Skip to comments.
Will We Invade Iraq Or Not?
happytobealive
Posted on 08/08/2002 8:06:22 PM PDT by happytobealive
I'm surprised by how many people are telling me it's highly unlikely. I figured it was almost a done deal.
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
To: happytobealive
BOMB IRAQ!
To: happytobealive
To: happytobealive
I'm surprised by how many people are telling me it's highly unlikely. I figured it was almost a done deal.No doubt. It's a done deal.
End of the debate.
To: happytobealive
We will. 100's of 1000's of Reservist have been called up for training for almost six months. Weapons are being stockpiled. You can only mass an attack so many times. The attack will be all-out, brutal and decisive. No pin pricks, like in Afganistan, I assure you.
To: happytobealive
Will we or not? That's an easy one.
You want the answer? I bet.
Stay tuned.
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
" No pin pricks, like in Afganistan, I assure you."
Your assurance, I assure you, will allow the rest of us to forget this issue. Thanks. If things go bad, we'll get back to you for further instructions.
7
posted on
08/08/2002 8:15:01 PM PDT
by
billhilly
To: billhilly
Your assurance, I assure you, will allow the rest of us to forget this issue.
- Glad to help!
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
"You can only mass an attack so many times."
Can you elaborate on this statement? I'm not sure I follow your train of thought.
To: happytobealive
I don't see it happening in the next 3 or 4 months. After that, all bets are off.
To: happytobealive
The real question is: who do we invade next after iraq is taken care of?
To: happytobealive
It seems very likely to me.
President Bush has been attacked for months over Iraq, but he's stayed on message.
Democrats, the U.S. Media, the entire International Media, the E.U., the UN, all of our best allies (except for maybe Australia), all have been screaming their heads off as to every reason thinkable why we should not go after Saddam Hussein. Bush has held firm to his administrations standing official policy of Regime Change in Iraq. Retired and current U.S. Military Generals, especially General Myers, have been trying to pursuade Bush against going into Iraq. The New York Times of course harped on the "civilians" in the Bush administration who weren't heeding the Generals' advice.
It's called focus. President Bush is a focussed man. He wants to see the War on Terror actually accomplish the tasks ahead. Everyone is doubting and/or testing Bush's resolve. Time will tell on Iraq, but I believe we will be in there no later than early 2003. (Actually, I've been saying "September or January" for weeks if not months.) I think that when we go in, I believe it will be with a Resolution from Congress, as well as UN approval (tacit or otherwise), and with at least 10 coalition nations.
If we don't go into Iraq, there will be no more victories in the War on Terror. Saddam Hussein MUST GO before any of the other evil regimes will.
But, even Kofi Annan today came out as "disappointed" in Hussein's speech because it has now become obvious to him that Iraq is not serious about adhering the the existing UN resolutions which they agreed to years ago.
It takes time to jump through the 10,000 politically-correct hoops needed.
12
posted on
08/08/2002 8:27:35 PM PDT
by
SunStar
To: mamelukesabre
The real question is: who do we invade next after iraq is taken care of?We will make sure that Iran will fall, then we will go after Saudi Arabia!
To: mamelukesabre
Iran, Lebanon (Hizbulluh), Saudi Arabia, Indonesia
14
posted on
08/08/2002 8:29:51 PM PDT
by
SunStar
To: All
My Democratic cousin, who reads the Economist, said we wouldn't invade because the other countries are not on board.
I would have thought that opposition from these girly countries would be a reason to invade. In the last hundred years we're the only ones who have understood power.
To: happytobealive
No, we will not.
To: The Great Satan
Why will we not invade?
To: The Great Satan
No, we will not. Why not?
To: mamelukesabre
"You can only mass an attack so many times."
- Think of Eisenhower sending all the boats back on June 6 or of the Japanese turning around on December 6th to think about it some more.
There are obvious signs that the US is preparing a huge attack,
- munitions factories running around the clock,
- 100,000's of reservist called up
- base expansions in the gulf
These steps are costly in money and the demands they place on reservists lives and families. I believe that the planners have a tentative date and are massing for the most overwhelming attack possible on that date. They will take whatever aid they can get from the locals but go it alone if they have to. This war is fully joined. To back down now is to fail, the domestic political climate, diplomatic pressures and tactical advantages will all become worse with time. The US was in no position to launch an attack on 12 September. We have been building up for one ever since.
Iraq has been aiding and abetting terror against Americans for at least the last 11 years. This alone is sufficient justification for war.
I am sure that it will come and it will be brutal.
To: happytobealive
Probably. Dubya can't back out now.
20
posted on
08/08/2002 8:34:49 PM PDT
by
AM2000
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson