Posted on 01/11/2006 12:26:22 AM PST by BogusStory
Saddam was cornered via the UN police, he had weapons inspectors traveling throughout his country. It is a huge leap to go from that to where he would be able to launch anything to the US. He could barely get scud missiles to land in Israel during the first gulf war. We are over there for a reason, but it is not because any US city was ever in any jeopardy of being attacked by Iraq.
Who was financing Pakistan's atom bomb program?
You gotta' be nuts to not notice that two, now three places in the old Islamic Caliphate (a single country at one time) have been caught red-handed developing atomic weapons.
Do you think those guys actually ignore their own history?
Lookup "Project Babylon".
If the guy building it for Saddam hadn't been [thankfully] assassinated, the results would have been.. uncomfortable for us.
From your article, "The superguns were potentially capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to a range of up to 1,000 km."
How is this a threat to the shores of the USA.
You missed it.
It was capable of dumping a payload into orbit.
The Babylon project gun could have been used to hit satellites.
And if you can hit satellites, you can do a bunch of other stuff.
THAT is in that linked article too.
World War II was expensive too, but the cost was not a consideration.
Regards, Ivan
Crystal says thank you all very much for wishing her a happy birthday. She enjoyed everyone's posts, and sends you all hugs.
I thank you as well for your approach to having a civilized discussion on a very important topic even though we are on opposite sides of the fence.
My support of the war is not based on the fact that they might or might not have had WMD's or that they were a direct and immediate threat to the US. There are a number of countries in the world that represent a threat to us and our way of life, some more directly than others.
Here are my thoughts on that, we choose who is our enemy and who is not our enemy, if you recall at one time we were on the same team as Saddam Hussein, we stood behind him during the Iran Iraq war. What changed? You could say the turning point occurred when he invaded Kuwait, but I have read that behind the scenes we gave him the wink on that one and he fell for it. That may or not be true but I don't always trust the people running our foreign policy. Anyway, the end result is that Iraq became the enemy. The part that does not square with me is why go to war when he was cornered, he could not make a move in his own country without some weapons inspector breathing down his neck. Wouldn't it have been much cheaper to just keep a huge team of weapons inspectors in his country indefinitely rather than what we have now? That is why I think there is more to the "why" we are there than meets the eye. I have a very high litmus test for war and for shedding American blood.
Isn't the real story to be reported on here the fact that the total cost so far has already gone WAY past the initial $50-60 billion estimate put out by the administration? So far they're off by 400% and climbing. Just like drug coverage in medicare, where the costs are well above the administrations initial claims. Or how about the deficit, which he had a "plan" to reduce by 50%... of course the plan doesn't reduce on-budget deficits by even so much as 15% by 2008, before they start increasing again...
Who can believe the admin numbers any more?
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.