The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>There was much hope in that prewar period, as Bush >snarled and bluffed and bullied us into war. There was >the lovely leaven of the I'm afraid the critics of US policy don't appreciate the solid logic behind going to war. It isn't that we knew there were weapons or terrorists there, but that ther MIGHT have been, and we couldn't take the chance. The Presidents first duty is to protect the US, and we couldn't take ANY chances that Iraq might be a threat -- indeed since it was theoretically possible they had weapons or terrorist connections, they WERE a threat, by definition. A threat doesn't mean some bad WILL happen, but that it MIGHT happen. As Bush said, Iraq can not now threaten us with WMDs -- even if they never did, at least we now KNOW they can't use any on us. This is also why the new defense policy says that no other country can even be allowed to become militarily significant in comparison to the US. If we destroy any country that even begins to get close, then we will never be threatened militarily. It doesn't matter if we destroy other nations and kill thousands or millions of people. A nation, like the US must protect itself and it's interests above all other concerns. This is the reason why we had to take out Saddam's sons: they MIGHT have caused more trouble -- and there is no reason to take any chances. It's a good thing the 14 year old grandson was killed too -- he MIGHT have become a threat in the future. All of Saddam's relatives should be killed because any of them might be looked to for leadership by the bad guys. We also need to eliminate any possible threat from the supporters of Saddam, the Ba'ath party, or their friends or families. All of them must be executed to reduce the threat they might pose. Why take any chances? That will leave the Sunis, of course, and after them the Shiites, who all have radical members and often oppose democracy and liberty. No point in leaving them around -- who knows what they might try in the future. They might even think about planning a chemical weapons program. Better to take them out now before there is any chance of them making trouble. That will leave the Iraqi Christians alive, which sounds like it might be OK, but you never know -- they aren't regular Christians like in the US, and the bishop there has been saying bad things about the US, and who knows --- better get rid of them too. Anyone left there are still Iraqis though, and maybe they will be angry after we neutralize all the other Iraqis, so we might as well just make a clean sweep of them all. It would be irresponsible to leave anyone there who might sometime threaten the US, other nations in the region, or liberty and democracy in Iraq itself. But then who will run Iraq, you ask? No problem. True, we would need someone familiar with the area, who could take on the awesome responsibility of maintaining a democracy with such hostile tyrannical neighbors -- and knowing how to tame the desert too. We also need inhabitants who will be friendly to the US, and protect out security and interests. But no problem -- we have the perfect solution -- the final solution -- give Iraq to the Israelis! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk