Well that's it then. Forget Iraq. Look Ramsey as I said go peddle your "concerns" somewhere else.
Posted on 09/24/2002 11:51:53 AM PDT by Protagoras
Thanks, again, dear friend, for your help. :-)
Sorry, I just haven't heard one decent argument why we should take out Saddam at this time.
So far, the arguments can be summed up as: 1. He has dangerous weapons, 2. He vioated UN resolutions (like anyone really pays attention to UN resolutions...) 3. He's a nutball. 4. He just might be nutty enough to use said dangerous weapons against the USA...
Gee, with that kind of criterea, half the nations of the earth should be attacked and destroyed. (Starting with France, of course...)
Don't misundestand, I won't be crying in my beer if the Marines decide to make Iraq their own little sand box; it's just that a shooting war WILL have consquences that go FAR beyond the removal of Saddam from power.
What our government is trying to PREVENT is radical muslims using an UNPROVOKED attack against Iraq as a rallying cry for an extreme jihad against the USA. I'm not worried a bit about Saddam, but I'm a bit concerned about the muslim extremists, and the crap they will pull if we aren't careful. We don't need to be helping Osama find new recruits for his cause...I've kinda grown fond of the Sears Tower and the Transamerica building over the years...
They can't use our attack on Afghanistan as a rallying cry for more recruits, since WE WERE JUSTIFIED in kicking their little behinds, and even the extremist recognize this. There isn't a nation on planet earth who was sticking up for the Tallyban, except Pakistan...and we somehow managed to help them "see the light" and turn against their next door neighbor.
But, believe it or not, Iraq and Saddam have a few POWERFUL friends on planet earth, inlcuding, but not limited to FRANCE, Russia, China and Europa. These freinds of Saddam are all lobbying Uncle Sam not to blow him up. And if I remember correctly, I think all these nice friends of his are on something called the Security Council...not that it makes a difference or anything...
So if we are going to roll over Iraq, we are going to have to wait until Saddam does something to force our hand.
Well that's it then. Forget Iraq. Look Ramsey as I said go peddle your "concerns" somewhere else.
Saddam DID obfuscate and then ignore the UN resolutions, which was what allowed him to continue to live and florish, since the end of the Gulf War. In any designated period of time, the country, that ignored / broke a peace treaty, as Saddam has done, reopened that conflict.
Saddam harbors , trains, and supplied members of al Qaeda; not to mention Hammas, etc.
Many European countries, foremost amonst them, FRANCE, were NOT on our side during the Gulf War. Some finally rallied, some didn't.
The " Muslim Street " ONLY understands and respects violence. Tollerance doesn't mean anything at all to them. As a matter of fact, inaction equals cowardice and lack of will to them. Many Muslims, no matter where they were, assumed the the USA would do little, if anything, after the attacks of 9 / 11. The most gullible and fanatical did NOT see our retalliation as justified. Many went / attempted to go to Afghanistan, to fight us. The longer we stayed, the harder we fought, the quieter the " Muslim Street " became and the fewer new jihadists yearned to kill for Allah.
Russian is owed a great deal of money, from Iraq. If we tell Putin that we'll close a eye, to his going after his own Muslim problem and do some sort of oil quid pro quo, Russian will be champing at the bit, for us to do something about Saddam.
The people of Iran, yearn for us to topple Saddam and give them a wee bit of encouragement, to topple their own government. They want to be free of the extremists and Shia rule.
No, all in all, your postulations are without much factual basis and less thought. You are simply wrong, incorrect, assumption challenged.
Well actually it does make a difference. As is evident.
Do you think that those votes (France, China, Russia) came because of good will?
I doubt it. A deal was struck and it was based on oil. France gets the southern region it has developed, while Russia gets the north it has developed. China will go along because we voted them in to PNTR recently and because Prescott Bush sits at the helm of the China/US trade delegation.
Halliburton (of which I'm a stockholder) gets to redevelop the infrastructure and the US gets to buy the sweet crude which makes the EPA happy because the enviros have constricted our refineries to the point that only Iraq crude is acceptable in Louisiana and Texas refineries.
I don't have a problem with us being an empire and I don't have a problem with $25/barrel crude when it comes at the cost of saber rattling.
What I don't understand is the mental contortions by people at this site and the current administration in justifying operations against Iraq under the auspices of "just war" when in fact it's building an empire.
Case in point: Bush said on national television that the War on Terror is an "international manhunt."
It all makes sense propel the momentum against a nation state and exploit its resources while quietly arresting, detaining, and killing the enemies of this country.
No?
I'm going to buy several thousands of shares of Reynold's , based on FR, alone.
Tell me, nunya, did you even know about China not fighting the USA on this, before I posted it ? Tell the truth. It appears that no one else, besides me, knew about this.
France won't get diddley squat. Russia ? I already laid that all out and it has nothing to do with cutting up and distributing Iraqi oil fields.
The bigger question is why would China fight it when they have a vested interest in securing their trade with the west? I don't see your insight being exclusive.
France won't get diddley squat. Russia ? I already laid that all out and it has nothing to do with cutting up and distributing Iraqi oil fields.
I disagree. France will get their share for their vote as well as Russia will.
It's the nature of trade plain and simple.
Admonishing the notion of "it" not being about oil is cognitave dissonance.
The State Dept. has so much as admitted it. And to a lessor extent the current administration.
The big question is: what do you have against saber rattling without invasion producing a favorable trade agreement over a region that is potentially productive to oil which fuels this nation?
The present administration did NOT hint at, imply, npr come right out and say that this is about oil. Neither did Tony Blair, in his latest speech, do so. No matter how many times you want to trot out one canard after another, it still doesn't make it so. And BTW, I do not suffer from " cognative disspnance ".
No one else has brought up , what I did, about the pending UN resolution. It has been " out " and talked about all day. So yes, my bringing it up here, does make it sort of " exclusive "; unfortunately. With you conspiracy nuts, one needs neck high waders, around here.
Stck to posting movie posters and song titles, that you assume fit the poster's last reply and leave the thinking, and posting cohernt, meaningful replies to others.
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.