Posted on 09/10/2002 12:57:09 PM PDT by Zviadist
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
It confirms nothing of the kind. Does the writer think the world was a better place because we could not attack the Soviet Union?
A more appropriate analogy would be:
1. Isn't it tru after World War I, Germany was prohibited from re-militarizing itself? (like Iraq)
2. Isn't it true that in the 1930's Germany began to aquire military weaponry which violated its traety commitments? (like Iraq)
3. Isn't it true that in 1936 Germany was still comparatively weak as opposed to France and Britain? (like Iraq is to the U.S.)
4. Isn't it true that most of the european leaders knew that Germany was becoming a threat in 1936? (like Iraq)
5. Isn't it true that France and Britain did nothing while Germany continued to expand its military capabilities?
6. Isn't it true that millions of lives coud have been saved if France and Britain had forced a regime change in Germany in 1936, while Germany was much less of a threat. I wonder when some people will get the picture? 3,000 lives were not enough to open these eyes? What will it take, 30,000, 300,000, 3 millon?
Don't mistake Republicans for conservatives you mean?
Ron Paul is one of these best Congressmen we've got.
Then we're doomed.
Q: Who says that President Bush is going to start a war without Congressional approval and consent? So far he has only spoken of regime change, not attack.
A: The media and those who oppose him or want to try to make political hay out of this.
Q: If we do nothing .... just look the other way and ignore the potential that Saddam has to wipe out large numbers of people at one time ...... who will be the first to start asking "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" if something catastrophic does happen?
A: Those who are screaming loudest now about how wrong he is to be declaring a war that he hasn't even declared yet.
Tony Blair said it quite nicely today ......
"Because I say to you in all earnestness: If we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next, perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing."
I'm so glad your here to tell us these things. Someone called "Destructor", calling someone a rabble rouser. How quaint! lol
Let's put it this way, you are taking the defense attorney stance. So yes you are defending Saddam. Just remember counselor; in a trial both parties have the ability to establish guilt or innocence through the discovery process. With Saddam there is no such avenue and given that fact it is unreasonable for many on this thread to demand "proof" that will meet courtroom standards.
Then we're doomed.
Name some of your favorites for me if you don't mind....
From antiwar.com - apparently Ron Paul's a big hit there.
In a country with the culture Iraq has, that is ALL you can achieve: a regime change. Nothing else changes - just the name of the dude at the top.
As does the 'Wall Street Journal.'
That's an axiom I have never before heard. Not many people in history seem to agree with it.
Gee, was your birthday yesterday? What does that make you? Two days old now?
Pappy is far from "alone in the world." And you can't at least see that much, you ought to remain quiet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.