| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/30/2003 8:34:48 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked per poster’s request. |
Posted on 01/30/2003 7:10:39 AM PST by ChadsDad
I don't see that SH is any more of a threat now than he was 5 years ago. The President's justification was all old news; not enough to justify a pre-emptive strike. Plus, I believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers--even the US. Also, I sincerely hope to see the UN succeed as a world body. Look what happened when the League of Nations failed. More than ever, I think we ought to act in concert with other nations.
Also, I sincerely hope to see the UN succeed as a world body. Look what happened when the League of Nations failed. More than ever, I think we ought to act in concert with other nations
Also, ask the traitor why should we let a bunch of unelected globocrats dictate our foreign policy?
Secondly, he got his arse kicked in 1991-92, agreed to certain rules -set by the UN - and he has not obeyed that agreement. It is Hussein that has made a mockery of the UN --- he refuses to do what they mandate.
That first sentence jumps out at me. It reminds of of when Alan Colmes says that the fact that SD gassed the Kurds doesn't matter anymore because it happened several years ago.
So if there is a house with a terrible cockroach infestation, and it's been infested for several years, does that mean that it should never be dealt with simply because it's been ignored for years? Fumigate the place, the sooner the better.
Oh, and I would refer the lib to Colin Powell's address to the UN scheduled for 2/5 and leave it at that. If that doesn't do it, nothing will.
Back then:
Al Gore:
"There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one." (February/98 as VP)
Senator Daschle:
"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Biden:
"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Lieberman:
"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Levin:
"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Kerry:
"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]
"I believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny,"
Buy high jacking Commercial Airliners and flying them into buildings killing 3000 people in someone elses country? Or how about a little Sarin gas in the nearest Train Station?
And just why was it OK to justify a pre-emptive strike in Kosovo or Bosnia? Was it that Clinton was a Democrat and everybody knows Democrats have good intentions when they kill people ?
I, too, hope that is the case. However, I fear that no matter what evidence is presented (and how irrefutable it is...), the peace crowd won't change their position.
I believe that you are correct, unfortunately.
He rewards the family of every Palestinian homocide bomber-definately a seductive allure to Poor Pali families with too little money and too many children and hearts full of eternal hatred of Jews.
Iraq currently claims that the supplies of nerve gas, chemical and other biologigal WMD's didn't have a long shelf life and didn't need to be destroyed. They supposedly just dumped it since it was useless.
However, we know that isn't true as he used the same WMD's on his own people and in the war with Iran.
Since the last weapons inspector's from the UN were thrown out of the country, we know that Iraq has continued it's programs of refining WMD's in the chemical and bio areas, as well as starting up it's nuclear programs as well. It's a fact that will soon be proven without question when the Iraq war ends and the USA exposes the WMD's and programs Iraq currently has.
That said, 5 years ago and today are like comparing the depression years of the 1930's with the 1950's. Today we are faced with terrorism and the knowledge that terrorists have actually hit our country and killed thousands of people. They continue to threaten us with further acts of murder and mayhem. The potential for another attack is serious and most likely not preventable.
We've had successes in rounding up some terrorist cells, but there most likely are others. Some think the OKC bombing is terrorist related to the mid-east as well, but that is open to question at this point in time. The point is, today Saddam wants to destroy the USA. He has attempted to kill former President Bush when he visited Kuwait. He possibly holds an American pilot as a POW to this day and his daily threats to the USA show contempt for the UN resolution 1441 that requires him to disarm his WMD's and turn over all related materials to the UN inspectors.
To date, Iraq has failed to do so and shown they have no intention of doing so. They are trying and so far succeeding in playing hide and seek with the inspectors. This isn't what is required of them. They are required to turn the materials and WMD's over to the inspectors for destruction. They are and have been in violation of Resolution 1441 since day 1.
If the writer believe a nation of people have the free right of self determination, then why not give the people of Iraq that free choice? Saddam murders those that he mistrusts or who dare to disagree with him. Under those circumstances no people are free to decide how they want to live their lives and who they want to run their country. They have no say so. If the writer believes in what he or she says, then they must be rid of Saddam.
As far as working with other nations in the world, we have been trying to do just that. We sought out their opinions and with the help of countries in the UN (France included), the UN prepared Res 1441. Everyone voted on it and approved it.
Now that it has been shown by Iraq that they have no intention of living up to 1441, France, Germany, Russia and China don't want to follow through on the resolution they helped write and voted for in the first place.
The UN may well go the way of the League of Nations and if they continue to be as ineffective as they have been and are showing themselves to be, then that may not be a bad thing at all.
The USA cannot allow other countries that have their own interests decide the future of America. Those countries balking at the USA going to war with Iraq have financial interests such a Iraq oweing Russia over $6billion, or the trade that France and Germany have with Iraq.
Is Iraq our enenmy? No. It's Saddam that can't be trusted with WMD's. He has them, he's used them and is now preparing to use them against us. He vehicle to use them against us resides in terroist groups like Al Qaida, Hamas etc. They are the vehicle that will deliver those WMD's to some city in the USA, or maybe cities? We cannot wait for that to happen, we have to prevent it from happening. And we can do that by stopping Saddam now.
If you want you could try to bring it closer to home:
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.