Posted on 09/04/2002 8:26:38 AM PDT by profmike23
Where’s Your Case? By Michael Patlan
The mainstream press, led by the New York Times (the paper of distorted record), is in the throes of waging a campaign to prevent military action against Saddam Hussein. They have incorrectly labeled such action an “Attack on Iraq;” it is actually the liberation of innocent people from an evil dictator. The press is as giddy as a schoolgirl meeting a teen heartthrob over the fact that Republicans disagree on this issue. The pro-Saddam crowd has consistently raised a few points, which I will now address.
“We don’t know how much this war will cost.” Were these people hell bent on knowing the exact cost of World War II , the Persian Gulf War or the Cold War? Did anyone ask FDR how much removing Hitler would cost? Did they ask Truman how much containing Communism would cost? There are few things certain in war; length and cost are not two of them.
Another argument made is that action against Iraq could “destabilize the Middle East.” When has the Middle East had any sort of stability? The only things stable about the Middle East are the denial of freedom to the citizens of these repressive regimes and the subordinate role of women. Are those worth defending?
The pro-Saddam crowd has also said this could derail the war on terror. This is the next phase of the war on terror! While they argue that Saddam has no connection to terrorism, they overlook the fact that he pays families of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000.1 That’s no small sum in the Middle East. Not to mention the recent death of Abu Nidal, a world-renowned terrorist, in Baghdad!2 The BBC was compelled to call Iraq the “last haven” of Abu Nidal and his followers. 3 Some opposed to war continue to maintain that we must solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict first. Saddam is funding Palestinian terrorists – removing him from power would severely diminish the financial benefits of terrorism for Palestinian youth. They want us to solve a conflict Saddam is sustaining before we remove Saddam from power – that’s just absurd!
Another argument is “the President needs to share his plans, so that we can debate them.” Why would we broadcast our military plans to the world (including Saddam)? That’s just insane.
Then, of course, there’s the argument that the “President must make his case.” Did these people miss the State of the Union? Here are a few of President Bush’s words, “Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature… Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” That’s a pretty strong case to me. So to those opposing war with Saddam: Where’s your case?
(Excerpt) Read more at thecitizensforum.com ...
Getting rid of Saddam will not benefit us any more than containing him and one of the clear costs of doing it is diverting resources from the war on terrorism. I could be wrong, he could be the next Hitler, but I seriously doubt it.
Every male in my family serves, or attempts to serve, in some capacity in the military. Not all enlist as teenagers. Some stay for a single hitch, some make it a career. Some attend college and become officers, others (like me) drop out of high school and join.
I get sick and tired of people whining about non-veterans being hawkish; the majority of vets don't see combat, so what makes them special? Some people can't enlist for other reasons. Some people pursue careers which are just as important to society, like paramedics. Some people have physical disabilities that prevent them from joining, and still others are simply unwanted. Yet a flaming queer, anti-gun, communist bigot can serve a short hitch and somehow be considered morally superior? I think not.
I wish I could come up with a better phrase than "You are so completely right it hurts," but I can't.
If I had a hat on, I would tip it to you.
This isn't the "next phase", it's a detour.
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.