WMDs and some al-quaida connection yet they offer no supporting evidence-much less proof- that this is true. Frankly, if you're looking for a pure lie this would probably be a good place to look."...............end quote.

I did already.............these "sources" supporting "evidence" ARE the stated "reasons" that GEE-W and members of HIS administration used as convincing the American public AND congress to "go to WAR"!!! Didn't you read it in the previous post?

If not I'll give it to you ONE MORE TIME.


THESE WERE THE "REASONs " that GEE-W attacked Irag............


"This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." -- President Bush, Oct. 14, 2002

"Yes, there is a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 26, 2002

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002

THEY said this.....AND these were the "supporting evidence" that the "sources" I quoted used in making their determinations!

Jeeeee-Usssssssss are you having a hard time "comprehending" what is put before you??

As I've stated in the past, Americans supported the war in Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator--we had known that for many years--but because President Bush had made the case that Saddam might hand off weapons of mass destruction to his terrorist allies to wreak havoc on the United States.As of this date, there appears to be no evidence to support that claim?
__________________


Have a nice day......... :D

Gimpy -

There is not a time when I would not hope you to be by my side in a foxhole... especially if Scout were our Scout.

So... you are aiming at the wrong enemy.

Stop it.

Gimspter -

Okay...
What would YOU do, if you were "in the seat"?

(Better be a really really perfect idea, "bro"!)

Let's see
 

Here we are , veering way off course again, but for the sake of adding a bit of clarity and comparison, kindly let me post this: So we were a threat to the Japanese? What did we do to hamper their invasion of Manchuria and China. How did we get in their way during the "rape of Nanking", one of the most heinous war crimes ever? Oh yeah, we really threatened them by smashing our collective faces against their collective fists at Pearl Harbor, Manila Bay, Wake Island etc. etc. Your lame attempts to make a valid comparison between a sneak attack by the Japanese and our Phase III of the Counter-Terrorism War, are simply that - lame. But nobody's surprised, given the DNC-sponsored websites continuing to compare the President with Hitler.

Gosh, I really wish I'd kept all those quotes by Bill Clinton, Madeline Allbright, Ted Kennedy etc. etc., and how they pontificated about the WMD that they knew SH had. With all your research skills, Mr. Gimpy, I'll bet you could find them in about 15 seconds. I'll wager further that you won't raise a finger to post them, even if you do find them!

What do you suppose SH did with all the WMD? From the UN's figures, he had tons of this stuff, their inspectors didn't find it, so what do think happened to it? Do you think it just disappeared into space?

And what do you think of Mr. O'Neill now, with all his backing-and-filling, retractions, and attempts to call "king's ex"?

Gimpy
 

Japan,to answer your query,was deeply entrenched in Empire Building.America is not.
Why,oh why do you keep beating that old 'pre-emptive' drum,when you have to know that this is a continuation of hostilities that began in 1991? After 14 UN resolutions,Saddam thumbed his nose at the free world.So..tell me,my friend:what do you believe we should have done?Should we have rested on our laurels and tried to pass an olive branch to the hedonistic murderer?Perhaps more resolutions coming from an ever-increasing inept and impotent United Nations? Or mabe just sit and wait like we were doing in 1941 and 2001?Give me some viable alternatives,will ya..in the stead of the continual attack on our president.Lay out your plan for peace.

Aarrgg!!!
 

So given all this debate I presume that the Clinton Administration had no plans or plans in the making to take down Saddam and the previous Bush I Administration didn?t either. And I suppose when pigs have wings they will beat the flies to the garbage.

Further I would consider it total dereliction of duty and gross incompetence and negligence for any Administration to not have a plan or plans to deal with real or perceived enemies. Maybe I?m mistaken but I reckoned that that five-sided weird place earned their daily manna by working up plans and scenarios just especially for people like Saddam. Or maybe that is just a fancy chess and checkers club plus an elite theory/hypothesis debate society.

Kind of like a back to the future deal where at the onset of WWII the USN reckoned the Japanese of the IJN had such poor eyesight that they couldn?t possibly fight a night sea battle. Given that presumption, USN night gunnery practice was given no priority. That is until the USN got its ass kicked at night in what has become known as the battle of ?Iron bottom Sound?. Tis USN iron on the bottom of that sound, a big bunch of it. So that is what no planning or preparation yields and I certainly hope we got some lessons learned out of all that. But maybe not and maybe it is not PC to think, study, prepare and plan. Gawd forbid we not be PC, yikes and heavens to perdition.

Scamp

Gosh Gimp,you read part of one of my replies!I'm flattered!

Yes Gimp, I did indeed read and comprehend the quotes you list each and every one of the several times you have put them on here.I've never said that they weren't made or that WMD's,or a posible al-quaida connection, were not given as some of the many reasons we were continueing our war with Iraq.

You-and the sources you quote-have stated repeatedly that "The Reason" we went to war with Iraq was WMA's and posible al-quaida connections;that this was a lie,and that the public would and their elected representatives would never have supported the war except that they were lied to.All of this is simply-and obviously- untrue and(except as noted above)neither you nor the sources you quote have provided any evidence to support this position.I have shown why this is an untenable position in previous replies but-since you have choosen to ignore much of what I've had to say-lets look at this one more time by the numbers:

"We went to war because we were lied to".
Untrue because:
1.We were at war with Iraq long before President Bush was even elected,much less before he told any posible lies.
2.War on terrorism was declared with tremendous support from both the people and their elected reprisenatives well before any flap concerning WMDs and al-quaida came up.
3.It has been obvious that Iraq(ruled by a terrorist)was a prime target in the war on terrorism from the start and that we were positioning ourselves for invasion unless he was willing to step down(fat chance!).This was also prior to the flap over WMDs etc.
4.It has not been proven that President Bush lied about anything.
If folks claim that he lied it is up to them to prove it.They haven't.

"The American people would not have supported the war against Iraq if there had been no allegations of WMA's or ties with al-quaida."Really?I don't believe that this is true and neither you nor the sources you quote have presented evidence to support this idea.Given the fact that there were many other very good reasons for our latest round of conflict with Iraq I believe that the American people would supported the war in any case.Show me where I'm wrong if you can.If you can't you ought to stop stateing this as a fact.