Re: Hussein isn't invading countries or bombing England.... -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:58:41 03/13/03 Thu
Author: Rich
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 12.151.136.250
Subject: Re: Hussein isn't invading countries or bombing England....
In reply to: Catlin 's message, "Hussein isn't invading countries or bombing England...." on 03:06:31 02/28/03 Fri

"Hussein isn't invading countries or bombing England"

Almost immediately after coming to power Saddam attacked Iran and waged a bloody 8 year war in which he used chemical weapons against his adversaries. After the cease-fire in 1988 he rebuilt his army and two years later he invaded Kuwait. After being ejected from that country by the US led coalition he started systematically murdering rebels in the north and south of Iraq again using chemical weapons. Soon after the no-fly zones were established to protect these people. The ONLY reason Saddam hasn't attacked anyone since then is because the UK and US maintain these zones. Incidentally the Gulf war is one of three wars sanctioned by the UN. Those were The Korean War, The Gulf War, and Afghanistan. UN members have fought 26 wars since it�s inception. What happened to the UN with those other 23?

After 17, I'll say it again, 17! resolutions and 12 years don't you think we've given this guy enough time to change his ways and cooperate? The most recent resolution, 1441 (passed unanimously) says "...that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;". Recognizing that nothing has worked for the last 12 years what would you define as �serious consequences�? This guy understands one thing, might. We�ve always had it and have restrained from using it in the, in hindsight, na�ve hope that he would disarm. Ever law is backed by force otherwise the law is meaningless. Thankfully the US and those standing with her have the ability to recognize this. Not only the US but the entire world is at risk from terrorists. It doesn�t matter if Saddam supports Al-Qaeda or not, he supports terrorists. Beside that is the fact that the Iraqi people deserve to be free. It will happen, with or without the UN.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]