Posted on 10/10/2002 8:23:39 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
My guess is that he is going to eliminate every other conceivable option before mounting a so-called 'invasion'. There is a lot more here than meets the eye. In addition to trying to rally the world, there is a lot going on within Iraq and Iran covertly to attempt an overthrow using opposition groups and encouraging the military to revolt. That is why I don't think direct military action on our part is imminent.
Umm, in addition, there are also the small matters of shooting at US warplanes;
the desperate race to get a nuclear bomb or two, most likely for DC and Tel Aviv;
the murdering of thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons;
the invasions of two neighboring nations for economic gain;
and the harboring, support, training, and coordination of terrorists (abu nidal, al-qaeda, hezbollah, etc)...
maybe you've heard of those? They made the news once or twice.
The truth is that the world is far safer without Saddam. We made the mistake of supporting this trained assassin and helping him gain more power and influence a few decades back. Now we're fixing that mistake. We are not going to go after EVERY dictator who kills his own people... but the ones that have been and continue to be a threat to their neighbors, the US, and to massive number of innocent civilians just might get on the list.
Actually, they DO vote in US elections. House Minoirty Leader Gephardt just offered amnesty to illegals if they vote in sufficient numbers to give the Dems a majority in the House.
Democrat Congressmen are encouraging massive law-breaking (by those who have already broken the law) for their own political benefit. How nice. Clod, you must be SO proud!
I'll be on my own doing what? I'm not going anywhere. I'm in pretty good physical shape but how many 40+ year-old non military women are going to Iraq?
All the things you state are just silly. You haven't learned a thing from the past, have you? What countries say publicly and what they do privately are often two completely different things.
Just keep underestimating Bush and his Administration. If the time comes for a war with Iraq (and, again, I'm not too sure that is going to happen) we will have plenty of support.
Europe is a stinkhole full of appeasers who didn't learn a frickin' thing from the past Century. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve whatever they get.
We'll see if you bed-wetting Euroweenies change your tune when your Parliament building takes a car bomb or hijacked plane. Maybe the heads will come out of the sand tehn, but probably not
Your bias toward the UN tells me what a 'simpleton' you are. The UN can't even enforce it's own resolutions, yet it thinks it should tell the US how and when she can defend herself.
As I have said many time, I'm not convinced there will be a war against Iraq. Bush is playing his hand masterfully. Watch and learn.
So we're going to war for the UN, huh?
No dufus, the 16 resolutions were passed in an attempt to protect innocents from terrorist murder. Those 16 resolutions have been breached, meaning the innocents aren't being protected... do you recall WTC I, WTC II, or any of the other world-wide terrorist attacks?
Perhaps you're one of the radicals who believe Iraq has nothing to do with terrorisism?
Idiot.
This is the correct assessment of the situation. You left out Afganistan. No one much knows what is really there. You also omitted Saudi Arabia. ditto as far as prepositioned equipment.
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.