Skip to comments.
Mark Steyn: Can America be serious?
The Spectator (U.K.) ^
| 01/11/03
| Mark Steyn
Posted on 01/09/2003 9:07:42 AM PST by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: The Great Satan
Hi Satan: Even though I believe the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks came from Iraq, I have hoped against hope that it would not deter the president from taking Hussein out. But lately, despite the military build-up, the rhetoric coming from both the U.S. and Britain has softened a lot. I think even if the president still wants to go after Hussein, so much time and momentum have been wasted that I fear public opinion may have swung against doing it. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but something just "feels" different. I mean, when the President of the United States says that Hussein "still has time," I take that as a signal we are backing away from a confrontation.
41
posted on
01/09/2003 4:20:28 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
To: Paul Ross
Way cool graphic. Did you create it? If not, where did you acquire it?
42
posted on
01/09/2003 4:25:12 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
To: Pokey78
another excellent article by Steyn. And I was just asked about Iraq vs. Korea the other day...which should be of more concern and why. I'll print this out and let my friend read so many valid points.
43
posted on
01/09/2003 4:30:29 PM PST
by
nicmarlo
To: Wolfstar
Or buying time?
44
posted on
01/09/2003 4:32:34 PM PST
by
bonfire
To: Wolfstar
Once you understand the implications of the sample of powder contained in the
letter to Daschle, the whole situation becomes transparently clear. OTOH, if you don't understand the implications of that powder, you haven't a hope in hell of understanding what has been happening the last 16 months.
To: The Great Satan
What do you believe is the reason the administration even bothered to go down this saber-rattling path with Iraq despite the anthrax attacks?
46
posted on
01/09/2003 4:55:02 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
To: Wolfstar
I could not agree more with Steyn's analysis in this piece. As much as I love and respect President Bush, I've got a sinking feeling that there will NOT be any war in Iraq to take out Saddam. And just what do you think the tens of thousands of reserves are being called up from their civilian jobs and sent to the gulf at a cost of billions of dollars for?
We are going in when we are ready. We don't need to prove anything ahead of time. There will be plenty of proof afterward.
47
posted on
01/09/2003 5:04:32 PM PST
by
Hugin
To: Allan
Bump
48
posted on
01/09/2003 5:05:32 PM PST
by
Allan
To: Wolfstar
I'm with you wolfie...great Steyn article.
To: Pokey78
Take a look at a satellite picture of the peninsula by night: South Korea ablaze in electric light, the North in darkness.OK, Mark, we will:
North Korea at Night
50
posted on
01/09/2003 5:15:44 PM PST
by
beckett
To: Howlin
Why aren't people screaming for Bush to go to the UN about North Korea?
Because he has said we won't attack them, I imagine.
51
posted on
01/09/2003 5:29:01 PM PST
by
gcruse
(When faced with two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
To: US admirer
Kraut's a Canuck? Didn't know that. I just knew he was a member of the Crips.
52
posted on
01/09/2003 5:34:14 PM PST
by
mrustow
To: Pokey78
Nobel Peanut Prize winner Jimmy CarterROTFLMAO
I thought for sure, someone would have mentioned that, but through #30, I didn't find anyone, and I sure as heck wasn't going to let myself get beat by #65, while I was hunting through posts!
53
posted on
01/09/2003 5:36:39 PM PST
by
mrustow
To: TonyRo76
Dang!
54
posted on
01/09/2003 5:39:36 PM PST
by
mrustow
To: Rummyfan; 300winmag
Besides munitions build-up and re-positioning of military assets, there is one other reason for delay. An even better reason.
Would you agree that the weaponized anthrax spores were probably mailed by Islamic terrorists? And that the terrorists probably got them from Iraq? And that there was probably plenty more where that came from? And that a few kilos worth might have already been smuggled into the US?
This is, at any rate, the assumption that the administration is likely working under. Consequently, the primary reason for delay has been to locate and isolate the anthrax stash and its keepers. And to institute civil defense measures that can effectively deal with a domestic biowarfare attack.
When Bush is confident that this risk has been minimized, we'll move on Saddam. But not a moment before...
55
posted on
01/09/2003 6:00:23 PM PST
by
okie01
To: Wolfstar
What do you believe is the reason the administration even bothered to go down this saber-rattling path with Iraq despite the anthrax attacks?Consider the alternative.
57
posted on
01/09/2003 11:33:29 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Join the DC Chapter at the Patriots Rally III on 1/18/03)
To: Pokey78
Thanks for the ping, friend =^)
To: Pokey78; xm177e2; mercy; Wait4Truth; hole_n_one; GretchenEE; Clinton's a rapist; buffyt; ...
Mark Steyn Mega PING!!
To: Paul Ross
Thank you, too, for the ping.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 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