In warfare, there is no such thing as an offensive or defensive weapons. Those terms are political abstracts.This type of propoganda is rediculous. We've been talking about putting antimissle defenses in Europe for some time, and Russia doesn't think that's a good idea. So THEY come out and test a new missle that they claim can penetrate any defense system. That is starting an arms race-an offensive weapon-, not developing defenses.
All the President needs to do is call them evil doers, and tell them that they hate us for our freedon to get everyon behind him right?
Well it worked the first time.
I love posting that..."One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002
"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life." Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002 "Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone; he is the world's problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone." Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003 Democratic Response to President Bush's "State of the Union" address
Is that view dependant on the '08 elections? :helpsmilie:......I am with Putin, I wouldn't believe a single word spilling out of the mouth of our President and defense department at this time.
haha......crickets......Worked perfectly... for the Dems.
I love posting that...
Whatever hokus pokus philosphy you want to go with on one that, one system was designed to kill millions of people, the one they're trying to strong arm us over is being put in place to potentially save millions of people. There is a difference.In warfare, there is no such thing as an offensive or defensive weapons. Those terms are political abstracts.
no, we have to be right. russia is not trying to assert it is important; it is asserting it isn't out of the loop just yet. this is a direct result of our meeting with iran on iraq. no one really wants to hurt us but there is a lot of oil money to go around. but i personally appreciate how the truth gets bantered about.We just happen to be right.
Ahhhh, well then. I guess they lost thier chance at the oil contracts they were hoping to get from Saddam along with France.no, we have to be right. russia is not trying to assert it is important; it is asserting it isn't out of the loop just yet. this is a direct result of our meeting with iran on iraq. no one really wants to hurt us but there is a lot of oil money to go around. but i personally appreciate how the truth gets bantered about.
btw, it is not my job to pay attention to world politics, but i'm guessing i'm probably wrong and i'm frankly a bit ticked at russia....they obviously interpreted our behavior like i did.
No Willy, it really isn't hocus pocus philosophy. Whether you develop newer more effective weapons, or you develop technology that reduces (or eliminates) the effectiveness of your adversary's weapons... the result is the same, you have a strategic advantage.Whatever hokus pokus philosphy you want to go with on one that, one system was designed to kill millions of people, the one they're trying to strong arm us over is being put in place to potentially save millions of people. There is a difference.
What response are you trying to get? Communist Russia collapsed and alot of unexpected consequences resulted:
All of that had nothing to do with the fall communism. More to do with mass corruption and organized crime.What response are you trying to get? Communist Russia collapsed and alot of unexpected consequences resulted:
From a purely analytical standpoint (i.e. looking at the data), the citizens of Russia would be better off under communist rule again. I have spoken with a few Russian born immigrants that felt the same and stated they would never go back to Russia, not even to visit family. Many Russian citizens long for the way things used to be.
- Lowered life expectancy
- Poverty levels increased to over 25%
- Increased crime rates
- Rapidly growing prison population
- Poor health care
Russia's status as a world power has decreased dramatically. Coupled with the above problems that are only getting worse, you can see why they would want to rebuild what they had.
A nuclear standoff would be the stupidist move any country could make, but there are plenty of "leaders" around the world that would do just that (ours not excluded)
I sure do.I love the black and white look at life.
I think he actually believes this.