Grow up. Yeah,Bubba-2 is a bigger phoney and danger to the Republic than Bubba-1 ever was,but I would still support him if he were going to war against Saudi Arabia. The fact that he isn't,and is going to war against Iraq instead only furthers my contempt for him.
As I said, you're little more than a rabid Bush hater. Bush could invade Saudi Arabia tomorrow and you would find a reason to find fault with him, so don't try and sell me some b.s. line that you're reasoning out of principle, here.
Your eagerness to go after the Saudis betrays a surface understanding of Saudi politics that is breathtaking in its shallowness. Not all Saudis, even among the princelings, are terrorists. You don't destroy the Saudi regime because bin Laden used Saudis to attack us. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. had a reasonably close relationship before the attack. It fell apart because the Saudi Royal Family is more concerned with protecting its own rather tenous hold on power than it is looking after our security interests.
Iraq is much more of a threat to us than the Saudis ever could be. It has military resources and a population base, in addition to a nifty strategic location, that Saudi cannot have.
HorseHillary! Unlike the US,his Arab neighbors and Israel DO have very good reason to fear him,and the instant any of them suspected he was close to developing nukes,they would attack him and take them out. If the Arabs didn't do this,Israel would
The Israelis attacked Osirak in 1981 because it was easy to do. There it was, big as life, a big fat target of a nuclear reactor. It set back Saddam's ambitions about 10 years.
But Saddam learned a valuable lesson. Go underground.
Israel simply doesn't have the air resources to take out all of Saddam's disparate sites. They're good, but they don't have anything like our numbers. If you disperse your production facilities in one place, and your missiles in another, and so forth, you make it very hard for your opponent to take you out in one fell swoop.
The Arabs won't ever strike Saddam simply because they can't get their bloody act together. If they could have, they would have dealt with Saddam some time ago. Like the Eurotrash, they would rather appease him than confront him.
No,he can't. Israel is the ONE country in the region he can NOT attack with nukes. They have their own,and NOBODY is delusional enough to think they won't respond in kind to the point where he and his whole country are radioactive.
What makes you think he cares about his country?
Saddam wants to go down in history as the Arab who excised the Zionist Cancer from the Arab body politic. If millions of his own citizens should die, so be it. He would still be hailed by the Arab masses! You're assuming that Saddam thinks like someone from Kansas or Toronto. He doesn't.
The Israelis, on the other hand, could lose Haifa and Tel Aviv, and with those two cities, the heart of Israel's population. Sure they could respond, but in the end, they would have very little, if anything, to come back to. Saddam Hussein would have finished the job that Hitler began.
There is a good reason the Israelis are backing this war.
It matters to me,but not enough for our citizens to die doing the job of fighting their citizens need to do for themselves. Despite all the money we dump there that makes them borderline welfare cases,Israel ain't no redheaded stepchild,and we haven't adopted them.
That's a bit like saying Britain and France should stand idly by while Hitler invests the Sudetenland.
Which they did. The rest is history.
HorseHillary! The other Arabs are a LOT more scared of him than they are us.The first thing he would do if he ever got nukes would be to threaten his non-nukes fellow Arab nations in order to try to join them all together into one country under his domination. Saddam Hussein has been responsible for the deaths of more radical Muslims that all of the western nations combined.
I would argue that Saddam would be seen as the big guy on the block, willing to take on the Israelis. The Arab masses would gravitate to him like flies on horse manure. He wouldn't have to threaten anybody.
You want to give an ass-clown like that a chokehold over the entire Persian Gulf oil range? Go right ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to agree with you.
As to his relationship with Al Qaeda and the others, I can see that you've swallowed the liberal cause and effect argument hook, line, and sinker ("Saddam is a secularist. Saddam Must hate Al Qaeda. Ergo, Saddam never had anything to do with Al Qaeda and never would.").
Why fight Al Qaeda when you share an interest with them?
Why fight Al Qaeda when you can use them to further your ends: removing America from the Middle East in order to beat the life out of the Zionist foe?
If Saddam can use Al Qaeda, he will. AQ are filled to the brim with millenialist fanatics. They'd be more than willing to be used; not only against the Israelis, but also against us. Of course, Saddam can afford their retainer, which is another reason to go and terminate the bastard.
And of course a president would never lie,right? Especially not Ali Bubba Bush.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Leave it to a Brigadier to build a straw man. Look, I know you're all bent out of shape because Buchanan-Foster's support amounted to the population of a telephone booth on a rainy day, but you shouldn't let that fact cloud your thinking.
Straw man argument is thus:
Minor Proposition: You believe what Bush said in last year's State of the Union.
Major Proposition: Everything Bush says is a lie.
Conclusion: You are a sucker.
This is the foundation of your argument: that everything George W. Bush says is a lie. George W. Bush cannot be trusted. Everyone who believes that he is an honorable man pursuing a hellish, if necessary war, is either a knave, a sucker, or a fool.
No wonder you clowns don't win elections. You have nothing but contempt for those who think differently from you.
HorseHillary! You are the one wanting to put them at risk fighting a war for Saudi Arabia and Israel,not ME!
First and foremost, I want to put them at risk to pursue a decidedly American national interest. Preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons is in our national interest. Seeing to it that he does not use said weapons against an American ally, Israel, is in our national interest. Preventing him from controlling the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf is in our interest. Seeing to it that he does not slip Al Qaeda one or more tactical nuclear weapons is in our interest.
If people in the West had thought like George W. Bush back in 1938, we wouldn't have had a Second World War. But they didn't, with the exception of three people, Winston S. Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and a brigadier general named George S. Patton, Jr..
Unfortunately, most everyone on the Continent, in Britain, and in America thought then as you do today. Which reminds me of the only thing Karl Marx wrote that made historical sense: History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Be Seeing You,
Chris