Posted on 01/29/2003 1:44:04 PM PST by yonif
Spurred by Monday’s anti-War on Iraq “vigil,” I decided it was necessary that I presented the viewpoint concerning Iraq and what the truthful reasons for military action were. Furthermore, in this three part series, I will put forward what our goals will be in Iraq once Saddam is gone, and finalize my series with a column outlining who exactly these “peace” organizations are.
A REPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP
The first and foremost attribute of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, that supports why we must go in, is that his rule of Iraq is done in a dictatorial and repressive way. He tortures his people and his opponents. He keeps his people in a prison camp setting. His regime does not allow freedom of any kind, apart from those “freedoms” which bolster his regime and iron fist rule. He has a wide range of secret police institutions who daily kill and imprison those unfortunate souls Saddam feels are hostile to his reign. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is basically one big concentration camp whose inhabitants are daily propagated with lies and deceit by Hussein while at the same time murdered. Let me quote some of the torture methods from the Foreign Ministry of Britain’s report on Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses, “eye gouging – eyes are gouged out and the empty eye sockets stuffed with paper, mock executions, suspension from the ceiling, acid baths, and the piercing of hands with electric drills.” The opponents of a war on Iraq know these facts, yet they continue to state they oppose war, operating on a platform which claims to be in protection of Iraq’s citizens. How can they say they care about the citizens, if they don’t mind these citizens living under these conditions?
A HUMANITARIAN DISASTER
Iraq is also in a desperate humanitarian state of things. Its population faces starvation, malnourishment and disease on a daily basis. Food and medicine are not widely available. The sanctions are not, as opponents and Iraq state, the reason this is happening. Before the Gulf War, Saddam used most of his oil revenue to buy weapons and other luxuries for his family, himself and his army. This was BEFORE the sanctions. During this time, his people WERE starving. Now, after the sanctions were put on, he had MORE money to spend as oil revenue was no longer allowed for use to buy weapons (in the legal sense of course). However, even with the increased revenue in his hands, his people continued to starve, and they still do. The sanctions are not the reason for this, HE IS. Removing Saddam’s tyranny will indeed be a victory for Iraq’s suffering men, women and children.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The next and widely known issue concerning Iraq is Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he continues to PURSUE them. He has used them in the late 1980’s against his own citizens. He had a period in the years 1998-2002 when no inspectors were allowed into the country, to widely increase their strength. He continues to hide them in various parts of the country and in like-minded countries such as Syria and Libya. He does not intend on disarming and the current inspections show this. The inspectors do not have a chance of finding these weapons due to many reasons such as his transportation of them to countries such as Syria, his scattering of them in various houses and other unnoticeable buildings, the fact he has germ laboratories on wheels who simply move around with each inspection, and his refusal to allow usage of U2 spy planes to search his landscape. Furthermore, the interviewing of Iraqi scientists is unproductive due to the fear the scientists have of being killed if they comply, or because the scientist is nothing more then an undercover Iraqi agent.
Evidence has also been found to support the notion that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The finding of 16 empty chemical weapon canisters is just one example. It does not only show he has weapons of mass destruction, but also shows that Iraq has been LYING on the question as it has stated many times to the world that it had none of these weapons which were found. The Iraqi regime has been lying all along. On the one hand Iraq states it has no weapons of mass destruction but on the other hand you have Saddam Hussein’s brother, Uday, saying that, "If they (USA) come, Sept. 11, which they are crying over and see as a big thing, will be a real picnic for them, God willing." Iraq is basically saying “If you attack us we will attack you with weapons of mass destruction we don’t have.” What other evidence do you need?
A LAUNCH PAD FOR TERRORISM
The last and not least reason we must go after Saddam Hussein is terrorism. Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism (not just according to me, ask the State Dept). It harbors terrorist groups who want to destroy America and its allies. It funds and supports terrorist organizations and provides them with access to training camps in the country; groups such as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, Kurdistan Workers’ Party, Palestine Liberation Front, and the Abu Nidal. Saddam’s regime funds such entities as Palestinian terrorist organizations and their activities. He hands over a check of $25,000 to each Palestinian suicide terrorist bomber’s family, those terrorists responsible for bombing pizzerias, discos, and cinemas. Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 2001. Iraq is an infestation of both domestic and international terrorism. It must be cleansed for the sake of our children and Iraq’s children.
As you can see, Saddam Hussein is a ticking time bomb. The threat from Iraq is there and we must go after him before it is too late. The inspectors have failed and they will continue to fail. We must not leave the responsibility of our national security up to a failed organization such as the UN. There may be no imminent threat from Iraq, but as Bush said in his State of the Union Address, since when do terrorists and tyrants tell us when they are going to do us harm?
The time is here, the time is now. The evidence is clear. The reason is apparent. It is time for us to militarily engage and defeat Iraq, overthrow Saddam, dismantle its terrorist plague, destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and LIBERATE the Iraqi people. We will be victorious!
Until next time, YF
Do you know how many coup attempts have been made against Hussein in the last few years? Estimated to be around 18, IIRC. If you're talking about the "people" of Iraq staging a revolution, what exactly would you have them fight with? Rocks? Considering the level of infiltration that his secret police have into the society, the rebels would be dead before they could even pick UP the damn rocks...
It doesn't matter. Iraq's support of terrorism is more than enough reason to invade whether their people deserve to be liberated or not.
Although it does seem like many of their people are ready for the change. Most of them were unwilling to fight for Saddam last time. I hope you have underestimated them.
Actually, sane Muslims don't consider those COUNTRIES holy ground. Sane Muslims do, however, consider Mecca, Medina, Qom, etc. to be "holy." Are we "occupying" those places?
Are we not using saddams support of al Qudea as one reason(sp) to go to war with him?
Sure, we seem to be, but as one of the reasons. Why is this relevant to your assertion that the terrorists were justified in what they did to us?
And what about the civilians who died when we bombed baghadad?
What about them? Saddam Hussein killed those few that did die in GWI when he chose to invade, pillage and occupy one of his neighbors. Those few civilians who died by our munitions were casualties of a war started by Hussein. Trust me, if we wanted to kill every person in Iraq, we could without even breaking a sweat.
Why? You don't believe in inalienable rights and government of the people, by the people, and for the people? If you believe in it, then it apllies to ALL people in all countries.
Our goal should be 180 sovereign America's trading freely with one another.
No, actually the colonists were comparitively equipped and were expert hunters that used unconventional tactics to their advantage.
Why should we fight and die when they aren't even willing to try?
Again, they wouldn't even get the CHANCE to try and they know it. Throwing away your life without even the slightest chance of ultimate victory isn't noble; it's patently stupid.
Your argument supports my assertion that they need our help if they are to be free of Saddam.
Your quote in post 22 wasn't me, that was from "somthincool".
My position is in-between you two. Yes a humanitarian disaster can be a reason for us to invade. But no, we shouldn't invade every dictatorship.
God said that He is responsible for the governments. There are times that the situation demands and God expects us to use our might to liberate people. But there are other times when God has instituted the form of Government that He wants for that people at that time. And it's vain to think that we should liberate every country that is under a repressive dictator.
I believe you have to seek God's guidance in each and every case. There is no magic formula that says a humanitarian crisis of 1 or 1,000,000 is enough to justify us going in.
In Saddam's case, it's easy. Because of his support for international terrorism, you don't even have to consider the humanitarian crisis. We have sufficient justification without that.
Now perhaps you can make a case that we should have considered the humanitarian situation and gone in a long time ago. But I don't think it was that clearcut, that that was the right thing to do.
I believe in inalienable rights. I believe government by the people is the best form of government. I do not believe that government by the people is an inalienable right. God has been known to take that right away.
See post 51 also.
"As far as humanitarin aid goes, what about the people starving in OUR country?" People who starve in our country as opposed to Iraq's people is different. People who starve here were not put in that place by our government, they did it to themselves. In Iraq its the opposite.
He needs overthrowing because he represents a potential danger, in much the same way that Hitler presented a potential danger in the '30s. His own people are too weak to overthrow him. His neighbors are too weak to do it. Europe is too irresolute to do it.
Somebody's got to do it, and it sure looks like it's up to us.
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.