Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Valin

The need to depose Saddam and Sons was only "dubious" because Bush was doing it, since I have read hundreds of articles, opinions, speeches, by the NYT,WP, and all liberals and their media saying Saddam had to go, under Clinton.

Intellectually dishonest.

I never read a solution to the further "containment" of Saddam and Sons after 12 years.

What would the left had done with him, once sanctions and diplomatic relations had been restored?

Assume his madman tentencies would suddenly leave him, or that he would forgo WMD forever?

Nonsense.


5 posted on 02/16/2005 8:16:40 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: roses of sharon

I never read a solution to the further "containment" of Saddam and Sons after 12 years.

I recall reading that Saddam and (our extra special very good friends) the French were working on a plan to lift the sanctions, and there only a couple of months away from getting them lifted.


8 posted on 02/16/2005 8:28:36 AM PST by Valin (DARE to be average!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon
"I never read a solution to the further "containment" of Saddam and Sons after 12 years. "

I’ve been saying the same for years now. I’m not sure that it would even be technically and logistically possible to maintain the attack force we had in the Gulf and on Saddam’s border. I’m pretty certain that no border nation could politically afford that kind of US presence without certainty that we wouldn’t give in to the left, withdrawal and leave them with an even more powerful Saddam and fundamentalist movements.

AFAIK, no one of any credibility has ever defended an alternative invasion plan beyond vague sound bites of “give the UN more time” or “get more international support”.

9 posted on 02/16/2005 8:30:43 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Yeah, they sound a lot like this guy, don't they?

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I hold in my hand the promise signed by Chancellor Hitler. I believe it is peace for our time..."

-Neville Chamberlain, Croydon Airport, 1938

That agreement really contained Schicklgruber, didn't it?


15 posted on 02/16/2005 9:08:28 AM PST by Chef Dajuan (this ain't rocket science, you know. so use your knob! -emeril lagasse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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