Skip to comments.
Iraq and Poison Gas
The Nation ^
| 8/28/2002
| Dilip Hiro
Posted on 08/31/2002 12:10:41 PM PDT by Jolly Rodgers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: Biker Scum
No. I'm the fake Jolly Rodgers. The real one was cryogenically frozen and will be unavailable for two centuries. ;-)
To: Jolly Rodgers
22
posted on
08/31/2002 1:43:41 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Jolly Rodgers
LOL, what did you expect Bill Moyers to say? Read on.
23
posted on
08/31/2002 1:44:37 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Lots and lots of speculation in the media, but it is not the media who owes the American people an explanation and justification before sending our military to kill people in another nation. We are owed more than speculation and guesswork. The administration wants a war, so the burden of proof lies squarely on their shoulders to make their case and ask congress for a declaration. Or, we could just ignore the law and morality and just wing our way into empire.
Comment #25 Removed by Moderator
To: Jolly Rodgers
All in good time JR. I'll let you in on a secret. The Czech's have pictures of Atta and al Ani meeting n Prague. The POTUS has pictures of the 707 at Salman Pak. The CIA has solid information on Iraq's WMD program. In fact, their latest report even puts a number to the CB tipped SCUD's currently in Insane's arsenal.
When all the ducks are in a row, President Bush will present his case and that will be a bad day for Saddam Hussein and terrorists in general.
Just because the President has presented his case doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. Its there, it can be found on the internet and you're free to believe it or not.
26
posted on
08/31/2002 1:58:50 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: okie01
Nations are often forced to deal with bad men, for very good reasons. Does the author have a clue as to what our relationship with Iran was at the time?
He might point out that the US also provided arms and military intelligence to Iran as well.
To: Jolly Rodgers
All that political posturing between left and right aside -- in your opinion, are we justified to initiate war against Iraq at this time? If so, on what grounds?Yes, we are justified. The 1991 gulf war ended in a negotiated surrender, just as WWI did. The French and British would have been justified in going to war against Germany when the Germans began re-arming in the 1930's in violation of the Versailles treaty and history shows that they should have done that.
The situation in Iraq is analogous. Saddam Hussein is violating the terms he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
28
posted on
08/31/2002 2:11:59 PM PDT
by
Inyokern
To: Biker Scum
Love your bomb making pages though! Got a link? I seem to have, ehr, misplaced it. Yeah, that's that ticket. I forgot where I put those pages...
To: Jolly Rodgers
"A couple of well placed disinformation leaks to the media and we've got the talking heads all running around speculating that the anthrax came from Iraq." Who might they be?
Last I heard, the media was convinced it was a "domestic terrorist".
30
posted on
08/31/2002 2:21:55 PM PDT
by
okie01
To: secretagent
"He might point out that the US also provided arms and military intelligence to Iran as well." And why do you suppose the US did that?
31
posted on
08/31/2002 2:23:40 PM PDT
by
okie01
To: Inyokern
That's reasonable. If he were to make strides to come back into compliance with that surrender agreement, would we lose our justification?
To: okie01
Last I heard, the media was convinced it was a "domestic terrorist". They flip-flop back and forth faster than a RINO.
To: Inyokern
You forgot to add that we have almost 3000 reasons to adopt a preemptive policy rather than continue a reactive policy. It's shocking that some people still need to be hit over the head by a 2x4 before they'll do what needs to be done. Do we need 50,000 reasons to go after Saddam???
34
posted on
08/31/2002 2:28:54 PM PDT
by
mikegi
To: mikegi
If you have evidence that Saddam is responsible for 9/11, then put it on the table. Otherwise, you are using the dead to advance you own agenda, and that's damned despicable.
To: Inyokern
history shows that they should have done that. Defeat the facists and put the communists in power? Then Germany becomes allied with Stalin, a bigger butcher than Hitler.
No thanks, you can keep your alternative history.
36
posted on
08/31/2002 2:37:42 PM PDT
by
palmer
To: Jolly Rodgers
I put evidence on the table, convincing evidence. You choose to ignore it. So did the Clinton Administration.
37
posted on
08/31/2002 2:40:54 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Jolly Rodgers
If he were to make strides to come back into compliance with that surrender agreement, would we lose our justification?Not strides. Complete compliance.
38
posted on
08/31/2002 2:43:39 PM PDT
by
Inyokern
To: palmer
Defeat the facists and put the communists in power? Then Germany becomes allied with Stalin, a bigger butcher than HitlerWhat makes you think the communists would have come to power in a French-British-American occupied Germany in the 1930's any more than they came to power in French-British-American occupied West Germany after WWII?
39
posted on
08/31/2002 2:48:27 PM PDT
by
Inyokern
To: okie01
I don't know why the US gave arms and military intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
If the US just gave support to one bad guy to restrain the other, greater, bad guy, I could see some sense in it. But I don't understand giving support to both bad guys.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 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