[WVNan]

Here is the e-mail I have to answer.

All that may be.

All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941. Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God. Hitler was fighting a geo-political war. Arabs are fighting a holy war. Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side. Arabs are convinced that God is on their side. And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side.

I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq. And the whole, wide world, even the Arabs, would understand and be supportive. Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

That was a justified war. And there was no disputing that it was justified. Likewise, WWII was justified for the same reason. Had we invaded Germany first, everything would have been different. We must be careful to remember that hindsight is always 20/20.

Could Hussein attack us if we don't take out his weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't.

We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference.

I'm concerned about Hussein as every right thinking human being ought to be. But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife.

What I'm afraid of os the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire.

Am I right in being afraid of this? I don't know. I guess we could ask the Israelis and see what they think ...

I just don't see how invading Iran is going to reduce my fear of these things at all

[WVNan]

Bump out

[ambrose]

Help Me Debate my Liberal Son-in-Law (Vanity)

Call him a Meathead...

[Alberta's Child]

Help Me Debate my Liberal Son-in-Law (Vanity)

Spend about three days watching old episodes of "All in the Family" -- Archie Bunker had the whole thing down to an art form.

[scooby321]

1. The Arab street hate Saddam

2.The South had God on their side.

3. Churchill's famous words " too Late" : as he warned an unpopular view that the League of Nations were not enforcing the inspections regime in Germany. Churchill later wrote of the unneccessary war , WW2, ask how many died because inspections didn't work ? " If one forgets history he surly will relive it.

No President can allow a Person who gives up billions in oil revenues to keep his weapons of mass destruction to use it somewhere, sometime after 9-11

[freedumb2003]

Simplest answer in the world.

*Fear* is what creates the Taliban. *Fear* is what allowed Hitler to imprison and kill the Jews. If you are *afraid* of what might happen as a result of decisive decisions in the face of moral ambiguity, then you are sentenced to a life of hiding from shadows.

>> Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't. <<

But if you accept the H0 hypothesis he might not hurt us and take no action, then both H1 (he will supply our enemies with WMD) and H0 are in play. This is not a simple matter. Saddam has demonstrated his willlingness to use WMD and, if he gets the nuclear option, he will become the next North Korea. This is a simple computation of predilection+means.

The "I am *afraid*" line leads to A 9/11 scenario with Nukes instead of jetliners.

THAT is much more to be feared than cowardly homicide bombers. Appeasement emboldens the adversary. 9/11 can be laid in Clinton's lap.

We need to remove the world of the scourge of Islam. We did it with Naziism, Fascism and Communism. The only hope to remove *fear* for your children and childeren's children is to join conservatives to make the world safe against Muslims. We grew up with the fear of the "Big One." Now that does not exist.

We can do it again.

Together.

[MJY1288]

Tell him that we are not just defending ourselves, We are defending freedom. Remind him that we have shed blood for total starngers, so that they can enjoy the freedoms we hold dear. Iraq is led by a brutal dictator who invaded his neighbors and we were called to defend freedom once again in 1991. Saddam was driven out of Kuwait and that country was liberated because of the blood sweat and tears of the brave men and women of our armed services.

We lost several hundred of our soldiers fighting Saddam's forces and Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in order to remain in power, he has since violated every single one of those agreements he signed and if for no other reason, we owe it to those who gave their lives in the Gulf War to remove this mad man for this reason alone

God Bless America,

MJY

[Andyman]

2 major reasons to take him out.

1. If, after 17 resolutions, we let him walk away, no despot anywhere will ever take us seriously again. The UN they have already figured out. They will simply play the waiting game, or blackmail us when they get nukes.
2. He will probably not attack us directly, but he sure as heck will sell/give some WOMD to some group who will, or use his oil $ to finance same. If we keep backing away, those who would terrorize us would simply be emboldened.

Naysayers everywhere were predicting hell to pay before we went into Afghanistan. What happened?

[jigsaw]

I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US.

It's to Saddam's longterm advantage (along with the North Koreans, ChiComs, etc.) to weaken America and one way to do it is for Saddam to give biological weapons to terrorists to spread throughout America.

Done right, it could be catastrophic and leave few, if any, fingerprints as to who did it. Whom then would we retaliate against?

Hopefully, Saddam's days are numbered and he hasn't already planted such weapons in this country.

The idea of leaving this guy alive is insane.

Just how many people does Saddam have to kill before your son-in-law thinks Saddam should be liquidated?

[mass55th]

What I'm afraid of is the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire.

What makes your son in law think that this wouldn't happen even if we didn't go to war? Ask him: Were we at war with anyone on February 26, 1993 (bombing of WTC)? Were we at war with anyone on June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing)? Were we at war with anyone on August 7, 1998 (Kenya &Tanzania Embassy bombings)? Were we at war with anyone on October 12, 2000 (U.S.S. Cole bombing)? Were we at war with anyone on 9/11?

[Consort]

Sell him to Barbra Streisand.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side."

Well that's just ignorance. Gen. George S Patton felt he had God on his side as did many other Americans leaders throughout history.

"Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't."

Conversely he has to accept that there is a possibility he will give NBC weapons to terorrists that will use them against the US. Better safe than sorry right? Or would he prefer more dead Americans before action is taken (not to mention dead Iraqis).

"Am I right in being afraid of this? I don't know."

There's a war on. A war on terror. WHat are we to do? Cower in the corner and hope the terrorists will just decide to play nice? Doesn't seem to smart to me. We can't let possible future actions of the enemy deter us from the mission - defeat Islamic terrorism or any terrorism for that matter. Iraq is not a "sacred Arab territory". In addition, there are Arrab countries that support the removal of Saddam Hussein.

But hey I could be wrong. FReegards.

[patriciaruth]

You stated it was justified to go to war against Hitler, even though Hitler never attacked us. (He declared war on us after we declared war on his axis ally Japan).

But when Hitler violated the terms of the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI, and rearmed Germany, should England and France and the U.S. have called him on it? When he marched his troops into the demilitarized Rhineland, which was forbidden by the League of Nations and the Versailles Treaty, should we all have called him on that? When Hitler annexed Austria, should we have called him on that? When Hitler invaded and took over Czechoslavakia, should the Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, have negotiated a peace treaty with him solely on his promise that he wouldn't invade any more countries, and declared, waving the paper, that he had achieved "Peace in our time."?

WWII cost at least 50 million lives, 20 million in Russia alone.

If England and the French and the U.S. had stood up to Hitler when he first violated the Treaty of Versailles, when his war machine was not so powerful, do you think the body count would have been as high?

Do you believe that if we back down from Saddam this time that he will be a good boy? Or do you think he will become more powerful, and more dangerous, and cost many more lives than are going to be lost by fighting this war now?

And do you think that if France and Germany and Russia had seen their way to supporting the "tough love" stance, that there would have been a better chance of Saddam choosing exile, with the whole world arrayed united and determined around him?

Has the peace movement actually blown the only chance -- a slim, but real, chance -- for a peaceful solution, by giving aid and comfort to Saddam?

And why can't we wait longer for inspections? They don't work and with every passing day, summer is coming and the casualty rates for our soldiers mount.

[demsux]

It's not about oil...It's about our ALLIES...namely Israel.

[jrushing]

You don't have to debate this person. You should call the FBI.
I'm not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction."
What kind of person is this?

You don't debate these people.

I'm concerned about Hussein as every right thinking human being ought to be. But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife. What I'm afraid of os the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire.

It sounds like this one should be sent to the CIA or FBI or some other CAP's!! Me thinks he dost speak too quickly!! I don't need people with his concern!!

[ProudGOP]

All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941. Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God.

No, the Japanese did.

Hitler was fighting a geo-political war. Arabs are fighting a holy war. Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side. Arabs are convinced that God is on their side. And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side.

According to the Japanese, the emperor was the direct descendent of God. It didn't turn out so well for them, either.

I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US.

No one is concerned about this. For you to set it up as a straw man so you can knock it down is intellectually dishonest. What people are worried about is the very real links between Sadam Hussein and Terrorist groups and that these weapons of Mass Destruction will find their way into their hands. But, you already knew that, you just chose to distort the argument so that it was easier to counter.

Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. That was a justified war. And there was no disputing that it was justified.

Part of the cease fire agreement of that "justified war" was the Sadam would disarm. He has not. Therefore, as the victors of a "justified war", we have the right to enforce the terms of the surrender.

We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference.

Thats just about the dumbest thing I have heard. To put it bluntly, if you take the offense and take away all the other sides bombs, they can't blow you up. This seems like a pretty good defense to me.

But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife.

I am more afraid of the psychotic Arabs with nuclear weapons, or Anthrax or small pox. I'll take my chances with the carpet knife and the gas

I just don't see how invading Iran is going to reduce my fear of these things at all

It won't. You have chosen to be afraid. But anyway, first things first. We need to take care of Iraq before we get to Iran.

[Busywhiskers]

Just tell him to shut his pie hole. Debate suggests the application of logic to an issue. Liberals deny the law of thought, so why bother.

[TooBusy]

Send him this piece from NRO by Eugene Volokh

September 27, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Some Say Deterrence Is Enough…
…but two can play at the deterrence game.

By Saddam Hussein*


ear Madam President Clinton:
As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq. We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.

In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons. Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle East:

1. Immediately end all sanctions against Iraq.
2. Permanently withdraw all American troops and military advisers from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and all other Muslim countries, and agree not to become involved in any military action by one Middle Eastern country against another.
3. Stop all governmental assistance, military and otherwise, to the Jewish Entity, and all trade by American companies with it.
4. Extradite to Iraq the traitors, spies, and saboteurs that you are currently harboring as supposed "dissidents" and "opposition leaders," as well as the blasphemer Salman Rushdie, who we believe is currently visiting your country.

We recognize, of course, that your nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds ours, and that you have threatened to attack any country that detonates nuclear bombs within your boundaries. Should you attack Iraq with your nuclear bombs, you will doubtless be able to kill millions of innocent Iraqis, as well as probably killing me.

But if you do so — or if you invade Iraq using conventional weapons, or assassinate me — then this will only assure that my trusted agents will detonate, one by one, the bombs that are currently planted in your cities. Because the bombs are located near ground level, their detonation will regrettably cause not just immediate damage, but also a considerable amount of radioactive fallout. You, Madam President, would then be responsible for the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens, for the damage done to your allies (especially your Canadian allies) as some of the fallout settles in their territory, and for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis.

Americans recognize that you would not be morally justified in killing innocent Iraqis through a retaliatory attack. After all, your actions during your campaign in Afghanistan show that you do not take civilian casualties lightly, even when they are incidental to attacks on military targets.

And of course such civilian deaths will only lead to a righteous desire in the Islamic world for further acts of vengeance against Americans. As many of your own country's eminent thinkers pointed out when you were debating a preemptive strike against Iraq in 2002, the last thing America needs is to create still more people who want to harm it. Even your praiseworthy refusal to attempt any preemptive action against Iraq shows your wise concern about preserving life.

Now perhaps you doubt that I will make good on my threat. After all, your foreign policy since 2002 has rested on the assumption that if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from using them, because its leader is rational. Perhaps you think that I will not detonate the weapons that I now control on your soil, because that would be irrational on my part.

On the contrary; I am being quite rational here. I am in my seventies, and I have relatively little fear of death. In fact, now that I have committed myself to this plan of action, I fear more the dishonor that I would bring on myself if I retreated like a coward.

Trust me, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the possible suffering of my countrymen, but I proclaim that all of them will happily run the risk of martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah and the Arab nation; and in any event, I believe that this risk will not materialize, because I believe that my strategy will preserve them from your retaliation.

And the upside of my gamble is that I will be able to achieve what many in the Arab world have long dreamed about, and will thus glorify Allah and the Arab nation and bask myself in the reflected glory of that deed, for now and for centuries to come. Saladin is still remembered nearly a thousand years after his death; Hussein would be remembered for a thousand years alongside him. This is, I realize, a highly risky strategy on my part, but I think that it's a calculated risk. And even if you think this is an irrational plan, trust me at least that it is a sincere one.

In fact, I am counting on your rationality. Will you kill millions of your own people, and millions of others? Or will you save their lives, and your own consciences, by acceding to our reasonable requests? I am sure that you will find the answer easy, and that the United Nations, your European, Canadian, and Arab allies, and your own citizens will breathe a sigh of relief when you give that answer. Choose peace, Madam President, rather than a devastating war.

Sincerely Yours,
Saddam Hussein


*This speculation was written by Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp

[Theresa]

"We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference. "

HUH?

[Clint N. Suhks]

HitlerStalin was fighting a geo-political war.

That's the comparison. 15,000,000 dead!

The spread of communism is the same as the spread of terrorism.

[patriciaruth]

Be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side

BE AFRAID, Saddam, BE VERY AFRAID!!