On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:59:05 GMT, Stuart Grey
wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote in
>news:cpn570h6ht466le36scbt7q2e051bgksen@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:59:44 +1000, "Antimulti-culty"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>How about the removal of Saddam Hussein? Surely even a humanitarian
>>>like you would support that?
>>
>> Few, if any, are sorry Saddam is gone.
>
>John Forbes Kerry says we should have left him in power. He has a lot of
>people who support him.
I agree but not fro the reasons he has. Iraq, as abominable as it was
on human rights, etc., was not a immediate threat. Al Qaida is. We
needed all the resources available to us to fight global, nonnational
terrorism.
>
>> The real issue is whether the
>> benefit is worth the cost. Couldn't the immense resources consumed be
>> better used to defend against terrorism in other ways?
>
>Yes. We could have gone in with B-52s, B-1s, B-2s and just plastered the
>place and killed a lot of people, but it would have cost a whole lot
>less. We probably should have glassed the place. There were a number of
>reasons we did not:
>
>1) Public outcry – people love terrorist, as long as the terrorist
>aren’t a threat to them. For example, Hillary Clinton was kissy face
>with the sadistic murdering bastard Arafat, a well known terrorist, and
>yet she STILL was elected Senator from New York.
>
>2) Iraq was a haven for terrorist before, and busting it down to rubble
>would make it a haven for terrorist afterwards. The thought was that we
>could earn the gratitude of the Iraqis by spending billions to repair
>the damage done by a decade of international U.N. sanctions against
>Iraq. That appears to have been a miscalculation, as shown by the brutal
>murders of 4 Americans who were literally bringing food to feed the
>people who murdered them! All these people understand, after 30 years of
>Saddam, is murder and savagery. Any mercy or compassion is considered a
>weakness to be exploited. We literally care more about these people than
>they care about themselves. Note how the Arabs are fond of strapping
>bombs to their children and then using them as terrorist weapons.
>
>> What was the obsession with Iraq?
>
>Two reasons:
>
>1) THE TERRORIST CONNECTIONS
The amount of terrorism reduced by taking Iraq is slim to none.
>
>The leader of the 9-11 terrorist trained on how to hijack an airplane
>with a box cutter in Saddam’s Iraq. Saddam has many terrorist
>connections. He paid suicide bombers, he allowed terrorist to set up
>training camps (we overran many of them when we invaded) and he let
>wounded Al Qaeda leaders come to Baghdad for medical care. There were
>some 50 terrorist links defined by the CIA between terrorist and Saddam.
>The threat was that Saddam would provide terrorist with Chemical,
>biological, or even material for a dirty bomb. There was no evidence
>that he had yet done so, but if he did, it would be an terrible
>disaster.
If he has any to give them. Surely our intel is really better than
that.
>
>2) OUR PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
>
>That we Infidels dared to have a presence in Saudi Arabia was a sore
>point with many Arab Moslems even though we were there at the request of
>the Saudi government. We had to be there because Saddam was proven to
>have designs on the oil wells in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We couldn’t
>leave until Saddam was disarmed per the U.N. resolutions. That we
>Infidels were there was a recruiting point with Al Qaeda. So, to remove
>that recruiting point, we had to get out. To get out Saddam had to be
>disarmed. To disarm Saddam we had to use military force.
Over reaching. If Saddam had made moves to attack Saudi Arabia, we
could act then.
>
>
>
|