by Valis 71 Replies latest social current
You anti Bush's act like there's a huge coverup on our death toll over there just because the cameras aren't allowed in before the family.
Gimme a break. We haven't covered up a single loss. Find something better to beat Bush up over, this whine is weak.
Six, 12 years of waiting and sanctions accomplished little except for harmimg the people of Iraq, not Saddam. He was building palaces and rearming with the money that was supposed to go for feeding the people. Granting him unlimited time is exactly why he felt America was powerless and weak. All he ever had to do was come clean to the Weapons Inspectors, that's all.
We've waited and negotiated for over 30 years about rising Terrorism. What was the end result of that period of waiting? Does 9-11 ring a bell? While no direct link has been found between 9-11 and Saddam, there is ample evidence of indirect involvement. Circumstantial, yes, but since nearly everyone thought he still had WMDs, both Democrat and Republican as well as world leaders, time was running out.
What will be done about other nations there? Hopefully, they will clean up their own acts and once Iraq is operating on it's own with a free government running the country, they too will initiate changes. Time will tell.
"What is war good for? - Absolutely nothing!"
Does anybody remember Balkans and Kosovo? I do. Is it peaceful there? No and never will. The same thing with Iraq. In both cases it would have been better choice if the resources were used to help people within these countries tople those regimes that were oppresing them.
Invictus
What could have been done differently? How about hust one assasination and call it good?
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Six, 12 years of waiting and sanctions accomplished little except for harmimg the people of Iraq, not Saddam. He was building palaces and rearming with the money that was supposed to go for feeding the people. Granting him unlimited time is exactly why he felt America was powerless and weak. All he ever had to do was come clean to the Weapons Inspectors, that's all.
I got behind this war, because I was so enraged by the black spot of Saddam and his sons being in power to abuse on this planet, it's a failure for humanity. But that doesn't mean I was right to get behind this war. As lovely as it was to see Odai and Qussai with bullet holes, it doesn't mean this was done right.
Granting him unlimited time? WTH? The time was not now. There were and are far more important problems facing America. This Saddam problem was managed. "Was" being the key word. This is most certainly not about Saddam feeling that America was powerless and weak. I don't even know why you'd make that claim, as you know damn well that Saddam knew more about Americas true military power than you do. But it doesn't matter, cuz you don't make international policy based on your feelings about a man, or if that man has worn on your last nerve, or if that man has built himself another gaudy palace.
Love the even-more-creative-than-the-administration stab at linking 9/11 terrorism to Iraq, but no, sorry, even the administration knows they can't get away with that bullshit anymore.
Uh, invictus, you might want to reconsider using Kosovo as an example. There are a whole lot of Kosovors who will tell you differently. You may remember the Balkans and Kosovo, but you must not remember it accurately.What is war good for? - Absolutely nothing!"
Does anybody remember Balkans and Kosovo? I do. Is it peaceful there? No and never will.
Love the even-more-creative-than-the-administration stab at linking 9/11 terrorism to Iraq,
Just because you care not to acknowledge it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Still, Saddam posed a threat, not the emminent threat that the left is erroneoulsy claiming Bush said, but still a threat. Even Sandy Berger, Defense Secretary under Bill Clinton, was on Hannity and Colmes tonight saying he was a threat. He too is concerned about what happened to all the WMDs that even the Clinton Administration thought to be there.
Sorry to inform you, Six, but he was not "contained." He was in Iraq yes, but free to pretty much do as he pleased, along with his now deceased sons. Did you forget his offers of thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers in Israel? The training camp with the mock-up airliner? The defectors who all stated he was indirectly involved?
As for just assasinating Saddam;
In 1976, following revelations that the CIA had tried to kill Fidel Castro, with consequent fears that this might have led to the murder of President Kennedy, President Gerald Ford by executive order forbade assassinations. A prohibition was enacted by President Reagan at the request of Congress in 1981 stating bluntly ?No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination?.
I would rather that little piece of law go away and for the gov to get real. We get plane bombed and they won't go send in some special ops to just whack the people that need it? I would rather our country be seen in a bad light for killing one tyrant than to see even one body bag flag draped coffin come home every day.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
The American administration learned some lessons from the disaster with the Vietnam war. That is why they are trying to gloss over truth and only tell you what they want you to hear. They know the more and more bodies that pile up the less and less popular this war is becoming.
Will
Valis, the problem with that is who was behind Saddam ready to step in if he died. You also had numerous Saddam look-a-likes walking about and may have killed the wrong one, tipping our hand. If he had been assasinanted, he then becomes a martyr and just as is happening now, loyal followers spread their terror all over, not just in Iraq.
On the surface, taking one man out sounds like a good solution, but in reality, it would just have prolonged the enevitable.
I mean really, we don't allow assasinations of prominent evil people, but we also refuse to sign a unilateral agreement to ban all land mines...where is the sense in that? Is it better to assasinate the innocent walking along who blow themselves up on a land mine or put a team in place and kill some bastard who needs to go? It would seem that there is some conflicting politics, but also a side issue.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
