Posted on 09/27/2001 9:09:59 AM PDT by ex-snook
You're thesis makes no sense. Why would Saddam hire Islamic fundamentalists (who hate him) to attack the U.S.?
Saddam wants to survive. His goal is to get those sanctions lifted and get things back to the "good ol' days".
Why would he risk an ill-advised attack on America that ensures swift destruction for all culprits, including himself?
Saddam may be evil, but he's no fool.
This whole idea of an Iraqi connection, was dreamed up in Wolfowitz's office and leaked to the press.
The man is absolutely salivating at the prospect of toppling Saddam.
I think that's debatable, actually. This guy has made some serious miscalculations in the past; we cannot be confident that he will behave rationally. That's one of the main reasons he has to be eliminated.
Ummm... is that what should drive American Leadership... 'cause that's what we've had for the previous 8 years... and John McCain was soundly defeated last I remember?
You're joking, right? These are the "good ol' days" for Saddam. He has consolidated power, continued building palaces, and ended hostilities with some of his erstwhile competitors in the Middle East.
Things just don't get any better than that when you're a sociopathic dictator.
Arator is not my leader. I am an "army of one".
Additionally, Pat's a money grabber, taking my money to fund and fuel his crank ideas in a futile election quest.
Well, as they say in the 'Hood, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". Almost every presidental candidate takes Federal money of some sort. The system is in place and the 12.6 million was gonna go somewhere. Bay's kids college fund is as good a place for it as any (that's a joke).
*Who else finds this indenting stupid and the font girly?
Really? Why did he write this article?
I got to run, see you later.
I don't have problem with that. But the neocons have already come up with a list of countries that need to be "taken care of". And it seems the scope of retaliation they have in mind is more like a war against islam, rather than retaliation.
I don't see a contradiction.
Personally, I think that the future is uncertain. This may remain a limited operation against terrorist networks. On the other hand it may also turn into a global war against Islam. We have a limited ability to control that.
I applaud the administration's efforts to contain the conflict so far, and I hope they are successful. However, if "Islam," by which I suppose I mean the great masses of practioners throughout the M.E., decides that it wants war, however, we will not be able to prevent it.
When your people are dying of disease due to lack of medicine, believe me, things are not so good. No leader needs that kind of unrest. And before the Gulf War, Saddam didn't need those "competitors". Iraq, along with Israel, was the regional superpower.
BTW, since you noticed, who do you think caused all of these "erstwhile competitors" (putting it mildly, hated enemies would be more accurate) to fall head over heels for Saddam?
I applaud the administration's efforts to contain the conflict so far, and I hope they are successful. However, if "Islam," by which I suppose I mean the great masses of practioners throughout the M.E., decides that it wants war, however, we will not be able to prevent it.
In which case, we had all better say a prayer, because we are talking about World War, and endless terrorist attacks.
Re: military service of the gang of 41 war mongers - Now that's a interesting point. Makes you wonder how many of them wore the uniform in a risk situation.
My guess? Zero or close to it. It is a well-known but seldom-commented-on-in-polite-circles fact here in Washington that the loudest voices in favor of war -- any war will do -- have never served their country in uniform. Nor have their offspring.
LOL! As if he cares. This is the same guy who gassed "his people" and who continues to brutally repress them through his secret police. In this brief exchange, you and I have already spent more time thinking about the welfare of "his people" than Saddam has in his entire career.
"...who do you think caused all of these "erstwhile competitors" (putting it mildly, hated enemies would be more accurate) to fall head over heels for Saddam?
I'm sure I'll regret this, but I'll bite anyway: who? Just please spare me the "it's the fault of cruel and senseless Imperialism on the part of the US, stuff," ok?
What America does may determine how great masses of practitioners react. It may turn into a jihad against the "Great Satan", in which case Osama bin Laden will be vindicated in the eyes of non-radical muslims. It's easy to step into the abyss, and it seems that the neocons and terrorists have the same goal of starting a global war.
Me, I'm saying my prayers regardless. But I'm not too worried about the world war you describe. It would be over in a flash, literally.
I'm more worried about a new Cold War with Islam, a war of attrition that the US and her allies cannot win.
But what happens if, in prosecuting a just and limited operation to destroy al-Quaeda and her sister organizations, we still incite the Islamic masses? Already, many of them are purchasing t-shirts with bin Ladin's face and praising him as a "hero."
Do you really want to declare a billion people your enemies? I think this is exactly what the terrorists wanted.
Isn't it infuriating when something is so bloody obvious and the knee-jerk armchair warriors and their vanguard microphone-hogging leaders are unable or unwilling to see it? I think if Osama had passed wind in some remote cave somewhere these neocons would have taken it as a clear sign that a world war was in order. They do have the dialectic down very well, that you have to hand them.
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.