Posted on 08/22/2002 6:44:48 AM PDT by KLT
I read the speech and couldn't find any evidence linking Iraq with Al Queda. Nice try...
FReegards...MUD
HA!!
Nawwww...
I knew damned well Karen would give y'all a hug.
...when all was said & done.
By waiting for the next round of cowardly terrorist attacks we are sitting ducks....but the PC police are out in full force, and we all know what short memories the public at large has...how soon they forget...
NYCop, you guys are truly the bravest....we in other branches of law enforcement owe you a great debt of gratitude.
FreeGards From Your Government Counterpart,
Karen AKA KLT
I knew about the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. However, the meeting is not sufficient grounds for an invasion. At a minimum Atta would have had to share information about the impending 9/11 attack with the Iraqi intelligence agent. Given the overwhelming emphasis on secrecy common in terrorist organizations, I doubt Atta shared that information at a meeting in a public place or anywhere else. After all, Atta apparently did not even share the full plan with all of his fellow 9/11 terrorists.
DeLay does present a good argument that Hussein is a brutal dictator, but none of that information is new. Iraq just does not represent a threat to our security.
And surely you don't think an individual as infamous as Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad without his knowledge and therefore his acquiescence do you?
If you believe that the U.S. can "win" a war to end terrorism throughout planet earth, you are aiming toward a hopelessly utopian goal, so utopian that you are providing a blank check for an endless war footing (and the trampling of the Constitution which it entails) for the U.S. If this goal of perpetual, undeclared, unwinneable war becomes the basis for policy, you can kiss goodbye to the limited-government, pro-bill of rights dreams of the founding fathers.
Now...I certainly agree that we needed to retaliate against Al Queada but this doesn't mean that we should the federal government a blank check to chase windmills to the end of time.
Your revisionist theory that we have stayed in the Chicken Coop bears no relation to reality. Your policy of intervention certainly has been given a fair try and has failed.
Dude, wake the hell up! Interventionism was started when Soviets put nuke tipped rockets in service after Sputnik and continues today with Saddam invading Kuwait and support of international terrorism.
Was the WTC us intervening? Us proselytising unappologeticaly our sense of morals? You need to know the difference between Islam and Christianity, and your own breed of bipolar fear mongering on the altar of anti-interventionism.
I am glad that you have apparently backed off your claim that we have stayed in the Coop....since the hard truth has been that the chickens have been roaming around pell-nell for quite some time.
Invasion because of non-compliance with UN resolutions. Right...
We have a remedy for the weekly attacks -- an armed response.
And surely you don't think an individual as infamous as Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad without his knowledge and therefore his acquiescence do you?
This is NOT a sufficient justification for an invasion.
Not in and of itself, but you'd asked for evidence specifically linking al queda to Iraq, and that is one item I'd heard. Still, I agree that "DeLay does present a good argument that Hussein is a brutal dictator...", and while I don't think it's America's role to rid the world of every brutal dictator via invasion, Hussein's an excellent example to make for the rest of the brutal dictators and those who might be considering overthrowing them in favor of a government more representative of the Sheeple.
How long have we been dealing with the problems in the Middle East and the potential problems this powderkeg presents to the Security of the World? You're fooling yourself if you believe Hussein isn't looking to join the nuclear club, and when you factor in what he was willing to do to his own people via gassing the Kurds, well, I simply believe we're sticking our heads in the sand if we think we can ignore Hussein and he won't proceed along the track until he's rattlin' sabres with nukes in his arsenal. So, if we can agree on that, why would we wait to take him out, especially when there is so much to be gained in other MiddleEast countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.) by making an example of Sodom?
"Iraq just does not represent a threat to our security."
The Clinton Administration made it through eight years making the same argument about Terrorism...after 9/11/01, I don't believe Dubyuh's equally spineless about Iraq.
FReegards...MUD
BTW...if you're looking for public testimony and photographs of Sodom Hussein and Osama bil Clinton, er, bin Laden together as your evidence to justify an Iraqi Invasion, you'll still be waiting for that long AFTER Sodom's been captured or killed by U.S. Forces. As Travis McGee's been pointing out about WWII, providing said evidence prior to an attack will compromise sources and endanger American soldiers' lives, IMHO. However, as they do in the Police Departments after killing a perp, I do believe post-Regime Change dialogue will prove--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that taking out Sodom, sooner rather than later, will indeed be "a good shoot."
This is not interventionism, this is resisting the illegal unappologetic proselytism of enemies at home and to their neighbors.
As part of National Military Appreciation Month, the Department of Defense is gathering signatures on a brief message thanking the men and women of the U.S. military for defending our freedom. The compiled list of names will be sent out to our soldiers at the end of the month. So far, there are only about 547,000 names. It is really easy. The web page brings up a space to type your name, city and state.
I've read the arguments on both sides, and I'm inclined to believe the Czechs...but even if I didn't, I'd still support taking out Sodom, as will the Iraqi Sheeple and the World, after the shooting's done.
FReegards...MUD
Yes, except as you say, the American people weren't behind Military intervention at that time, and how could we convince them except by something dramatic like Peal Harbor.
"IT reminds me of those who say "Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen".
I'm not saying I believe those stories about FDR, either...but it was interesting getting the perspective of the author of that book you referenced.
FReegards...MUD
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.