No problem on the PT/TP thing. Just know I'm not Patricia Trenchero(sp?)--lol.
>>> NO ONE outside the top Officials in our Country have the classified facts. I choose NOT to believe Saddam. Much of the outspoken left just throws grenades, not hard facts.<<<
No, the left hasn't just thrown grenades. I really do encourage you to take some time and read some of the references outlined in this thread's header. It's worldwide media, not just American media. Yes, there is some analysis which arrives from the left, but this is primarily supportive in the call not for war. There's good reading, please do take advantage of it.
Regarding the administration's knowledge in the matter? Were we, the public, not treated with so many outright lies and distortions in support of this war campaign, what the Administration is saying might be more believable. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
>>>If you care to look at news items on Internet by at least mainstream press, and perhaps articles by individuals who have actually been around Saddam you may want to reevaluate your premise that a war may be the only way to rid the world of this menace. Saddam's own son-in-laws defected, talked, then relented, went back, and were executed.<<<
Once again, I'm of the belief that Saddam is a dictator and rules like a dictator. I don't approve of this behavior, but I do support international law principles which prohibit regime change as a policy of one UN member against another UN member.
>>>I will send an article on this:
Saddam's Bomb Maker: Dr. Khidir Hamza, Author of Saddam's Bombmaker<<<
I've seen him interviewed on television.
>>>The 13 of the 15 nations you talked about have done NADA/NOTHING for the last 12 years to assure the world that Saddam stand up to his OWN agreement for disarmament. Who is kidding whom?<<<
The 13 of the 15 nations are at least behaving in a manner consistent with the three principles for war, which I outlined to you in my previous post.
>>>You say Bush wants a war....WHY on earth would he or anyone want war? If he really did, he would have gone to war immediately after 9/11/01. Trumped up something, other than the gaping holes in NYC, and all the grief and expense of that "adventure".....Shoot, we could have nuked China for the shot down plane incident 3 months after Bush took office. We didn't. The day after Pearl Harbor was destroyed, FDR, a Democrat, declared War. The Americans, no matter their politics, went with him. "Only 2600" military were killed then. In the WTC 9-11, we lost over 3000++ CIVILIANS by terrorists funded by AQ, OBL, and ultimately, I believe we will be able to prove when this is over, by Saddam and others in the ME.<<<
I will support Bush's war on terrorists. I agreed with bringing down the Taliban as it was a war for defensive purposes. But the people of Iraq are not the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and it bothers me deeply to see the US try to cook the intelligence books in order to justify one.
Why would Bush want a war? There are several reasons:
1) All politicians like to look busy and make it appear as if they're doing good. Bush's warhawking appeals nicely and naturally to his political base and on a wider level to genuinely concerned Americans who are griefed and rooted in the fears spawned from 9/11.
In the absence of a strong economy, the war tootin' makes for great cover. Furthermore, with all eyes on the war scene, it's easier to downgrade other issues such as the environment, health, etc., action which very much appeases the base of people who donate heavily to his campaign.
2) No question that the leader controlling the nation of Iraq has in the pocket the richest deposits of oil for the future. With this control, enormous sums of money can be made either putting the oil into the market or keeping the oil off of the market. You can't deny the oil and energy connections now present in the Administration, including both the president, the vice-president and his national security advisor, his secretary of the army and the list goes on. Cheney's old firm, Haliburton, is the parent corporation to the company that has a no-ceiling contract to feed the overseas troops.
3) I think Bush believes he can solve the ages-worn conflict between Israel and the Palestinians by taking out the supposed 'strong guy' whose hooting up the biggest troubles in the Middle East. I think he thinks he can do the Saudis a favor, a monarchy which always seems to be looking over its shoulder towards Iraq. The Bush family has very close ties with the Saudis. So his action curries favor with both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Why do you think Sharon wants Bush to take Saddam out; while the Saudi King wants Saddam conveniently removed?
4) Although the theory has been debunked that Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad, I think the younger Bush still has deep-seated feelings about the fact his dad lost re-election when, in his view, he should have won re-election. So there are some personal reasons why Bush is aimed at Iraq.
5) I think Bush thinks if he can pull it off--and, unfortunately, I think he's got advisors in his ear telling him he can--he'll become known as a very great president who solved the biggest problem of the past and current century: The Middle East. That his actions will help to redraw boundaries and build new nations, ones supposedly beholden the concept of democracy. That if this happens, future historians will glorify him; that if it doesn't happen, he wins anyway because he's the president-son of a president. So I think he thinks he's got nothing to lose.
Those are just some reasons, on the quick. Again, please do read the references in the thread header in order to get a fuller viewpoint.
>>>You must NOT have been reading OBL and the AQ and other terrorist spokesmen....or you wouldn't believe your item #c.<<<
Items C, of my prior post, stands.
>>>Re Iraq...to quote you: and hiding some "chemical-like weapons...."
The UN's 1441 says they are to have NONE.....read their lips, and Saddams agreement....NONE. And the "inspectors" are not charged to find the stuff....they are to VERIFY (Not be detectives to find) that Saddam has in fact destroyed ALL of the materials. PERIOD.<<<
Can you prove any country anywhere has or has not weapons of mass destruction?
>>>There are better analysts who have hands on experience than Stephen Pelletiere....(see the book above for instance....and Bob Baer, CIA agent that worked on the scene for many years....<<<
How can anyone have better hands-on evidence than the CIA Iraq analyst at the time this happened? And I'd give a professor since 1988 of the US Army College some credibility. I don't think you'd wanna go head to head with him in that debate.
>>>And you said:
>>>>>>>Finally, KLP, I support a war against terror. But I do not support a war that'll likely create more terrorists.<<<<
Again, read OBL's words, as well as the words of many of the Militant Muslims....Read Saddam's words on his thoughts of the US....and look at the pictures again of the people who he has gassed, tortured and murdered.<<<
Again, according to Pelletiere, those Kurds who were gassed were caught in a battle of war, not a genocidal act.
Already, Hamas, which never before threatened the United States homeland, is on record as stating it will resort to terror against the US should it invade Iraq. The Iraq war will breed further terrorists. I don't know of any reasonable thinkers who don't think this will happen. Both the CIA and FBI analysis, now on public record, support the strong possibility that if Iraq is attacked, this will happen.
Finally, do you find it a bit ironic that the Kurds, with whom Bush is so eager to align, are themselves closer to Al Qaeda than Saddam himself? |
