Page 41 of 66 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 657

Thread: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

  1. #401
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Who are these "crap holes", why are they not worth the effort and why are you qualified to make that decision?
    It's my opinion.

    A few would be Somalia, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Syria, and Pakistan.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  2. #402
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by majora$$hole View Post
    i'll believe it when i see it.
    Why this nation tolerates an energy policy that relies on foreign oil is something I will never understand.

    Until there is a practical alternative to oil, and there will be someday, the US must develop its own oil resources.

    It's in our national security interest to do so. We should have agressively done this after the last oil market swing.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  3. #403
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    It's really funny to watch lefties explain away a report they only learned about yesterday.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  4. #404
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Mmmmhmmmm, And all that said that Saddam could hit the US and intended to do so? Or did it say he'd maybe work sometimes with terrorist organizations to achieve his goals so long as he remained in charge? I think maybe something of that nature. Saddam didn't allow large scale operation of terrorist organizations in Iraq (it's not Saudi Arabia), he had some and he tried to irk people by offering money to families of suicide bombers; but he was absolute rule in Iraq, not Al-Queda.

    Again, nothing you have presented has deminstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself. In the end, we probably shouldn't have worked for regeim change in Iraq in the first place which helped promote the Ba'athist party to power from which Saddam rose up. Again, our interventionist policies (like those being championed by some for Libya) ultimately started the problem. We need to stop. It's not our job, our government is not empowered with this ability, it's a waste of our money, and more importantly it isn't worth the cost of American blood. Other people must fight for their governments and choose which types of governments they want to create.
    Actually, Iraq was a very clear threat. Political posturing has hidden a lot of facts.

    Coupla facts...

    Saddam Hussein had previously possessed and used chemical and biological weapons.

    He kicked out inspectors and refused to allow the UN to complete their inspections and verify that his NBC program and materials had been destroyed.

    British and Russian intelligence services, in addition to American all stated that without a doubt, he possessed chemical, biological and nuclear materials in violation of 17 separate UN declarations.

    Fact: Saddam was a large supporter of international terrorism. He funded terrorist activities in the Palestinian territories and paid (I think the number was $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber).

    He tried to hire the assassination of President Bush's father, the former President.

    After 9/11, I believe that President Bush correctly concluded that based upon his past programs, his refusal to verify that his NBC program had been dismantled and the danger those materials would present in the hands of terrorists, Iraq was an imminent threat and needed to be made safe.

    While no large stocks have been found, it was a fact that large numbers of Iraqi troops were issued gas masks and NBC protective gear, traces of chemical weapons were found, rockets with a range that exceeded the UN allowed limits were launched against Kuwait, and convoys of trucks were observed traveling from known weapons storage facilities to Syria.

    So, wtf Saddam is dead and thats the end of it

  5. #405
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Actually, Iraq was a very clear threat. Political posturing has hidden a lot of facts.
    It is well accepted that the Iraq war was a preventive war - meaning that it was started in order to prevent an imminent threat from arising in the absence of an imminent threat. This is a huge reason why it is criticized. As Ikari stated, "nothing you have presented has demonstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself." Iraq was a preventive war meant to prevent an imminent/immediate threat from developing - this is illegal in international law although Bush pretty much called that law ridiculous.

    Preemptive war is declared when an imminent threat is present. Although Saddam Hussein had a history of negative behavior and was a generally violent person - he was not an imminent threat. If he had been an imminent threat we would have seen him preparing for war, which he was not. Bush did not even argue that he was preparing for war - he argued that he had weapons that could be used in the future for war (i.e. that he could become an imminent threat in the future).

  6. #406
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    It is well accepted that the Iraq war was a preventive war - meaning that it was started in order to prevent an imminent threat from arising in the absence of an imminent threat. This is a huge reason why it is criticized. As Ikari stated, "nothing you have presented has demonstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself." Iraq was a preventive war meant to prevent an imminent/immediate threat from developing - this is illegal in international law although Bush pretty much called that law ridiculous.

    Preemptive war is declared when an imminent threat is present. Although Saddam Hussein had a history of negative behavior and was a generally violent person - he was not an imminent threat. If he had been an imminent threat we would have seen him preparing for war, which he was not. Bush did not even argue that he was preparing for war - he argued that he had weapons that could be used in the future for war (i.e. that he could become an imminent threat in the future).
    "Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.

    Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with "imminent threat" as the President of the day already had approval and, technically, the US was still at war with Iraq from the previous Gulf War. Peace had never been declared and Saddam had to follow some strict provisions, which we should know he ignored.

    This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.

  7. #407
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Iraq is coming back to mind ....

    Is US next going to pull out the classic WMD's story?
    They'll probably switch it up and say there is Islamists there.
    Last edited by Laila; 04-11-11 at 03:23 AM.


  8. #408
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.
    Because lefties really believe Saddam was being a good boy and was "contained".

    The ISG report proves Saddam had not given up his desire to develop WMD and missiles.

    The IPP report proves Saddam used terror as state policy and had ties to international terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

    There are people who simply cannot admit they were wrong about Iraq and Bush was right.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  9. #409
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    "Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.

    Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with "imminent threat" as the President of the day already had approval and, technically, the US was still at war with Iraq from the previous Gulf War. Peace had never been declared and Saddam had to follow some strict provisions, which we should know he ignored.

    This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.
    Contrary to what you believe, the phrase "imminent threat" is used outside of the United States - your information about Congress has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

    If understood the difference between preventive and preemptive war, the reason why the Iraq was was preventive and the reason why preventive war is illegal under international law and Bush was criticized for starting one - then you would understand why "imminent threat" is being talked about. You obviously aren't familiar with either.

    The presence of an imminent threat is the condition for preemptive war, a legal and generally accepted war. The absence of an imminent threat is the condition for a preventive war, an illegal and controversial war. The Iraq War was a preventive war because Iraq did not pose an imminent threat.

  10. #410
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Because lefties really believe Saddam was being a good boy and was "contained".

    The ISG report proves Saddam had not given up his desire to develop WMD and missiles.

    The IPP report proves Saddam used terror as state policy and had ties to international terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

    There are people who simply cannot admit they were wrong about Iraq and Bush was right.
    1. That is ridiculous that you believe we actually think Bush was right - I do NOT support preventive war under any conditions.
    2. The Iraq was preventive as opposed to preemptive - it was therefore illegal under international law and therefore reasonably opposed by many people.

Page 41 of 66 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •