Why Removing Saddam Was Crucial

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by preemptingyou03, Apr 3, 2004.

  1. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    President Bush has been depicted as launching preemptive wars without any world support in an unprecedented way. Now, while the claims of reckless preemption and doing so without world support are false, those who claim Bush’s tactics are unprecedented are, in a way, right. These are unprecedented times which call for unprecedented tactics.

    The comparison between the beginning of the Cold War and the beginning of the War on Terror are quite stunning, and the comparison between the Truman Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine, on the level of precedence, is also very similar. The tactics of which we’ll fight this war, however, are extremely different than anything we’ve had to do in the past. Deterrence used to work with the threat of a huge American military, with huge battleships, destructive bombs, and an overwhelming air force. The same still holds true today, but things are different. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld came into office with the Bush Administration knowing the military had to be transformed to a quicker, lighter, faster military, using smaller forces, more covert operations and special forces. His premise was we needed to adapt to the changing threat of our enemy. Until before 9/11, nobody thought a non-state group could pull off an attack such as that, on such a grand scale. It caught us off-guard. We were wrong.

    In his Address to the Nation on September 11th, President Bush spoke in a mournful tone. Yet a sense of anger, aligned with a sense of seriousness arouse when he stated simply, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them.” This statement put aside the belief that our response is just against those who attacked us that morning; our response is against terrorism, the tactics of terrorism, and threat of terrorism. In his State of the Union Address on September 20th, 2001, President Bush laid out the tactics with which he believes we will be conduct the War on Terror, or the tactics he will conduct it, during his time in office; he stated the longevity of this conflict, and how it may include shocking missiles strikes and dramatic invasion, visible on television, and covert operations and midnight raids, secret to the world even in success. It put forth a policy of covert, as opposed to overt, warfare. The word “secret” struck a cord in Americans, and when it was followed up by “to the world, even in success,” most people watching got it. They understood the seriousness with which this will be conducted as long as this Texan is in office.

    But is it more than Bush's war. Bush may very well be an old man by the time the War on Terror is won. He might have been long passed away. Democrat presidents will be in charge while this war is raging. They must understand the concept and doctrine Bush has laid out.

    - By means of cooperative international police action and law enforcement, every high value target terrorist individual must be hunted down… cave by cave, cell by cell, one by one.

    - By means of covert operations and Special Forces, every terrorist network and organization must be dismantled. Funds must be cut, camps must be destroyed.

    - By means of a “peace through power” doctrine of diplomacy, every rogue terrorist state, that shelters well-known terrorists, or funds, sponsors, or aids terrorist networks, must be confronted, and if needed, overthrown.

    These three tactics have never been conducted better in the history of the world, partly, because there was no need to conduct them, partly, because of the strong-willed people in the Bush Administration. Democratic governors and senators have openly disagreed with Bush’s strategy. This is the most troubling aspect of governmental debate. When Bush is gone, the terrorists won’t be. President Bush won’t win this war. He’s merely setting the standard and precedent for how it’ll be conducted. He is rewriting the battlefield playbook for his successors. Certain Democratic leaders “get it” but the majority has yet to. Maybe they have, but in order to restore their power not only in Congress, but in governorships, and of course the White House, they are offering the American people a more blasé approach to dealing with these times. The reason for this, surprisingly enough, is many Americans want a more blasé approach. George Patton used to say, “Americans are sick.” He used to say “Americans love the sting of battle.” He used to say, “In the book of world history, chapter one is titled ‘Don’t (rhymes with duck) with Americans.’” God love him for his bluntness, but let me be blunt as well: Americans are peace-loving people, and for good reason. Every war in American history has been protested by American citizens. The ghosts of Vietnam still haunt our memories.

    It would be a false assumption to believe terrorists aren’t in this country this moment. The events on September 11th were not a one-time fluke, rather than the climax of decades of terrorism, and the raising of the standard for all jihadists worldwide. After the Madrid train attacks on March 11th, 2004, the Spaniards voted out their government which supported the United State’s tactics, and voted in the Socialist party… a pacifist party, whose main promise to the people of Spain is to bring home the 1,300+ Spanish troops in Iraq. In the face of terrorism, the people of Spain relied on that “blasé” attitude. Their belief is if they don’t support the United States… the terrorists won’t have a beef with them, much how many people think if we don’t support Israel, they won’t have a beef with us. Rather than disregarding all forms of hatred, we must understand why the hate us. We must then respond. Spain failed to do so. And with our past, we may fail to do so as well.

    Saddam Hussein once bragged to his confident before the first Gulf War that “Americans cannot stomach casualties.” Osama bin Laden often refers to the United States as a “paper tiger.” Do people see what is happening here? We did not defeat the Soviet Union by having a compromising attitude. We provoked conflict, in order to avoid it. If we do not take the bull by the horns, we run the risk of being too late.

    Words such as “too late” strike a cord of fear in Americans as well. And frankly, they are tired of it. We’re all pacifists at heart, but in mind, body, and soul, logic must step in. The logic of some, however, is the same as it was at the beginning era of communism. “Fear mongering,” is a popular phrase used to describe the rhetoric of those who wish to take terrorism seriously. To the contrary, those who believe terrorism must be dealt with harshly, are relying on a conviction. If one were to set back for a moment, to see the big picture and the long term vision of the War on Terror, one would realize the only responsible action is to take the emotional anger we all suffered after 9/11, and turn that into sustained resolve… not to avenge those attacks, but to prevent future attacks.

    - We cannot differ between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
    - We cannot differ between rogue regimes that support terrorists and the terrorists.
    - We cannot be afraid to let the financial reasons for France's opposition, deter us from doing what is right.
    - We cannot be afraid to provoke radicalism to prevent terrorism.

    Let’s get the facts straight about France, Russia, and Germany. From the beginning of World War I in 1914 until the end of the Cold War in 1989, the United States fought two World Wars, gave billions upon billions of dollars away in military and economic aid, lost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and for over four decades, risked nuclear annihilation and a Third World War from the Soviet Union, all so France and the rest of Europe could be free democracies instead of Nazi or Communist mass murdering dictatorships. Imperialism was defeated for France. Fascism was defeated for France. Nazism was defeated for France. Communism was defeated for France. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died on French soil for their liberation. And what do we get after a century long commitment to freedom for France and the rest of the European continent… well, not only did French citizens dig up the bodies of American GIs buried in France, but the French government, (not for noble reasons) but for financial, economic, political, and frankly, cynical reasons opposed us in Iraq.

    We do not ask all our allies blindly follow our lead. We want international support, but we realize, like the past, we will carry the burden of casualties. Over one-fifth of the causalities our coalition is experiencing in Iraq are non-American casualties. Please explain to the British, Italian, Spanish, Australian, and Japanese mothers, of those who died in our cause that their son’s or daughter’s death doesn’t count without French approval. In 1962, when the United States presented France evidence that the Soviet Union was moving missiles to Cuba, France threw the evidence aside and said, “If the United States says it is true, it is, and we will support you.” As for today, a French official refused to comment during an interview before the war with Iraq that, in the event of a war, who would he want to win. Times have changed. And it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    The United Nations must change too. First of all, countries like Syria shouldn’t have a say whether or not we have the right or obligation to attack Iraq. Syria is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and a Baathist regime, and they have the power to vote off whether or not we attack another state sponsor of terrorism, and another Baathist regime in Iraq? What the hell is this? Now our enemies can tell us how to confront our enemies? This is the same thing as if during the last days of the Nazi regime, Hitler told us, “Look… go easy on the Japs. Don’t nuke them.” And we went, “Yes, thanks for the advice, oh wise one.” It’s ludicrous.

    Continued...
     
  2. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    People who opposed the war in Iraq, opposed it for several reasons. One, they disagree with the Bush Doctrine. These people must understand: like the Truman Doctrine, which lasted for seven presidential successors and over four decades during the Cold War, the Bush Doctrine will do the same in the War on Terror. Containment as become preemption. Deterrence has become regime change. Whether it is President John Edwards in 2010 who follows this doctrine or if it is President Rudy Giuliani in 2016 that laucnhes a preemptive war against Syria, we all much understand that this doctrine is needed. There is nothing to contain anymore. There is nothing to deter.

    Another reason people opposed the war is because they believe this was a diversion from the War on Terror. This is false. It was crucial to the War on Terror. After removing the Taliban and putting al-Qaeda on the run, that part of the War on Terror became an intelligence priority. Thousands of al-Qaeda members, including two-thirds of its leadership, and eight of the top ten, have been captured. Thousands of other individual terrorists from al-Qaeda or affiliated groups have met a harsher fate. On Bush’s watch, hundreds of terrorist camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed, and the al-Qaeda operative who ran them, Abu Zubadayh, is in American custody. The man who orchestrated the attacks on New York and Washington, al-Qaeda’s number three man, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is also in American custody. The same goes for Ramzi Binalshibh, Anas al-Liby, and Hambali. Mohammed Atef, one of al-Qaeda’s top three founders, is now dead. Rather than operating in freedom, under the sponsorship of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and his number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are operating in caves and mountains. Time hasn’t slowed down our manhunt for their heads. They will be captured. And they will be killed. The same goes for Osama’s son, Saad, and Saif al-Adel, as well as Mullah Omar.

    When, not if, we capture bin Laden, the war rages on.

    We confronted Iraq because everyone believed, pre-9/11, that the Butcher of Baghdad was a threat.

    We went in thinking we'd find WMD and we didn't. Well, then Bush must have lied, right?

    Continued...
     
  3. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    If Bush lied...

    - Every nation in the UN Security Council believed Saddam had WMD. Are they liars?

    - Germany stated in 2002, that Iraq would have three nuclear bombs by early 2005? Are they liars?

    - Did Britain lie?
    - Did Italy?
    - Russia?
    - Germany?
    - France?
    - Poland?
    - Japan?
    - Saudi Arabia?
    - Iraqi defectors?
    - Did Tariq Aziz lie when he admitted in 1998 that iraq had WMD?
    - Iraq used WMD and admitted to this.

    - Why did Saddam violate 17 resolutions 333 times?
    - Why did Saddam detain inspectors and kick them out?
    - Why did Saddam intentionally lose billions, in order to not open his sites up?
    - Did Congress lie?
    - Doesn't Congress see the same intelligence as Bush?
    - Did the UN lie?
    - Did these people lie?


    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    ”He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
    -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    - Saddam was a man that killed 750,000 people, used WMD,a dmitted to it, violated 17 resolutions 333 times, everyone thought he had WMD, the UN did, inspectors did, defectors said he did, people who opposed us said he did... isn't it reasonable to think he had them?

    - It took us 10 months to find Saddam Hussein, in a hole that could contain enough WMD to kill 100,000 people. Considering Iraq is the size of California and Baghdad is the size of LA, isn't it possible theyare in a basement somewhere?

    - Isn't it possible Saddam deployed them to his Baathist neighbor for safekeeping?

    - Even if he didn't, isn't he the right action to act on intelligence and the world wide belief, and prevent him from getting WMD?

    We hear Saddam didn't support terrorism...

    - He funded Hamas.
    - He funded Islamic Jihad.
    - He funded Abu-Sayyaf, a group with ties to al-Qaeda.
    - He funded Hezbollah (the world's 2nd largest terrorist group).
    - He funded Ansar al-Islam, (a group with direct ties to al-Qaeda).
    - He sponsored the MEK, the ANO, the PLF, and the PKK.
    - He sheltered Abu Nidal, a man who killed over 900 people in 90 attacks in 25 countries.
    - He sponsored the ANO.
    - He sponsored the PLO.
    - He sheltered Abdul Yassin, one of the terrorists in the 1993 WTC attack.
    - He sheltered one of the world's most wanted terrorists, and leader of the PLF, Abu Abbas.
    - He sheltered al-Qaeda/Ansar operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
    - According to Germany, Iraqi officials met al-Qaeda operatives in 1998.
    - The man killed 750,000 of his own people at the least and 2 million at the most.
    - Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi officials in 1991.

    As we fought wars around the globe in the 20th century, one principle guided U.S. alliances: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. In the war against Hitler, the United States found common cause with Stalin. In the war against Japan, America aided Vietnamese rebel Ho Chi Minh. In Third World struggles, America helped Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein. Times have changed.

    We hear we're in a quarmire against a coutnry that never attacked us.

    Yet...

    - FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

    - Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

    - John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

    - Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

    In Iraq, we've lost 600 people, 380 from hostile action, in a year. Is this a quagmire? Do you want to run away like Somalia?

    Bush is taking the war to the entire ideology of terrorism. In one year, we've lost about 600 troops, and politically have gone farther than we did in Germany or Japan at this point. Poland inspired freedom in Eastern Europe. Spain inspired freedom in Latin America. Iraq will do the same to the Middle East.

    In 50 years, go look up Bush's name in a history book. He'll be right there with the likes of Churchill, Patton, Truman, and Reagan.
     
  4. 4USA
    Online

    4USA Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The Foolish, The Feckless and The Fanatic: Liberals and French Babble While U.S. Leads Battle Against Terrorism.


    About the Book:



    To order: Book can be ordered by going to ******* .com and clicking on the banner with the title or by phone: #-###-###-####- toll free.


    *edited by moderator*
     
  5. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    Friendly reminder :Rules on Posting

    8- Advertising-There is absolutely no advertising allowed! (Unless you want to pay for such advertising)

    Also stay on topic.
     
  6. 4USA
    Online

    4USA Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Freedom of speech should include references to material that is directly on point regarding Saddam Hussein and his ties to the terrorists. This is a key theme of the book, the Fopolish, the Feckless and The Fanatic. If it is advertising to point out how to obtain more details about this information, then I apologize.
     
  7. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    Rule number one: regards freedom of speech on this privately owned board.
    1- Freedom of Speech -"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    The above quote is directly from the first amendment. The USMB respects freedom of speech and allows for much more than what is demanded. We'll allow more than what is on other boards but there are limitations. Contrary to popular belief, freedom of speech DOES NOT give you the right to say anything you want anywhere you want. I will allow common sense to dictate the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive to the board.

    link

    4USA, your opinions and thoughts are very much welcomed here. I would like to hear about them. I believe you can contribute much more to the board than just posting talking points promoting a book.
     
  8. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    I believe the next fifty years will be some of the most dangerous years civilization will ever face.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    I just hope we have a civilization left to defend when the left is finished with its attack on the family, on law, and the constitution.
     
  10. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    So you're a Republican and you don't support Israel? How can't you? These people are subject to terrorist acts every single day. Israel must get out areas that aren't theirs and Palestine must crack down on Hamas.
     

Share This Page