50-Year Iraq Presence A ‘Realistic Assessment’

[sirs]

Frankly, Sirs, your argument in this thread makes no sense. Bush argued that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. And you can jabber about context all you like, but the context makes quite clear that Bush was arguing Saddam Hussein himself was a threat to the U.S......................

.....................(now, let's complete the context to make that statement accurate), since the potential of his offloading WMD to terrorist cells/groups, was the direct threat to this country being referenced.  Amazing what context can do

As I pointed out before, we did not merely bomb weapons factories, but we went to war with the country of Iraq and deliberately targeted the then government of Iraq.

In order to remove that threat, as accurately referenced in my above clarification.  Simple at that.     

[Universe Prince]

(now, let's complete the context to make that statement accurate), since the potential of his offloading WMD to terrorist cells/groups, was the direct threat to this country being referenced.  Amazing what context can do

I was going to say that it's amazing what ignoring context will do. The President said specifically that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep insisting that he didn't mean that. Apparently based on some sort of non-sarcastic, non-satirical, straightforward yet magical context that erases the meaning of words. But hey, if you really want to argue that we went to war with a country that was not a direct threat to us, okay, I'll accept it. You've convinced me that we had absolutely no grounds for war with Iraq and removing their government.





(No, you haven't, but I wanted you have that moment.)

[sirs]

(now, let's complete the context to make that statement accurate), since the potential of his offloading WMD to terrorist cells/groups, was the direct threat to this country being referenced.  Amazing what context can do

I was going to say that it's amazing what ignoring context will do. The President said specifically that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep insisting that he didn't mean that.

NO, NO, and again NO.  He meant it, in the vane that Saddam's WMD were a threat, IF they're allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist cells/organizations.  He & his administration have made that crystal clear since the get go.  This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations

[_JS]

NO, NO, and again NO.  He meant it, in the vane that Saddam's WMD were a threat, IF they're allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist cells/organizations.  He & his administration have made that crystal clear since the get go.  This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations

Sirs, I find your argument here amazingly fantastical. You are basically making an argument of delivery.

Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

The context only qualifies this statement insofar as it discusses the method of Saddam Hussein's weapons being delivered to this country. Nowhere does President Bush say that the likelihood of Hussein attacking us is less than if Hussein had a missile or airplane within striking distance of the United States. He maintains his words above: "direct threat to this country." (Which is factually incorrect, because if he needed an intermediary to attack, it would technically constitute an indirect threat but its a speech and who's counting?)

There is no room for debate in that statement. In fact, you seem to argue that very point when you make the following claim:

In order to remove that threat, as accurately referenced in my above clarification.  Simple at that.

It seems to me you want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want Iraq to have been a direct, as close to an immediate threat to this country as possible, but you don't want President Bush to have made a case that Iraq itself was an immediate threat to the United States where the war was primarily based on Weapons of Mass Destruction (which it was) because that tarnishes both President Bush and the entire invasion of Iraq.

I think that is why your argument is so awkward Sirs, and I mean that not in a disparaging way.

[sirs]

It seems to me you want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want Iraq to have been a direct, as close to an immediate threat to this country as possible,

NO, no cake here, and again that's NOT what Bush was referencing in CONTEXT.  It was Saddam's/Iraq's WMD that were, in the hands of the right people who might use them

....but you don't want President Bush to have made a case that Iraq itself was an immediate threat to the United States where the war was primarily based on Weapons of Mass Destruction (which it was) because that tarnishes both President Bush and the entire invasion of Iraq.

NO, no eating here either, as Iraq's WMD was a threat (read; NOT immediate, NOT imminent, simply a growing threat), and following the events of 911, we no longer had the luxury of waiting another 12+ years of inspectors being led around at Saddam's wishes and hope upon hope that he wouldn't offload or sell any of the WMD that the vast majority of the global intel, and prior administration as well, concluded he still had. 

Why this continued effort to mutate the clear and concise explainations of Bush and this administration, as well as the repetition of that point I've been making, is beyond me.  For folks as twisted as Brass & Tee, I can see, but for folks as rational as Prince & Js, I'm completely baffled     

[The_Professor]

The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.

The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.

The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.

The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.

And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
 

Perhaps miraculously, I find my self in partial agreement here with XO....sigh.

XO: The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.

Me: I concur. Winning a difficult guerrilla war is indeed a dicey proposition and it is not clear to me our military is structured to win this TYPE of conflict.

XO: The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.

Me: As I have indicated in earlier posts, I believe "let's delay air traffic while I get my hair done" Hillary will be our next President. I predict if this occurs, that she will immediately pursue procedures to extricate us from Iraq. A REAL withdraw, within months. The Democrats have accomplished a major purpose of theirs with the voters, namely we need to get OUT!

XO: The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.

Me: Naw, I have never believed this. I still believe President Bush honestly believed there were WMD and so acted accordingly.

XO: The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.

I do not know whether they WANT to be left alone, but sobeit anyway. As UP and I have presented: let's get out of there and let the dice fall as they may.

XO: And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.

Me: I totally disagree with this statement, primarily for religious reasons. No surprise there!
 

[Universe Prince]

I was going to say that it's amazing what ignoring context will do. The President said specifically that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep insisting that he didn't mean that.

NO, NO, and again NO.  He meant it, in the vane that Saddam's WMD were a threat, IF they're allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist cells/organizations.  He & his administration have made that crystal clear since the get go.

So... President Bush meant that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat in the vein of the possibility of being an indirect threat... That is approaching the opposite of crystal clear.

This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations

Making what accusations? President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. That was a clear part of his argument for going to war with Iraq. I'm not making this up. It's all there, shining with contextual glory, in his speeches. Your continued effort to deny this does nothing to help your argument.

[sirs]

So... President Bush meant that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat in the vein of the possibility of being an indirect threat...

Close.  His (Saddam's) WMD WAS a direct threat.  How you get to "indirect"....well, I know why, though the how is problematic

This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations

Making what accusations?

Implying that Bush supposedly was arguing Saddam himself was preparing some attack on the U.S.  THAT accusation

President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. That was a clear part of his argument for going to war with Iraq.

Almost.  The part that made it clear was also in referencing how his WMD in the hands of terrorists was the direct threat.  And no, I'm not making that up either.  If you absolutely need me to, I'll endeavor to go find a bunch of those quotes as well.  Ones that I know you must be aware of him making, but if you absolutely need me to, I will.  After doing so, then what?

[Universe Prince]

Close.  His (Saddam's) WMD WAS a direct threat.  How you get to "indirect"....well, I know why, though the how is problematic

Not really. It's easy if you've been paying attention. I keep pointing out that President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep saying the WMD getting into the hands of terrorists was what President Bush really meant. Which would have made Saddam Hussein an indirect threat. This isn't rocket science. Why you continue to insist that the President meant what he said because he really meant something else, I do not know. I get that you think this pretzel reasoning makes some point, but I've forgotten what that point might be.

Implying that Bush supposedly was arguing Saddam himself was preparing some attack on the U.S.  THAT accusation

Wha? Sorry, I'm dizzy from watching all the mental gymnastics. What you see as an implication on my part (making it an inference on your part) is now an accusation, but President Bush saying Saddam Hussein is a direct threat is somehow not an implication that Saddam Hussein might attempt to attack the U.S.? Wow. That's amazing. I don't know how you do it.

President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. That was a clear part of his argument for going to war with Iraq.

Almost.  The part that made it clear was also in referencing how his WMD in the hands of terrorists was the direct threat.

Um, no. The part that made that clear was President Bush saying that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat.

The part that made it clear was also in referencing how his WMD in the hands of terrorists was the direct threat.  And no, I'm not making that up either.  If you absolutely need me to, I'll endeavor to go find a bunch of those quotes as well.  Ones that I know you must be aware of him making, but if you absolutely need me to, I will.  After doing so, then what?

Yes, I am sure you can find plenty of quotes touting the supposed WMD as threats. No one is denying that the supposed WMD were touted as threats. You, on the other hand, seem to be in denial the President Bush also said plainly and clearly that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. And really this is about as far as this conversation can go. You're intent on undermining one of the reasons we had to go to war with Iraq, and I'm tired of trying to convince you otherwise. So have at it. I'm done.

[Xavier_Onassis]

XO: And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.

Me: I totally disagree with this statement, primarily for religious reasons. No surprise there!
 ==============================================================
TOTALLY disagree?

So Israel is a state of the US?  Have you seen the new flag? 50 five-pointed stars and one six-pointed one.

Israel has no separation of state and church.
Israel has segregated the people to the degree where Arabs are issued different license plates and may not travel on the better, faster Jews-only roads.

Israel has no constitution. None. No one in Israel has any constitutional rights.

Israel is an unwelcome colony in a hostile part of the world. It would have made more sense to locate it in Bavaria, or to have given the Jews some American state. I do not want my taxes to support apartheid. Not in Israel or anywhere else.

But c'mon, you don't totally disagree. You want the US to annex Israel as a state?

Jesus isn't coming back. Face it.
They'd have to give up on their apartheid.

[sirs]

It would seem Prince, that you're hung up on the notion of whose WMD belonged to whom.   I understood perfectly that the reference to Saddam's direct threat was specific to his WMD.  You seem to be implying that the WMD I've been consistently referencing is some nebulous weaponry, disconnected from Saddam.  Reading in context demonstrates clearly, to me at least, the direct threat to the U.S. is Saddam's WMD in the wrong hands.  And the quotes that you yourself acknowledgeare out there reinforce that position, yet you keep going back to these few quotes as if that's all that was said on the matter.

Out of context to the totatility of what was said, regarding who was the direct threat to the U.S. and how so.  Tee & Brass I can understand.  You and Js........