[BIRD33]

Japan's new prime minister is having his nation's legal guys (not sure what they are called in Japan) check into their nations constitution to see what it says about a preimptive strike on NK's missle sites.

Japans constitution was made after wwII pretty much by the USA and prohibits any nukes or major military buildups.The guys looking to change the constitution so they can have a military again.I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

I'm not blaming the GOP.I'm blaming one person named George Bush and his policies.You can't say he's been consistent.Do you realize were going back to talking to them directly after he laughed at Clinton for doing the same?In the mean time they developed more nukes than clintons whole term.

Well, they probably have more tanks now, too. More guns, more everything. They probably had more nukes, guns, tanks and shit after Clinton than before Clinton. That's called building up.

Sure, I'd bet he is capitalizing on the fact that Iraq has turned out to be more of a mess than we thought. Add to that the naysayers and second guessers that are jumping ship every day. The world community reads that as weakness and vulnerability. Something Bush is still trying to fight everyday.

Why am I the only one that seems to remember him going into all of this (Afghan and Iraq) saying that this is going to be a long time thing. Results will come slowly. We are in it for the long haul. No timetables. We leave when its time to leave, not one day sooner.

Was anyone else listening to that? I remember saying at the time, "you wait, people won't remember this part".

[Bill]

Well, they probably have more tanks now, too. More guns, more everything. They probably had more nukes, guns, tanks and shit after Clinton than before Clinton. That's called building up.

Sure, I'd bet he is capitalizing on the fact that Iraq has turned out to be more of a mess than we thought. Add to that the naysayers and second guessers that are jumping ship every day. The world community reads that as weakness and vulnerability. Something Bush is still trying to fight everyday.

Why am I the only one that seems to remember him going into all of this (Afghan and Iraq) saying that this is going to be a long time thing. Results will come slowly. We are in it for the long haul. No timetables. We leave when its time to leave, not one day sooner.

Was anyone else listening to that? I remember saying at the time, "you wait, people won't remember this part".

I'm sorry, as a voter all I remember was him saying sadam had something to do with 9/11......everything after that didn't matter. Boy was I stoopid.

[BIRD33]

Well, they probably have more tanks now, too. More guns, more everything. They probably had more nukes, guns, tanks and shit after Clinton than before Clinton. That's called building up.
This isnt right.Not even close.Why should I read the rest?400% more muclear material, 4-5 more nukes.who cares about tanks?

Sure, I'd bet he is capitalizing on the fact that Iraq has turned out to be more of a mess than we thought. Add to that the naysayers and second guessers that are jumping ship every day. The world community reads that as weakness and vulnerability. Something Bush is still trying to fight everyday.

Why am I the only one that seems to remember him going into all of this (Afghan and Iraq) saying that this is going to be a long time thing. Results will come slowly. We are in it for the long haul. No timetables. We leave when its time to leave, not one day sooner.
I was for Afaganistan, they attacked us.Cheyney said we'd be greeted as liberators.I don't remeber anyone saying 15 years when it came to Iraq.

Was anyone else listening to that? I remember saying at the time, "you wait, people won't remember this part".

Wow not one paragraph that actually made sense.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Wow not one paragraph that actually made sense.

You won't remember anyone saying "15 years". They said "we won't put a timetable on it. Its going to take a long time. Its going to take persistance. We won't leave until the job is done and Iraq is stable". They were very deliberate in those comments.

[BIRD33]

You won't remember anyone saying "15 years". They said "we won't put a timetable on it. Its going to take a long time. Its going to take persistance. We won't leave until the job is done and Iraq is stable". They were very deliberate in those comments.

"We will be greeted as liberators."

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

"We will be greeted as liberators."

So Cheney makes one speculation on Meet the Press and that's all you remember?

[Sassy]

"We will be greeted as liberators."

So Cheney makes one speculation on Meet the Press and that's all you remember?

Ah. The ALICE chat robot can follow many things, like our discussion about . But I did not get that.

[BIRD33]

So Cheney makes one speculation on Meet the Press and that's all you remember?

What should I remember?He's the sitting vice president and one of the cheif planners of the invasion of Iraq.When you say "greeted as liberators" to convince people to go there I would assume most people didnt expect almost 3,000 americans dead and rising 3 years later and decades more fighting to come.Then you have to balance that with the fact that every reason for going there has turned out to be at the very best an exagerration of the truth and at the very worst a conscience effort to mislead the american people.Remember General Shishinski predicted before the war it would be a disaster to go there in the first place and at least 300,000 troops on the ground would be needed for years to stabalize it?He was promptly fired.The only people left who think like you do about Iraq are the dumbasses who think Bush was appointed by god and the rapture is coming.

[Tribal Dragon]

What should I remember?He's the sitting vice president and one of the cheif planners of the invasion of Iraq.When you say "greeted as liberators" to convince people to go there I would assume most people didnt expect almost 3,000 americans dead and rising 3 years later and decades more fighting to come.Then you have to balance that with the fact that every reason for going there has turned out to be at the very best an exagerration of the truth and at the very worst a conscience effort to mislead the american people.Remember General Shishinski predicted before the war it would be a disaster to go there in the first place and at least 300,000 troops on the ground would be needed for years to stabalize it?He was promptly fired.The only people left who think like you do about Iraq are the dumbasses who think Bush was appointed by god and the rapture is coming.

Where is Beu BTW?

[BIRD33]

Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times: "'The United States of America will not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons.' That ringing proclamation by President George W. Bush lies at the heart of the 'Bush doctrine,' which took America to war in Iraq.It was made in the president's 2002 State of the Union address -- the same speech in which he introduced the world to an 'axis of evil' of three countries: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

"Almost five years on and the North Koreans' apparently successful test of a nuclear weapon has delivered what may be a final blow to the Bush doctrine."

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Also from Bush 2002 State of the Union

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Also from Bush 2002 State of the Union

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

[BIRD33]

Also from Bush 2002 State of the Union

Thanks for reinforcing my arguement.What was your point in posting that?


N korea-More Nukes produced during Bush's administration than any other.

Osama Bin Laden-Bush said two months ago finding him was unimportant.


"Donald Gregg, a U.S. ambassador to South Korea under Bush's father and now head of the New York-based Korea Society, said the crisis could have been averted if the current Bush administration had talked to the North Koreans directly. He visited Pyongyang in late 2002 and brought back a written offer from the North Koreans to negotiate one-on-one."
Gregg himself writes for the PostGlobal blog: "Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the U.S.) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake."

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

And more Bush Rhetoric from 2002 State of the Union

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Seems to have nailed it pretty well 4-1/2 years ago.

[BIRD33]

"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

Why doesnt this pertain to North Korea.


"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. "

What have we done to stop them?We basically gave them Iraq


"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

Seems like they didnt have anything to hide, no WMD's.Maybe bush should have listened to the part of the intelligence community that disagreed with him like Richard Clarke.

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

What about Korea again?Inconsistent anyone?


"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."


While you waited Mr. Bush N Korea tested a nuke.Hey on the bright side Iran doubled its influence in the middle east, wait thats not good.


High minded speeches that sound good are not necessarily good foreign policy, this is the bullshit you simple minded fucks bought into.Does the fact that I gave examples of how his policy was inconsistent and flawed based on current events give you any pause?Do you realize its fundamentaly unamerican to invade a country that did not attack us?Would you or I be alive if presidents took the same tact with Russia which had 1000's of wmd's not just the desire to make one during the cold war?

[BIRD33]

Flumper read this again.To sum it up it says the "Bush Doctrine" which is his state of the union speech that you posted and are so proud of is a miserable failure.Posting it to back up your arguement shows your not really in touch with whats going on in the world.


Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times: "'The United States of America will not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons.' That ringing proclamation by President George W. Bush lies at the heart of the 'Bush doctrine,' which took America to war in Iraq.It was made in the president's 2002 State of the Union address -- the same speech in which he introduced the world to an 'axis of evil' of three countries: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

"Almost five years on and the North Koreans' apparently successful test of a nuclear weapon has delivered what may be a final blow to the Bush doctrine."

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

October 2002

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Continued.......

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Flumper read this again.To sum it up it says the "Bush Doctrine" which is his state of the union speech that you posted and are so proud of is a miserable failure.Posting it to back up your arguement shows your not really in touch with whats going on in the world.


Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times: "'The United States of America will not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons.' That ringing proclamation by President George W. Bush lies at the heart of the 'Bush doctrine,' which took America to war in Iraq.It was made in the president's 2002 State of the Union address -- the same speech in which he introduced the world to an 'axis of evil' of three countries: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

"Almost five years on and the North Koreans' apparently successful test of a nuclear weapon has delivered what may be a final blow to the Bush doctrine."

I guess I don't get your point. In 2002 Bush stated that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were the nations to watch out for. They were all seeking nuclear weapons and intended to use them on us or our allies. Now that this is true, how is that his "doctrine"?