"Do you remember any major Bush speech that centred on the suffering of the Iraqi people as a reason for going to war? "
Well, perhaps you are convinced that President Bush was going to attack Iraq regardless of what Saddam did. BUT can you imagine the possiblity that if Saddam had fully complied with UN resolution 1441, that the Coalition would NOT have invaded Iraq?
Now, if instead Bush had made the center reason for changing the Iraqi regime the suffering of Iraqi people, then any potential compliance by Saddam to 1441 wouldn't make much difference in regard this stated reason for why we were going to invade.
[We didn't have a Security Council resolution directing us to ensure that the people of Iraq weren't suffering. But President Bush certainly did mention the concern about the suffering of the Iraq people. I believe if you look in the state of the union speech in 2003 you can find this is mentioned.]
Oh, what hell, here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Excerpt:
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) "
Flame » in reply to Memories.......
re: Memories.......
The whole thread (92 posts)
- A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?
- Someone who DELIBERTATELY targets non-combatants.
- That's George Bush. Read it again. (n/t)
- Your Definition Is Pretty Good
- Swinging intellectually (and wildly)
- Uh, lemme try: someone with a rag on their head? (n/t)
- My definition is a bit simpler.
- Opposed to.............?
- re: My definition is a bit simpler.
- Differences
- re: Differences
- A seven year old responds
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- Old Trick
- Another Old Trick
- Same Old Anti-war Rubbish
- re: Another Old Trick
- Maybe the point is...
- Same Old Dem Lies And Stupid Posturing
- And what would the same war have cost ten years from now?
- I didn't say there was a better way.
- Maybe the point is...
- Another Old Trick
- re: You're right, as far as it goes. (n/t)
- good bump (n/t)
- Old Trick
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- A seven year old responds
- re: Differences
