Morford's "Happy Imbeciles At War."

Besides the fact I disagree with the article in principle, I really took exception to the above points.

1. We haven't found the top 2. We did kill the operations director, and capture his replacement. We have also captured numerous other LTs to bin Laden.

2. I don't really believe that Bush is starting this war to gain control of Iraqi oil supplies. I think that's an extremely cynical view of recent world events.

3. That's the point. He doesn't have major WND yet. Look at the situation with N. Korea, that's what happens when the wrong people get their hands on nuclear arms.

 

Yeah, let's just gloss over this murderous evil thugs' record against his own people.

Why will we fight him and not, say, North Korea. Because Saddam didn't learn his lesson when we should have taken him out the first time, and he still continues to flaunt his wicked ways. Time to finish the job.

Saddam IS a threat to one of our top 2-3 allies in Israel. That relationship must be protected at all costst if necessary.

 

Oil aside. Saddam has used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iran. He had invaded and taken over another country without being attacked first. He is a murderious dictator. He has tried to acquire nuclear weapons before.
These reasons aside from oil are strong enough to either disarm Saddam or remove him from power. Saddam certainly poses more of a threat to global peace than Milosovic. Yet the Left and Europeans were perfectly happy going to war over that. We certainly didn't hear this much of an uproar from the Left over Kosovo.

 

> Yeah, let's just gloss over this murderous evil
> thugs' record against his own people.

Why not? We've done it for decades. And we've done it for decades in other nations as well.

> Why will we fight him and not, say, North Korea.
> Because Saddam didn't learn his lesson when we
> should have taken him out the first time, and he
> still continues to flaunt his wicked ways. Time to
> finish the job.

What lesson was he supposed to learn? He is the leader of a sovergn nation and he wants to defend it. We made sure he can't do it through conventional means. Did you actually think he would turn nice just because we stopped half way to Baghdad?

> Saddam IS a threat to one of our top 2-3 allies in
> Israel. That relationship must be protected at all
> costst if necessary.

What does Israel do for us that requires us to go to war for them?

 

If you believe that Israel the main reason for this war (a fair opinion by the way). And if Saddam acquires nuclear weapons and ever threatens Israel, the entire Middle East would end up in a mushroom cloud. In that case, wouldn't it be better to remove the threat right now? Unless you believe in isolation, which is a whole different story.

 

> Saddam has used chemical weapons against his
> own people and against Iran.

Which we helped provide, along with information that helped him use it.

> He had invaded and taken over another country
> without being attacked first.

What did we do when India invaded Goa? When Argentina invaded the Falklands? In any of the invasions related to the Congo civil war in the last decade? When Indonesia invaded East Timor? When Serbia invaded Croatia? When China invaded Vietnam? I could keep going.

> Saddam certainly poses more of a threat to
> global peace than Milosovic. Yet the Left and
> Europeans were perfectly happy going to war
> over that.

We didn't invade Serbia. What we did to Serbia is what we have been continually doing to Iraq for the last decade. You are asking for something much bigger.

 

He just didn't want Kuwait to invade Iraq first. It was a "preemptive attack." W is using the war machine as a political power booster, and it makes me sick that he's willing to throw away American lives for the sake of his political career. Of course, it won't be the lives of anyone he knows. Their all in the Texas Air guard training on the Wright brothers' plane.

 

It still has not been proven what kind of threat he is to the USA. Its not like the UN weapons inspectors have found anything yet that would cause a war.
I personally believe that this is all a big bluff and that there will be no war. Hopefully I will not have to come back and eat my words...

 

> I personally believe that this is all a big bluff and
> that there will be no war.

I don't think this is likely (although I also thought for sure that India and Pakistan would go to war). If this is a bluff, it is a very expensive one. Deploying the forces like this costs a lot. The only thing that can stop this is Saddam succumbing to lymph cancer and his son dying by accidentally choking himself on a soccer ball (a gift from the Iraqi national team). Our forces would still be needed as there would be a mad scramble by the Turks, Kurds, Iraqi opposition groups, and Russia for Iraqi oil and we can't let that happen.

 

Sure, they have not found anything yet, but something is not adding up when they also have not found the things that where there when they left a few years ago.

That would be like going to the doctor and he tells you that you have cancer. You go through some grief and after a couple of years, you decide to go back to the doctor. Both of you expect to find even more cancer and it could even be too late for you now. Amazed, the doctor not only fails to see the predicted growth, but finds no cancer at all.

WOW! Praise be Allah!

So, we should think of three possible situations:

• UN Inspectors took some bad notes
• Iraq decided to get rid of their WMD on their own
• Iraq had a few years to find better ways to hide their WMD

If this is a no-war-war, after all the investment by the US military, you had better believe they will get some glorified training out of this build up.

Oil does come into play with this war with Iraq. But let's think for one minute. Yea, the US might be concerned with Iraq without the oil, but what do you all think brought and has kept Saddam in power...one hint...Texas Tea.

You see, the oil provides for not only for his lifestyle, but his power base.