Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Michael B
Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.

Maybe short term. But in the long run, eliminating the harbors for vermin reduces their numbers. Driving them from their havens makes it easier to kill them.

There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.

There don't have to be. We declared war on terrorism, not al-Qaida. There are more terrorist organizations than bin Laden's.

Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.

So? We never said we would pursue terrorists only into those countries who live in mud huts. It's just as easy to bomb a brick building as a yurt. And a developed nation has much more to lose. It's what the military calls a "target-rich environment."

The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.

The threat Hitler posed to the US was tiny too. However, his threat to humanity was more than we could bear.

The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years.

"Deplorable" by whose standards? We have installed regimes around the world that were friendly to American interests, and thereby prevented all-out war while still protecting ourselves. That isn't a particularly dismal record. And even if we've made mistakes, our record isn't as lamentable as that of the socialists and petty tyrants we've deposed.

9 posted on 02/19/2003 4:32:06 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: IronJack
Well done. Too bad this guy won't bother to read this, much less UNDERSTAND.
60 posted on 02/19/2003 6:38:20 AM PST by seams2me ("if they pass the reading test, it means they learned to read" GWB 1/8/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: IronJack; Catspaw; vharlow; Alouette; Michael B; 11B3; BlueLancer; Admin Moderator
In his first or second major speech after 9/11, the President said that the war on terrorism would include a war on those regimes that aid and harbor terrorists.
It is generally accepted by experts in the field that Tehran, not Baghdad, is the home office of Islamic terrorism. After all, the fit between the Iranian mullahs and Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, is closer than that between these groups and Saddam, an essentially secular dictator. Why Iran has not been target number one has puzzled me for some time.
That said, the momentum behind an attack on Iraq is so great at this point, that to not follow through would be a geo-political catastrophe for the US.
But I still disagree with Iraq as priority number one.
63 posted on 02/19/2003 7:00:17 AM PST by ricpic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson