A year after terrorists struck American soil, the Bush II Administration is using this attack as part of it's reasoning for a new Iraq Attack. However, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Iraq has helped Al Qaida out. Speaking to the UN, President Bush tried to address concerns of an Iraq Attack and the justifications to have one. You can read the whole speech
here. What follows are my problems with his address. (I refer to the United States Government as the USG.)
Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world.
Can I ask just what Saddam was supposed to do to threaten this so-called world peace and stability? (I didn't realize we had it!)
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities - which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."
Oh, I see, so he's trying to build on a mis-statement of the UN in the first place. I wonder who originally decided at the UN Iraq's oppression of minorities somehow equated a threat to world peace...
Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents - all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
Hm, this sounds a little like the USG's ally Saudi Arabia. Not a perfect comparison, granted, but close enough to wonder how the USG can point the finger at one without pointing it at it's own friend. Hell, that also sounds a bit like the US! (I said a BIT.)
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for - more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.
Nice try - ONE person constitutes a violation? Come on, man! Give them a break. You try being a government and keeping track of ONE person. Hell, the USG couldn't keep track of FOUR PLANES on 911 and you get mad because the Iraqi's miss ONE GUY? (Don't get me wrong, they should release that one guy immediately, but this should not be considered a full violation.)
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.
Uh, ya want proof with that? Jeez, I've heard better arguments on Limbaugh's show. Last I heard, the terrorists were hanging out in the northern territories where I thought Saddam didn't have a whole lot of control over. Just my understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong.
U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons.
So, isn't this saying that Iraq *doesn't* have chemical weapons? "Could be used to produce" suggests they haven't produced them yet.
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
Again, how about some proofy-woofy with my Big Mac?
United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
WHICH UN inspectors? Because I know of at least one (COUGHscottritterCOUGH) that thinks nothing even close to this.
And in 1995 - after four years of deception
Pick your reaction:
1)Oh THAT'S rich.
2)Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
3)Well, if anyone knows anything about deception, it certainly would be Mr. Bush!
Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
Uh-huh, that's nice. Um, Georgie? Why don't you go back to your room until you have some
actual evidence that Iraq needs to be invaded, m'kay? You can watch a little TV if you want, but please try and finish your homework before taking up the UN's time... in other words, what the hell does this have to do with Saddam having nukes NOW? It only speaks to the likelihood that he has nukes now, but this is hardly proof. That's like assuming every guy who gets out of jail WILL commit a crime again. Sure, it's possible, even likely, but do we arrest these guys again, just in case?
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program
How's that for an ironic typo?
Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
Why doesn't Bush just say "I saw on TV that Saddam was meeting with really mean guys and that's not fair, since he said he wouldn't. And it's his own TV station, so you know they're telling the truth!" So, just because he's meeting with nuke scientists they've instantly got nukes...
Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food
Of course, Bushie-poo fails to mention that buying oil from Iraq is a LOT like supporting an enemy government. If Iraq were so bad, wouldn't we want to avoid Iraqi oil all together? (I know the answer, I'm just being rhetorical.)
{Saddam} blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country.
And this means that we should invade his country? I'm not sure I see how a leader being a dickweed to his citizens means we need to play schoolground protector. Besides, shouldn't we march into Saudi Arabia with the same attitude?
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely.
Again, this is not what Scott Ritter said.
As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq - four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.
Pick your criticism:
1) Isn't this an admission that we have no intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons capabilities? (i.e. we have no evidence that they have WOMD so we can't really invade.)
2)So much for US intelligence sources... I thought we could find out a lot about them by watching those who sell stuff to them...
Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger.
Can't the same be said about the USG?
To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence.
WHAT evidence? You mean that list of things you think suggest evidence, Bush?
To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble.
I know that life has been a pretty stable thing for you Bush - what with your daddy making so much happen for you, but LIFE is a gamble. By marching into Iraq, YOU are GUARANTEEING the deaths of American soldiers and the expenditure of a BUTTLOAD of American tax dollars. Thanks, I'd rather wait for real proof to emerge from intel sources before we do that.
The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one.
Wow - even Bush's speech writers are idiots. "we may be completely certain" when "he uses one"?? I think there would be pretty much no doubt at that point, Bright Eyes. The catch is, there are many things we can find out about Iraq and their weapons capabilities in the meantime. Just look at the folks over at Janes.com - do you think opposing governments just hand out information on their own forces? But Jane's has been publishing intel on America's enemies since the cold war (or before, I'm not honestly sure). So, you tell me how they can know all this stuff about enemy forces, yet we can't tell if Iraq has bought the parts needed for a nuke.
Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.
That may be, but are there no other alternatives?
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.
Sounds fair enough. Won't we need to send in weapons inspectors to make sure they're not lying? D'OH! Guess we can't invade then!
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
WHAT a crock!! The US supported terrorism in the past by calling it "resistance". PLEASE.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown.
All one of them!
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis - a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.
JUST LIKE SAUDI ARABIA... I mean.. no wait...
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people
But we'll kill them when we invade, just like we did in Afghanistan.
Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal.
Oh, sure! Yes, yes. Hm-hm... that's why we didn't kill Saddam ten years ago - because we wanted to liberate the Iraqi people... If anything, it's about the money the Iraqi people will spend on Coca-Cola and McDonalds once our corporations colonize Iraq.
Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder.
But it's okay when WE do it! :D
We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980,
!!! WITH OUR HELP YOU MORON! WE GAVE HIM THE MONEY/WEAPONS TO DO IT!!! IF IT WASN'T FOR THE USG, SADDAM WOULDN'T BE IN POWER RIGHT NOW!! (Shouldn't the world be more concerned that the USG keeps propping up seriously dangerous people as leaders of countries?)
and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.
Sure, and we knew about all this back when we were supporting Saddam's regime with American Tax Dollars. Has the USG suddenly grown a conscience? Or are the war profiteers that run the USG looking to put some really big presents under their Christmas trees this year?
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge.
Read: We've got a plan, you want to come along? Fine. But, uh, we're going to invade. Just an FYI...
The Security Council resolutions will be enforced
Even if the Security Council doesn't want them enforced.
the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable.
WITH WAR!! YEAAAH!! KILL 'EM ALL! ahem... I mean, uh...
And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Wait, so YOU'RE RESIGNING?? COOL!!
Events can turn in one of two ways.
Again, choose your reply:
1)My way or my way...
2)Ah... black or white, the ONLY two ways to look at the world!
If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission.
Isn't it cute how he continues to pretend to care about the Iraqi people? He doesn't care about the AMERICAN people! It's ADORABLE!!
And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
Yeah and Ben Kenobi was telling Luke the truth when he said Vader killed Luke's dad
from a certain point of view.
We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress.
And WAR is the correct choice?? Is pot free when you live in the White House?
We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind.
While eroding the rights of our own citizens...
Sigh... I wonder at this point why Bush is even caring what everyone thinks. In the end, he will have to invade anyway. If he doesn't, watch for his administration to slowly move away from Saddam as a real target, just like they did with Osama. Personally, I hope the latter happens. Invasion now would just mean that "W" will try to use the momentum to continue his world conquest and invade other countries as well. My guess is that if an Iraq Attack does happen, it'll be at one of three times: the end of September 2002, the end of November 2002 or January of 2003. I've read that the US Government has claimed all three dates to foreign powers, yet to the citizens of it's own country, the USG has made no such clear declarations...
Let's keep our fingers crossed...