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

To: palmer
How will invading Iraq deter Saudi Arabia from funding more terrorists?

Gee, I don't know, maybe the fear that the same will happen to them? Sheesh.

Occupation will be a huge burden which is different from invading.

Please cite the source where the President is quoted as saying that we are going to be occupying Iraq. All we want is that regime out of power. Iraq can take it from there for all we care. There's more talk about rebuilding Iraq afterwards, just like we created industrial powerhouses Germany and Japan, than there is of occupying Iraq, like... ummm, like... errr, help me out here, who have we occupied and refused all requests to leave? In the last century? Hm?

Basically Saddam is evil and has WMD and oh yeah, he probably wants to give them to terrorists. That's an incredibly shallow argument.

"Basically" to make your point, you ignore Saddam's murderous past, his two invasions of neighboring countries, his open threats against the US, his firing on US and UK forces, his payments to the families of suicide-bombers, his harboring of known terrorists (Abu Nidal ring any bells?), his acceptance of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and his history of using WMD's on innocent civilians. How shallow is that?

56 posted on 10/01/2002 10:25:11 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Teacher317
Of course they won't use the word occupy, it has too many negative connotations.

who have we occupied and refused all requests to leave?

Somalia?

"Basically" to make your point, you ignore Saddam's murderous past, his two invasions of neighboring countries, his open threats against the US, his firing on US and UK forces, his payments to the families of suicide-bombers, his harboring of known terrorists (Abu Nidal ring any bells?), his acceptance of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and his history of using WMD's on innocent civilians. How shallow is that?

Pretty shallow. We supported one of those invasions. Firing randomly at our planes flying over his country is not "murderous". His support of Palistinian terrorists applies equally well to other Arab countries. If they are all that murderous, we need to stay out of that area, not get more involved.

Unless, of course, there is evidence of support of 9/11 hijackers or an imminent threat like a long range missile. That's all I care about, not murderous pasts.

59 posted on 10/01/2002 10:48:39 AM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317
...Saddam's murderous past, his two invasions of neighboring countries, his open threats against the US, his firing on US and UK forces, his payments to the families of suicide-bombers, his harboring of known terrorists (Abu Nidal ring any bells?), his acceptance of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and his history of using WMD's on innocent civilians...

Nice to see you again, Teacher.

68 posted on 10/01/2002 12:00:54 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317
"Basically" to make your point, you ignore Saddam's murderous past, his two invasions of neighboring countries, his open threats against the US, his firing on US and UK forces, his payments to the families of suicide-bombers, his harboring of known terrorists (Abu Nidal ring any bells?), his acceptance of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and his history of using WMD's on innocent civilians. How shallow is that?

You left off an assassination attempt on former President Bush. This act alone has largely been ignored, but I see that one act alone as sufficient grounds to remove Saddam.

88 posted on 10/01/2002 1:26:53 PM PDT by AmusedBystander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

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