Posted on 08/19/2002 1:35:04 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:08:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Satellite pix show that three chemical facilities in Iraq - Fullujah I, II and III - wrecked in the 1991 Gulf War are back in business.
August 19, 2002 -- WASHINGTON - These mysterious chemical factories northwest of Baghdad are a major reason the Bush administration thinks war with Iraq is inevitable.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I heard a broadcast this week by an investigator familiar with HAARP ..... He said we have ability using sound waves to map every underground facility in Iraq in great detail. We did not have that capability in 1991.
We also have the ability to cook Sadaam and his army like Chistmas geese with Micrwaves and sonic pulse weapons)....
I say let's cook Saddam .... !!! .
That's right! and you won't either until Iraq unless the threat that Saddam poses to the free world is taken out.Get real and step off the fantasy train. The quickest way to lose a war is wait for the first punch then fight. No sir. I am all for an offensive here.
I have no sympathy for him, as I said in my original post. And being that he's unwilling to cooperate with the UN (for what that's worth) and the US, I expect nothing less than what he's now doing. So, if we can show good cause to attack Iraq, the rest of the world should expect nothing less - and they can sit back and watch us annihilate him.
Seems to me Saddam poses a new and difficult problem. The American people don't seek war. The United States has never sought to be an aggressor nation. Good people, with all-in-all a good history to their credit.
Back in the day when we worried about the Soviet Union, we had mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. Reagan managed to dissassemble the SU by hoisting them on their own petards.
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions, but even he sent them to death in war or prison. Saddam Hussein, in gassing Kurds, didn't even bother to declare them enemy and give them the chance to side-up. In that case, he's even more sadistically covert than Stalin. We've seen these characters before.
So what to do with this guy? Seems to me it comes down to motive. Why does a nation like Iraq spend money on development of weapons of mass destruction? Because of Iran? National pride? i.e. They can build a bomb and play with the big boys?
No. Chemical and biological weapons are used against civilian populations. The concept of engaging in this kind of warfare is repugnant to the civilized world. Saddam Hussein knows this. It's a world he doesn't want to join. God knows, he's been given his chances.
He has the capability and he has the will to use WMD. He's proven it. So do we sit by and wait for a tyrant and merchant of fear to do something really bad? We'd be playing his game and the game of anyone who follows in his path, while the world suffers with threats. If we allowed ourselves to be lulled into complacency, how many of these monsters could we breed?
As an American, I don't like being put in this position. I don't like war. But I don't want my children and grandchildren living in fear either. So I've taken sides. Let's do God's work and get the job done.
HAARP is a research facility, mainly an antenna farm to probe the ionosphere, including aurural phenomena. There isn't enough power available in Alaska to do much more than warm the ionosphere measurably over the antenna. Some imaging may be possible, but of continent-sized objects. Looking into underground facilities on the other side of the planet is nothing more than hype.
Bush and his administration have been playing loose with the facts. It would be absurd to take what they have to say at face value given other readily available information including testimony by Iraq's head of nuclear weapons programs (who defected and told the story) and UN weapons inspectors who were quite candid.
I just saw this man on TV last week and he insisted that there had been no cessation in Saddam's weapons build-up. That they were inconvenienced by the UN inspector's but in the last four years had made-up for lost time with chemical and biologicals, that Saddam has dirty bombs and was doggedly persuing long-range nuclear weapons capability.
Good one, bozo. Yeah, 'nuke 'em', and make the US an international mad dog.
I wonder if Osama dreamed his attack might be that successful?
It's not the only reason. But you're very naive, if you think that consideration wouldn't be factored into Bush's decisions.
No, they don't. Most Australians have very positive views of the US and we consider ourselves your closest allies. I don't want to see those positive views change. Your post is typical of one narrow American attitude, thankfully a rare one- you've developed a chip on your shoulder, that the rest of the world is ungrateful for past US help and secretly envies the US and wants to see her laid low and humbled. That's all in your own mind. I write as a friend and as an admirer, and would say to this president if I had the chance, 'don't throw away the moral high ground, with this cynical attack on Iraq. You won't get it back.' I'll admit to a personal interest in this, because the Iraq campaign will be a gift to the international Left. Foreign conservatives like me are going to see many years worth of activism torn up by reinvigorated socialism. Matter of fact I think that's why the liberal papers are either quiescent or supportive on the President's Iraq plans. They can't wait to see him push one bridge too far.
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.