Posted on 03/11/2003 7:38:39 PM PST by Utah Girl
These numbers are so bogus. They have to be balanced against the cost of a serious inspections regime.
Realize that virtually ALL the costs so far are NOT costs of war, they are COSTS OF INSPECTION ENFORCEMENT. The cost of maintaining this force indefinitely in the gulf, providing rotation personnel, and their eventual return to the US, CANNOT BE considered costs of the war, but rather of inspections.
The link is hardly crystal clear, and I have never and would never use those terms. It is deliberately hidden by Saddam for obvious reasons, and obfuscated by numerous pro Saddam political forces here, in Europe, and the Middle East. But I strongly disagree that our actions would not be so "strongly" opposed if there were a "crystal clear" connection between Al Quaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That would mean that those most strident objectors to America's war on terrorism have based their judgment upon the recognition of factual information and America's right of self defense. Many of those same organizers of the majority of the anti war opposition groups voiced agreement with the ridiculous contention that Israel or the United States and not Bin Laden were responsible for the WTC atrocities. Witness the wide sales of that idiotic book making just that proposition that was published in France, and sold throughout Europe and the Middle East. Facts are not at issue with too many of the anti-war protesters. Their hatred of America and what it stands for is the basis for their political agenda, as it has been for decades.
As I said also, any demonstration of a connection between Al Qaida and Saddam's Iraq is really beside the point, since Hussein is clearly a sponsor and perpetrator of worldwide terrorism in his own right, regardless of what happened on 9/11. Chirac's vehement opposition to ANY American action against the terrorist state of Iraq is much more based on his long sub rosa alliance with the Iraqi dictator, and the extensive military and economic agreements he has concluded with Iraq, than any concern for the lives of Iraqi citizens or international law. Chirac cynically flouts international law and the will of the UN with these illegal oil and weapons deals. No, oil and WMD are the real reason for the duplicity of France and the duping of a new generation of naive anti-war protesters, ironically making war an almost certainty by encouraging Saddam to resist 17 and perhaps 18 UN resolutions.
One day we say Saddam is evil and we need to change regimes. Then we say he tired to kill Bush Sr. 10 years ago. Next he gassed his own people in the 1980's. He's in violation of UN resolutions. Lastly that he is torturing his own people this very day.
All true, and all part of the long list of crimes and human rights abuses that are the well documented history of Saddam Hussein's bloody tyranny. They are by no means mutually exclusive, or in any way contradictory. They are just some of the numerous reasons this man should have been deposed long, long ago. Or, should there be a statute of limitations on aggression, murder and genocide?
The fact is the US is not waving proof positive that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks and that is why we face such flak over this proposed course of action.
Again, that is simply beside the point. And regardless of the facts, figures, clues, defector's testimony, pointing to Saddam's self professed support for Bin Laden and his atrocities, that "flak" would be there.
There is a motive not being said publicly. Perhaps Americans have faith in our government's nobility and honor but the rest of the world is skeptical because we have not made a compelling case and our determination in face of the lack of proof makes us suspect.
George Bush is not Bill Clinton. If not for this fact, I might well have some particle of sympathy for this empty accusation. And again, the "rest of the world"... meaning Hussein's apologists and their willing dupes, care not for compelling cases. Proof is in the eyes of the detective, and no detective can call himself a seeker of truth who has his eyes as tightly shut as those of the gullible anti war protesters.
Perhaps that is hard for freepers to understand but objectively it is not hard to understand how other nations see things.
Perhaps you are right about this. A nation such as France, led by a man like Chirac who has clearly no concern for the lives of the citizens of the United States, no acceptance of our right to self defense, and is so deeply involved in illegally supporting a Stalin like dictator in a third world despotism, would demonstrate numerous illogical and hard to understand "views" regarding this conflict, at least on the surface. Chirac has sold out his country in an attempt to insulate it against the worldwide terrorist war that we have discovered ourselves in, since 9/11. But the generalization "other nations" is clearly invalid. It ignores that fact that 90 nations in the world support the American determination to rid the world of the threat of Saddam. They "see things" that apparently some corrupt leaders and pressure groups fail to "see".
Without proof of Saddam's attacking us why do we so want to remove him now after all this time of putting up with him? That is the question the world asks and and why they speculate about ulterior motives like oil.
The contention that America's motive is oil, when France's motive for opposition to long deserved action against Iraq is clearly because of oil, is suspect of course. We have "put up with him"? Do you call 12 years of UN economic sanctions, vain yet determined UN weapons inspections, violated yet sanctioned weapons embargoes, frequent measures of political and economic pressure, and repeated military responses to the cease fire agreement violations by Iraq "putting up with him?" This final statement tops off my argument that there is no concern for "facts" on the part of the opposition anti war protesters. Vacuous slogans, meant to obfuscate and confuse the ignorant and gullible seem to be plenty for them, as they refuse to face the hard realities of this conflict. They will not be "convinced" because they see no need to make the commitment that would entail. If another atrocity of the scope and severity of 9/11 were to be launched against the US, perhaps you might see the world as it is, but I do not expect such an epiphany amongst those very vocal, very public elitist celebrity leftists and European anti war protesters that continue to make themselves heard.
What the man on the street sees and thinks about the why doesn't matter(the anti-war protesters). The world's leaders understand how the world operates. They see the entire world coming under unrestrained US dominence militarily and economically because we will have our hand on the spicket of the oil wells and we will make sure the world pays for that oil in dollars not euros. You mention countries that support us - that is because they see resistance as futile and are angling to be on good terms with us, the victors for their own benifit not because they might think we are right. Naturally there will be some oppostition to our actions but for the moment we are a force of nature that can not be stopped. The French, etc are merely sandbagging the shore line against a tidal wave, useless and ineffective but it is human nature to try. And that is what it's all about.
Pure merde. The French, under the leadership of Chirac, are up to their neatly plucked eyebrows in Saddam's tyrannical regime; as partners in illegal oil deals, selling him embargoed arms, precursors for chemical weapons, and perhaps even secretly supplying what he needs to re-establish his nuclear arms program. Why wouldn't they, since they sold him his first nuclear reactor? Which, by the way was only suited for nuclear arms production, and not much good for the production of electricity, much like the reactors in North Korea and Iran. Plenty of evidence has come out so far regarding this, and plenty more will be in the offing.
You seem determined to believe that the world runs on ill informed leftist propaganda, and that factual reality is a matter of opinion. Regardless of the distortions you are willing to accept, Saddam's Iraq is a self professed enemy of the United States, and the Western world, a known sponsor of international terrorism, and an abysmal human rights violator. No amount of mental gymnastics, dissembling, equivocation, or rank ignorance can change those hard and well established facts, nor can make true the idiotic contention that "America is trying to somehow take over the world." America under Clinton was heading not to world hegemony, but to degeneracy, military weakness, decline, and eventual sacrifice of its national sovereignty on the altar of socialist political correctness. Witness his idiotic comments of just yesterday.
The fact that the new Bush administration is attempting to reverse that slide into the mire hardly qualifies as empire building. Perhaps the rest of the world believes we should do nothing to defend ourselves from international Islamic terrorism that has been at war with us for decades, but only a Jimmy Carter would give any weight or credibility to that kind of extremist schadenfreude by European and other leftist elitists that is behind this illogical, fraudulent and contradictory envy-hatred of all things American.
Chirac is truly worried about the coming revelations regarding his country's complicity in Saddam's reign of terror, and worried about losing the sweetheart, under-the-table, oil deals he has made with Saddam. If I were part of any new Iraqi regime, and was fully aware of how Chirac's France has helped prop up Hussein's squalid and bloody dictatorship, I'd tear up any crooked deals and throw them into Chirac's cynical face. Se la Guerre.
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.