Replies

Again... the difference of opinion is: Is Iraq firmly in its box? You say yes. I say no. I say that because I believe terrorists move in a concentric circle around 4 terrorist states... those states are: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. I believe that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Al-Qaeda are not independent agents, but they are the foot soldiers of these regimes. You can't look at each terrorist group as a solo act. They are joined to the states that sponsor them.

I have a hard time with the generality of "well what about China, or what about this..." These kind of arguments remind of me of children who are in trouble and instead of addressing that issue, they say, "well Mikey did... or Sarah did..."

That doesn't mean that I am letting China, North Korea, etc. off the hook, but the argument isn't about them. The argument is about Islamic militants. I believe that Iraq sponsors, forments, provides political cover for the terror we have watched during the last 12 years. Iraq is not in a box.

Saddam Hussein is being given the opportunity to stand-down and disarm and to stop the export of terror against Israel and the US. He is not. It is the same song and dance we have seen. He doesn't have to be invaded. He can stand down. So far, he is choosing not to. This country can't afford to allow him to continue.

Can Saddam destroy us as it stands. No! But, how many 9/11's are you willing to put up with why he remains in his box and continues to send Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas to do his bidding. For me, one was enough.

Iraq is the immediate threat... Saddam poses the most serious threat. Arguments about China, etc. are distractions against the task ahead.

I love questions that say "well, there are 60 dictators, should we invade them as well." As if, suddenly, those who want to bring down Saddam want to go out and invade everyone we see. That argument sucks... and it is brought up because it is very hard to defend. Now, I have to defend that and the issue isn't about 60 dicators, but the one who seems to have his hand in every major terror incident over the last 12 years... and before that too.

As for the rest of your last paragraph... I agree. Appeasement is weakness and it never gets you anywhere. But, do we fight all fronts at one time... or prioritize the threats.

We have different priorties. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the PA (don't forget that little rat nest of terror). But not all by invasion. If the news out of Iran is true, and Iran is teetering, then maybe we push. Syria will hardly stand on its own... but this is pure conjecture I realize, because the little Assad is crazy... Saudi Arabia... well, that will be worth a thread all by itself. But the Saudis must not be given a free pass. But since you and I aren't sitting in on the meeting between the President and the Prince, we have no idea what kind of pressure is being applied.

Mostly what we do on Free Republic is an exercise of what if's based on limited information. So, there is no one right or wrong here.

The argument is about Islamic militants. I believe that Iraq sponsors, forments, provides political cover for the terror we have watched during the last 12 years. Iraq is not in a box. Saddam Hussein is being given the opportunity to stand-down and disarm and to stop the export of terror against Israel and the US. He is not. It is the same song and dance we have seen. He doesn't have to be invaded. He can stand down. So far, he is choosing not to. This country can't afford to allow him to continue. Can Saddam destroy us as it stands. No! But, how many 9/11's are you willing to put up with why he remains in his box and continues to send Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas to do his bidding. For me, one was enough.

Saddam has not sent any terrorists out to do his bidding. The worst that can be said about him is that he provides lots of money to the families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis which is bad, but does not constitute terrorism directed against Americans. There has been no evidence linking Saddam to any terrorist attacks committed against US territory at any time. The US already wiped out about 60% of Iraq’s military potential since 1991. He only has about 8-20 400 mile range SRBMs with which to threaten Israel with CBR attacks. He has seen his nuclear R&D capability completely wiped out between 1991and 1998.

Accordingly, Saddam is farther away from developing nukes today than he was in 1991 before we dismantled his nuke capability. Also, what exactly do you mean by “standing down?” If you are expecting him to disarm and dissolve his military, it won’t happen. That shouldn’t be our objective because it would result in an Iranian invasion and takeover of Iraq which has to be about the worst result imaginable for the Middle East, short of a US or Israeli nuclear incineration of Baghdad. Saddam has not been linked to 9-11. Iran has. Why then did the Adminstration promise Iran that it would not attack them?

Iraq is the immediate threat... Saddam poses the most serious threat. Arguments about China, etc. are distractions against the task ahead.

Saddam does not pose any threat to the US let alone an immediate one. It only threatens Israel and Kuwait and Iraq is deterred by using CBR against Israel by the knowledge that Israel would respond by nuking Baghdad. Iraq has demonstrated no capability or even the will to attack US territory with terrorists or WND or anything. Iraq can’t even shoot down one single fighter-bomber let alone threaten the world’s most powerful superpower. I can’t believe that the Administration can overlook these facts and say with a straight face that Iraq is on the verge of nuking US cities causing grandmas to cower in fear and demand that Iraq be nuked immediately to save America. This kind of hyped up rhetoric is not productive. There are a lot of Republicans in Congress who have heard all the top secret briefings and evidence from the President and remain unconvinced.

As for the rest of your last paragraph... I agree. Appeasement is weakness and it never gets you anywhere. But, do we fight all fronts at one time... or prioritize the threats.

We agree on the fact that it is important to prioritize the threats. We also agree that appeasement is the wrong policy even though that is exactly what the Bush Administration is doing with regards to North Korea and Communist China.We only differ on which countries should get blasted first and which pose the clearest and most present danger to the US. I assure you Iran is not teetering. The Iranian Ayatollahs are taking full control and cracking down on the “reformers” if they can be called that which have been subservient to them all along and continue to be so.