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

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

Or maybe it's because we don't want to occupy Iraq. Duh.

Somalia?

The starving millions wanted and needed us there. The warlords were the only ones who wanted us to leave, so that they could continue to use the food aid to hold the poewr of life and death over the populations. That's hardly an example of the US being an unwanted imperial power. Are you always this disingenuous?

Firing randomly at our planes flying over his country is not "murderous".

That adjective is modifying his actions against his citizens and his neighbors, not the firing on overhead flights.

If they are all that murderous, we need to stay out of that area, not get more involved.

So you're simply a coward who would prefer to watch tyrants and murderers slaughter millions of people? Well, I'm glad that the current administration is not so callous, craven, or enabling.

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

All the evidence and fore-warning in the world will not prevent a missile attack or another 9-11-01. Only destroying those who would consider such actions will. Saddam openly and happily admits that he wants weapons that will accomplish that kind of destruction. He has defied resolutions for a decade in pursuit of that goal. He is the most likely person to be stupid enough (in his bid for heroic immortality in the eyes of Muslims everywhere) to actually use them on innocent people, as evidenced by his past. This does not mean that every nation that has or builds WMD's is a target. It does mean that every nation with a militant dictator who dispenses death as a personal hobby, invades innocent neighbors for material gains, and threatens the US with his words and defiant actions should and WILL become one.

61 posted on 10/01/2002 11:40:33 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | 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