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

To: patriciaruth

“If we had let Saddam stay out there, he would have continued to foster attacks on the U.S. abroad and at home. Don’t give me the line that al Qaeda was solely responsible for all the attacks. Saddam helped. Basic psychology of the pathological personality he had. We don’t know yet exactly how he helped, but the magnitude of the 9/11 plan needed some state sponsorship or assistance to work.”
+++++++++++++

I would recommend if you haven’t, to read The Connection. The fact that Saddam’s IIA had diplomatic privileges all over the world, allowed that ROGUE state to officially aid terror units whenever and where ever they found that to be convenient for themselves. Gee, do you suppose Saddam found it convenient to oppose the USA and support the ‘arab street?’ We know that he funded homocide bombers inside Israel by giving $25,000 to the homocide bombers’ families. That is an undisputed fact.


86 posted on 05/15/2009 6:39:42 AM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: SeattleBruce

Have read The Connection, and sent copies to our troops.

But the evidence in it is circumstantial, and not enough to convince those who believe Iraq War has been difficult and therefore should never have been started.

We faced then and still face a terrible dilemma when it comes to fighting wars. The military experts told us we needed much more force going in to prevent anarchy and supress insurgency more effectively at the outset. But to get more force we need a draft. A draft leads to factions that protest and riot and force withdrawal from the war, causing anarchy to occur later and insurgency to win.

Therefore, if you are going to win, you have to make do with the army you’ve got, no matter how hard and chaotic that is.

H.W. fought the Gulf War with Reagan’s army, and W. fought the Iraq War with Clinton’s army. As W.’s army gained materiel and expertise necessary for fighting a nonconventional war, their effectiveness increased; but now we have Obama leading our armed forces, and I doubt he can handle it.

W. had to lead the armed forces with a lot of people (most of the Dems and some of the independents and conservatives) trying to stab him in the back. Obama will have people on the far left trying to get him to quit.

On the plus side we have Resko and Fitzgerald providing Clinton with leverage over Obama, and that may provide some counterbalance so that he doesn’t commit some of the worst mistakes.


89 posted on 05/15/2009 3:16:25 PM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1993905/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | 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