Why Liberals Oppose Unilateralism

"..don't want us to be dragged into some hideous quagmire because of wild speculations, exaggerations and bold faced lies" "nebis with a bucket of Anthrax and a few scuds" "not all tyrants bent on world domination"

So your saying that Sadam will continue to peacefully murder his own people and leave us alone? About the scuds & "bucket of Anthrax": Are you SURE that's all he has after 3 years of no inspectors? What about the the guy who said he was within 1 year of having Nukes? He defected & he was IN CHARGE OF SADAM'S WEAPONS PROGRAM. You'd rather beleive Sadam? You didn't answear my question. Why do you think he threw the inspectors out and hasn't let them back in for YEARS? Speculate on what you think he's up to. By the way, my 20 yr old God-daughter is in the Army. I don't take going to war lightly, and unlike the previous president , who gave us Black Hawk down, and other problems regarding our military, President Bush does not take it lightly either. He's not using Iraq for political gain,wich is what your sick assertation is. This is something that has to be dealt with. We ignore it at our peril. Sadam doesn't have to have a huge army to attack us all he needs is a few nukes or chemical weapons. You said he did't use his chemical weapons on us in the gulf war because we would have wiped him out. That's true. Why do that when he could sell his weaponsto someone like Osama and there by attack us indirectly? You certainly argue like a liberal for someone who claims not to be one. Your knee jerk Patriotism comment doesn't refer to our Constitution in my post # 9? Do tell then,what in post 9 are you referring to as being knee jerk Patriotism?

I should confess I don't really know what the fixation on Iraq stems from. My hunch is that it is of strategic significance.

It is a Arab National Socialist regime which seeks to dominate the region? It has used WMD's? It subsides terrorism? It has been tied to the WTC attack of 1993?

Of course, I want to overthrow the corrupt Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Let them have Democratic Republics or Constitutional monarchies.

Regarding an earlier post: When did Iraq attack us?
Remember the USS Stark?

During the Reagen/Bush administrations they were one of our buddies - UP TO AND AFTER THE TIME THEY GASSED THE KURDS.
Actually, we ended military aid.

Saddam, perhaps inspired by Bush's invasion of Panama, decided to go into Kuwait (for reasons no less flimsy than Bush's). As I recall, that's when the hostilities commenced. But they didn't "attack" us.
BS. We did not occupy all of Panama. WE overthroew a dictator whose forces were kidnapping and terrorizing Americans. We otherow a dictator who ran a drug network.

Iraq invaded a foreign country to annex it.

We just atack Iraq, go on home and live happily ever after while Jordan props up the New Improved Whatever.

Are you serious? Do you really think our problems there are this easily solved?

You're not looking long term. Remember that this is a war on terrorism. Terrorism today is almost uniformly defined as islamic. Iraq is the gateway into the middle east. It is a country that is arab and yet hated by most other arabs. It is islamic but hated by most other islamics. It's the ideal next country to reform after afghanistan.

Now we have ties between iraq and oklahoma city, palistinian terrorism, and quite possibly 9-11. Iraq attacked us through their surrogates the terrorists. Iraq continues to support terrorism. It must be destroyed before it destroys us.

And no, Iraq will not be the last. This is a long term war and will continue until islam is no more. Each country that supports terrorism also supports islam. Each country that supports islam also supports terrorism. They are inseparable.

GSA(P)

Of course Saddam is building weapons. Do you _really_ think the first thing he will do is attack us, thereby guaranteeing his complete destruction? Why haven't North Korea and China done this? Countries acquire weapons of mass destruction to use as bargaining chips, not to commit suicide.

Because while N korea and china are evil, they are not insane. Saddam is islamic. Something is not quite right there. If he gets killed he figures on getting his 72 virgins and pleasure forever. The man doesn't care about his people or about anything else. He is islamic.

This is not a part of the world that we want plunged into instability, especially now. A civil war between Sunis, Shiites, and Kurds would be worse.

Why and why? Instability in this part of the world means that the islamic factions merely start killing each other off. How could this be a bad thing? These groups already hate us so we are not making any new enemies and if they kill each other we win.

And what happens when Iran becomes the main power in the region? Go off to war against them, I suppose.

Now you're getting the idea. Actually the political climate in Iran is turning greatly in our favor. Most of the population loves the US and hates their own government. Internal revolution should be relatively easy to foment. If the people don't throw off their theocracy then we may need to do it ourselves. Again, the country is not arab and the arabs hate them. The country is islamic but is of a sunni islam while most of the rest of the countries around are shiite (I might have them swapped). The rest of the islamic countries in the mideast distrust iran as much as they distrust us. Taking iran earns us no new enemies and eliminates an old one. We win.

The mideast countries have very little cohesion and very little long range vision (islam doesn't allow creativity). They won't notice that they are being divided and conquered until we want them to notice it. And if they do, what could they do about it.

GSA(P)

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.