Funny how....

Jim,

At least your arguement makes sense.

God bless.

 

Remember this:


WASHINGTON -- Despite Iraqi threats of attacks against coalition bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the United States remains committed to enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq and containing
Saddam Hussein.

Threats "will get him nowhere," Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said here Feb. 16. "Any attack by Iraq against one of our allies in the region would be a severe mistake and would be met with a very swift and sure response."

The threats are a sign of Saddam's increasing desperation and isolation, Bacon said. "He's tried diplomacy with his neighbors.
He's tried to cajole them into supporting his position, and that's failed. His neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey -- have all made it very clear that they believe he should honor
the U.N. Security Council resolutions."

Since late December, Iraq has persistently violated the no-fly zones and aggressively challenged patrolling coalition aircraft.
In response, U.S. and British forces have attacked Iraqi missile and air defense sites with missiles and precision-guided munitions. U.S. and Iraqi forces have engaged in almost daily confrontations.

"They have turned on their radar. They have fired anti-aircraft batteries and also fired missiles at our planes over the last
month and a half," Bacon noted. "We have responded properly against these attacks, and we will continue to respond properly
against these attacks."

U.S. pilots act in self-defense, doing "the best they can to protect themselves and to carry out their missions," he said.

As a result of the coalition strikes, Iraq has sustained fairly heavy losses to its integrated air defense system, Bacon said.
"I have no reason to believe that those damaging counter strikes will end until Iraq stops challenging the coalition aircraft
policing the no-fly zone."

Threats against coalition forces and neighboring nations that support coalition air operations are Iraq's latest form of
defiance. Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, is one of Iraq's threatened targets. The Turkish base hosts U.S. and British air
forces supporting Operation Northern Watch. Bacon said the facility is at the very outer edge of the range of Scud missiles.

Incirlik is protected by Patriot missile batteries deployed recently at the request of the Turkish government. "They will stay there as long as our Turkish allies feel that they're
needed," Bacon declared.

 

Or remember THIS:

Sunday, August 12, 1990; Page A01

AMMAN, AUG. 11 -- Saddam Hussein, the 53-year-old Iraqi leader who has provoked one of the gravest international crises in many years, has built his career on a Baath Party revolutionary's dream of uniting the Arab world at the point of a gun.

Last week, the Arabs finally began to turn their guns on Saddam.

The decision by the Arab League on Friday to defy Saddam's threats to wage "holy war" and instead send an Arab force to join American troops in defending Saudi Arabia from Iraq showed that Saddam was isolated politically -- perhaps for the first time since assuming power.

 

Or remember this:
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Saddam Hussein's government discussed supplying unmanned aerial vehicles to terrorists, according to a CIA report made public last week, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

The Iraq Survey Group report stated that the development of the Al Quds remotely piloted aircraft included links between the program director and terrorists.

Al Quds program director Imad Abd-al-Latif Al Rida reported that four Al Quds drones were to be used as "flying bombs" in an attempt to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to a source who worked on the Al Quds program.

 

But how come THE PRESIDENT did a 180 turn from trying to find Bin Laden to looking for Saddam?

I've heard things like "Saddam violated UN regulations"...which is probably true, I'm not going to argue that. I would like to point out that didn't THE PRESIDENT violate UN regulations by declaring war? I know you will use the "self defense" argument and that's fine. But just don't use the "violation of UN regulations" in the process k?

"Pull up your pants Billy. Your hate for THE PRESIDENT is showing." As for this comment, that probably wasn't very fair of you. It seems to be done for the purpose of "embarrassing" the brother. Someone told me that qualified as slander, or to be more accurate, libel (due to the medium). Last question...would your "hatred" of the President show if the President was a Democrat?

 

Blackbird said: "You want to get me "flamed up"----just call yourself a US citizen---and then come "dump" on me about how trashy we are----you just think "The Big Red One"(US 1st Armored Division) is severe in diveing out revenge . . .!!!"

I say: But even a US citizen has the right to be against a war. Being against a war would not be "dumping on you". I would think that men who served in a war would be much tougher than to cry that someone dumps on them, simply because they don't support a war.

As for revenge...well Jesus Christ says He will do the revenging.

 

Sorry for all the posts but what was said earlier was true. The War of 1812 was a stalemate, though each side believes they won. The British committed an act of terrorism when they burned down the White House. Why are they all of a sudden "great friends" of the United States?

 

But it doesn't matter how many years it has been. The British committed an act of terrorism. I would think feelings against them would still be pretty strong? Or are they not, simply because they weren't Muslims?

 

I really tire of people mocking me everytime I try to make a point. Excuse me if I think "differently". The question stands!

 

King James,

No, the President didn't violate sanctions. There were none against the US.

A little history on all of this.

Saddam attacked his neighbors. He lost.
He attacked another neighbor. They asked the US for help. We stepped in.

He lost.

We didn't want to punish Iraq for Saddam's insanity, so, the UN said, basically, "Okay, keep your country, but you must play nice with your neighbors, and you have to follow these rules. You have to get rid of all of these weapons and prove you did so. You have to let our inspection teams in to make sure you aren't doing this again. You have to let UN forces fly over the area to monitor you, etc., etc., etc."

Well, Saddam started shooting at the planes.
Saddam refused entrance the inspectors.
Saddam couldn't account for thousands of bombs that were on the list before and not on the list afterwards.
Saddam killed people in his country who DID cooperate with the inspectors.

And then one nation steps up and says, "He's trying to buy long-range nuclear deployment devices, and he's bragging that he has altered some of the weapons he was allowed to keep to contain chemical and biological weapons. He is trying to sell those weapons to terrorists."

Then Nigeria steps up saying, "We've got the proof."

Between the two of them, Clinton and Bush gave Saddam 12 chances to comply, and 12 times he thumbed his nose at the UN.

Bush went to the UN and said, "If you don't enforce your rules, they aren't rules, they are a joke. MAKE the man comply."

He gave him a time limit.

The inspectors were allowed in, but they were monitored, they were told where they were allowed to go, and where they were not allowed to go. The people who told them, "look here," were killed.

Intelligence reports from Saudia Arabia said, "Bin Laden has gone to Saddam. He knows that the US thinks Saddam hates him, he is approaching Saddam on the basis of, "We have a common enemy. Let us do him in, and then we can fight one another."

What would you have thought had it been your job to make sure that Saddam did not sell chemical weaposn to the Al Quaida?

What would you have thought had it been your job to make sure nerve gas was not released on the New York subway during rush hour? Or at the Super Bowl?

What would you have thought had it been your job to make sure Saddam, who had a history of attacking his neighbors, did not attack those allies in range of the weapons he had?

When its your job to protect, and your largest city has just been attacked, would you really keep going, "Okay, let him ignore the rules one-more-time," up to the 13th, and 14th and 15th times?

 

One other thing.

During Desert Storm, Saddam set the Kuwait oil fileds on fire. These fields were the largest supplier of oil to the world.

He threatened to set the Saudie fields on fire also.

Fortuantely for the world, the fires he did set were contained before the world lost the majority of its fuel.

When we talk about "war for oil," realize - everything you own and use probably has some connection to oil.

Plastic depends on petroleum by-products.
Your computer, your pencil holder, your car, your surgery, your pill bottles, the fibers in your rugs, your phones, you clothing, ..... all are oil based at some level. There probably isn't a machine in the world that doesn't use oil in some form, whether as fuel, or lubricant, or plastic parts.

Destroy the world's oil supply and you are not just "making people walk to work." You're throwing them into the dark ages.

That is what Saddam threatened the world with if we didn't let him control all of the Middle East. Can you imagine what he would have threatened if we HAD allowed it?

 

Regarding Bin Laden - We're still looking, and for awhile people believed he was hiding out in Iraq. Some said Saddam was protecting him. Some said the Kurds were hiding him. In either case, there were major rumors flying around the world that if we took Iraq, we ended up with both Saddam and Bin Laden.

As to Saddam - you really need to read the man's history. I think he is worse than Hitler ever thought about being, and I am convinced Hitler was an early test model of the Anti-Christ.

Saddam served his son-in-law's head on a platter at a dinner his daughter's were attending. He attacked Kuwait, and his soliders would use new-borns from the Kuwaitee hosptials in "tossing games" to "see how far they could throw." Athelets in Iraq who didn't win in International competition were tortured to deathh. He used chemical warfare against his own citizens.

The man is clearly psychotic, and he was a psychotic with an army at his command in a place where his weapons could reach peaceful countries all around him, and he was threatening to USE those weapons on those countries if they didn't stop being nice to the US and Europe.

He called for a Holy War, just as Bin Laden called for one. The difference between the two - Bin Laden landed 3 planes in the US. Saddam used warfare against Iraqi citizens and Kuwait. Which one is really more dangerous in the long run?