Saddam had WMDs

National Review Online ^ | June 9, 2003 | Stanley Kurtz

[JohnGalt]

Doesn't the United States currently have 3000 bases and arms depots in 140 different countries?

"This is our history"

No, its the history of the ruling elite who have have left us with this mess of urban cess pools, alien invasions, and political correctness.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Al Queda had set up shop in Iraq until the U.S. military ran it out. Its leaders traveled to and from Baghdad planning evil and setting up the means to carry it out.

Iraqi fingers are in many terrorist pies from WTC1 to OKC to WTC2. They cannot be all explained away.

When a federal court finds Saddam financially liable for the WTC2 attack that is not just the fevered product of my imagination. It approaches what can be called a "fact."

In addition, the anthrax attacks will eventually be traced back to Iraq.

As far as the 2nd paragraph. To most people it does not matter if SH did not have WMD. He acted like it and that was good enough for any but chronic complainers.

[Stultis]

Yeah, we could retreat within our borders, let the world go straight to hell, and you know what, we would probably have a fine 10 years, or maybe even 30, before the chaos and the plauges and the economic collapse were lapping at and permeating our borders. Or before the first American city was obliterated by a nuke.

[JohnGalt]

This is a priceless post that really says it all about your paranoid world view.

[JohnGalt]

"When a federal court finds Saddam financially liable for the WTC2 attack that is not just the fevered product of my imagination. It approaches what can be called a "fact." "

You mean that wacky liberal judge in NY, right? Are you aware of his other unconventional views?

I suggest google.

[Miss Marple]

How is his post paranoid? If we retreat within our borders, we will have to go it alone without much trade. Countries we abandon to their own defense will not be buying from us.

No foreign aid to struggling countries means more war, civil unrest, disease, etc. than is currently going on. Nations will align against us, because we are rich and they are not. We cannot protect all of our shoreline without massive investments in seacraft and personnel. The goal of every tin-pot dictator will be to bring us down and claim the prize.

I don't think he is paranoid at all.

[JohnGalt]

People trade with another not states.

Individuals like Todd Beamer protect their countries and their fellow men, not Rummy's and MOABs.

Traiditonally, these has been called leftist/statist arguments:

"No foreign aid to struggling countries means more war, civil unrest, disease, etc. than is currently going on."

"Nations will align against us, because we are rich and they are not."

"We cannot protect all of our shoreline without massive investments in seacraft and personnel."

"The goal of every tin-pot dictator will be to bring us down and claim the prize."

I disagree on every count, but really the only thing we ever agreed on was impeaching Clinton, right?

[justshutupandtakeit]

I had hoped some one else would explain this to you but they haven't. It is very subtle so pay close attention.

OBL deliberately used Saudis for the 9/11 strike force because he knew it would cause the less discerning to start jumping up and down and shout " ooo, lookie the Saudis are attacking us." Many morons did just that and still are.

However, those who can actually put one thought in front of another and reach a conclusion realize that OBL hates the Saudi government almost as much as the US and will do anything to embarrass it or discredit it.

Since we have wiped out the vipers' nest in Baghdad it has become clear to S.A. that IT will have to undergo massive changes as well.

[jammer]

I was with you until you became uncivil in the last sentence. "Chronic complainers" don't justify your time and ad hominem arguments don't justify mine, so let's you and I drop it.

[Stultis]

your paranoid world view

Really? I recommend this. Just think, really think, about what the world might be like today if America had retreated within her borders 50 years ago.

For one thing, just for starters, there might still be a Soviet Union, and if so there would most probably be a Soviet aligned Marxist-Leninist state, with nuclear missiles, in Mexico. (This was almost certainly the ultimate goal of the Soviet interventions in Central America that Reagan, and lieutenants like Elliot Abrams, fought against so determinedly in the 1980s.)

[Miss Marple]

Much as I admire Todd Beamer and his efforts to defend the nation's capital from a disaster, this nation wouldn't survive long without things like the MOAB in our arsenal. And I am glad we have someone like Rummy leading at the Pentagon.

I really fail to see how your way would lead to anything but the destruction of our nation. With nothing but local militia and individuals, how would you combat China, should they decide to attack? Should Europe have been abandoned to Hitler? Should we not help to feed the hungry with our surpluses? Why are we here? Do you think the sole purpose of this nation is to sit behind a wall smug and happy, without engaging in trade or diplomacy?

Individuals and companies engage in trade only when it is allowed by their nations. No matter how much we would want to trade, I can see that many nations would prohibit trading with us in order to express their displeasure and break our economy.

You are quite correct. I agree with you on very little. I think your view of what is proper is neither realistic nor particularly inviting.

Discussion is therefore pointless. Have a nice day.

[Darksheare]

Yes, I said that already.
I got flamed for it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution and would probably have opposed it had he been in the country. Fortunately, he did not have that opportunity.

Jefferson did all he could to destroy our military while president and if even he, who shrank from conflict at all costs, was willing to go to war with the pirates you know it was the only alternative. NO one was more anti-war than Jefferson.

Saddam was not going to be allowed to set up the processes for making WMD of any sort. Those processes and mechanisms have been found as well as actual proscribed weapons themselves. The forbidden weapons were grounds for going to war and any congressional authorization is sufficient to launch it. That is perfectly consistent with the constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Americans in 1787 disagreed with your position on the unconstitutionality of the constitution since they ratified it. That is good enough for me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You deny the existence of a legion of chronic complainers which exists mainly to complain about Bush? Generally these Legionaires are Leftists/RATS but also include the hyper-patriots who seem to hate this country and its history as much as the former.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why would a liberal judge give credence to a hypothesis which would only help Bush's argument?

Being a liberal does not mean you are wrong 100% of the time.

[billbears]

OBL deliberately used Saudis for the 9/11 strike force because he knew it would cause the less discerning to start jumping up and down and shout " ooo, lookie the Saudis are attacking us." Many morons did just that and still are.

I guess that's why the Saudis are still donating to terrorist causes after 9/11 and having terror cells growing in their own country. It's really OBL doing it is that it? Still doesn't explain the OBL/Hussein tie does it?

However, those who can actually put one thought in front of another and reach a conclusion realize that OBL hates the Saudi government almost as much as the US and will do anything to embarrass it or discredit it.

As well as one with more than three brain cells can figure out that while OBL may have tried to work with Hussein, he more than likely had the same problems but on an even grander scale. Someone that fanatical in Islam is not going to work well with a secular government. OBL/Hussein tie weak at best. But let's get back to the Saudis, eh? He discredited the Saudi government by forcing the royalty to donate to terrorist causes? Is that your logic?

Since we have wiped out the vipers' nest in Baghdad it has become clear to S.A. that IT will have to undergo massive changes as well.

Hmmm, must be why Hamas (one receiving Saudi monies) is still running terrorist operations in Israel, because the Saudis are undergoing massive changes?

[PiP PiP Cherrio]

ohhh, relax.... facts are facts.

[PiP PiP Cherrio]

Ohhh, ease on down, huckelberry. Great cartoon, ehh?

[Miss Marple]

George Bush having the CIA do his private missions is not a fact, but a tin-foil theory from DU.

As I said, I am not wasting time on you.