Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Like I have said numerous times - a dangerous; precedent was set by USA in Iraq.
Topic Started: Aug 19 2004, 11:58 AM (569 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I wonder if Scotty Lindlaw would have thought to provide the content of that speech in its entirety? Naaaaaaah. That would require a little effort, instead of putting his usual spin on the news.

Here's a link to the speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020601-3.html

(Unlike a certain poster on here, I don't rely on the "analysis" of a reporter when the actual data exists.)

Nowhere in the speech does PRESIDENT Bush mention the word "pre-emptive" or "pre-emption." Nowhere does he mention Iraq.

Sorry, Somerled, I'll stick with the TRUTH, not your constant America- / Bush-bashing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^^
Actually, the word "preemptive" IS there in that speech...

Quote:
 
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.)


But Iraq is not.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I wonder if President Bush is using the regular dictionary defintion of "preemptive" or the other definition.
| Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne:
Come-on everyone with so much as 1/2 a functional braincell knew exactly who he meant at the time. There was plenty of tough talk about Iraq at the time.

From the "text" of Bush's speech to the kiddies at the academy.
Quote:
 
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.)


The timeline (Iraq)
ie
May 14, 2002 : The UN Security Council revamps the sanctions against Iraq, now eleven years old, replacing them with "smart sanctions" meant to allow more civilian goods to enter the country while at the same time more effectively restricting military and dual-use equipment (military and civilian).

June 2, 2002 : President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances, the president asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one: "Our security will require all Americans…[to] be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

And you will perhaps recall these events - within weeks of the above speech.
US launched air war against Iraq in 2002
Quote:
 
In a briefing to military commanders US Air Force Lieutenant General T. Michael Moseley acknowledged that the Air Force launched offensive operations against Iraq in June 2002. Three months before President Bush appeared before the United Nations to present a case for “disarming” Iraq, five months before the adoption of UN resolution 1441 threatening “serious consequences” if Iraq did not cooperate with weapons inspectors, and a full nine months before the war was officially announced, the Bush administration had already ordered combat operations to begin.

In the midst of closed-door congressional inquiries and media speculation over whether the Bush administration went to war on the basis of “manipulated” or “faulty” intelligence, the response to Moseley’s statements has been a deafening silence. Apart from news reports of Moseley’s briefing in the weekend Washington Post and New York Times, nothing has been said about what amounts to an admission that the Bush administration lied to the American people for months about its intentions and operations in Iraq.

Even as US planes were systematically destroying Iraqi air defenses and communications grids in preparation for a land war, under cover of patrolling the so-called “no fly” zone in the south of the country, Bush was repeatedly insisting that he had made no decision on invading Iraq and was “hoping for peace.” Moseley’s briefing exposes the entire effort to secure United Nations backing and resume weapons inspections as nothing more than a cynical charade, behind which Washington carried on an air war to facilitate the rapid introduction of ground troops once war was publicly proclaimed.

According to Moseley, the Air Force received its orders from the White House to begin the preparations for a war on Iraq in late 2001—following the September 11 attacks.

American and British ground forces were able to move quickly into southern Iraq when the invasion began, Moseley told the military commanders, because the preceding months of air strikes had crippled Iraq’s southern air defenses and communications infrastructure. The US had complete air superiority and had disrupted the ability of Iraqi forces to coordinate a defense.

During the period of the quasi-secret air war—of which the American media was well aware—the Bush administration repeatedly insisted that the US was merely enforcing the “no-fly” zone over southern Iraq. The “no-fly” zones in the north and south of Iraq were imposed in the early 1990s by the US and its European allies, without UN sanction, supposedly to prevent the Iraqi Air Force from carrying out attacks on the Kurdish and Shiite populations in those areas of the country.

In an another example of systematic lying to the American people and world public opinion, Washington maintained that the sole purpose of US flights over Iraq was to monitor the “no-fly” zones to make sure that no Iraqi aircraft were operating in that air space. In December 1998, the US expanded the rules of engagement to permit American pilots to take “self-defense” action against Iraqi air defense batteries when the latter established radar locks on US jets or actually fired on them.

Washington repeatedly denied Iraqi claims that US war planes were using the patrol of the “no-fly” zones as a cover for carrying out offensive strikes against a wide range of targets, civilian as well as military.

Moseley outlined that the intense US air activity over southern Iraq from June 2002 had virtually nothing to do with enforcing the “no-fly” zone, but instead was a carefully planned offensive campaign. It involved unprovoked attacks on key Iraqi installations as well as concentrated surveillance by low altitude spy planes and unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft to pinpoint targets for destruction before or during an invasion.

In total, the US flew 21,736 sorties over southern Iraq between June 2002 and the start of the invasion in March 2003. British aircraft also took part. In all, 391 targets were attacked.

One of main targets was the fiber-optic communications networks that linked Baghdad with Nasiriya and Basra. Crucial cable-repeater stations were bombed, and then bombed again when they were rebuilt. Other targets included civilian airports in Basra and western Iraq.

Moseley’s briefing confirms that the political, military and ideological architects of the war on Iraq are indictable under existing international law on the same charge brought against leaders of the German Nazi regime at Nuremburg: that they planned and carried out a war of aggression.

Iraq repeatedly reported the air strikes to the Security Council and appealed for UN action against the US and Britain. In a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in December 2002, for example, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri described the escalating attacks as “blatant aggression and flagrant state terrorism.” He informed the UN that Iraq would carry out “legitimate self-defense under the UN Charter and international law” and appealed for the UN to abide by the charter and intervene to stop the “ongoing aggression.”

The UN took no action against the US and Britain using the “no-fly” zones as the cover for an air war against Iraq. It took no action when ground forces invaded and, in its final act of appeasement, legitimized the overthrow of the government of one its member states and Iraq’s colonial takeover by the US. For all the antiwar rhetoric of the European, Russian, Chinese and Arab ruling elites, they facilitated what they all knew was a war crime.

Moseley’s briefing on July 19 provided one significant factual detail that would appear prominently in a future war crimes trial. American, British and Australian aircraft carried out over 20,000 air strikes during the three-week invasion. US planners estimated in advance the number of civilians that each attack was likely to kill. Any proposed strike likely to kill more than 30 civilians had to be personally approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The US defense secretary was presented with more than 50 such requests and authorized every one of them. With premeditated intent, the Bush administration signed the death warrant of at least 1,500 Iraqi civilians.


Case closed - he's guilty as charged.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
deleted by poster
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Aug 20 2004, 10:10 AM

Case closed - he's guilty as charged.

Bull puckey. Hey, how is that prescription for anti-Bush colored contacts? Comfy?

You'll read anything into whatever you read.

As for the allegations by the :loling: :loling: :loling: World Socialist Network, we have been destroying Iraq's air defenses THAT WERE SHOOTING AT OUR AIRCRAFT since 1991, you (self-censored)!!

Funny that this supposed news item hasn't been reported ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET.

:loling: :loling: :loling:

Case closed... :loling: :loling: :loling:

In addition, I don't think this guy would be talking to the Socialists:

Here's his bio:

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6545

In particular:

Quote:
 
15. November 2001 - August 2003, Commander, 9th Air Force and U.S. Central Command Air Forces, Shaw AFB, S.C.
16. August 2003 - present, Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
^^
Moving on past your automatic & total rejection of anything even remotely associated with the word socialist - and I knew you'd respond this way by the way :loling: :rotfl: - none-the-less much of the text of what they have said in the analysis piece is on the ball.
If not how not ?

Really - wasn't the Washington Post mentioned therein, and I'm pretty sure it you looked in Yahoo or Google you will find heaps of links to reports - especially on the pre-invasion airwar against Iraq (it was certainly discussed on ABC (our's - I'm so sure about the American version, and the BBC) , and wasn't you beloved Bush II's speech to the Academy widely telecast in part and in full, and reported on widely and commented on even more widely ?

Strange that you seem to have forgotten these details - selective memory maybe.

What was the point of posting his bio ?
Quote:
 
In addition, I don't think this guy would be talking to the Socialists
Excuse me - why wouldn't he be talking to a legitimate ne's service (he has to take orders from his superiors and he may well have been delegated the task , in the context of the intense bombing raids that the subject , and by the time of the story were common knowledge (jounalists having socialist views are irrelevent) ?
How would he know in the context of a news conference?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Aug 20 2004, 10:49 AM
^^
Moving on past your automatic & total rejection of anything even remotely associated with the word socialist - and I knew you'd respond this way by the way :loling: :rotfl: - none-the-less much of the text of what they have said in the analysis piece is on the ball.
If not how not ?

Really - wasn't the Washington Post mentioned therein, and I'm pretty sure it you looked in Yahoo or Google you will find heaps of links to reports - especially on the pre-invasion airwar against Iraq (it was certainly discussed on ABC (our's - I'm so sure about the American version, and the BBC) , and wasn't you beloved Bush II's speech to the Academy widely telecast in part and in full, and reported on widely and commented on even more widely ?

Strange that you seem to have forgotten these details - selective memory maybe.

What was the point of posting his bio ?
Quote:
 
In addition, I don't think this guy would be talking to the Socialists
Excuse me - why wouldn't he be talking to a legitimate ne's service (he has to take orders from his superiors and he may well have been delegated the task , in the context of the intense bombing raids that the subject , and by the time of the story were common knowledge (jounalists having socialist views are irrelevent) ?
How would he know in the context of a news conference?

I did Google it... didn't find diddley squat.

I saw that the Washington Post said (I actually read the trash article) that Moseley briefed military commanders, but THEY NEVER SAID ONE WORD ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THAT BRIEFING.

So, unless the Socialist SCUM are making it up, then there's a leak somewhere.

If there is a leak, then it must be found and prosecuted (under the UCMJ).

Lastly, of course I reject Socialism. It is a PATHETIC and LAST DITCH DINOSAUR EFFORT AT TOTALITARIAN CONTROL BY A CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. Its followers are either deluded or have delusions of power to control the masses.

The analysis MIGHT have been accurate if they had cited oh, I don't know, A SOURCE OR TWO! As I said, how could this bunch of scummy leftists have found out the content of a CLASSIFIED briefing?? I WANT TO KNOW. I want the leaker PROSECUTED. You do NOT announce the contents of a CLASSIFIED brief to the press.

Lastly, you completely ignored what I stated in that WE HAVE BEEN DESTROYING IRAQI AIR DEFENSE AND COMMUNICATIONS SITES (all in the no fly zone WHERE THEY ARE PROHIBITED, but your precious socialist scum never mentioned that) SINCE 1991 because they have been shooting at Coalition aircraft.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I need not add a thing, because Mr. Bill has said it all.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Bill:
Quote:
 
Apart from news reports of Moseley’s briefing in the weekend Washington Post and New York Times, nothing has been said

:huh: What leak ?
So who's being a traitor (Gen.Moseley maybe who was told by his masters :spank: to zip it)?

Can't have looked hard enough , try Washington Post and New York Times, who were cited in the article.
You could also look at the Telegraph.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Maybe this is SOP in Australia, but in the US we do NOT announce the results or content of classified briefings (ALL SENIOR OFFICER BRIEFINGS ARE CLASSIFIED) to the press. Ergo, a leak!

That leak must be found, and prosecuted. Understand?

My Google search included the General, the dates, and the contents. NADA. (That means "nothing" in Spanish.) Tell you what, you find them for ME in the Washington Post or NY Times.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
And just to reiterate, not one of the usual suspects has proven that opening the Iraqi theatre was a preemptive war instead of a reactive war.

But just to explain a bit further, one can argue it was preemptive in that it preempted the Islamofacist terrorists who were beginning to move into Iraq, but it was a reactive war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a nation for violating 13+ years of UN resolutions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus