Skip to comments.
Double warning against Iraq war
The Times (U.K.) ^
| 08/05/2002
| Roland Watson and Melissa Kite
Posted on 08/04/2002 4:58:16 PM PDT by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
1
posted on
08/04/2002 4:58:16 PM PDT
by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
Oh, for God's sake! How many "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't do it!" articles from the UK are we up to this weekend?
To: Pokey78
I'm sure Bush hears advice from everyone these days. We elected him because he has the intelligence and the heart and the love for this country to wage this war successfully.
My question is: how did the UK Times get this info? We do know that the liberals are doing EVERYTHING they can to protect Iraq. We know that the liberals ally themselves with ANYONE who hates us as they do. The Times did not print this because of any concern for America or for Muslims living under oppression.
To: Pokey78
Well, I am pi$$ at Scowcroft! He's going public precisely to pressure the president. Some Bush 'friend.' And yes, the socialists have their panties in a twist....Bush is will be successful, they know it, and are livid!
To: Pokey78
What's the story on Scowcroft, he's not a Dean or Gergen is he? Unless so, I wouldn't dismiss his statements out of hand.
To: Pokey78
My gooness, there seems to be a serious push in the European Media to tell the US to Cowl Down. LOL. Ha Ha Ha. As if we care!
6
posted on
08/04/2002 5:12:41 PM PDT
by
vannrox
To: Pokey78
Field Marshal Lord Bramall:
You dont have licence to attack someone elses country just because you dont like the leadership, he told BBC Radio 4s World This Weekend. We are supposed to be taking a lead on the moral issues of the world. Oh yes you do, if they are trying to kill you. Here's a moral for you Bramall; don't attack other countries and not expect a fatal response in return, including surrogates like terrorists doing your bidding.
7
posted on
08/04/2002 5:13:56 PM PDT
by
demlosers
To: WaterDragon
You betcha!
To: Diddle E. Squat
I always thought Scowcroft had his head on straight.
What exactly are our justifications for pursuing war with Iraq? I've heard our concern over them getting WOMD, but that would apply to how many other countries?
Does their surrender treaty give us any openings here? And have we tied them to al Queda?
What do you think of the pre-emptive strike justification? I agree if it's based on solid intelligence data.
9
posted on
08/04/2002 5:16:59 PM PDT
by
gitmo
To: Pokey78
I guess we need to wait until Saddam kills Americans by the millions before we do anything about it. We certainly wouldn't want to upset the Euroweenies or Islamifascists, would we?
If we wait until we finish brokering a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we'll be waiting forever. That's a never-ending game, with out pocketbooks turned inside out to play it and everybody knows it. It's a classic "stall".
Scr^w 'em! This guy is either a threat or he isn't. If he is, we need to go to war and soon. Let's go and get it over with. If he isn't a threat, we need to take all our marbles and come home. Either way, let the rest of the world's handwringers stay on the sidelines and do what they do best; bitch and ask for more American handouts!
10
posted on
08/04/2002 5:18:33 PM PDT
by
Gritty
To: WaterDragon
Well, I am pi$$ at Scowcroft! He's going public precisely to pressure the president. Some Bush 'friend.' And yes, the socialists have their panties in a twist....Bush is will be successful, they know it, and are livid! There's nothing wrong with pressuring the president. God knows everyone else does. As for friendship, I don't see that expressing a dissenting view on a public policy issue is an act of personal betrayal. I'm sure General Scowcroft has never claimed that Bush was disloyal to him for having taken a contrary position on Iraq. It seems to me that General Scowcroft is a good loyal American. I for one appreciate his sharing his views with the people of America. If we're going to war with Iraq, the last thing we need to be doing now is suppressing contrary views.
11
posted on
08/04/2002 5:19:13 PM PDT
by
DentsRun
To: gitmo
What do you think of the pre-emptive strike justification? I agree if it's based on solid intelligence data. If there's solid intelligence, it should not be hard to convince the British about it. I think it's well worth it to at least get them on board. The rest of Europe is out to lunch, but Britain has been and should be a true ally.
To: Pokey78
"AMERICAS National Security Adviser during the Gulf War warned President Bush yesterday that invading Iraq would cause an explosion in the Middle East and consign the United States to defeat in its War on Terror. "What he overlooks is that such a wider war is the outcome desired by non-uniformed Defense War Deparment staff. Scowcroft is a General so what does he know about war even pundits know how to solve everything in a few weeks from their home desk.. (/sarcasm)
13
posted on
08/04/2002 5:23:57 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
To: Pokey78
Well, geez, we only lost a couple thousand people.
Wouldn't want to step on any toes.
Surely we can top Carthage in the history books.
To: Pokey78
You dont have licence to attack someone elses country just because you dont like the leadership, he told BBC Radio 4s World This Weekend. We are supposed to be taking a lead on the moral issues of the world. What does any of this have to do with Iraq or Saddam?
15
posted on
08/04/2002 5:26:23 PM PDT
by
Jorge
To: WaterDragon
I am sick to death of these two faced hypocritical European liars. They were all for the wholesale destruction of Yugoslavia, a war in which NATO launched 20,000 bombing sorties and killed thousands of innocent civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure and devastating the economies of neighboring states so dependant on the Danube river and trade in the Balkans.
Yet when faced with a wretched evil man with a history of violence, who mercilessly slaughters his own people for sport, who finances and exports terrorism, and is threatening to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction... they are acting and sound like morally irrelevant chickensh!t panzies.
The European left are the new white trash of the world. They say We are supposed to be taking a lead on the moral issues of the world but in fact are revealing themselves as egocentric, amoral cowards.
To: WaterDragon
Scowcroft is still trying to justify his failures at
the NSC during the Gulf War in 1991. He was the very
embodiment of Kissingerian "realpolitique" arguing that
the butcher of Baghdad, saddam, should be
allowed to stay safe in his fuherbunker in order to
maintain stability in the region. I think that
decision was instrumental in allowing one, william
jefferson clinton, a pathetic weasel of a draft dodger,
insinuate himself into the Oval Office. Scowcroft will
argue to his dying day that leaving saddam in Baghdad
was a stabilizing event. He was wrong then, and he is
wrong today.
17
posted on
08/04/2002 5:32:37 PM PDT
by
AdvisorB
To: hellinahandcart
Oh, for God's sake! How many "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't do it!" articles from the UK are we up to this weekend?as many as it takes to go to hell in a hand cart.
18
posted on
08/04/2002 5:37:30 PM PDT
by
mlocher
To: Pokey78
may not be morally or legally justified. But of course, it's OK for Saddam to gas his own people, and threaten to gas or nuke everyone else, right?
19
posted on
08/04/2002 5:37:55 PM PDT
by
mhking
To: Pokey78
You dont have licence to attack someone elses country just because you dont like the leadership,Yes you do! That's what the terrorists did to us on 9/11.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson