Re: Saddam was not an imminent threat *LINK*

Create a Profile to post links to news items or comments.

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Posted By: Kirsty Gannon
Date: 3, June 04, at 11:43 p.m.

In Response To: Saddam was not an imminent threat *LINK* (wtnf)

When is everybody going to realise that the media thrives upon being controversial? It is not controversial to show foreign authorities in countries which tend to be dictated torturing and killing people for example. We have watched this for many decades on our televisions and for a much longer time we have been aware via papers. We have watched all the great dictators torture and kill their own people and others for many years. People in the media have been exposing this to us yet we have been very slow to interfere as we in the West ourselves are not forceful and not dictators and we do live by our own politics. We chose for many, many years not to force our ideal of democracy onto these countries, because by definition democracy cannot be forced.
Instead we have "talks" with people because that is how open and Christian we are on the whole. Our elected ambassadors have spent a great amount of time and money (the state ie we have spent much time and money) talking to these dictators for years. This does not work. It did not work with Sadaam. The UN ie the ambassadors for most of the world had tried talking to him. Still he would kill and torture his people, sell the baby food and other stuffs we the UN sent due to the poor standard of living most of his country was living in (while he and the "elite" would enjoy lifestyles within marble and gold dwellings), disallow weapons inspections etc. In fact he avoided all but one of the sanctions taken against him. The sanctions evolved through these "talks" after the Gulf War and to the very forgiving, very reasonable, very open UN the sanctions if agreed to would allow Sadaam and his organisations which upheld his law to exist without further trouble for everybody and the situation would have been maintained.
He carried on as before, ignoring the conditions he agreed to. He broke UN law on many counts. He made an alliance with Bin Laden publicly and turned Muslim (extremist) connecting him to many more extremist active terrorist groups. He continually hindered weapons inspectors. Please consider that this is a person who has already been at war with us before, is point blank refusing to comply with any UN sanctions and is unhelpful at best regarding weapons inspectors. Additionally he and his organisation are behind hanous acts of violence, torture and rape. I cannot believe that people are actually accusing our leaders of having alterier motives for removing his regime and putting in place a system of democracy for the people of Iraq, especially since Bush has declared that any monetary advantage we could have taken regarding oil will instead be an advantage given to the people of Iraq. In the interim period our troups are there.
We do not know the context the much publicised pictures of coallition forces were taken in. Who knows what these "victims" had done to our soldiers, or what they had information about? We have to trust the countries, governments and armies WE have put in place once they are there because we will always have controversy created or extracted by the media and will never know the full story at a glance. The full story requires research that most people do not have time for. It is quick and easy for them to trust our media. People say that nobody deserves to be killed or tortured or humilliated. I can only wonder what it looks like in a POW camp or an interrogation "unit" in places like Iraq. Iraq extremists severed the head of a westerner in response to the pictures of what some may call humilliation of Iraqis in our camps. This is a horrific example of why we cannot play by our rules with people who seem to have none. I would say this makes Sadaam and all like him a threat. A threat is a threat, regardless of the timescale.

Messages In This Thread

Saddam was not an imminent threat *LINK*
wtnf -- 23, August 03, at 11:00 p.m.

Re: Saddam was not an imminent threat *LINK*
Kirsty Gannon -- 3, June 04, at 11:43 p.m.

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

U.S.Crusade.com is a 100% non-profit Website.