ATTACKING SADDAM COULD CARRY HEAVY COST

St. Louis Post-Dispatch | February 2, 2003 | Philip Dine

[Paulus Invictus]

It would be a big win for Saddam, the liberals everywhere and the end of Pre. Bush's hopes for a second term. Then what would the Republic face: Hitlery?

[Domestic Church]

I really do think nukes might be in order especially if we can't get to his WMD any other way or if it will prevent his setting them off before we can.

I also feel there should be consideration given to internment camps if the hometurf is about to be under seige as many expect.(And throw in the ANSWER bunch and any other leftist instigators too.)

[Domestic Church]

"Iran would attack Israel
Of course I meant Iraq"

But it is a possibility, even if unexpected.

[Domestic Church]

There will be innocents lost on both sides. It is unavoidable given the nature of war not to mention WMDs. Do we decide to do this in order to save their lives or ours? The point we are at now is trying to minimize innocent lives lost on both sides but our side obviously takes the lead. It is unfortunate but we are probably in a very dire situation.

[John Jamieson]

"The leftists are stringing this out forever, hoping President Bush will waffle and war in Iraq will fade away while inspectors search in vain for the next year or so. Then the UN, the French, Germans Russians, our commie actors and Saddam will assume control and there will be no second term for George. And that's a fact!"

I'm really confused about your position???? What should President Bush do???

[finnman69]

go away troll

[finnman69]

Nice to join up at FR and post your LW dribble here...seems to be consistent in your posts. Stop apologizing for Saddam.

[William McKinley]

Well, that might be a compelling argument, unless your country happens to be run by someone who has shown a propensity for abusing force, like Saddam has, and like Kim has, and like the Ayatollah has.

And like Mugabe has, and like Chavez has...

For those, the answer is "you can't have them because we will destroy you first".

And this is what is known as a very good thing.

[Consort]

Inhuman Shields

[Victoria Delsoul]

"Are we ready for that possibility? The president never talked about the price tag, and whether it's acceptable. That's the part of the debate that's been left out," said Lindsay, a former National Security Council official.

Of course there are risks involved. However, Al-Qaeda terrorists started in 1992 during the Algerian conflict when the Islamic fundamentalists fought a bloody war with other radical religious groups in order to win their elections. The Islamists who escaped from the Algerian army ended up in Afghanistan where another brutal civil war had left the country isolated and at the hands of the brutal Muslim fundamentalists. Al Qaeda is responsible for the first WTC bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the embassies in Africa and bombings of nightclubs and embassies around the world.

Guess who was in power in the nineties? The consequence of doing nothing made Al Qaeda stronger and bolder the result of which brought us the 9/11.

It is time to act, just as when Ronald Reagan retaliated for terrorist acts sponsored by Libya's Moammar Khadafy by targeting Khadafy himself, and terrorist activity sponsored by Libya ceased.

[Domestic Church]

"The president never talked about the price tag"

Sure he did. The price is life and whether we will have one. It's simply them or us.

[oceanview]

All I can say is that if any of this comes to pass, especially the part about pre-positioned anthrax inside the US ready to be released, that by not telling the truth about the source of the post 9/11 anthrax, Bush would be crippled if he attacks Iraq, only to have anthrax attacks unleashed on the American population centers. The time to be building a case for what may have to be done to counter this is not in a speech made as they are collecting ten thousand corpses from the NY and DC subway systems. The alternative idea, that the current buildup of forces is a bluff and indeed there will be no attack on Iraq because of this fear, is also a political disaster for Bush as you can clearly see from the daily "Bush has blinked" threads here on FR. You can't lead the country into something like this, and keep all the truths hidden.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the information and the heads up!

[Jorge]

I have an idea: let's give him 6 more months to prepare terroristic responses to an attack.

That's an old idea that has already become policy.

[Fred Mertz]

Super thread. I always get here too late and too tired. At least tomorrow is another day.

[Nita Nuprez]

Yeah, me too. I started reading it earlier and then got sidetracked. Thanks for the reminder. Later, Fred!

[honway]

have an idea: let's give him 6 more months to prepare terroristic responses to an attack.

Saddam has been preparing since 1991. Time to roll.

[honway]

All I can say is that if any of this comes to pass, especially the part about pre-positioned anthrax inside the US ready to be released, that by not telling the truth about the source of the post 9/11 anthrax, Bush would be crippled if he attacks Iraq, only to have anthrax attacks unleashed on the American population centers

Very astute. George Bush should be watching closely the advisors that recommended ignoring the Iraqi connection to the anthrax mailings and 9-11. I am guessing George "Clintin holdover" Tenet may be in those ranks.

If President Bush had told the United States and the world the truth that Saddam was the "true matermind" of 9-11 and the anthrax mailings, then it would not now be the United States against Saddam and the rest of the world.

Of course, if Turkey denies U.S. the northern front, the price for this decision will be paid by our G.I.s on the ground.

[The Great Satan]

So, I would agree that he probably believes it was his possession of WMDs (but BWs, not CWs) in '91 that saved him, and if he believes this, he is probably right.

Quite so. It is we who have been living in denial, not him, unfortunately.