Posted on 02/04/2003 5:03:37 AM PST by YourAdHere
Thoughts on Iraq
Bush’s explanation in his State of the Union speech for why we need to attack Iraq right now was unconvincing. Here are a couple of questions that have not been answered:
Where is the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Not only has the Bush administration given us zero evidence of a connection, but many experts think that a connection is unlikely given the fact that one society is secularist and the other is fundamentalist... There is no reason to think that they are on the same side, fighting for the same cause.
Is the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated a United Nations resolution really a justified reason for going to war? Many countries have violated specific U.N. resolutions and not provoked war. A prime and very current example of that is North Korea, which has violated U.N. resolutions and treaties as they pursue a nuclear arms program, but which we feel we can contain through diplomacy ... could this be because they don’t have oil?
Here are some recent articles from prominent foreign policy experts that explain more about why I am opposed to this war right now:
“Empty Promises” New York Times editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31FRI1.html
Stephen Pelletiere: “A War Crime or an Act of War?” New York Times:
www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html
“Butler: U.S. Guilty of ‘Double Standards’ on Iraq”, Rueters:
www.rueters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2125958
“The True War is with Phantoms”: by Shibley Telhami:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-oe-telhami2feb02,0,114226.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsuncomment
“Paying for War” by Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers18.html
“An Alternative to War” by Jimmy Carter:
http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1165&submenu=news
“Bush Doesn’t Want Good News” by Robert Scheer:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030127&s=scheer20030114
“War is Not Yet Necessary” by Jessica Matthews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52631-2003Jan27.html
“The Sketch: Blair Astonishes Onlookers with a Frank Answer to Parliament’s Grey Beards” by Simon Carr:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/simon_carr/story.jsp?story=371597
Did Jim R. ask not to post stuff from garbage sites?
Even under the guise of "look how terrible this is"...
This is a typical anti-establishment attitude. To get status, they know they must justify their positions. Unfortunately, the reasons don't justify the attitude; the attitude is used to create reasons. Typical illogical thought processes. First, take a position; then, once that's done, create reasons why the opposite position is wrong. Thinking people look at the advantages and disadvantages of different issues, then they make up their minds; they don't do this before they've analyzed the facts. You can see this illogical approach, leaning on the emotion of the issue, in most everything the Democratic leadership does: If Bush proposes it, they create "facts" to oppose it, merely for the purpose of differentiating themselves from him.
If she were riding a wagon, she'd have to get out and push the horse behind it, because she definitely has the cart before the horse.
If you harken back to the Crusades and the time of Outre Mer (as the Crusader kingdoms were called), then you will find that Muslims fought with Christians against other Muslims and Christians fought with Muslims against other Christians. There is a rich tradition of allying with your ideological (or theological) opposition against your more immediate enemies in that region.
lol...
First link: they both have publicly vowed to do us harm.
Second link: groups like al-Qaeda are what would enable nation states like Iraq to have the reach to hit us in our homeland. The fact that Iraq can't reach us with a missile was made irrelevant to all but the anti-war left by 9-11.
In order to justify taking out this threat to our safety, one need not have evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9-11. We have foolishly allowed the left to make this "link" pivotal, it should not even be a factor in our decision.
We should not be apologetic to anyone for wanting to take out the POSSIBILITY of a link, when we were successfully attacked on our own soil, the paradigm changed.
Someone has got to be joking?
Surely, you can't be serious.
Like one poster said, it just doesn't matter what the issue is, as long as she just says the opposite of george bush.
Barbs...what are your thoughts on beetle movement in Costa Rica?
I hear a voice shriller than a thousand tongues.
Though her son(?!) is in the Senate!
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.