Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Amazing, the anti-war propaganda machine vomits out more crap.
Well, as long as its only hated Americans that are in danger, too bad. Let them defend themselves and watch out! The freaks come out of the
People better pull their heads out of their rears before its too late.
Figure, Hussein has starved his people rather than live up to the agreements after the first round in '91', and these jerks are going to make it
sound as if loss of innocent lives is our fault. Only a liberty hating moron would bother writing this stuff.
Again, the pro-war propaganda machine vomits out fear-to-arms rhetoric in lieu of reasoned argument.
DUH #1: The only way that Iraq is going to kill large numbers of Americans is if we deliver them to their doorstep!
DUH#2: To say attacking Iraq, creating a humanitarian crisis and usurping their resources is "Defending Ourselves" is the most Orwellian-Jim Jones
Kool Aid sipping-demented-intellectually dishonest-fecal nugget I EVER HEARD!!!!!!
DUH#3: "Starved his people" - the sanctions have done a couple of things: they, by nature of restriction, funneled all food stuffs through a central
government controlled entry point....instead of geographic dispersion that would ACTUALLY get to the people, they gave Saddam de facto control. Stupid
Next, under the 'Oil for Food' agreement which allowed Iraq to sell what they got for what they need....Nations have defaulted or have yet to pay
60% of what Iraq is owed. Again, Stupid move.
DUH#4: "And what are we supposed toi do waht for Saddam to attack someone?" In 12 years of containment, who has Iraq attacked? What have they done
to anyone in the region?
Now let's get this straight:
With increased monitoring, increased restrictions, increased inspection, increased bombing sorties all over the country by US/UK fighter jets,
increased U2 fly overs, increased vigellience by every country in the region, and increased Allied ground forces around every entry point into
Iraq.....you've concluded that we are in MORE DANGER from an Iraqi attack!?!?!
At the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, Bush's father openly encouraged the people
of Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein in revolt. Both the Kurds in the north
and the Shiites in the south responded, and in March of 1991, it was clear that they
had a better than even chance of succeeding. It was at this juncture that the prior
Bush administration lost its nerve and sold these rebels down the river. Fearing a
post-Saddam Iraq ruled by the majority Shiites would align itself with Iran, Bush allowed the rebels to be slaughtered without the slightest US aide
that would have turned the tide.
I give this as a backdrop and not to say the 'Sins of the Father' damnation. But, given the horde of inspection teams that are being proposed by
more level headed UN security council nations, the weapons destruction that's already started and the increased containment, yes, Saddam won't have
the numbers of anything to turn back a revolt, the rebels WILL HAVE backing this time, and we'll be meddeling in a country's internal affairs on the
side of righteousness for a change, thus garnering us lost social capital and effecting what we wanted in the first place.
Contrast that to massive bombing followed by a humanitarian nightmare.....yeah, less dead in a civil war.
Adults don't factor in MACHISIMO into world affairs and matters of life & death, that your president is that infantile doesn't mean you have to be.