Skip to comments.
WMDs Camouflage Real Reasons Behind Iraq Invasion
The Australian ^
| November 26, 2004
| Frank Devine
Posted on 11/26/2004 9:29:52 AM PST by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: ex-rushie
Suggest away. See where it goes. If there's interest, it will succeed. If not, we're not ready to return to the way it once was.
21
posted on
11/26/2004 10:35:12 AM PST
by
GW and Twins Pawpaw
(Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
To: ex-rushie
Don't say that! The DUngeon folks will split a gut.
22
posted on
11/26/2004 10:35:47 AM PST
by
expatpat
To: Los Alamos Lady; CatAtomic
And make no mistake, WMD do exist. Read this book and see for yourself. I met this man while in Iraq. He told some very enlightening (though very disturbing) stories. About $11 on Amazon.... Thanks for hot tip.
23
posted on
11/26/2004 10:37:44 AM PST
by
CatAtomic
(~~~~ You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money. ~P.J. O'Rourke)
To: GW and Twins Pawpaw
Notice your tagline. I have two great-grandsons and feel they are worth the battle of keeping our nation strong. We "must" preserve this nation's principles for future generations.
Their father is from Australia....he is much more militant against these terrorists than most who were born here. Even though he has to go through a lot with immigration. It has cost those kids a lot of $$$ for him to prove the marriage is not one of convenience even with two children.
24
posted on
11/26/2004 10:41:07 AM PST
by
IceAge
To: lt.america
I think we would have been much better off had we never went to the UN with PowellHard to say. The downside was that we twiddled our thumbs working through the UN. The upside was that either the UN could prove to be useful in the battle against Iraq or they could be shown to be at best useless and at worse co-conspirators with Saddam. The latter has shown to be the case and the country is better off for having a realistic appraisal of UN which it didn't have before.
25
posted on
11/26/2004 10:41:22 AM PST
by
PMCarey
To: expatpat
I know, isn't it fun to give them something more to worry about? HAHAHA!
26
posted on
11/26/2004 10:41:57 AM PST
by
IceAge
To: molonlabe123
"I have said this from day one. We were losing our presence in the middle east. The people against bush seem to think he got up one day and decided to kick Sadams butt. It doesnt work that way. The pentagon was in on the planning and there will be a end game."
My feelings on this subject as well. Personally? I, too, thought the WMD argument was lame. And thanks to the UN, we had to leave Saddam in power after ODS. A big, big mistake that eventually festered and burst, costing us what we're involved in today.
I have no problem whatsoever with the US having a stronghold in that part of the world. As the last remaining Super Power, the bad guys MUST fear us and those countries in dire straights MUST know we will help them out when needed. It's a heavy burden to bear, but we're up to the task when the socialists aren't thwarting us at every turn.
Thank you for the book recommendation. I'm on it!
27
posted on
11/26/2004 10:42:32 AM PST
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
To: rang1995
Iraq is a battle in a campaign in a war.Well said. When this fact is made manifest to the rest of America, we'll be on our way to winning the "war".
28
posted on
11/26/2004 10:44:11 AM PST
by
elbucko
( Feral Republican)
To: PMCarey
Yes, good point. Many folks have wanted us to get out of the UN for years. This has given them more ammunition and maybe more will jump on that bandwagon.
A weakened UN will not be as big a prize for WJC when he plans his take-over of the world. Heehee.
29
posted on
11/26/2004 10:44:37 AM PST
by
IceAge
To: quidnunc
30
posted on
11/26/2004 10:54:11 AM PST
by
shield
(The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
To: quidnunc
I occasionally hear the president's critics reminding him that Iran, not Iraq, is the real enemy.
When I hear that, I always think "look at the map, silly".
We have taken up positions on all sides of Iran. I don't think war with Iran would be any cake walk, and I don't think that is where we are headed. But we are perfectly positioned to have a serious conversation with them.
The other issue is Saudi Arabia. We were tied to them by our need to contain Saddam. The containment strategy required Saudi bases and Saudi support, which put them in position to dictate our policies. Removing Saddam removes Saudi Arabia's hold on us, and sure enough, we have cut the cord that tied us to them.
Bush has freed us of them. We no longer need them, and they know it. We have little need now even to talk to them. That completely changes the dynamic of the middle east.
31
posted on
11/26/2004 10:55:29 AM PST
by
marron
To: quidnunc
32
posted on
11/26/2004 11:04:53 AM PST
by
VOA
To: quidnunc; NotADove
Exactly. WMD (which WILL be found) were merely a convenient public reason for justifying Saddam's overthrow. The strategery of a US presence in Iraq is a far more compelling reason - but not very palatable to the world body politic.
33
posted on
11/26/2004 11:09:27 AM PST
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: quidnunc
Stratfor's here in Austin.
34
posted on
11/26/2004 11:12:24 AM PST
by
txhurl
To: txflake
35
posted on
11/26/2004 11:12:46 AM PST
by
txhurl
To: rang1995
"Iraq is a battle in a campaign in a war"...
Exactly! If you look at it from the perspective that middle east extremism is the enemy, then go look at a map of the middle east, one should have no trouble figuring out why we are fighting in Iraq.
36
posted on
11/26/2004 11:23:58 AM PST
by
joebuck
To: quidnunc
This view is only partly right.
First, the concept that WMD is really not that important in the WOT is not realistic. Of course, the probability is not very high, compared to the probability of the lower-intensity attacks we've already seen, but the results would be catastrophic on many levels. Basic risk management dictates it's a threat you take seriously.
Second, he sees the war in Iraq as surrounding Saudi. This is only partly true. Sure, it surrounds the Saudis, but more importantly...
* It surrounds Iran.
* It puts us in a position to threaten Iran & Syria, and to demand unfettered access to the Gulf, and to respond quickly to events in Saudi.
* If handled successfully, it encourages reforminsts in Iran & Saudi.
* It cuts off much funding to the PA terrorists, and gives us in tel.
We can take on Saudi at any time - and capture its oil fields & keep it productive. But the long-term strategy we're following - just like in Pakistan - is to move the existing government into a position where it controls the elements within it that are working against us. In Pakistan it's more urgent because of the nukes.
This is not restricted to Saudi Arabia. It covers an entire area of the world:
* Pakistan - stabilize a government that keeps nukes out of the Islamists hands, and prevents proliferation to rouge regimes.
* Afghanistan - get rid of the Taliban for good & crush alQaeda's base.
* Iran - first, prevent their access to nukes with whatever means necessary. Second, regime change, primarily through support for pro-western revolutionaries.
* Iraq - get rid of the Baathists, install a modern government, establish US access to the entire area.
* Syria - permanently stop their support for terrorism & hunger for WMD, first via threats & concessions, but if necessary by military means.
* Libya - already surrendered. Now we have to ensure a true end to WMD & support for terrorism.
The trickiest is North Korea, who uses nukes for blackmail and for $$ - by selling the technology to our enemies. This is trickiest because dealing with NK means dealing with China. China is using NK and diplomatic support for our enemies as a means to weaken us. They don't want a powerful Islamists threatening them, but they are betting that since we'll ultimately win this war anyway, they can triangulate themselves in NK & the WOT to keep us a little off balance, win some concessions in Taiwan and the Pacific Rim, and finish up well ahead when this whole thing is over.
37
posted on
11/26/2004 11:30:18 AM PST
by
sanchmo
To: quidnunc
Good proposition, however, I feel that Iraq was not just a morale building war as this article implies the book says, it was done to surround Iran.
We are on their East, West, South,and have access to airfields in the North.
38
posted on
11/26/2004 12:07:14 PM PST
by
RaceBannon
(Arab Media pulled out of Fallujah; Could we get the MSM to pull out of America??)
To: ex-rushie
We have surrounded Saudi Arabia without openly provoking them.We have also surrounded Iran. Afghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other.
39
posted on
11/26/2004 12:30:35 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(Counting down the days to when the new White House puppy arrives.)
To: quidnunc
Good post. It's called 'US boots on the ground' and we don't have top ask anyones permission to 'cross' over if necessary into Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria....
Brilliant plan. The region is now ours. Painful to hold but a critical shift in our favor...
40
posted on
11/26/2004 12:50:55 PM PST
by
kjenerette
(Jenerette for Senate - www.jenerette.com - U.S. Army Desert Storm)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson