Spain pulls out of Iraq

[pedalinbob]

"Look, lest we forget, we invaded Iraq on the basis of an immanent threat to the USA from Iraqi WMD in the hands of Hussein."

please show me where Bush stated Iraq was an "imminent threat". i hate to beat a dead horse, but, this false statement keeps coming up.

Bob

 

[nullandvoid]

So, in response to metalhed, I'd ask if all of the UN resolutions weren't an attempt at non-violent resolution I'm not sure what is.
By the same reasoning since it's not a country that attacked us we are supposed to sit back and do nothing because we can't take action against a country that hasn't attacked us. If a person's dog attacks you, you tend to hold the owner responsible if they are negligent. If a country doesn't keep watch and restrain their residents from commiting what would be acts of war if they were officially sanctioned actions then I say we hold them responsible for their negligence.
As far as WMD, it's a futile argument they had anywhere from a few months to a decade or more to move/hide or otherwise "remove" any WMD's, but you can't say they never existed because he used them on his own people, it's a documented fact.
As far as the flag is concerned, it was put up in support of the Spanish people in their time of loss, or at least that's my take on it. Taking it down is only appropriate if you no longer support the spanish people, and I'd say that's a decision that belongs to the administrator.

 

[BC0311]

There are quite a few countries that have suffered bombings by Al Qaeda linked terrorists in the last 2+ years. Their flags aren't posted. I think the Spanish flag has been up there for a sufficient time reminding us to mourn with them.

If half of those who voted in the last presidential election had their way, there would still be atleast 2 terrorist training camps running at full capacity in Iraq.

Good thing we still have the Electoral College, I debated against it when I was in High School in the early 60s. Of course I didn't know what the heck I was talking about, either. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif

Britt

 

[tygger]

In earlier posts I wasn't meaning to sound overly pessimistic. I do think everyone agrees that its a good thing Saddam is gone. But, it seems very evident that we didn't invade Iraq because he was a cruel dictator. That was added later to help with shoring up popular support in the adsence of WMD. If going after "bad people" was the point then N. Korea's Kim, or many African leaders for that matter, would have been taken out long ago. The point here is that wars are fought for resources and protecting those resources, not for a moral cause. If morality had anything to do with it we would be dealing with constant warfare. Now, just because I'm honest with myself about the true nature of why wars are fought doesn't mean I'm against it. Stability in the middle east can only be positive for the US and most western countries, thats for sure. So, my whole point here is that wars are not fought because its the right thing to do. A quick look at history will confirm this. Its all about maintaining a robust economy and a good standard of living for your citizens. Now there may be some in government and many citizens who wish to believe in a just cause to rationalize a war because it might make them feel better about supporting violence to maintain control of resources. I know its a bleak way to put it but war truly has more to do with economics than anything else. And you know what, I don't have a problem with that. Maybe someday in the future wars won't be necessary, but right now force is the only thing most understand.
And by the way, thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion civil and respectful. This is the only forum where I feel free to post about politics, etc. because I know CPFers will constructively point out my flaws in reasoning which I'm always open to.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
pedalinbob said:
"Look, lest we forget, we invaded Iraq on the basis of an immanent threat to the USA from Iraqi WMD in the hands of Hussein."

please show me where Bush stated Iraq was an "imminent threat". i hate to beat a dead horse, but, this false statement keeps coming up.


[/ QUOTE ]
Bob - It wasn't said (at least not here) that Bush used the phrase "imminent threat." The phrase WAS used by one of his closest and very prominent advisors. It is not a false statment, in that the statement was, in fact, made. What it has to do with this thread is beyond me, so I won't get any more specific. Discovering that this statment was made wouldn't change anybody's mind about anything, would it?Let's face it - the exact words used are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Interestingly, even the guy who said it publicly didn't recall saying it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif One thing's for sure - the media sure likes to glom onto a catch-phrase! That doesn't mean we have to stoop to the same level of picking apart exact wording or phrases.

May I respectfully request that we stop the mud-slinging NOW? Spain's actions can actually be discussed without us pointing fingers at past and current US administrations.

 

[pedalinbob]

you are correct, Darell.

i was making a point that the war was to PREVENT an imminent threat.

after 9-11, it became very dangerous to sit around and wait for a perceived threat to becomme imminent.

Bob

 

[Darell]

Thanks Bob!

[ QUOTE ]
after 9-11, it became very dangerous to sit around and wait for a perceived threat to becomme imminent.

[/ QUOTE ]More like "too late" than "dangerous to wait" but I get the point.

 

[raggie33]

this thread mayget me baned soill just put my hands over my ears and say lallalaala

 

[BC0311]

Raggie... LOL! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif

I'm joining you....Lalalalaleelaleelaa.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif Hey, it works.

 

[Muppet]

bob,

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

I quote:

But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

quote ends.

But that's not the point. The point is, we went there to safeguard American from Iraqi WMDs, and they don't have any WMD capacity at this time. It was either non-existent, or moved out of Iraq. Time to come home.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

At least a couple have mentioned that a majority of the Spanish were opposed to the war in Iraq and at the risk of sounding heretical, I don't think that is very important to the issue of whether or not their troops should be there.

IMO, a good government is one which is designed in such a way that the people are represented by leaders who would hopefully have a better chance of making the tough, thoughtful decisions that the populace at large might be too emotional or uninformed to make. I think it is a real shame when politicians make decisions based only on opinion polls -- they are not leaders, they are followers, and are far more likely to succumb to the fickle whims of the voters, which is exactly what they're not elected to do.

To further emphasize this point, consider the fact that the word democracy does not appear anywhere in either the US Declaration of Independance or in their Constitution -- and yet it seems to be all that anyone ever talks about. For a long time after the founding of the States members of the Senate were not elected by the voters at all, but by duly elected state politicians. In the earliest years of the US Senate no written record of the procedings was kept. These systems were designed to provide an atmosphere where truly difficult decisions could be made somewhat removed from the cauldron of public opinion. The Congress was often described as a steaming hot cup of coffee and the Senate was a saucer where it could be cooled down a bit. This type of system is not un-democratic -- it's thoughtful. The voters still choose the politicians they like the best (or hate the least) and they still have the choice of re-electing or dissmissing them in the next election.

People should have control over their governments but the idea that every decision should be democratized is a bad one.

A lynch mob is a good example of democracy gone bad. A lynch mob is rule by unanimous consent. It dosen't get any more democratic than that. The fact that everyone in a mob agrees does not necessarily improve the quality of it's decisions.

 

[dark star]

If Spain really objected to the lack of a UN mandate in Iraq they should just shift their troops to Afghanistan, which would free up the same number of our troops to go to Iraq.

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I think it is more of the thought of them leaving as opposed to the physical aspect.

I FEAR that now the Terrorists will try the same tactics here. We KNOW they'd rather have a Democrat in charge. I SHUDDER at that thought!

And to all who say it's an illegal war for oil. Why doesn't the price of gas go down? Why did Opec cut production? GET OUT of here with THAT arguement!

 

[Muppet]

"We know they'd rather have a democrat in charge?"

Are you kidding?

http://www.amenusa.org/wtc47.htm

Clear statement that they'd rather have Bush than Kerry because they believe he's an idiot. Yes, it's propoganda, but there you have it in black and white. Al Qaeda officially supports the presidency of George W. Bush.

Have you taken a look at Richard Clarke's reports on the Bush Cabinet downgrading terrorism from the high priority it had under the Clinton admnistration to basically ignoring it? Their refusal to hear George Tenet six months before 9/11 when he was running around telling people we were under immanent attack and needed to Do Something?

Now, I'm from the "pox on both their houses" school of party politics, but, bluntly, I don't trust Bush's government to fight effectively against terrorism.

He's far too close to the Saudis, heck even the bin Laden family, and has done them special favors like allowing a plane-full of them to exit the USA immeidately after 9/11 when nobody else was allowed to fly, before they could be questioned. The Saudis are still funding Al Qaeda, and we have put zero public pressure on them to follow the money and arrest those within Saudi Arabia who are funding terrorism.

Bush may not be soft on terror, but he's soft on his friends in Saudi Arabia, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. That's the source of terror, to all intents and purposes, and Bush has done nothing.

 

[chiaroscuro]

Spain,in fact,has recently talked about sending more personnal to Afghanistan. Not to assuage the Bush administration,but because they feel the real war on terrorism is there.
And in fact is doubling it's # of troops in Afghanistan by summer.

 

[Muppet]

At the risk of countersinking this:

http://www.google.com/search?q="bandar+bush"

Many links about "bandar bush", documenting the Saudi Ambassador's overly cosy relationship with the Bush family.

How many Saudis have been arrested, tried and punished for funding Al Qaeda? What has the US Goverment done to pressure Saudi Arabia into punishing the financial backers of terror?

Bush is too close to the Saudis, to entangled in business and friendship, to be an effective captain in our fight. We need a neutral party, and somebody who's been in business with the bin Ladens for 20 years is not neutral, they've got divided loyalties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm

Bush / bin Laden family business links go back to Bush's first million

If you want more information about this, try here:

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1

quote:
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
end quote:

Grag Palast is one of the United Kingdom's most respected journalists, having served with Newsnight, the BBC's premier hard news program.

This isn't just viscious rumor.

PS: If anybody finds this post unduly partisan or upsetting, please ignore it. I don't want to ruffle feathers, just discuss the issues.

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

Says it all!

What I really need is a shoot myself in the head graemlin!

 

[Greta]

Muppet... PLEASE fix your links!! They are really screwing up the page width!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif If you don't know how to properly post links, then click on "Posting Policies" in the top menu bar and scroll to #5.

All... It would be in your best interests to re-read... and HEED... Darell's posts.

 

[Muppet]

Hey, I've edited the links like three times, using the syntax, and they still come out br...I could make it. Sorry for the inconvenience!

 

[Icebreak]

Muppet

I'm just guessing here but your first link in you last post was to a Google search. I believe you have to go to the site itself and copy the live URL. IOW, it looks like you are coming off the Google address line, not the site's address line.

Your first link I'm not sure what you wanted.

Your second one is also using some kind of search. What I think you wanted was:

Palast Said on BBC's site.

This is the big page stretcher I think.

The third one I believe you wanted something like:

Palast's site with more

I'll leave these up while you fix yours. Please try again. Hope this helped.

- Jeff