|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 04/09/2003 3:59:10 PM PDT by Pro-Bush
President Bush and Vice President Cheney declared themselves vindicated today as Baghdad fell to U.S. forces just 10 days after the administration suffered a barrage of second-guessing about its war plan.
"They got it down!" Bush said this morning as he caught television coverage of a toppled statue of Saddam Hussein, according to an aide.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer called the scenes of joyful Iraqi defiance of Saddam Hussein's fallen regime "a powerful testament to mankind's desire to live free."
"That includes, of course, the Iraqi people, like the president always said it would," Fleischer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
The problem is that the stated reason to go to war was to disarm Hussein and it appears so far that there was nothing to disarm. Wasn't that the reason for the war? We were told that he positively had chemical and/or bio weapons and was developing nuclear capability. Hell he even bought tons of uranium.
So far, no chemical or bio weapons, no nuclear development evident and the uranium purchase was based on forged documents. So what was the purpose?
I hope no one says that the real purpose all along was to free the Iraqi people, because if that was the purpose, we have several more pre-emptive strikes (with human losses)ahead of us. Are you ready for that?
Why in the world MUST we have a POLICY of pre-emptive stikes simply because we did one on Iraq? Are you saying that since we toppled Saddam we MUST topple Syria. That makes no sense at all. We don't HAVE to be consistent about this. Our policy could be that we go on a "case by case basis". Let the rest of them sweat wondering what we are going to do. Plus, one formally stated goal of this conflict IS to free the people of Iraq. There are many other goals including looking for WMD. So the goals include but are not limited to looking for WMD.
I am saying that the logic to do each and every one of the "Axis of Evil" is the same and they should all expect and fear an attack. Likewise we should fear that our troops will again be placed at risk.
Most of all, we need to consider how the Axis nations might react to the threat.
I hope no one says that the real purpose all along was to free the Iraqi people, because if that was the purpose, we have several more pre-emptive strikes (with human losses)ahead of us. Are you ready for that?Iran. North Korea. Syria. I am so ready.
No, removing a dictator is a good thing in isolation, but it has a cost. I am asking if you are willing to remove more dictators, with all the costs involved, if there is, in fact no WMD threat. Are we to be the Judge, jury and police force for the world?
And are you taking into account all of the costs and risks?
A lot of news to keep up with. Weren't they 2 Al Samoud's that Hussein was destroying at 4 per day until the inspectors had to leave for the war?
I agree that North Korea is probably much more of a threat than Iraq was. They actually have nuclear weapons, real ones, not imaginary ones. So while they need attention, they are quite dangerous to mess with.
How do you attack a nuclear armed nation?
I think you are jumping to conclusions. We don't HAVE to do anything in the future simply based on what we have done in the past. There is no reason to have a fixed policy that North Korea is most certainly next in line for pre-emptive action. In fact we ALREADY know that we are going to get China to work on the North Koreans. Nobody in the Administration has said otherwise. Your point here is inadequate because the administration has not formally bound itself to a fixed policy.
"Most of all, we need to consider how the Axis nations might react to the threat."
They have already reacted. Iraq is no longer a threat. And there's only two left now. So does two make an Axis?
You are saying that if we cannot remove all dictators we should not remove any dictators. What? Are you trying to be fair to dictators? There is no reason why we have remove every dictator just because we got rid of Saddam. He is one of the very worst and most dangerous, a lessor dictator might be left alone. I say since we can't do it ALL, let's do what we CAN do. What's wrong with that?
"Are we to be the Judge, jury and police force for the world?"
The answer is, Sometimes we might take on that role and sometimes we might not. Why would that be a problem? I can't figure out why you think there needs to be a consistency here. Consistency is not the point or a good thing in and of itself. It would be a foolish consistency to say that because we got rid of Saddam we HAVE to get rid some other dictator. I don't know why there has to be a policy engraved in stone here.
You misunderstand me. I am not looking for consistency, I am afraid that we might be consistent and have a string of painful and expensive wars in the near future. I also think that we started on the wrong end of the Earth. North Korea represents much more of a danger to us than Iraq ever did.
Just a samll heads up. That military was the most powerful in the ME ....
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.