France Unwraps the Nuclear Threat

[BattleCookiee]

Let's see: Link

 

Mr Bush linked international terrorism with states that were developing weapons of mass destruction.

 

He did not identify any such states, but the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the president is preparing the way for action against Iraq.

 

First he has to repair a gap in the American argument, that no evidence has been found connecting Iraq to the 11 September attacks.

 

The American case for action is that no evidence is needed, the threat is sufficient.

 

Wow, a gap in the AMERICAN ARGUMENT... But ofcourse, according to Mothie, there was no argument from the US to claim this is the first place... explain that while I try to seek some more

 

EDIT: Let's see; more on the 9/11-Iraq linking, And more

 

And yet more

 

Oh and more; quote from here;

 

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

 

Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

 

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

 

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

 

These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

 

And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

 

Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

 

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

 

When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.  And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction.

 

Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[~Di]

The difference is that the United States wasn't attacked or threatened by a sovereign nation like Chirac is warning against (Iran), it was attacked by a terrorist organization being fostered by a government that came to power by force, and financed by militant extremists all over the world. 

 

I agree that Chirac is probably talking directly to Iran without mentioning it by name... interesting, considering that France is supposedly spearheading diplomacy with Iran as we speak. However, according to the article: "President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism."

 

Now that sounds to me like he's willing to use nukes against a country that supports terrorists that attack French interests. How is that different from a country (Afghanistan) that supports terrorists (Al Qaeda) the attack American intersts (WTC, Pentagon, Embassies, etc., etc.)? And yet nobody on the planet would have supported an American nuclear attack on Afghanistan... and rightly so.

 

A nuclear weapon wouldn't have solved anything in terms of vengeance for the terrorist attacks on the United States.  There's no reason to punish innocent civilians for the sins of only a few people...

 

But we can say that of any country and any situation. Heck, there are emotionally charged arguments all the time going back to WW2, and the bombing of Dresdan, the use of nuclear bombs on Japan, etc. The populace of those countries were obviously punished for the sins of a few. War does that, unfortunately.

 

  Many people around the world, however, were not convinced that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

 

True, and I'm one of them. Afghanistan remains half-done, bin Laden is still alive, and we have mired ourselves into that country with less force than we need to do the job because of the Iraq invasion, which I personally feel was utterly unwarranted and illegal, dispite my dislike of Saddam himself.

 

They would rather that the world continued as it had with Hussein in power, for the only objections otherwise are that the United States is stealing Iraqi oil, which is not true,

 

Agreed, obviously not true since we haven't taken a drop of their oil and our own oil prices have skyrocketed. I personally think it was pure hatred because Saddam tried to assassinate his daddy, but that's just speculation on my part, of course. However, anyone listening to Bush's 2000 campaign speeches knew or should have known that if elected he planned to finish what his daddy started. 9/11 just gave much of the country the will to let him do it.

 

or that the United States is creating a puppet government in the middle east, which is also not true.

 

I suspect the interim government met with USA approval. However, the last election showed that the USA has little influence over the populace's politics, since the party voted in was the one the USA least wanted to see there. Like Bush couldn't have done the population numbers and seen the handwriting on the wall BEFORE he rushed in. Oh, well.

 

Anyway, I've enjoyed reading your posts and your comments. You make some excellent points.

[kirottu]

@Battlewookie, I think you should start your very own thread where you could bash US/Bush all you want, because frankly it

[~Di]

How about instead you actually try to prove he did say it?  Which I guaruntee you won't be able to. 

 

Untill I find a better quote from Bush here's Rumsfeld claiming it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see any place in that article where Rumsfield claims that Iraq was connected to 9/11, only that Iraq was connected to terrorist activities.

 

 

Let's see: Link

 

Mr Bush linked international terrorism with states that were developing weapons of mass destruction.

 

He did not identify any such states, but the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the president is preparing the way for action against Iraq.

 

First he has to repair a gap in the American argument, that no evidence has been found connecting Iraq to the 11 September attacks.

 

The American case for action is that no evidence is needed, the threat is sufficient.

 

Wow, a gap in the AMERICAN ARGUMENT... But ofcourse, according to Mothie, there was no argument from the US to claim this is the first place... explain that while I try to seek some more

 

EDIT: Let's see; more on the 9/11-Iraq linking

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you're going to gloat over a quote, you might at least make sure that a representative of the US government has actually said it rather than some silly reporter for the BBC. Contrary to popular opinion, speculation from a BBC correspondent does not dictate American foreign policy. I suggest you reread the article in it's entirety.

 

Edit: *sigh* Neither of the other links you put in give any indication that the USA has linked Iraq to 9/11. One BBC article merely quotes an Israeli as saying that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11; the other was a BBC article right after 9/11 with Iraq denying they took part in it.

 

Not a single statement by an American government official trying to link Iraq to 9/11.

 

Edit: Imagine this... someone posts the picture of a poodle, a Great Dane, a German Shepherd and a ****er Spaniel. He then points to these pictures as proof that cats exist. Would you go... huh?

 

Battlewookie, you can add links until the cows come home, but until you find one that actually quotes Bush as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks, all you are doing is saying that pictures of dogs proves the existance of cats, and it is simply not true.

 

This is true silliness, Battlewookie. You and I both know that Bush used fear from 9/11 to gain support for his invasion of Iraq; we both know that he used the words "terrorists" as interchangeable with Al Qaeda, in spinning political double-talk. The facts are damning enough; try to stick with provable facts instead of using dogs=cats type arguments. There is plenty to legitimately attack about Bush, his motives and his behaviors, but when you make stuff up, post opinion as fact, and blatantly refuse to correct your own mistatements when they have repeatedly been proven false then you lose credibility.

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[BattleCookiee]

1. If you need to fix a "gap in the american argument because it was resolved around Iraq being a Terrorist-hideout" there has to be a statement made and falsified. Sure, it might be BBC-reporter opininion, but that quote was interesting enough, and as written just a little "place-holder" for when I find some real quotes (as I edited in now)

 

2. Sure, you go into claiming you didn't do anything when you are not blamed. Hell, do you visit every crime scene and yell "I didn't do it?"???

Cause-Response kind of thingie...

 

EDIT; and just so you know... Bush won't make statements like that of Chirac now, since he already did so in 2002... and then not only with Nuclear weapons

Attack us and be nuked...

 

Not one of them quoted an American official as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks.  Not.  One.

 

Wish this was true. But Bush (lowest quote) is certainly a American official...

Edited January 22, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[~Di]

1. If you need to fix a "gap in the american argument because it was resolved around Iraq being a Terrorist-hideout" there has to be a statement made and falsified. Sure, it might be BBC-reporter opininion, but that quote was interesting enough, and as written just a little "place-holder" for when I find some real quotes (as I edited in now)

 

Not one of them quoted an American official as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks. Not. One.

 

2. Sure, you go into claiming you didn't do anything when you are not blamed. Hell, do you visit every crime scene and yell "I didn't do it?"???

Cause-Response kind of thingie...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have absolutely no idea what this means. It makes no sense at all.

 

Anyway, I give up. Clearly you will continue to post pictures of dogs insisting they prove the existance of cats. There is no reasoning with that kind of... logic.

[~Di]

Not one of them quoted an American official as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks.  Not.  One.

 

Wish this was true. But Bush (lowest quote) is certainly a American official...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Post the quote where Bush himself states that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and directly link it to the source. I'm not going to paw through that pile of disjointed stuff for a third time trying to find the elusive "proof" you insist is buried therein.

 

EDIT; and just so you know... Bush won't make statements like that of Chirac now, since he already did so in 2002... and then not only with Nuclear weapons

Attack us and be nuked...

 

As usual, Bush is not attributed as saying any such thing in the article you've linked to. This is an indepth article about the Bush Administration's development of a Doctrine of Preemptive Strike. Nothing said about nuclear except that it would continue to be a "weapon of last resort." The article opines that this preemptive doctrine was preparing the American people for a preemptive strike into Iraq... which indeed it was. No nukes were either used or threatened.

 

For the love of God, will you please stop asserting these links say stuff that they do not say.

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[Gorgon]

I don't think he actually said that but there was the report that Al Kaida associates had met with members of Sadam's regime prior to the attacks. The rest was left to people's imagination, and given the climate it didn't take much for people to associate one with the other without any evidence.

 

Bush rode that uncooperated association masterfully.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Gorgon

[BattleCookiee]

Post the quote where Bush himself states that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and directly link it to the source.  I'm not going to paw through that pile of disjointed stuff for a third time trying to find the elusive "proof" you insist is buried therein.

Not one of them quoted an American official as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks.  Not.  One.

Battlewookie, you can add links until the cows come home, but until you find one that actually quotes Bush as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks, all you are doing is saying that pictures of dogs proves the existance of cats, and it is simply not true.

 

Since we all know scrolling to the top of the page is difficult;

 

Oh and more; quote from here;

 

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

 

Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

 

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

 

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

 

These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

 

And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

 

Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

 

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

 

When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.  And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction.

 

Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You and I both know that Bush used fear from 9/11 to gain support for his invasion of Iraq; we both know that he used the words "terrorists" as interchangeable with Al Qaeda, in spinning political double-talk.

 

So why do you try so hard to crack down any possible proof I give to support this, and you *can* just say it without any backup and we should believe it, nor anybody gives sarcastic comments about stating things without facts, eh? If I would say the EXACT same wouldn't you expect people, including yourself, to drop over me and my US-Bashing, and claiming for "proof"?

 

The facts are damning enough

 

Show them!

 

There is plenty to legitimately attack about Bush, his motives and his behaviors, but when you make stuff up

POST LINKS

post opinion as fact

LINK PLZ

and blatantly refuse to correct your own mistatements when they have repeatedly been proven false then you lose credibility

Meh, I only see other people who blame me for "US-Bashing" and claiming I do not prove stuff with some other beliefs which are, once again, unsupported by proof. Yah, then I am going to listen... NOT. But feel free to link it up when you find it, including the proven "Falseness"

 

I have absolutely no idea what this means.  It makes no sense at all.

 

It means that you only start with the "I didn't do anything" after you have become a suspect. Yelling "I didn't do anything" before becoming a suspect only makes you suspicious; very suspicious..., and thus people just don't do it. But denying when you are seen as a suspect would be very normal behavior...

 

As usual, Bush is not attributed as saying any such thing in the article you've linked to.  This is an indepth article about the Bush Administration's development of a Doctrine of Preemptive Strike.  Nothing said about nuclear except that it would continue to be a "weapon of last resort."  The article opines that this preemptive doctrine was preparing the American people for a preemptive strike into Iraq... which indeed it was.  No nukes were either used or threatened.

 

Boy... The given article didn't include:

 

The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

 

In the very first column??? Talk about blaming other people for posting BS when they haven't even read the stuff pointed to...

Sorry, but there was indeed in the article what I claimed there was in... I can read.

[Dark Moth]

Wow...and nowhere in your rambling post do you actually post any proof that Bush said in his case for the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. You give practically everything else but that. And some of the articles you posted came from RIGHT AFTER 9/11, when Iraq was a suspect on the list. But everyone accepted that it was bin Laden who was responsible. And actually, some of what you posted supports the U.S. stance even more, because what you quoted tells how Iraq had indeed supported terrorism and terrorist networks, like al-Qaida. In other words: more evidence supporting G.W.'s reasons for worrying about Saddam's regime. But hey, why worry about facts when fantasy supports your beliefs, right, BW?

 

Boy... The given article didn't include:

 

The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

 

In the very first column??? Talk about blaming other people for posting BS when they haven't even read the stuff pointed to...

Sorry, but there was indeed in the article what I claimed there was in... I can read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are you trying to prove in that post? That Bush was hinting at nuclear strikes against countries? Because that quote doesn't say that anywhere. You're misinterpreting it. It means that he'd strike out at countries that possess chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It's absurd to think he was talking about the U.S. using those weapons anyway, since we abandoned using chemical and biological weapons a long time ago. I suggest you learn to read these articles more carefully.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Mothman

[~Di]

Okay, I've figured out the problem. We simply do not speak the same language. I read text in English, and accept that it means what it says. You read text in English, and presume that it means what you want it to mean.

 

"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

 

Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

 

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

 

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

 

These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

 

And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

 

Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

 

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

 

When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.  And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction.

 

Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

 

Not once in that length quote does any USA official state that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Not. Once. Stating that Iraq was gleeful about 9/11, that Iraq cannot be trusted and harbors terrorists in no way can be distorted into a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

 

"The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

 

In the very first column??? Talk about blaming other people for posting BS when they haven't even read the stuff pointed to...

Sorry, but there was indeed in the article what I claimed there was in... I can read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can read, but you cannot understand what you read. The quote you so gleefully gloat over says nothing about the USA using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack; it says that it supports a policy of preemptive attack against terrorists and hostile states which possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

 

If you are going to be sarcastic and insulting, at least manage to be correct.

 

That's it for me on this thread, since it has been effectively derailed from the original topic.

Edited January 23, 2006 by ~Di

[Fionavar]

And on that note ... I think we have arrived at AotS retirement time ...