If you are intimidate or worried now, it has gone on too long already, he should have been killed quite some time ago. His threats will only get worse and worse until we are too afraid to speak like his subjects. Too bad the NATO security organization didn't give us the charter to take over his country last time, and too bad we don't have a replacement for him.

 

"Intercepted call linked Saddam to al-Qa'ida terror cell"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=376141


obl = osama bin laden.

 

I don't see enough people making the connection between North Korea and Iraq and why we need to take out Iraq NOW.

North Korea is believed to have at least two nukes, and yes, there are plenty of ways to deliver these nukes other than a missle which they do not have. (at least one that would reach the US mainland)

Iraq is poised to have nukes within months if left unchecked.

Now the reason we are not playing hard ball with North Korea is because they do have nukes, so we have to play it carefull. If you let Iraq have nukes the same thing will happen. We will essentially be held hostage by both regimes because they have the potential to use them.

If you take out Iraq now, end of story, no future dealing with them on the issue. The North Koreans are now a nuclear power, and must be dealt with diplomatically, no other option really.

Again, if you think we need a smoking gun to go in, the shot has already been fired. And people are dead. If we let that happen I will personally blame all non-supporters of first strike actions, and start ramming cars with "Attack Iraq - NO!" stickers on them!

 

Saddam was a bully to Kawait until somebody steped in and stoped him. Was Saddam willing to sit down and talk about it? Saddam threated to attack Israel if we interfeared and he made good on his threat. Should we have looked the other way? No, we bloodied his nose when we should have broken his neck.

Saddam agreed to the terms of his surrender. He hasn't lived up to those terms and the U.N. has allowed it to go on. Now he's become stronger and he's figuring on a comeback. To do so means having the means to make threats on any country if anyone stands in his way. Saddam IS a legitimate threat and not only to us. He threated Israel before and he'll do it again or perhaps another country and he'll make good on his threats. Or he will help other criminals threaten world peace by supplying chemical or biological agents. The U.S. isn't gonna stand by and let that happen, and we shouldn't. That doesn't make us a bully. We are enforcing the terms that Saddam agreed to, but hasn't.

We've given him more than enough chances to comply with U.N. security council resolutions. It's kinda like having a law that doesn't work. So the solution according to the powers that be is to make more laws. What a joke! Just like adding more inspectors will work. Or, we've given him lots of time, so lets give him more time. Or, "ok, he has chemical the biological agents but has no means to deploy them, so the threat is reduced". I believe that was an actual statement given to the U.N. (I'll try to find a reference). To a convicted felon who is baned from having guns, it's like saying, ok he has the bullets, but he has no means to fire them,.....yet. No, the resolutions must be enforced in the time frame set forth. Saddam is not allowed to have these agents. Period!

Enforcement, this is the only way. We have to enforce the resolutions because the U.N. has no backbone. You can't reason or deal with a bully with kid gloves. More than a bully, Saddam is a criminal. How does one deal with criminals? Ask them to turn themselvs in? No, you've got to go get'em. And George W. Bush is just the man to do it.

EDIT: Reference http://www.townhall.com/columnists/g...20030206.shtml

 

Enforcement, this is the only way. We have to enforce the resolutions because the U.N. has no backbone. You can't reason or deal with a bully with kid gloves. More than a bully, Saddam is a criminal. How does one deal with criminals? Ask them to turn themselvs in? No, you've got to go get'em. And George W. Bush is just the man to do it.

Go get him KEEMO SABIE, HI HO SILVER AWAYYYYY!!!!!!

 

I'll make my first point and then move on...If George W. senior had , had the "NADS" to finish the job that we went over there to do in '91 then "W" junior wouldn't be so Hot To Trot to start a war NOW. General Temper Tantrum should have insisted that saddam show up at the "Treaty Tent" to sign the paperwork and then they should have taken him into custody and air freighted his worthless hide to Israel for alittle Reprocessing. I support a War with saddam NOW for the following reason.....If he is left to manufacture all of the various forms of WMD's I believe he will eventually attack Israel ..and when they respond with overwhelming force then that is the CATALYST that will achieve an "Arab Consensus" and bring a very large number of previously uncommitted countries INTO a widespread WAR. Not that the moderate leaders necessiarly want too get involved...Rather the very promuslim members of the general populas will Demand that their Leaders enter the war on the side of Islam....then saddam has achieved consensus by default.....and then the US is forced to enter the war on the side of Israel(which is the wrong side ) if we try to maintain some semblence of neutrality. This Scenerio could quickly spiral out of control and degenerate into God knows what.................fd

 

The U.S. and allies only had a UN resolution to Free Kuwait.

They didn't have one to oust Saddam.

Althought in retrospect it would have been a great idea.

 

I agree
Hindsight is 20\20

 

If W. and company weren't neck deep in the oil biz, and if the U.S. didn't sell military related materials during the Iran-Iraq war to S. Insane then I'd be all for it. Just reeks of cash and oil to me. Blood and burnt gunpowder also.

 

Granted, hindsight is 20\20. If various courses of action are not necessiarly obvious at the time(s) in history even to those gifted with high levels of intelligence and prior experience then they can be forgiven for making choices which , after the fact , (20\20) were obviously WRONG. General temper tantrum supposedly has an IQ of 170 or so. It was patently obvious that Saddam should have forced out of power . They had the leverage and they didn't even TRY. How , in the name of common sense did he not even suggest this to "W" senior. Such a waste. fd

 

Seems kinda ironic then that Bush is pushing the fuel cell car?

As far as the military equipment, remember that when we did sell to Iraq it was because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." At that time it was in our interest to sell to SH.

However, why don't you ask Germany and France why they are opposed to the war? The dirty little secret is because they have been supplying SH with technology that can be used for WMD.

And in response to the reason why we didn't take out SH the first time. I remember all the cat calls if we did. How it would destablize the region, yadda yadda yadda. It seems that we were damned if we do and damned if we didn't. But then it is very easy for most, who sit in the bleachers to make perfect calls.