Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TomB
Why is it so hard to make the connection?

Because there is no connection. To the contrary, we knew that Osama hated Hussein. He was not sufficiently devoted to Islam. He ran a secular nation with only minor accomodations to Islamic leaders. To presume a partnership was stupid. In fact, none was claimed. There was just skillful speech to imply while leaving the out-"I never said that".

When did it become a legitmate question IF Hussein had WMDs?

It is extremely appropriate to ask that question, since there is where the potential admistration lies exist. Frankly, I do not think that the war would have been legitimate even if he did openly have WMDs. Unless there was a realistic reason to believe that he was preparing to use them (or do you think that he was going to hand them over to his enemy to use?)If mere possession of WMDs justifies war, then when are we invading Pakistan, India and North Korea?

One more point-In 1945, we signed a treaty, the UN charter, where every member nation undertook NOT to attack any other member nation with only two exceptions-self defense or the direction of the security council. This war violated that treaty obligation. (The UN security council did NOT authorize the use of force. All the resolutions were orders to Hussein. When the force question was put to the Security Council, it FAILED, and it did not take a veto. The USA withdrew the request when they realized that it was going to get only 4 of 15 votes.

21 posted on 12/27/2003 9:02:51 AM PST by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Mike4Freedom
Because there is no connection. To the contrary, we knew that Osama hated Hussein. He was not sufficiently devoted to Islam. He ran a secular nation with only minor accomodations to Islamic leaders. To presume a partnership was stupid. In fact, none was claimed. There was just skillful speech to imply while leaving the out-"I never said that".

That is a ridiculous argument considering the oft-repeated muslim/arab saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". To say Bin Laden and Hussein would let their own anumis get in the way of attacking the US is fantasy.

It is extremely appropriate to ask that question,

Then I'd appreciate an answer, not a treatise on the justifiablity of war and WMDs.

This war violated that treaty obligation. (The UN security council did NOT authorize the use of force.

At the end of the first Gulf War, the Iraqis signed a cease-fire agreement in order to prevent the complete obliteration of their armed forces. Among the terms in that agreement were sitpulations allowing the monitoring of the distruction of Iraq's WMDs, no fly zones, etc. Almost immediatley the Iraqis began to defy those terms, thus nullifying the cease-fire agreement. We needed no other justification.

48 posted on 12/27/2003 9:39:54 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mike4Freedom
Because there is no connection. To the contrary, we knew that Osama hated Hussein.

Dude, you need to do a little homework. You are seriously ignorant of many facts, not the least of which is that Osama spent time in Iraq in the late 90's. Whether Osama hated Saddam had no bearing on his ability and/or desire to deal with him in attacking their common enemy. I assume you don't know that Saddam helped train Al Quaeda in Iraq? If you do know that and ignore it, then your posts aren't worth responding to. If you are unaware, then I suggest before you spout your nonsense, get the facts straight.

84 posted on 12/27/2003 10:43:30 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mike4Freedom
we signed a treaty, the UN charter, where every member nation undertook NOT to attack any other member nation with only two exceptions-self defense or the direction of the security council.

Exactly, it was self defense. But, assuming thats argueable (which it isn't because only the US, not the UN, can make decisions on US security) have you read UN resolution 1441? There were "severe" consequences for non-compliance. Just because France and Germany told Saddam they would keep the US from attacking, doesn't mean the teeth of 1441 were not valid. The vote, BTW, on 1441 was 17-0.

Remember, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement back in 91/92 and for over a decade failed to live up to it. I assume you remember Saddam ATTACKED another nation, in violation of Iraq's agreement that they signed with the UN. After he got his butt kicked, he violated the terms of the cease fire agreement and we simply enforced the cease fire agreement. We could ill-afford to let him develop WMD's for use on the US, either directly, or through a surogate.

Just because you are relatively safe in Kansas, Dorothy, doesn't mean the rest of the nation is. The policy of pacification brought us WTC bombing I, the USS Cole, the Khobar towers, the embassey bombing in Africa, etc. etc. etc. I assume you are from the crowd that needed to see a mushroom cloud rise above Philadelphia, Washington, or NY City and wait for someone to take credit for it before doing anything? Wake up to the real world. Read a newspaper and educate yourself on whats going on around the world. We are at war, my friend. And Saddam was part of that war, believe it or not.

88 posted on 12/27/2003 10:57:33 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mike4Freedom
You ran as a Libertarian yet you defend your arguments by running to the UN?
143 posted on 12/27/2003 2:41:43 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson