Posted on 09/04/2002 7:21:03 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
I'll make this short and sweet. I have not seen evidence for a reason to invade Iraq or demand a regime change there.
Okay, Saddam gassed his own people twelve years ago or so. There have been multiple accusations of his development of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons development.
All the TV footage I see of Saddam Hussein is about 10 years old. Show me the evidence.
Saddam is a seriously de-stabalizing influence in the Middle East situation. So is Iran and our so called friends, "the Saudis".
The only way to peace in the ME is to quiet the de-stabalizers and encourage more Democracy. Turkey has come along way in this regard and the rest will follow if we remove the obsticles.
Iraq tops the list only because it is currently thumbing it's nose at the sanctions and at everyone else. Iran is as much or more important because of it's Islamicist leadership and it's importance as a potential threat if that leadership were to take complete control. Iraq is trying to make that happen.
Bush is well aware of the appearance of the "wag the dog" senario. I believe he is doing all he can to avoid that. If he really wanted to do something like that he would wait until the 2004 election season starts in 2003. Just about 6 months away. Not long to wait is it?
No, I think he is doing it now to avoid that perception.
Another good point
What an asinine question?
What bad things has Charlie Manson done lately?
Putz.
Yea, it's a known bug, but I think if I post it enough times it will get through.
Owen, see, told ya Fred, so what took you so long?
It was a glitch in the matrix. Move along.
So what have you learned today?
Anyone who said that, even as early as 1991, is in serious need of a psych exam. I never trusted him for one second.
You have got to be kidding .. that is exactly what many on this thread have been saying
Now Fred .. why did you choose to ignore us all
Don't forget the EU, especially France.
Agreements made at the point of a gun are rarely wholehearted. It wasn't the buildup which led to war -- Great Britain and France outgunned and outpositioned Germany until their betrayal of Czechoslovakia. War came because of what the Allies allowed Hitler to DO with his buildup -- to invade other countries with impunity.
Doesn't matter. If Hitler didn't do what he did with Czcheckoslovakia he would've still started WW2.
Beg you pardon, but if you look back, that WAS the start of WWII. That aggression was the casus belli -- the proper point at which the Allies should have acted, and at which they had the means to crush Hitler.
I'm not saying that we aren't justified in attacking Iraq; I just don't completely agree with your historical parallel. If Bush has the evidence, he will present it to Congress and our representatives will sanction the appropriate action...
That and what follows his breathing are quite enough, I think.
It was called Project Whitecoat.
If we would have stopped him when he was just building up that would've been good enough.
Beg you pardon, but if you look back, that WAS the start of WWII. That aggression was the casus belli -- the proper point at which the Allies should have acted, and at which they had the means to crush Hitler.
They should've had him in check in mid 30's when he was stock piling when Germany wasn't supposed to.
If Bush has the evidence, he will present it to Congress and our representatives will sanction the appropriate action...
He have to hold him to the agreement that was made after gulf war.
Hating Saddam is easy to do, even the right thing to do. The media is manipulating that energy. Its all about selling products and keeping the viewer interested to do so.
Yet the forces are not there. I do not feel we are serious about hitting Iraq at the present time. Again, just my opinion.
Do you believe in the atomic structure of matter? Ever seen it, do you have, personally, specific evidence for the reality of atoms?
Seems to me you're just enjoying stirring up the hornets' nest with your inquiry.
It's a good question. History shall give you the answer.
1. US attacks Iraq in the early 90s. Kicks Iraq's ass across the desert. Imposes sanctions. Tries for weapons inspectors.
2. To Iraq, that war never finished.
3. Revenge is a powerful motive.
4. No one else has any motive to do such a thing as Sept 11.
5. Iraq employs a band of thugs who feel that they are protecting every Muslim on earth. Tells them "these Muslims would not be suffering if it were not for the US led attack and sanctions".
6. An attack is planned and led in the name of "protecting Islam", which in reality is a revenge blow, and a message to 'get out of the middle east, and get the sanctions off'...
Iraq is suspect #1. They are the only ones with motive.
There is an obscure terror group in and from Iraq that specializes in attacking large stationary objects, such as buildings.
So far what I've said is circumstantial, but there is a lot more hard evidence in the lockers...
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.