Yes, Terrence, you are certainly responsive. I bet this is a very nice, positive quality from your very lucky wife's perspective. However, I am running out of writing styles, so let's see if we can wrap this up:
THE POINT IS THAT OTHER NATIONS--SOME OF THEM QUITE UNRELIABLE AND
UNSTABLE--HAVE THESE, BUT WE ARE NOT GEARING UP FOR WAR WITH THEM.
SECONDLY, THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPOSITION, NOT ABSOLUTE FACT, ABOUT
WHICH
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SADDAM ACTUALLY HOLDS, AND WHETHER
HE HAS
EFFICIENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR THEM.
Since the end of the Gulf War, UN inspection teams have discovered and destroyed more that
145,000 TONS of nerve gas in Iraq. As for biologicals, how difficult is it really to smuggle in and
deploy dozens of vials of say, anthrax, in major cities of the Middle East - or Europe or North
America for that matter?
It is true that he has biological weapons, but some of them I am pretty sure he doesn't have the technology to deliver. If this is so important, and I think it is, why are not all the other nations of the world being more supportive and helpful here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHERE HAS SADDAM SAID HE WANTS TO CONQUER SAUDI ARABIA? I AM NOT
FAMILIAR
WITH THAT. CARROLL'S POINTS ABOUT ISRAEL AND TURKEY ARE WELL TAKEN.
MANY
OF OUR ALLIES HAVE HORRENDOUS ATROCITIES HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, AND
WE LOOK
THE OTHER WAY. I THINK OUR DEFENSE OF ISRAEL MAY EVENTUALLY RESULT IN
WORLD WAR THREE--A HOMELAND FOR THE JEWS WAS A VERY NICE IDEA, AND
THEY
WERE CERTAINLY QUITE PERSECUTED AND DESERVED A PLACE TO LIVE, BUT
NOT RIGHT
IN THE MIDDLE OF ARAB STATES. ISRAEL IS ABSOLUTELY RAMPANT WITH
HUMAN
RIGHTS ABUSES, INCIDENTALLY, AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS, WHOSE LANDS
WERE
CONFISCATED. ESTABLISHING A STATE WHICH MIMICS THE WAY THE JEWS WERE
TREATED HISTORICALLY IS SOMETHING LESS THAN A CLEAR VICTORY FOR
THEM.
His stated goal is to become the head of the entire Middle East.That's what he wants to go down in
history for accomplishing.
I agree that creating the State of Israel was a mistake - but that does not negate the danger of a
despot like Saddam.
Is Saddam's stated goal is to become hed of the entire Middle East, then it would seem logical that the other nations there would help us more. Perhaps they realize he is delusional and not able to make his plans happen? ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I DON'T THINK JON IS CALLING THEM CREEPY BECAUSE THEY ARE MOSLEM.
PERHAPS IT
HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH STONING PEOPLE TO DEATH FOR WHAT WE
CONSIDER
MINOR CRIMES, OR OFFENSES LIKE ADULTERY.
AND IF SADDAM REALLY WANTED TO CONQUER SAUDI ARABIA, WHY WON'T THE
SAUDIS LET US USE THEIR BASES?
______________________________________________________________________________________
They are Moslems. They follow Moslem law as set forth in the Koran. They are not Judeo-Christian,
nor are they "creepy".
The Saudis are too political and do not want to upset those factions in other Arab countries that
support some of Saddam's ideas.
What other Arab countries support some of Saddam's ideas, and which ideas?
YES, APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK, AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE A
VERY
FIRM STAND. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT THE NATION BUT A SEEMINGLY
PSYCHOTIC LEADER WHO IS THREATENING OUR SECURITY. IRAQ THE COUNTRY
IS
REALLY NO THREAT AT ALL. I THINK THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING A DEBATE IN
CONGRESS ABOUT CHANGING THE LAW THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR THE U.S.
TO
ASSASSINATE THE LEADER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line is this: the people are responsible for the government of a country. The germans were/are
responsible for Hitler, the Iraqis were/are responsible for Saddam. Saddam is a monster - they
should depose him. But, many in Iraq think like him, so he remains.
The people are responsible as long as a country remains democratic enough so that the people can act politically. Do you really think that is the case in Iraq? He killed his own son-in-law! ---------------------------------------------------------------------
WELL, WE KILLED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 100,000 AND 200,000 HASTILY
CONSCRIPTED
YOUNG IRAQIS--YOUNG MEN WITH FAMILIES--BY BURYING THEM ALIVE IN THE
DESERT
AS THEY WERE TRYING TO RETREAT. I THINK WHAT CARROLLL IS SAYING IS
THAT THIS
TIME, WE CANNOT JUST BOMB THEM FROM THE AIR AGAIN LIKE WE DID THEN.
DESERT
IS DESERT, BUT WE WILL BE CLOSER TO THE SAND THIS TIME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We were on the sand last time with 100,000s of ground troops!
Much of the carnage of RETREATING conscripted Iraqis was done by air, with ground troops coming along later for clean-up, as I understand. This is something I could be wrong about. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT KIND OF WAR IS NOT A PROUD MOMENT FOR AMERICANS LIKE ME. I WAS
ASHAMED. IF SADDAM HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED OUR PROBLEMS WOULD BE
OVER, BUT
HE WAS NOT. SO IT WAS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF BLOODSHED FOR
NOTHING,
REALLY, EXCEPT TO TEST OUR NEW WEAPONS SYSTEMS, WHICH WEREN'T
ACTUALLY AS
SMART AS WE THOUGHT THEY WERE.
Christine, would you not feel greater shame if Saddam had kept Kuwait, subjugated its people under
a reign of sustained terror, then used Kuwait as a military staging ground from which to launch his
weapons of mass destruction on surrounding neighbors thus inflicting horrendous casualties of 5 to 10
million (or more) of innocents, in his campaign to bring the Middle East under his heel?
Kuwait is not a country I am particularly interested in defending, Terrence. I think the other Arab states in the neighborhood should become much more aggressive with Saddam. Why are we always the world's police force, while they sit on their hands?
(BTW, most of our weapons systems proved themselves brilliantly in the battlefield.)
That is not what I heard, particularly for "smart" bombs!!! |
