Here is another example of a person reading something into something that did not exist, or at best "cherry-picking" what was said, then using that piece of information and spinning to present a case that never existed.

Donuel - 06 Dec 06 - 04:48 PM

"The right of self defense is understood by all. The right to kill/attack someone who is attacking someone other than yourself is hazy and predicated by different laws. International law is NOT local but the problem of extending self defense to another person or country, in this case Isreal, is not the issue we ever gave for attacking Iraq. We always said Iraq was going to Nuke the USA any minute."

Now take a look at what Donuel is saying:

First sentence is completely correct and that right is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

Second sentence is incorrect, the situation described here is not "hazy" in the least, it is covered very comprehensively by mutual defence pacts and treaties and by the Charter of the United Nations.

His third sentence is also incorrect. The following quote is taken from the State of the Union Address delivered on 29th January 2002:

"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 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

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."

Five paragraphs Donuel in which two very clear references are made to America's allies. At the United Nations and elsewhere the US position has always been clearly stated. That was to react to any threat to the United States of America, to the interests of the United States of America, to allies of the United States of America and to the interests of allies of the United States of America. A matter of record Donuel, cherry-pick all you want, but that will not alter what was said or the context in which it was said.

Donuel's fourth sentence is completely incorrect, I do not believe that anybody at anytime stated that Iraq could "Nuke" the US at any moment. That the possibility of "rogue regimes" passing technical information and material or even a weapon to an international terrorist group could not be overlooked, could not be discounted, was mentioned in the 2002 and 2003 State of the Union Addresses. This was evaluated as being the greatest direct threat to the United States of America, not by GWB and his Administration but by the House Internal Security Committee and the Security Services of the USA. Anybody here that would state categorically that such a thing could never happen?

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Dec 06 - 01:05 PM

"the UK replacing the submarines that currently carry Britain's Trident Mk II Missiles, it has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any new generation of nuclear weapons - Teribus".

That is what "a new generation of nuclear weapons" means. The old generation is seen as obsolescent; its replacement is a new generation.

Eh? Kevin the Trident Mk II missiles are the nuclear weapons, they are not being replaced, there is no new generation of nuclear weapons on the drawingboard for the UK. New submarines will be build to carry Britain's EXISTING Trident MkII Missiles - No new generation of nuclear weapons are planned or being procured - In fact the article that you linked to even refers to a further possible reduction in Britain's nuclear strike capability. Best not mention that too loudly Kevin as it does not suit your arguement.

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Dec 06 - 02:28 PM

"One good reason" Well, it would be a bit ungrateful to the Yanks wouldn't it? I mean they really need that oil."

Not really MGOH as has been pointed out many times and substantiated by US crude oil import statistics and figures. The US gets very little oil from the Middle-East.