I said: "Thanks for CNN and other outrages of international journalism we have the equivalent of a group arguing for appeasement to Japan after pearl harbor. It is mind-boggling.
You said: "What is mind-boggling is your last statement. When did
Iraq attack us?"
You are a bit uninformed.
Iraq attacked us in 1993 when they supported the first WTC attack. Iraq again attacked us in 1993 by attempting to assasinate Pres. Bush senior. Iraq for years harbored terrorists who killed Americans - like Abu Nidal - and trained terrorists in hijackings and even chemical/bio weapons.
A whole book was written on this, Laurie Myroie's "Saddam: study of revenge"
http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_irbr.htm
this reviewer wrote:
"This reviewer believes that Mylroie has correctly pinpointed Saddam Hussein as the source of terrorist attacks on Americans, including the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted assassination of former president George H. W. Bush. The Clinton administration, wittingly or unwittingly, has chosen the path of self-delusion: to not investigate the matter seriously. In this way, unpleasant policy options have not been articulated and discussed. Yet, the failure of U.S. officials to address the question of state sponsorship of terrorism will have significant future costs. It encourages future terrorist attacks by eliminating the costs of retribution from the calculations of leaders such as Saddam Hussein."
Saddam's genocide:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction against Kurds:
http://www.joshuakucera.com/halabja.htm
saddam's torture:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jackstraw1.html
saddam's atrocities and oppression:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823242/posts
... NOW YOU KNOW HOW EVIL SADDAM IS, UNDERSTAND WHO HE IS TRAINING AND HELPING ...
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4296646,00.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-60557328.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824599/posts
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29927
AND WHAT ABOUT THE MEETINGS BETWEEN 9/11 HIJACKER AND THE IRAQI SPY ...
"Since the 1980s, Saddam has organised numerous Islamic conferences in Baghdad, expressly for the Mukhabarat to find foreign recruits. Al-Ani has been seen at at least two of them. On one occasion, the defectors say, he took on the cover of a Muslim cleric at a fundamentalists' conference in Karachi, presenting himself as a delegate from the Iraqi shrine of the Sufi mystic Abdel-Qadir al-Gaylani, whose followers are numerous in Pakistan.
Last Wednesday, Iraq made its own response to the news of the meetings between al-Ani and Atta. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, denied Iraq had anything to do with the hijackings, saying: 'Even if that [the meetings] happened, that would mean nothing, for a diplomat could meet many people during his duty, whether he was at a restaurant or elsewhere, and even if he met Mohamed Atta, that would not mean the Iraqi diplomat was involved.'
Yet the striking thing about the meetings is the lengths to which Atta went in order to attend them. In June last year, he flew to Prague from Hamburg, only to be refused entry because he had failed to obtain a visa. Three days later, now equipped with the paperwork, Atta was back for a visit of barely 24 hours. He flew from the Czech Republic to the US, where he began to train as pilot. In early April 2001, when the conspiracy's planning must have been nearing its final stages, Atta was back in Prague for a further brief visit - a journey of considerable inconvenience.
On 17 April, the Czechs expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. Last night, a senior US diplomatic source told The Observer that Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 11 September."
Yeah, maybe Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
maybe. Maybe all his Anthrax is really gone despite the unlikelihood of it. Maybe despite harboring several Al Quaeda operatives and running a totalitarian regime, these terrorists are just slipping by his ever-present secret police.
But it is simply wrong to believe that Iraq hasnt already harmed us and further that it doesnt pose a threat. It has harmed us and it does pose a major threat due its knowledge and pursuit of WMDs and its support (still ongoing!!) of terrorists.
The true nature of the war on terror (so simplistic to think it is just about Osama):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/793094/posts
Dont lay down the lame line about war for oil and show your ignorance. At least read up about what is REALLY going on through the links above and THEN come to conclusions. You may still beleive (wrongly imho) that war is not the way to handle Saddam, but AT LEAST make your judgement based on facts and real threats Saddam poses and not shallow naivite. Thanks!