OK, Threshold Level?

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:42 pm

Bret Callentine wrote:
You may not think that military force was called for, but that's quite different from trying to make the argument that there was no reason for it in the first place.

I do believe there was no reason to invade Iraq. That belief will never change in my mind or soul.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:46 pm

This country and it's people have turned selfish, arrogant, blind and numb thanks to leaders that display all of those traits and more.

http://www.usaid.gov/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00941.html

President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/tsunami/

This was the beginning. By January 12, the day following a conference of donors in Geneva, Switzerland, about $88 million -- out of the $350 million in relief funds for the region pledged by the U.S. government --

As of January 12, more than 15,000 U.S. military personnel were involved in providing relief support in the affected region. Twenty-five ships and 94 aircraft were participating in the effort. The U.S. military had delivered about 2.2 million pounds of relief supplies to affected nations, including 16,000 gallons of water, 113,000 pounds of food, and 140,500 pounds of relief supplies in the previous 24 hours alone. On February 9, President Bush asked Congress to increase the U.S. commitment to a total of $950 million.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/tsunami/

President Bush on February 9, 2005, announced that he is seeking $950 million as part of the supplemental request to support the rehabilitation and reconstruction of areas devastated by the Indian Ocean Tsunami and to cover the costs of the U.S. governmentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s relief efforts to date. This amount, which is part of the supplemental appropriations request, is an expansion of his initial commitment of $350 million and is based on the information available and the assessments to date.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 322-1.html

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:49 pm

UN Resolution 1441 was violated by Saddam Hussein...

edited

He also violated UNSCR,678,686,687,688,707,715,949,1051,1060,1115,1134,1137,1154,1194,1205,and 1284.

Real funny.

ALL of these violations were between 1991 (when we invaded Iraq the first time) and 1998. What does that have to do with 9/11/2001, the safety of the US and terrorism?

Violations 707 and beyond were because they failed to cooperate with inspectors from the UN and IAEA (international atomic energy agency). They were all the same violation, and in some cases these violations occurred because of previous violations.

Like Violation 707 which condemns Iraq for the Violation of 687. So these numbers seem like a long list of violations but in reality there aren't as many as violations as there are numbers.

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:53 pm

Stephen,
I do think the aid to Africa was a positive and glad he continued to do what Clinton started!!!! Does any of the money "he" is giving come from his pocket? Just wondering because the money from the oil that would come from his buddy making an oil deal, would go directly into his pocket. hm

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:02 pm

Stephen,

you can throw as many quotes from the white house as you want, but 350 George Washington's by 2010 (when Dubya is out of office) will only make a dent in the 860 million people that don't have enough food in a day.

Sure we can spend $40 billion that we don't have thanks to Bush's deficit on bombing Iraq and wasting our time and lives there.

$350 million in 5 years might sound like a lot, but a F-22 fighter jet, which the US has 183 of, costs $361 million a piece.

And the production of those was just approved to be extended past 2011.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:10 pm

WMD's aren't important? Victory in Iraq? wait what? According to President Bush and Cheney, WMD's are the reason we invaded to begin with. And a victory in Iraq? PLEASE. A victory in WWII meant that troops were home in the same year (1945). Victory means pack your crap and go home because there is nothing more to do, not stay for another 5 or more years.

News Flash!!!!!!! Over 60 years later, US Troops are still in Europe. The US went to war with Iraq because Iraq failed to live up to the terms of surrender from the first Golf War.

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:13 pm

Stephen,

I know they're in Europe. I had a nice conversation with a few Soldiers, one from texas, one from kentucky, one from pennsylvania and one from Indiana in one of Sarajevo's market shops a few years back.

I know they're in Europe. They're there because we need bases around the globe and because the food in local restaurants in Bosnia is much better than the cooking here.

Take my word for it, I've been across the US border a few times.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:22 pm

ALL of these violations were between 1991 (when we invaded Iraq the first time) and 1998. What does that have to do with 9/11/2001, the safety of the US and terrorism?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:32 pm

So who created this illusion of WMD's in Iraq?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Earlier today, I ordered AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack IraqÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
--Bill Clinton Dec, 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:34 pm

Violations 707 and beyond were because they failed to cooperate with inspectors from the UN and IAEA (international atomic energy agency). They were all the same violation, and in some cases these violations occurred because of previous violations.

Like Violation 707 which condemns Iraq for the Violation of 687. So these numbers seem like a long list of violations but in reality there aren't as many as violations as there are numbers.

You sound like President Bush..

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:35 pm

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:Stephen,

I know they're in Europe. I had a nice conversation with a few Soldiers, one from texas, one from kentucky, one from pennsylvania and one from Indiana in one of Sarajevo's market shops a few years back.

I know they're in Europe. They're there because we need bases around the globe and because the food in local restaurants in Bosnia is much better than the cooking here.

Take my word for it, I've been across the US border a few times.

We need bases around the globe... got ya!

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:40 pm

oh and stephen, you say that infractions on International Law give the Bush Adminstration a good enough reason to invade Iraq.

Haven't you realized yet that this war was and is a infraction of "International Law"? Sure I can't list you a whole list of infractions by the UN, that's because the US is the UN.

Keep buying all the lies and brain washing tactics. Just because the administration thinks this war is justified doesn't mean the whole world does.

The UN has continually said that it will not support or stand behind the US in Iraq.

The very man that lied to the US (colin powell) later admitted that he does not stand behind what he was told to say and that the administration lied to win the support of the public on the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to know what the UN thought about the invasion and war in Iraq, here you go:

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

So in the International Law, that makes this administration just as guilty as Saddams.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:40 pm

Stephen.

Then why aren't we doing more against the bigger infractions?

What other country has not honored their terms of surrender and ignored 15 UN Resolutuoins?

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:42 pm

How could they surrender if there were no WMD's and none were ever found?

What would they surrender? What would you want? Put yourself in the shoes of a Oil investor- how about their biggest export?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:43 pm

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:How could they surrender if there were no WMD's and none were ever found?

What would they surrender? What would you want? Put yourself in the shoes of a Oil investor- how about their biggest export?

They stopped UN weapon inspectors.