Posted on 02/04/2003 4:41:12 PM PST by Barandth
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If we do not oust Saddam, Iraq will someday use its weapons of mass destruction to blackmail the United States, or even worse, will pass along such weapons to al-Qaida, which will use them against American targets.
The United States successfully deterred the likes of Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong - two brutal and erratic rulers. And those dictators possessed nuclear, not just chemical and biological, weapons, whereas there is no credible evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program. The pro-war faction has never explained why the United States cannot deter a garden-variety thug like Saddam Hussein.
Saddam and the other members of the Iraqi political elite know that threatening, much less attacking, the United States would be an act of suicide. Young, useful idiots like the Sept. 11 terrorists may be suicidal, but rulers of countries almost never are. Iraq's rulers know that attacking the United States would lead to an annihilating counterstroke from the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
Nor is it likely that Iraq would pass along chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida. Evidence of a connection between Baghdad and al-Qaida is flimsy at best.
Moreover, Saddam knows that he would be at the top of a very short list of suspects as the source of such a weapon if al-Qaida detonated one against an American target.
The only circumstance under which Saddam might pass a weapon to al-Qaida is if the United States invades Iraq because he would then have nothing to lose.
Stalin and Mao lived in completely different times with completely different aims so not even vaguely relevant.
Bush, in his State of the Union Address, stated that Saddam’s Procurement Network was trying to purchase materials required to produce nuclear weapons and, indeed, has even continued since after the inspections started, so contrary to what the author says, unless he wants to call Bush a liar, he’s dead wrong.
Saddam is a megalomaniac; by the time we’d know about an attack, it would be too late. Did al Qaeda warn us before they blew up the WTC, struck the Pentagon, came within a hair of blowing up the White House, and murdered 3000 innocent people? By the same token, did Saddam warn us before trying to murder Bush (41)? Before bombing the WTC in 1993?
Let me know if I’m wrong, but elimination is the best form of deterrence there is for thugs like Saddam. Kill him and no more worry about his WMD.
He pays families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 in the Israeli disputed territories, what gives the author the impression Saddam is rational? As for as Saddam not being a suicidal maniac, the very fact that he is basically committing suicide by not giving up his WMD, sort of kind of blows that argument out the water doesn’t it? Saddam is a known risk taker; he didn’t back down in the face of the overwhelming coalition forces in 1991, what makes the author so sure he wouldn’t want to risk a strike against the US? And, I don’t recall bin Laden making the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the US, rather it was "young, useful idiots."
Since when would flimsy at best evidence prevent a terrorist attack? Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah/Al Asqua Martyrs, Islamic Jihad, etc. are all extremely dangerous and all have one thing in common with Saddam – they all hate America. Who said a Saddam sponsored terrorist attack would necessarily come from an al Qaeda on the run? Most terrorism experts agree that there is a degree of cooperation between all of them, and, indeed, the IDF uncovered documentation last spring that proves they all cooperate. Saddam is already paying families of suicide bombers $25,000, why should anyone assume he wouldn’t give them WMD destruction?
Finally, so what if Saddam is on top of the suspect list? He was on top of the suspect list for the Sept. 11 attacks. As a matter of fact, bin Laden was at the top of the list too. Did it stop him?
Too bad the author didn’t tell us what the better alternative is. Obviously, he’s a card-carrying member of the “hate America” crowd, and oh yea, he's dead wrong.
Does being a card-carrying member of the "hate America/blame America" crowd make your mind independent?
I would like to know one thing; why is Iraq, a tiny third-world nation with few and incredibly well-hidden (if any at all) weapons of mass desruction, so grave a threat to America that it must be attacked once again, while North Korea, admitted possessor of weapons of mass destruction, and beligerant to the point of issuing threats to our government, must be handled with kid gloves and dealt with diplomatically? What kind of double standard is that? How does that make any sense?
Last time I looked, North Korea was an even a smaller and poorer third-world country than Iraq, so what’s the deal? Yes, it’s also in possession of nuclear weapons already, thanks to your pal Bill Clinton. We gave diplomacy 12 years to work for Iraq, shouldn’t we at least give diplomacy a reasonable chance to work with North Korea too, or does that just make too much sense for you? So where’s the double standard? It seems to me, it’s only common sense!
Now I have a question for you, what did America do to you to make you hate it so much?
Written by a vice president of the Cato Institute. I wouldn't be surprised Mr. Carpenter has a sign in his office that has been seen at anti-war demonstrations,
"Smoke weed, not Iraqi's"
Uh, I've been here with you before, Dane...I'm just telling you that effective debate is not achieved by spouting babble about how weed turns your brain liberal (I have HEARD you make this argument before and I have PROOF to the contrary :p). Cato argues for a lot of good things, a lot of stupid things, a lot of bad things...but they are not exactly a bastion of the liberal elite. You just don't like 'em cuz they're pro-legalization...which Buckley, founder of the modern conservative movement, is as well...which somehow I don't see as germane to this debate in any way, except for making me point out that your obssession over this one issue is really kinda weird. I understand you're the resident WoD enthusiast, and, uh, that's cool, but let's stick to the subject, eh?
Like the subject that this appeasment article was written by a vice President of the Cato Institute, or is that not germaine to the subject also?
But I do think it is senseless, will garner us nothing of value and will make us even more enemies in the Arab world. It will also be responsible for the birth of a whole new generation of terrorists, who will probably be even more fanatical in their passion.
The problem with you hate America types, is your screwed up view of America is really pathetic. Did America appease the imperialist Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! We are a hell of a lot stronger country than we were when the Japanese attacked us, and the Japanese were a hell of a lot bigger threat to us, but we faced down the threat and defeated it. What makes you think we can’t face down a bunch of rag heads still living in the seventh century? If we back down now, after our massive military buildup, then be prepared for a major, major escalation of terrorism around the world and within our borders.
*sigh*. Okay, Dane, I know you want to keep your job. So here, Dane: Marijuana's behind it all. Marijuana killed Kennedy. Marijuana faked the moon landing. Marijuana conspired with the Zionists to bring down the WTC. Okay? Now MOVE ON.
Actually, this one is REALLY annoying. It's more like, "Don't get the crazy mad Arabs crazy mad!". These people ALREADY hate us. There's no WAY they can hate us more. And it's NOT because of our foreign policy; it's a combination of envy, powerlust, and perversion of religion. Yes, yes, whatever we do, we shouldn't attack people who HATE US. Because then they might...HATE US. We should, I guess, only attack people who *like us a whole lot*.
These folks have proven their hate over and over. As to what separates Saddam from other dictators (responding to the post you responded to) -- he is the next logical step in a global war on terror. Once we're in there, we'll see a shift in the Arab dynamic. And the Arabs, whether they hate us or not, will ALWAYS love our money. It's a matter of getting rid of those pesky ones that seem to enjoy SLAMMING JETS INTO OUR COUNTRY. I don't have ANY problem with the Arab world. In fact, even if they were just fighting amongst each other, I wouldn't give a rat's ass. The point is, *they came here*. If you think Iraq hasn't suppplied a whompload of cash to fund terrorism, you're outta your gourd. Everybody loves to keep forgetting the simple fact that the United States *did not start this war* (but we're sure as hell gonna finish it), and that Iraq is just a piece of the puzzle. Iraq gives us a foothold. But I don't doubt for a moment we'll be on the move immediately after what I hope is stunning success in Baghdad.
Me,too. I think he is batting 1,000.
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.