2002 -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ 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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

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

Date Posted: 09:34:57 07/26/02 Fri
Author: MJ
Author Host/IP: ip68-102-78-141.ks.ok.cox.net / 68.102.78.141
Subject: 2002
In reply to: MJ 's message, "1990" on 08:23:46 07/26/02 Fri

see
[for discussion use only]

Stop Saddam from going nuclear

Lots of Americans, taut with crises at home and abroad, don't like to hear President Bush perform his inescapable duty of warning of the probability of war with Iraq. They tend to snarl when anybody important warns that Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, will come to us again if we don't go to him.
Do we really expect him, this marauder and killer, to attack at a time of our choosing and meantime wait it out passively? I guess we do, since so many of us just make annoyed sounds when asked.

One reason the administration does not stop warning of approaching war is that it understands acutely what the snarlers like to forget - the U.S. does not have sole power to decide when and how war would start. It shares that power with an Iraq totally intent on creating weapons of mass destruction that Saddam plans to allot to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, some of whose people already are training in Iraq.

So which Saddam are we waiting for? The one who already has the capacity to produce chemical weapons and has tested them against a minority people he claims as his property, the Kurds? The Saddam who, without doubt, has produced biological weapons and, for all we know, stored deadly germ packages with his spies and terrorists abroad?

Or will we wait for the Saddam who is cementing Muslim countries and European nations that were once our allies into an alliance he intends to firmly control? These nations are already among his best customers for oil, consumer goods and weapons, despite the United Nations embargo he tore up and spat on immediately after he lost the Gulf War in 1991.

These Saddams meld into the one who is determined to rise over the world, making his power of destruction universal - nuclear Saddam, shaking a bomb, not just a rifle. He will not be alone. With him will be the legion of foreign Saddamlettes he is collecting and empowering.

If the United States waits long enough - say a couple of years or even less - he will have created his first nuclear weaponry. He will not be strong enough even then to take on the U.S. in nuclear war and survive.

But he will have taken the quintessential steps to block full U.S. retaliatory action against him. Namely, he will have armed the legions of Al Qaeda, including those now in Iraq, which is one of its original breeding grounds and still one of its training centers and havens. He will have armed them with mobile nuclear weapons that will be hard to trace back to him.

That will never be believed fully by the rancid minds twisted by deepest hatred of America and political freedom.

His chief allies would be Syria and Iran and Pakistan, too, if its government is overthrown by a fundamentalist dictatorship. Saddam's allies might even get nuclear arms from him if they want them. I doubt that they or even Iraq would leap at the risk of identifying themselves as open users of nuclear weapons against real nations. They would leave that honor of going first to the madmen of Al Qaeda and its partners in horror.

Would it really ever be possible that the United States and the rest of the West would permit a nuclear Saddam to exist?

Well, was it possible that the Western victors in the Gulf War would allow Saddam to destroy the two conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, the oil embargo and international weapons inspections? The answer, of course, is yes. He swiftly wiped them out altogether while much of the world snickered and America looked sad.

Saddam became the hero of anti-Americans everywhere and once again became the most likely next enemy of the United States.

Before and after the Gulf War, Saddam's Western appeasers would not or could not understand that left in power, he would be back as ambitious and vicious as ever. So here he is, preparing for another war and moving toward it.

The purpose of the administration must remain this: Saddam has to go, and that must be said to America and the world as often as needed.

E-mail: rosecolumn@aol.com

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

Replies:

MJ -- Southern Gent, 22:15:10 07/29/02 Mon
- SG -- MJ, 23:35:49 07/29/02 Mon
  - Re: SG -- Southern Gent, 22:45:07 07/31/02 Wed