Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't Start the Second Gulf War
National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

Posted on 09/24/2002 11:51:53 AM PDT by Protagoras

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 741-756 next last
To: Huck
Can we go bomb them now?

I'm game

181 posted on 09/24/2002 2:13:03 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Why is it stuartcr and TJ won't reveal their nationality?
182 posted on 09/24/2002 2:13:06 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
No armed pilots.

Not True, They started a Pilot Program for a few Ailines (No Pun Intended) to see how it goes.
183 posted on 09/24/2002 2:13:38 PM PDT by cmsgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
And my information leads me to believe that it is credible. Post yours.

See? Its fun to play that game.

184 posted on 09/24/2002 2:13:39 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: rintense
And what would you have the US do? Sit back and wait for another 9-11 to happen?

They'll think of another excuse

185 posted on 09/24/2002 2:13:40 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: agrace
Unless you are more interested in baiting than debating

Ouch!

186 posted on 09/24/2002 2:13:59 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: rintense
I sympathize...hence:

Walk towards the light...

187 posted on 09/24/2002 2:14:41 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4; ThomasJefferson; stuartcr
I love the graphics and more importantly the attitude you have . They talk in circles and demand that the rest of the world join in on the tiresome debate .

Thank goodness they are the strict minority . Even if they had the entire picture that also would be debated I suspect .

188 posted on 09/24/2002 2:14:43 PM PDT by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: rintense
No, it wasn't you I was referring to. I was too lazy to go back and find the poster, who said that Iraq didn't have ICBM's.

Your position is the correct one, in my opinion.

I think part of the problem we see is that people who opposed President Bush during the election do not want to admit that he could possibly be right on any issue. It would show that they were not 100% correct about his lack of brain power and leadership.

Can you doubt for a mnute that if Buchanan, Browne, or Keyes were to be pushing for a pre-emptive strike that they would not back it?

The issue really isn't about policy; the issue has become personality. There are people who refuse to think that President Bush knows what he is doing and is doing the best he can for the country. No matter what evidence is cited, it won't be enough. No matter what logic you bring forth, they will argue a counter-theory. You can hit them up the side of the head with an ICBM loaded with nukes and anthrax and labelled "hand made by Saddam Hussein for the personal destruction of the citizens of Chicago" and they will STILL argue for another course of action.

They may not be fifth column, but in their pride and bitterness they aid and abet those who ARE fifth columnists.

189 posted on 09/24/2002 2:16:41 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
Your information from where?

Mine is as reported by National Review, among others, that the Czech prime minister stands by his intelligence service and says yes the meeting did occur?

190 posted on 09/24/2002 2:17:37 PM PDT by ExpandNATO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
The people that post these threads don't WANT facts or truth. They want to post the crap they find in order to trash GW. They have no facts or info to back up their claims and deny what is given them. Saddam could phone their house and give them the info, and they still would cling to thier pile of lies

So True My Friend, So True......
191 posted on 09/24/2002 2:18:39 PM PDT by cmsgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson

192 posted on 09/24/2002 2:19:00 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
You fall into the same trap as the libertarians who dismiss the dangers of Saddam Hussein when you dismiss the dangers of the FAILED "war" on drugs.
193 posted on 09/24/2002 2:21:03 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I'm way behind in the thread, so I won't try to catch up.

Good post. Thank you.

I am increasingly inclined to agree with the Cato Institute's writer. Hussein is obviously not a nice boy, but I do not think we should set ourselves out to be the world's policeman. If his own people want to overthrow him, I have no problem with supplying them with arms and ammunition.

I do believe he is developing -- and already has -- weapons of mass distruction. This is not good.

But we have them too. So do numerous others countries.

All he needs to do in order to get his country obliterated from the face of the earth is to use one of them against another country.

He has, I believe, used them against his own people. But it is up to them -- not up to us -- to do something about that. If they won't, then the hell with them.

This is somewhat the way I feel about Zimbabwe. I don't like what's going on down there one bit.

Do I think we should intervene? No. That is up to the people who live there. I would not give them so much one bag of grain until they are ready to take up an AK-47 and fight for themselves. Until that happens, let them starve.

Iraq obviously poses a larger risk to other countries. That risk is still theoretical, however. It isn't illusory, but it no more real than the risk that is posed to us by North Korea or China. If we start making preemptive strikes and regime-changes, what are the critera we will use? Why not nuke France?

The fact that Iraq has a big gun and might be disposed to use it is one thing. The other fact is that we can completely destroy them tomoorow morning at 10:00 AM if that's what we decide to do. As nasty a piece of work as Saddam truly is, I doubt that little bit of trivia is completely lost on him.

Lastly, I think we would be wise to leave the countries in that part of the world alone. I don't want their oil, and I don't care what religion they choose to practice.

We have meddled in their affairs too much already.

Let them have their turbans and their stinking, bile-spitting camels. Let them keep their oil. The hell with them. I'd rather walk to work.

But if Saddam ever touches that button, he is adios. Nuclear bye-bye. Gone.

Until he touches that button, I do not see him as being any worse than any one of the the many other jerks who are running other countries. That doesn't make him good, but it doesn't give us the right to take him out.
194 posted on 09/24/2002 2:21:23 PM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
We've already been through this exercise ad nauseam. Here is what CANNOT be denied:

Iraq has chemical and biological weapons; the dossier today confirmed this fact.

Iraq has USED chemical and biological weapons, in particular in the Iran / Iraq war.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has been a territorially aggressive state, invading Iran and Kuwait in the hopes of increasing their territory.

Iraq has been attempting to get nuclear weapons, ever since it got its first reactor from the French in the 1970's (the Israelis blew that up).

Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism: from harbouring Abu Nidal, to giving the families of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000 each.

This would all be enough to regard Iraq as a regional threat. Now consider the country sits on top of the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, and Saddam's moves have been largely to increase his share of that. And also remember, he wanted to put the squeeze on Kuwait to get production to be cut and prices of oil to rise. With weapons of mass destruction, he has a greater ability to put the squeeze on the Saudis too. A hegemonic power in this instance is a world power, not a super power, but a power nonetheless.

Now ask yourselves, are you comfortable with this state of affairs. Are you also comfortable with the fact that the dossier also discussed chemicals and germs that could be distributed by crop dusters, and that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Are you comfortable with the Iraqi regime being inherited by Uday or Qusay Hussein.

I would say, if you have an instinct for self preservation - no.

Regards, Ivan

195 posted on 09/24/2002 2:24:10 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
Oh yeah, everything's definitely all settled and hunkie dunkie in Afghanistan. Be real.

When did I say THAT? And what does it have to do with anything? Of course things are not settled in Afghanistan, but girls can go to school, women can go to work, men can shave their faces and the soccer stadium isn't being used for executions. I'd say that's progress!

196 posted on 09/24/2002 2:25:29 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Here's a "thoughtful response for you":

"...but the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people."

IT IS NOT FULL OF REGIMES THAT HAVE SIGNED DOCUMENTS OF SURRENDER AFTER GETTING SHELACKED IN A WAR BY THE U.S. AND THEN WANTONLY DISREGARDED EACH AND EVERY ONE.

"... that presupposes democracy can be easily planted and that it can survive once the U.S. departs."

TELL IT TO JAPAN AND GERMANY. CONDOLEEZA RICE SAYS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IRAQI DEMOCRACY WILL BE A TOP PRIORITY.

"It would be extraordinary for Saddam to give up a technology (atomic weapons) purchased at such a high price."

GIVE UP? HE WOULDN'T BE "GIVING THEM UP". HE WOULD BE USING AL-QAIDA "MULES" TO ATTACK HIS GREATEST ENEMY IN A MANNER THAT WOULD MAKE HIM APPEAR BLAMELESS.

Maybe Doug Bandow ought to go have a drink with Pat Buchanan and the two of them can wring their hands over the "tens of thousands of body bags" again, just like they did before the gulf war. Hint: they were wrong then too.
197 posted on 09/24/2002 2:25:37 PM PDT by Burr5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AUgrad; RedBloodedAmerican
I've seen no proof of Iraq's involvement other than "because we said so". Uh...haven't been reading the news lately, (except for Harry Browne diatribes) have you?
198 posted on 09/24/2002 2:26:42 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
LOL
199 posted on 09/24/2002 2:26:55 PM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: iranger
What? The Rhode Island National Guard could handle this job.

Not from Rhode Island, they couldn't. Between Arab solidarity and GWB's brilliant transformation of 9/11 into a UN resolution compliance problem, we've got no forward basing except for Israel, maybe Qatar, maybe Kuwait, and Turkey, which is a mountain range (with not many good roads) away from Iraq.

200 posted on 09/24/2002 2:28:07 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 741-756 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson