Posted on 09/04/2002 1:47:25 PM 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 ...
If I'm not mistaken, it appears that every action taken since September 11th has been against the citizenry and not the terrorists.
I mean, we're being told that the Saudis are friends but Iraq is so much worse? That doesn't make sense, for the vast majority of the terrorists were Saudis.
From the Patriot Act to CFR to "Homeland Security's" vagueness and redefinition to the TIPS program, it appears that everything that has been proposed is against the citizenry. Meanwhile, Bin Laden is a distant memory, and the man that we were going to "HUNT DOWN" is no longer a concern? Actually, Bush signed W199i prior to the September 11 attacks that made it illegal to go after Al Quaida.
It doesn't add up. Granted, I have no problem with America defending itself, and for those who are responsible paying for their crimes. However, there has to be a real connection.
The public is behind the President, and the traitorous rat jackass SOB's should have waited until after the 9/11 anniversary to announce that they would be standing in the way of the war on terrorism.
They are going to get their asses handed to them come election day.
The cost of freedom is blood, if you're not willing to shed it you won't be free for long.
What the hell do you think the red in the American flag symbolizes?.
Thank god Bush isn't stupid like that tard Chamberlain was with the Germans.
Is is painfully obvious that a lot of people are clueless about diplomacy and geo-political relationships. Iraq is the linchpin of the Islamic cabal, removing him and WESTERNIZING THE MIDDLE EAST is the ultimate goal of our foreign policy.
Once Iraq becomes civilized, the other states will follow or be isolated or dealt with militarily as well.
The Islamic nations will never be allowed to threaten the USA's survival, as long as the GOP is in power.
Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire, case closed.
But fine, let Bush come forward with proof and on live TV and tell the nation and the world that Iraq is more of a threat to us than Saudi Arabia and Eygpt and Lebanon (the countries from where all the 9/11 attackers came from) and that he has proof that the antrhrax came from Iraq. Then I will gladly repudiate all my objections to war with Iraq and go along with you.
And FYI: Clinton was also "my president" and I never trusted that disgrace and traitor for one inch. If you assume that because I am a registered Republican and a conservative that I trust Bush any more than Clinton because he shares my labels than you are neither a GOP member or conservative. ONly liberals and leftists believe in the infallibility of "leaders". I don't have a "leader" and never will.
Furthermore, why didn't you comment on what has happened since September 11?
Tell that to the Japanese.
In the year since 9/11 Afghanistan has been neutralized as a base of operations for anti-american islamic radicals bent on the destruction of our way of life.
Iraq is next, and the other nations will fall in line or face the consequences. Didn't you belive W when he said that nations that encourage terrorism will be dealt with?.
Saddam sends millions to the families of terrorists all over the world.
He is a threat and must be removed before he acquires nuclear weapons. The Germans don't have nukes, the Japs don't have nukes, and the goddamned ragheads aren't going to have nukes.
Radical Islamic groups in those countries are being hunted down like the dogs they are in Pakistan, a country where they had free reign until our campaign against the Taliban.
After Iraq is liberated, other countries in the region will crack down on the nuts in their midst as it would be in their national interest to do so.
How about this for action? We stop supporting Sorrupt regimes in the Islamic world, let the chips fall where they may, and then deal with whomever takes over for oil?
You answered you own question pretty well. Yes we allowed these corrupt regimes to flourish in the past. Yes we looked the other way and did nothing. Because of that, we are partially to blame for 911. They attacked and succeeded because they thought that they could get away with it based on recent history of the US looking the other way. This is really not about Iraq except as an example to those regimes that we will no longer look the other way. These despots must once and for all get the message that the United States is bigger threat to their power than any internal extremist groups. Iraq has given us ample reason to make it the "example" to the rest. This is not a game this is actually a chance to win the WOT to the extent of stopping state sponsorship of terrorism.
Where did I say that? I feel it rectifies many of those failures and mistakes.
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.