[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

[SkyPilot]

Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side.

That is an absolutely false statement.

There are scores of quotes of Hitler justifying his actions by proclaiming God was on his side, on the side of the National Socialists, and on the side of Germany.

It is even on film: in Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda masterpiece Triumph of the Will. Addressing the 1934 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, Hitler says God himself gave Germany the task before it, and its place amoung nations.

Further, take a look at any German Army belt buckle from WW II. In large letters, it says this:

GOTT MIT UNS

Have your son-in-law translate that into Babblefish.

[Yasotay]

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.

It is clear that there is a VERY strong argument that agents of Iraq have already attacked the US. I encourage you (and everybody) to read 'The Story' at www.jaynadavis.com . Iraq clearly also has nuclear weapons (they got the nuclear fuel from North Korea) ... read the book 'Japan's Secret War' by Robert Wilcox, the only real questions are will they work and can we destory them all ..... or do we wait for him to finish his delivery systems?

We have been letting this terrorism problem grow since the Iranian embassy crisis and we either stop it now while we can win or we let them kill us sometime in the near future.

Some additional 'ammo':

Wars are NOT won by being defensive but by OFFENSIVE action (one of the really basic princples of War taught at West Point).

[Diddle E. Squat]

Rename him 'Meathead'.

[Dick Bachert]

NEVER TRY TO TEACH A PIG TO SING. IT JUST WASTES YOUR TIME AND IT REALLY ANNOYS THE PIG!

[KineticKitty]

bump

[Porterville]

I posted this before but I feel it is my best advice:

"Talking to you is like talking to my dog, except my dog sniffs my crotch."-Try that one. Don't forget, liberals have the base mentality of animals; therefore, they view their relationships in a lowly manner, like an animal. There hunger is like that of a starving rat, they lack the sustenance of spirituality. They search Eastern religions, yoga, Feng Shui, etcetera, ideas that fill (for a moment) the attention they have been unable to fulfill due to their desperate desire to be accepted. They’ve been beaten psychologically their whole lives by their awkward behavior, clownish beliefs, and disrespect for authority. This mindset of lowness can never be rid of until they accept that they behave incongruously. However, the liberal belief system (based on Marx, Gramsci, Kerouac, Chomsky, that chick that wrote Silent Season, Nader, Vidal, Vonnegut, Beaz, Castro, socialism, communism, lesbianism, etcetera) says to never admit that your wrong; mind you, these prophets never tell their disciples that they ultimately want to destroy capitalism.

In the end, fire a liberal if they work for you, or take away their income. Once they’ve struggled for awhile they’ll appreciate the realities of life and learn to love America. So, in summary, liberals are dogs that no matter what you do will sh!t on your rug, eat all of your food, and once in awhile bite your hand. So, treat them as animals.

[zeaal]

Ask him why those who claim peace for the world are not concerned with humanity. Why are those who march not calling for the end of the rape, torture, starvation and murder of the Iraqi people? Why are those who demand there be no war are not demanding Saddam step down and allow his people to be free?

Ask him where the over 300 journalist are that disagreed with Saddam? There were either executed or just simply disappeared.

Ask him about the authors who spoke against Saddam or wrote books and poems suggesting another way of life for the Iraqi people and what happened to them. Those who Saddam has assigned the task torn page after page from the authors' books and stuff the pages down the authors' throats until they choked to DEATH.

Ask him if he would trade his life with that of a man in Iraqi? Would he do this? If not, why?

[Question_Assumptions]

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.

Take a look at Japan instead of Germany. Pay particular attention to State Shinto, the cult of the Emperor, their treatment of the Chinese, and the Kamikaze planes that you mentioned. 300,000 dead in Nanking, many killed in very sadistic ways. Yet the Japanese of 1941 are not the Japanese of today so young people forget what they were like.

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.

Is he suggesting that if Japan hadn't attacked the US and Germany had never declared war that the US should have just stepped aside and let Germany have Europe and exterminate all of its Jews?

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.

Would he be willing to bet his family's life that Saddam won't attack? That's what he's doing. This is even more clear to those of use who live in the Northeast near the most likely targets.

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.

If you see a man that looks like he may shoot another man, do you (A) pre-emptively diarm the man with the weapon or (B) wait until he shoots and then disarm him?

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.

We are already on sacred soil by being in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, that's what annoyed bin Laden in the first place. Too late.

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.

That could happen, anyway. A two-bit cult in Japan decided to gas a subway with poison gas. Attacking Iraq will send an interesting message, if the Muslim world bothers to get it. Attacking the Americans only increases their involvement in the Middle East.

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

The Israelis tried negotiating peace. Where did that get them?

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

Iraq. Iran is further down the list. And we'd probably be wecomed there, too. Indeed, I saw a quote by an Iranian that said, in essence, "I hope the US comes here next.

[Wavyhill]

I didn't know that a marriage to a gelding was considered legal.

[piasa]

All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941.

I get the impression that this guy thinks that some people are genetically unfit for freedom? Where have I heard that before...

Didn't we hear that about black people? And that was used as a justification for maintaining the status quo many generations ago?

We heard how they couldn't fight as well as whites... so shouldn't be in the Army, should be doctors, scientists, etc...

Yet, although there have been difficulties and the Democrats have tried desperately to keep them poor so as to keep them oon the plantation, they have proven people wrong and are just as "American" as anyone.

We heard it about the Irish, and about Catholics too, and Chinese who came here to work the railroads, and Japanese who came here to fish and farm, and so on.

Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God.

Neither do Iraqis- that's why Saddam Hussein has to threaten to get palestinians to do his dirty work and be "martyrs." One look at Saddam Hussein's parades today made it pretty clear they aren't enthusiastic about his regime or the prospect of a fight with us. Contrast the pictures of Iraqis raising guns- probably unloaded ones- to the death parades of Palestininas or the Taliban-style brandishing of weapons in the streets (and at weddings.) The enthusiasm simply isn't there in the case of the Iraqis.

Even among Palestinians, if people were so willing to pblow themselves up the Palestinians would be setting off 20 or 30 human bombs a day. We would see older palestinians doing it- instread we only see younger, misguided youth.

If ther were so many ready to do these things- which are forbidden by mainstream Islam- Saddam hussein would not need to try to pay large bounties to have these people act. Even with his offers and payments, there is no one lining up to do it. The palestinian wackos have to seek out the very young and they do this by observing kids in the markets, where these older men pressure impressionable kids to do their all for Palestine. We don't see 40 or 50 year old suicide bombers- we see 20 and younger- even mere children doing the dirty work, all while Arafat and his cronies pad their pockets.

If the Palestinians or Iraqis or other muslims were all of one mind and fanatical, there would be no need for prisons and secret police in these regimes, no need to use intimidation tactics or torture. Everyone would be thrilled to join the fight, and no coercion would be necessary. t only takes a small number of ruthless people to intimidate millions, and no propaganda would be neceessary- speech could be wholly free because everyone would be for jihad. Clearly not everyone is a nut in these countries. Not even most people are insane suicide bombers. Just a few. The problems is that no one can speak agaisnt them because of fear and because the nutcases control the press and own all the papers. They own these things because they have the guns. Other people are unarmed, just wanting to raise their families in peace; but they are made silent because the state or the thugs control their press and because the thugs have no problem with arresting and torturing people's relatives, even elderly parents or children, in order to scare any dissident into submission.

Hitler was fighting a geo-political war.

Hitler was a fanatical pagan too, who believed in the idea of a superior race and who wanted to construct an empire. Indeed, it is his very philosophiues we see reflected in the Middle East today.

Arabs are fighting a holy war.

A FEW want to fight one, but most have no interest in it, so don't lump them all together. Osama bin Laden wanted to fight a holy war, so he says. Whether he really is religious or not is unknowable- he may only be an American and Israeli-hating powerbroker who is using religion to draw and hold a following of useful idiots. It wouldn't be the first time that ever happened in history! But clearly the rest of the Arsab world is less than enthusiastic. Arabs aren't magical people capable of unified thought merely because of their identity. They are real people with human emotions, human ideas, human fears, and human ambitions. By and large, they just want to put food on their table and raise their kids up safely just like we do.

This is particularly true for Iraqis, who aren't all muslim; some aren't even extremely devout, some not even religious. The Iraqi regime is not Islamocfascist, it is nationalist and socialist and up until recently openly hostile to religious fundamentalism, if not atheistic. The palestinians ladership is an offshoot of old German nazisim. Literally- look up the Grand Msuti of Jerusalem. They are about as religious as HItler was- and Hitler was out worshipping trees and reviving paganism though he labeled a "Christian." Iraqi leaders, palestinian leaders, and most of the terrorist groups out there are not religious so much as pan-Arabic, and are quite compatible wih Castro, head of an athieistic regime. IOW, they have a little fo that old genetic superiority belief in them- they want to see their race and "culture" - of which Islam is but a part, one often at odds with itself- become supreme, but mostly they just don't like our culture and see it as a threat to the rise of an Arabic superstate.

Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side.

He most certainly did believe he had some divine right to do what he did and persuaded others of this. His ideology was spread in terms of tree-worship environmental-mysticism, with very strong religious undercurrents used to justify everything he did. He used the "Jews killed jesus" thing to win support and so on. He sounded very much like bin Laden, and even the nonreligious Hussein has "got religion" now that he needs the most fanatical people possible to repalce all the loyalists he had purged.

Arabs are convinced that God is on their side.

That's like saying that because you saw 20,000 peace protesters in NY, that ALL Americans are against the war. That's simply not a logical assumption. All Arabs are NOT of one mind any more than all Westerners are of one mind. We are in vehement opposition to the French and Germans even though we are all Westerners. As I previously pointed out, if ALL Arabs were of one mind, there wouldn't be both Arab muslims and Arab Christians. There wouldn't be a need for Saddam Hussein to kill 1 1/2 million of his own people, and there would be no dissidents and no need for Hussein to control the press or prevent Iraqi scientists from speaking out. THe palestinians under Arafat owuldn't need to lynch people in public to demonstrate their power and keep palestinian dissidents silent.

It's not the belief that GOd is on your side that is the problem - it is whether or not you believe that God wanted people to be free.

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

It's more important to be afraid of people who don't believe God gave man inalienable rights. When they don't believe in God, they are more likely to assume our rights come from government. And what government gives, government can take away.

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.

So who mailed the anthrax? Still believing in the white right wing scientist theory which has no supporting evidence? Still denying that Atta met the Iraqi al Ani even though named Czech officials and tha US says he did? Still believing that the terrorists who killed the Green Beret in a Philippines bomb attack not long ago called up the Iraqi embassy and told them "mission accomplished" just because they were chatty? Still believe that the airliner at one of Salman Pak's many facilities was for "practicing to prevent hijackings?," and even though we have testimony from both inspectors and dissidents which corroborate each other on the nature of the site? Still believe the Iraqi who attended the Malaysia summit meeting with some of the 911 hijackers was just there on a double date? And he was welcomed back to Baghdad though he was under suspicion of terrorism because....? And Abu Nidal, an organization which had tried to assassinate US officials in the US was in Iraq for what reason, again? And the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey was recalled immediately after 911 but it had nothing to do with his association with certain members of al Qaeda? Is that what you believe? and Iraqi officials met with bin Laden himself in africa and in Afghanistan to exchange harmless Valentines?

For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq.

we don't want to "take out the entire country of Iraq." We want to take out the Baathist in charge and his mery band of professional torturers and terrorists.

Yes, we are justified in removing his regime now. We woiuld have been justified in doing so at any time even prior to 911.

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.

The Arab world will be on the side of whomever they see as weilding the most power. Their loyalties are very fluid when it comes to saving their own skins. Let's see, who would a weak person prefer to accomodate... a regime which hosts international terrrosists known to decapitate people for fun, or some limp-wristed Americans who are afraid to shed a single drop of blood and who have a long history of running away when someone starts shooting at them?

It's hard to get people to take you seriously if you never back up your words with action.

This time, the colaition is actually larger, all witless news coverage notwithstanding.

That was a justified war.

It's the same war. Iraq never met the cease fire terms, remember? Just because clinton sat on his butt for eight years with an occasional airstrike when he wanted to deflect atention at home, does not mean the war ended.

And there was no disputing that it was justified.

Nonetheless, all the protesting was against the US back then, and no one protested Iraq for waging war on Kuwait.

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.

And this is different why?

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.

"Could Hitler attack us if we ... " You say WW2 was justified now but using your own approach it seems probably you would have opposed WW2 had you been around back then. we didn't need to ask for a coalition back then to justify our actions and we didn't. A Coalition formed of the willing, just as today. Hussein has used his chemical weapons on both his enemies and on his own people. And we know this now- in time to do something about it and prevent him from doing it again, but not in time to save those he has already killed.

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.

You're the one who contradicts himself; you deny Iraq has attacked us or been involved merely because you don't see Iraqis in uniform fighting in our streets. Iraq has the sense to use terrorists as its mercenaries, we know they use terrorists as mercenaries, we know they are assiociated with terrorists and they openly admint funding them, yet we have people like you who simply can't recognize your enemies because they are terrorists dressed as civilians. You say we were justified in part one of the Gulf War, and in WW2, but you can't explain why that was justified then but it's not justified now logically. You see this as a new war when the Gulf War end was dependent on Iraqi compliance, compliance which we never recieved, and now you think we should let them get away with this, and do what, exactly? Just walk away? Have you read bin Laden's reasons for attacking the US? It's our history of running away that gave him enough confidence to strike. Do you want to let sanctions "work" and keep taking a beating for how the sanctions make Iraqis suffer for unlimited time, gor generations because of the sins of the ir leaders? We were getting blamed because Hussein was building palaces instead of feeding his people. We have lost so much credibility over the last decade and had earned such a rep;utation of cowardice that we were begging to be attacked. You want this to continue indefinitely? Do you even know what you would do in this situation? It doesn't look like it- you suggest no alternatives. You're a back seat driver in a new town and without a roadmap, but you still want to critique the driver.

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.

All the fanaitcal muslims (not all arabs are Muslims)in the world cannot hijack one more airplane UNLESS Americans go back to the "wait for the authorities to do something" mode wa shad prior to 911. If we fight them at the first sign of trouble, no matter the cost, instead of tamely sitting in our seats, we win and deny them theoir glory. Suddenly hijacking isn't such a cool idea. Shesh, if everyone on the plane was armed, there would never be another hijacking. There might be an occasional domestic nutcase, though, but most of them are just looking for someone else to put them out of their misery.

As for the hijackers and your imaginary 100% suicidal muslims, note that on bin Laden's tape after 911 he made a crack about how not all of the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission- just the leaders. Now why do you think that was? Well, it isn't as easy to find suicidal muslims as they would like you to believe. So Atta of the Islamic Jihad (an Egyptian palestinian group) didn't tell them the whole plan.

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.

They might do that anyway. They did 911 anyway- it was NOT to get us out of the region, as al qaeda was created years before the Gulf War and not in response to it. Do you seriously think they wouldn't, even though history makes it very clear that they do NOT need to be "provoked" by some action on our part. Some muslim fanatics and socialists are like communists before them- they kill people because of what they are- not becuase of what they have done. They cannot stand the sight of other muslims wearing American clothes or listening to American music or dreaming of going to america or speaking American English instead of Arabic. They hate the idea of other muslims being able to CHOOSE. Even more, they hate the ideo that other Muslims might be "led astray" by American Christians, or Hindus, or some other theology or culture. The fanatics are afraid of change, afraid of freedom becuase it brings change, and afraid of us because we bring ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we also bring some nasty crap which they find disgusting or perverted, our music and our movies which these days are vile and disgusting, and not high art under any culture's standards. If everyone changes and modernizes around them, these fanatics will be even more isolated than they are now and that terrifies them. If people start behaving like Hollywood actors, the rest see their culture as being struck right in the heart.

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

Do you want to fight terrorism here? I can guarantee you will fight it here if we do not seek out and destroy it and its backers abroad, on THEIR soil. There already have been assassinations, car bombings, and numerous other attacks right here in america long before we ever took an interest in Iraq. Americans just don't pay much attention. We ignore too much of what is going on even inside our own country.

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

IRAQ, not IRAN. There is a difference. The average Iranian is not an Arab. If you don't know the difference, you need to do more reading. It's true that Iranian-backed terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, is probably far worse than bin laden ever was, but many Iranians are very pro-American. So it is wrong to think of them all as being terrorists or even supporters of terrorism.

I see you kept using Arab when the word Muslim would hae been the correct choice, and this confusion makes for difficualt reading. You also have a very naive view that groups of people with the same label are automated lemmings who can't think independently, and because there is one loonie with a suicidal streak that somehow they are all like that.

How would you like it if some Msulim assumed we all acted like Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton? That's what they see of us, after all.

[Jay D. Dyson]

My responses are inline.

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 suicide attacks were carried out by the Kamikazes of Imperialist Japan. As for Europeans not being Muslims, a great many are. And as for Germans not being Arabs, that's a strawman argument.

Hitler was fighting a geo-political war.

No, Hitler was fighting a war of global domination. He, like today's terrorists, was doing his best to export his own brand of ruthless dictatorship that would ultimately answer to his authority.

Arabs are fighting a holy war. Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side.

I seem to recall many an instance in which Hitler invoked the Almighty as being on the side of Nazi Germany. Even so, there is no difference between the Islamic Holy Warrior and the Nazi thug. Both are bent on demonizing and killing Jews. Both are bent on global domination. And both are completely intolerant of those whose lifestyle and views differ from their own. In short, Nazis and Islamists may be dyed a different color, but they are both cut from the same cloth.

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 will be wary of such a man, but I refuse to fear him. Fear is a prison wrought of doubt. And doubt is the chastity of the mind and soul. Those who succumb to fear can never know freedom.

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.

Considering that Saddam has already used his chemical weapons against his own people, there is absolutely no logic in the belief that he won't use them again...against us.

For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq.

Considering the inaction of the world via the United Nations, that optimism is unfounded. Indeed, the U.N.'s sanctions and resolutions have been proven only to have meaning when backed up by the military might of the United States.

And the whole, wide world, even the Arabs, would understand and be supportive.

This is perhaps the most foolish statement I've read thus far. Consider for the moment how the Arab world reacted to 9/11. We had Palestinians cheering and passing out candy. We had Egyptians screaming "Bullseye" as they watched the planes filled with men, women and children slam into the WTC towers. We had Saudis cheering and praising the name of bin Laden.

And yet we're supposed to believe they wouldn't react in an identical fashion when the NEXT 9/11 happens? Give me a BREAK.

Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

I'm afraid that's inaccurate. If memory serves, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria did not support our liberation of Kuwait. Hell, even a number of Kuwaitis today bear animosity toward us even after we liberated their nation from Saddam's rule.

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.

Had we stopped Hitler in 1939, nearly 12 million people would NOT have been killed, and half of Europe would not have been left open for Soviet domination. You're trying to make a case against pre-emptive action, but you're only serving to bolster the case for war now.

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.

When the weatherman states that there's a 90% chance of rain in tomorrow's forecast, one naturally accepts that there's a 10% chance that it won't rain...but one would still be a fool not to take an umbrella with them when they go out.

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.

The war on terror is not won on the defensive. If we wait until they bring the fight to us, then it will be too late. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and letting the terrorists and terrorist nations consolidate their fanatics and weaponry to strike at us again. You may be content to let that happen, but -- thankfully -- the majority of Americans are not.

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.

And surprise of all surprises, the terrorists did just that BEFORE we ever made a move to take Hussein out. Do you think that by being meek and mild that they will NOT attack us again? I've got news for you: the terrorists are like any other bully: they thrive on people who cower in fear and won't stand up to them. And like the bully, they promise dire consequences to anyone who thinks about standing up to them. But when one lone brave soul does stand up to them and lands a square punch on the bully's jaw, the bully caves and runs whimpering home.

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. Surprise, they're already doing that.

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

They'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you now: you don't wait for the fox to enter your chicken house before you get your gun.

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

The only person who can help you with your fear is you. But I'll tell you this: free men do NOT live in fear. Ponder that.

-Jay

[GilesB]

"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."

That is simply untrue - there was plenty of disputing the justification for the first Gulf War, and many of the whiners who are saying now that it was justified, were protesting it then with many of the same arguments they are using now to protest the upcoming confrontation. I bet your son-in-law was one of them.

There was a great deal of dispute about WWII. It is only now, in hindsight, that his kind see it as a "justified" war. Before it began it was anything but. The same arguments, the same fear, the same desperate hope that a madman would listen to reason. Give your son a history lesson:
Germany was forbidden by the Treaty of Versaille to have an army stationed in the Rhineland, Germany's industrial center. In fact, Germany's ability to raise an army was severely curtailed. Hitler made several tests of the treaty and the will of Europe to enforce the terms of the treaty. Europe did not respond. In Great Britain, Winston Churchill was trying to raise the alarm about Hitler, but his words of warning fell on deaf ears.

Hitler was now ready to make his most audacious move - it would mean all or nothing. If the Allies chose to enforce the Treaty of Versaille, it would mean the end of Nazi Germany and Hitler's power. If they did not, Hitler would finally be in position to build his mighty war machine. The move? Station his army in the Rhineland.

This army was still too small, untrained and ill equiped to resist an attack from France, just across the Rhine River. If the French used a military strike to enforce the Treaty of Versaille, frequently and now, blatantly violated by Hitler and his Nazis, World War II and the holocaust would be stillborn. France and the world were well aware of Hitler's flouting of the treaty - but France didn't want to invade, did not want military action, did not want the outcry that such a "preemptive" act would bring. So France did nothing. Oh there were those who understood - chief among them was Churchill, of course. But the tide of "peace" was running strong against him, and he was discounted as bellicose, a crackpot, a warmonger.

If France had moved, had fulfilled her responsibility to the rest of Europe and the world by crushing the Nazi army when Hitler first moved it into the Rhineland, the world would have never known the horrors of the second World War. Of course, had France moved, many other countries would have called her a bully and her aggression unwarranted. History may have even labeled her a rogue and an outlaw. Wouldn't that have been a heavy burden to carry?

The parallels today are eerie. If France could relive those days, do you suppose she would choose the path of the "bully"? - should she?

[MattAMiller]

I'm actually impressed with this Email in a number ways. It's not thr shrill anti-Bush venom I'm used to seeing.

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.

And this makes Arabs less dangerous?

Hitler was fighting a geo-political war. Arabs are fighting a holy war.

Hitler's military ambitions were at least quasi-religous. Saddam would very much enjoy having his finger on the oil jugular of the world.

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.

We had most of the governemnts of the Arab world behind us, but the Arab street was quite opposed to it. Follow 9/11 there was a wave of triumphantalism throughout the Arab world. Remember all those people waving posters of Bin Laden?

In Afghanistan we took great care not to harm civilians, going so far as to make food drops. And still there weremore than a few people who were squemish about that war. I have my doubts that we would launch a large scale nuclear attack in response.

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.

Directly attack us? Most likely not. Hand over his stash to Al Queada? Maybe. I think the bigger issue would be his ability to threaten and gain deference from his neighbors and his ability to shield terrorists. Would we have risked tens of thousands of troops to capture Kahlid Mohamed? Would Arab states cooperate with us if Saddam was threatening to gas them? It is absolutely vital that we head off any future domination of the region by Saddam.

[surelyclintonsbaddream]

send him this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857912/posts

[finnman69]

All you have to do is ask him what he thinks will disarm Saddam and wipe Al Qaeda off the face of the earth other than US military might. So far all evidence to the contrary indicates nothing else will work.

If he claims diplomacy is always the best option, ask him at what point does diplomacy fail? If he says never, don't waste your time debating politics with him. He is brainwashed.

As for Hitler, Hitler was trying to create a master Aryan race with no room for non-aryans. Sounds familiar to Islamic radicalism doesn't it?

Ask him what did Saddam think would be the outcome if he had suceeded in assasinating President Bush after the Gulf War? Did Saddam think we would just let it go? No. We would have wiped him out then. that alone demonstrates that Saddam IS willing to use WMD regardless of the consequences.

As for the Arab world, we have the support of Egypt, Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait and curently have military forces in those nations.

Frankly leaving the possibility of a WMD terrorist attack as an option against the US is frankly unacceptable after 9/11. For that reason, North Korea is also a huge problem which Bush will have to deal with next. Iraq has demonstrated over the last 20 years nefarious activity, deception, and an unquestionable effort to maintain WMD programs? Why? The only reason he would subject his country and himself to sanctions and terrible risk is that he wants to eventually use those weapons.

How can Islamic terrorists be any worse than are now? The only imaginable thing worse could be the use of WMD weapons and that's why we need to remove them from rogue nations like Iraq.

Where are the street demonstrations and arab rage predicted before the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan? We removed the MOST Islamic and extreme of all the arab regimes and yet the rest of the arab world is thankful. Only the lunatic Islamists are angry and we are gunning for them. When we utterly decimate Saddam Hussein and smash his forces aside with ease, Al Qaeda will not be getting many recruits. Who wants to join up witha group that is being hunted on a global scale with relentless force?

[finnman69]

Also

have him read another President's comments on Iraq and ask him, has anything changed since the original comments were made 5 years ago.

TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRIEFING ON IRAQI AIRSTRIKES.

Editor's note: The United States and Britain Wednesday launched "strong, sustained" airstrikes against Bagdhad. The attack comes one day after U.N. weapons inspectors released a stinging report accusing the Iraqis of refusal to cooperate with disarmament efforts and a month after Saddam Hussein's last standoff with the United Nations.

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first seven and a half years ago at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, "a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors."

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM report concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security advisor -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisors, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

President Bill Clinton.

SALON | Dec. 17, 1998

[A2J]

“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.”

And because hindsight is “20/20” should we not heed the mistakes of history and invade Iraq before it becomes the next Germany? Hussein has already invaded a neighboring Arab country and in all likelihood he will do the same if left alone. Hitler rose to power in an environment of apathy and as a result, wreaked havoc upon millions. Hussein will do the same.

“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”

Fear is the greatest tool of a despot especially if he can wield it with expertise, as Hussein has done. By threatening the use of WOMD or suicide bombers, a despot can literally bring entire societies under his control without firing a shot. Hussein has done this.

It is my belief that the vast majority of people, including Arabs, are desirable of peace and would never consider strapping a bomb to themselves against an enemy. The news agencies, however, have succeeded in exaggerating the number of such zealots, in effect encouraging such attacks.

It is natural to have concerns over any number of things. What would life be without healthy doses of fear? The key is not to allow fear to master us but to focus us on the problems that cause the fear so that we can take measures to eliminate them. It appears that you have allowed fear to master you, which is not “right” or healthy but can lead to disastrous results for you and your family.

The focus, therefore, should be to eliminate the source of that fear, whether it is Hussein or a small group of zealots. As the world sees the effectiveness such an endeavor brings, it will realize that indeed the U.S. actions is/was just what is needed to combat terror.