U.N. arms inspectors searching in Iraq discovered that Hussein was only a year away from posessing nuclear weapon technology. Since then, Hussein has continued with covert efforts to build a bomb, lacking only the enriched uranium needed as fuel.
Also, Hussein has remaining stockpiles of anthrax, sarin and mustard gas.
Also, as we're all worried about the United States violating a U.N. resolution, Hussein is building Scud missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers, which violates limits mandated by the U.N. after the Persian Gulf War.
He has both the weapons and the willingness to use them. In 1988, he used various nerve gases, including sarin and mustard gas on Kurdish inhabitants living in northern Iraq. Last I recalled, the attempted wholesale destruction of a people was called genocide. Slobodan Milosevic was convicted in 1999 for the same types of crimes. Why has Hussein been allowed to remain free?
And as to helping the Iraqi people? How much of the aid that would be sent would actually reach the majority of the population? Would any of it reach the Kurds, or the Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims that live in the country? Or would most of it be kept by Hussein and the Baath party? I agree that the Iraqi people need help, but I don't see how anything can be done if Saddam Hussein remains in power.
In 1993, Saddam attempted to assinate then-President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Iraq is also suspected of harboring two Palestinian terrorist groups, as well as placing a bounty on the families of suicide bombers, which he more than doubled this year.
Quote:
If Iraq were to fire missiles into Israel (biological/nuclear/or otherwise), I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel unilaterally unleashed its arsenal against Iraq in response. Israel has a history of striking back at foreign aggression with two or more times the initial force of its foe.
-Bill Gold
|
Umm, Bill? That's the easiest way I can think of to end a war. Beat the opponent into submission as quickly and completely as possible. You can help them rebuild afterward, when your people are safe. No military wants to get its troops killed.
Foto, Bill, Doanie8, et al., wysiswyg was making a semi-valid point. His methods may not have been very PC, but c'mon. There's a valid reason that Arabs are under added scrutiny on airplanes. One year ago last month, four planes were hijacked by
Arab terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. So while I feel bad for the innocent people who had and have nothing to do with terrorists, I would feel even worse were something like that to happen again. Earlier, Ian W. asked how an attempt to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into the U.S. was foiled if nothing happened. Of course nothing happened! The plot was foiled! The suspect was caught, and the bomb never made it to the country.
And Foto, you took Jim's post about the GI's completely out of context. He was replying to Bill's comment about an air strike being all that would be necessary. Unfortunately, an air force can only go so far. Like he said, any attack would only end with the use of ground forces.