Posted on 02/15/2003 5:58:20 PM PST by MadIvan
Sure has made many people question exactly what is behind the need to attack Iraq when there are so many other real threats out there that are not being addressed. The message hasn't been lost that any country without big oil reserves can have all the WMD that they want. They can be dictators and enslave and kill their people too. Only thing going to be liberated in Iraq is their oil.
Richard W.
Yes, Democrats, socialists, and leftists. How intriguing that you seem to take their part.
The order of things offends you. George Bush identified three nations as part of the "Axis of Evil", North Korea, Iran and Iraq. I doubt, given this terminology, he intended to take out just one and let the others go.
But again, Democrats, socialists and leftists would like to assume otherwise.
As for the only thing being liberated in Iraq is oil, that statement is so stupid it barely merits comment. But ask yourself this question - if the Americans kill Saddam Hussein and his thugs, will this not give the Iraqis an opportunity for a fresh start?
It will.
Ivan
Thanks
Owl
I believe the polls are BS. Here In Australia we are being told that the majority of Australians are against the war. It's a tactical ploy to silence those who agree with the necessity for war.
As far as I see it this really is it. If we cannot take care of Saddam Hussein this time then the mad Muslims of this world will take it as a symbol of their superiority and moral right to seriously step up the terrorist assault. Bin Laden and his friends will take it as a sign from Allah that they are to go for it. Saddam will claim Allah's help even though he doesn't beleive in him and the Paletinians will increase the suicide bombings.
It's time we all drew a line in the sand.
God Bless
Mel
Why have our troops been there since 1990? Saddam Hussein (he is at least why the Saudi government asked us in and has asked us to stay).
Why were we attacked in 1993, 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001? Mainly to force us out of Saudi Arabia. If you troule yourself to read what these maniacs say, you'll find I'm right.
In order to be able to pull out of Saudi Arabia, what must change? Saddam and his government have to go.
Will you ever hear the American government explain things in this way? No, and the reason is to do so would be taken as a sign of weakness, i.e. giving the terrorists what they want.
What we are going to do in Iraq has little if anything to do with oil and everything to do with a much larger picture, that is how do we defuse, destroy, defund, and remove the reason for being of the Islamic terrorist movement that is intent on causing World War III. If that problem can be defused, we will be able to devote full attention and resources to the other great threat, North Korea and, more importantly, their puppet masters in Beijing.
My main conclusion is that the last person I'd ever want to see opposite me at a poker table is Mr. George W. Bush.
Why, he is a Blair my mother's maiden name.
Richard W.
I prefer to think that Blair (and Bush) is putting his career on the line for true world-wide peace in the face of the worlds most prominent threat since Hitler himself.
All that's required.
You repeatedly regurgitate leftist talking point after leftist talking point, and you consider yourself a paragon of "free thinking"?
Give it a rest.
Ivan
I'm not 'offended" at all. Did I say that I was "offended"? You're just making stuff up defending a losing cause, aren't you? Ebola? Mad cow disease? Geez. You guys need to stop and listen to yourselves.
Richard W.
Were you saying that about him when he stood next to Bubba and helped him out of the Monica problem? Blair's in office to take orders from the U.S. He's a lackey and a lap dog. The bobbing head in the back window of the car.
Richard W.
The basis of your objection to war in Iraq is that it is not occuring in order for you to accept the reasons given why it is being done. Because George W. Bush isn't tackling countries which YOU perceive to be a greater threat, such as Iran and North Korea, then you're automatically assuming it's being done for nefarious reasons. Ergo, the order of things offends you.
Is that clear enough? Or should I spell it out for you in crayon?
You're just making stuff up defending a losing cause, aren't you?
Excuse me? I just pointed out why Saddam needs to be taken out - he has violated the following:
These are all very clear reasons to eliminate him. Even the French do not deny these reasons exist. The only reason why you choose to ignore these reasons is because of a childish, willfull ignorance on your part in which you refuse to countenance anything that contradicts your ideology. It is precisely because of people like you, that the West is not able to provide a united front against Saddam, and thus peacefully force him out. If the West was united, then Saddam would not see any hope of survival and he would be more likely to leave without bloodshed. Therefore your inability to shut up, along with others, is going to get some good people hurt. Don't expect anyone to forgive you, the blood on your hands will not wash off.
Ebola? Mad cow disease? Geez. You guys need to stop and listen to yourselves.
You need to stop spewing garbage and think for 10 seconds, rather than continue to adhere to the most convenient leftist talking points.
Ivan
Nothing "intriguing" about it. There are many conservatives like myself who are against the war and at the same time are't part of the left. It is called freedom of thought and expression. Something that you seem to know so little about.
Richard W.
You are "conservative" in the same way that the media used to call the worst of the Soviet appratchiks "conservative". You claim not to be part of the left, but you say exactly the same as they do, provide exactly the same reasoning (or lack thereof) against the war as they do, and adopt the same condescending, snivelling tone that they do. At what point do we take your claims of being "conservative" seriously? I gave it up as soon as you took on a Marxist analysis of why this war is being fought.
It is called freedom of thought and expression. Something that you seem to know so little about.
You are free to say what you like. I am free to tell you that you're a jackass for saying it.
And you are a total, complete utter and idiotic jackass.
Ivan
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.