Posted on 02/07/2003 1:39:44 PM PST by carenot
Here's another reason. Bottom line there are many reasons for this conquest. I can only assume that if it is terrorism then our borders would logically be secured & how anyone could argue that point is farcical. I want the enemies toward me annihilated. So I will after much thought agree to send our troops over to accomplish such. Do we know the final outcome? No. But this nation is bankrupt. This is just staving off the inevitable - lower energy costs & less Mid East disruptions. Count me in. BTW the author at least should use the proper words -higher instead of hire.
And that is is the goal.
And I am delighted that you, an unknown poster on an internet board are in such a position as to post such things without any other proof than your own say-so.
Come back with some proof, or get lost.
The U.S. demonstrated Iraq is manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction. “They have been doing this in violation of UN mandates for years”, Washington says. So what about the other nations? There is Israel and North Korea, to name a few. Both have nuclear weapons. No one dares tell Israel to disarm, and we merely “ask” North Korea. This is called a double standard.
If I had to answer this I would say, "Why yes, there sure is a double standard. This isn't some classroom where everyone has to be treated equal and fairly. We support our friends and fight our enemies as we see fit, that is the way America keeps free and economically prosperous."
JJ goes on to say how Israel is NOT attacking Iraq even though Saddam pays the suicide/homicide bomber's families $25,000 after they commit their crimes. Well, there in itself shows the difference between a terrorist thug state like Iraq with nuclear weapons and Isreal with nuclear weapons. Which one should we trust not to use them?
The whole argument that we shouldn't go after Saddam because there are other bad dictators our WMD-armed nations out there is bogus. It is simply an argument then to do nothing. If you can't tell by now that a Saddamless Iraq isn't going to be good for our country and the rest of the world by now, you never will.
My source is logic, history, and current events.
However others including Christoper Hitchens and Thomas Friedman (of all people) have pointed to this strategy.
Not that anyone needs "sources." One simply needs to think it through.
Get back to your cornpone, Jethro.
Hillary, is that you???
Seriously, you can't be serious. (Or is that series?)
Well how about this:
We've let the Arabs play with their pan-Arabist and Islamist matches for 30 year, and the result was 9/11, Iranian mullahs, and Saudi Wahhabism. Not to mention the Sudan, Pakistani nukes, and the rest.
The Middle East is now in a downward cycle of Islamist barbarism and a thoroughly demented psychology of institutional evil.
In removing Saddam, we:
Remove the $25,000 payments to Palestinean suiciders.
Remove much of the funding to Arafat's degenerate PA.
Remove the cancerous pan-Arabic Baath party from Iraq.
Inspire the Iranians to remove their hated mullah government.
Delegitimize the notion of dictatorship in the Middle East.
(And finally) remove a potential source of WMD to terrorist groups.
There's actually much more to it than the above. But the bottom line is to halt the slide of the Middle East toward the nihilistic barbarism that's been its guiding course for the last 30 years.
These barbaric people were controlled and kept in check during the Cold War. They must be reigned-in again.
Good for you. Bravo for your thoughful comments.
Thank you, and when you are more rational, please don't hesitate to try harder.
Thank you, and when you are more rational, please don't hesitate to try harder.
Not necessarily.
What if the strategy is a cleansing of the entire mid-east by removing EVERY government that is dangerous to us.
Iraq has the largest army in the middle east. And the most weapons.
Invading and garrisonning Iraq also surrounds Iran. From our position there, we could destablize Iran into student led revolution, perhaps even arming the rebels across the border.
Now we have the territory from India to Saudi Arabia under our control, or occupied by friendly regimes.
The Saudi's are now sandwiched between our forces and Israel. Wanna bet how quick they'll negotiate?
Lastly, there's no way to deal with North Korea without using nuclear (preferably Neutron) weapons. The army is too close to Seoul, the artillery in range of millions of people, and we're way out numbered.
We can't simply use conventional air raids to take out their bunkered army, and nuclear research facilities. Has to be nuclear. So there's no reason to rush 200,000 men to the DMZ, when 200,000 won't be enough anyway - and when we have to make a move against NK, the attack comes from a sub or planes and is over in 15 minutes anyway.
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.