Sunday, September 18

Why We Fight In Iraq

Between 1975 and 1990, Saddam Hussein spent $65 billion on military arms; he was one of the largest purchasers of arms in the world. His ultimate dream was to possess nuclear bombs; he fervently was pursuing this dream.

In 1980 Saddam Hussein attacked Iran which began a bloody war that lasted eight years and cost about a million lives. In 1988 he dumped poison gas on his own dissident people, resulting in the deaths of about 100,000 mostly civilian Kurds. In 1990 Hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation.

Having attacked his neighbors to the east, then his neighbors to the south, no doubt soon he would have attacked his rich, weak neighbors to the west. Then with Saddam in possession of the oil of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, he would control over 70% of the world’s oil. He easily would become the richest man on earth. He could dictate world oil prices; triple, quadruple the price and we still would have to pay. While this evil dictator was enriching himself and building weapons of mass destruction, the rest of the world would plunge into desperate economic depression and collapse into third world nation status, or be consumed in thermo-nuclear fire if we dared to resist.

This is what conservatives dare to call a “threat to our national security”. Apparently liberals do not believe or feel threatened by this scenario. They see no parallel between Saddam’s sinister plans and the ambitions of another Jew-hater named Hitler. They feel that we should have appeased Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, like Chamberlain appeased Hitler after his invasion of Poland in WWII. Inexplicably, berserk Berkeley denizens and other brain-damaged liberals, who project their own racism everywhere, think we stopped Saddam because of his skin color.

Did we really invade Iraq to enrich Halliburton? How utterly stupid does someone have to be to display, or wink at people who display, signs proclaiming “End War and Racism” and “No Blood For Oil”? To say that the the war in Iraq is just about oil is a grossly misleading half-truth similar to saying that because the sun and the ocean are both made of hydrogen, they are both about the same thing. Where is all the oil we have stolen from Iraq? Why are gas prices sky-high? Why is the "no blood for oil" gang the first to scream about high gasoline prices or advocate additional gasoline taxes? The simple truth is that we didn't invade Iraq to steal oil. We invaded to stop Saddam from stealing his neighbors' oil, controlling global economics, ruling Iraq and the rest of the Middle East with a bloody fist, supporting terrorists, and yes, building weapons of mass destruction.

Those, who doubt that Saddam had intentions of building nuclear bombs, may benefit from reading The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda by Khidhir Hamza, Saddam's Bomb maker who escaped to the west in 1994. Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's reactor in Baghdad in a daring air raid in June 1981, as liberals screamed about the injustice. Liberals probably believe that this nuclear reactor was to be used for peaceful purposes--like generating power for a country sitting on top of a veritable ocean of petroleum.

Iraq has long been a dark den seething with vicious terrorist snakes. One such terrorist found in Iraq was Abu Abbas, who had been living there under Iraqi protection since 2002. Abbas was the mastermind behind the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achilles Lauro in the Mediterranean. During that terrorist attack, Abbas’s men shot Leon Klinghoffer, a retired 69-year old American, in cold blood before rolling him in his wheelchair into the sea. At that time Abbas held an Iraqi diplomatic passport.

Another vicious Iraqi terrorist was Ramzi Yousef, the Iraqi architect of the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing which killed six persons and wounded 1,042 others, who entered America on an Iraqi passport. Another example is Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals in that WTC bombing, who fled to Baghdad after the attack and lived there for years afterwards. Saddam gave Yasin both a house in Iraq and a salary. How can any honest, informed person maintain that Iraq had nothing to do with the spread of terror?

Apparently some liberals are so blinded by their ideology that they actually believe Iraqis were better off living under the boot of Saddam. They care little about the future of people like Nahle Sabet, once a pretty architecture student from a respected Christian family. But that was before she was abducted, raped, tortured, and finally served as live food for Uday Hussein’s vicious, starving dogs. Imagine being raped and tortured for weeks, then screaming in agony as two massive canines ravenously tear the flesh off your bones, while a bunch of sick sadists watch and howl with laughter, delighted at the blood-fest. Uday was next in line to be dictator of Iraq.

Today in Iraq, Saddam's long, dark reign of terror, rape and murder is over. Thousands of people will live, who would have died under Saddam. Bombings of Muslims by other Muslims have not ceased, but the future belongs to the millions throughout the Middle East who eventually will breathe the sweet air of freedom and justice.

Regardless of how anyone initially felt about the wisdom of our invading Iraq, can a person with noble intentions root for the disastrous consequences following a humiliating defeat for the U.S. in the Middle East? Can a person who sincerely cares about the Iraqi people advocate their abandonment to the insurgent wolves who will murder thousands following the premature extraction of American and British troops (as advocated by that paragon of integrity, Teddy Kennedy, right before the first Iraqi election)?

Do you liberals think the danger is over for Western civilization? Do you think islamists would hesitate to use nuclear weapons on the Great Satan (you and me) just as soon as Russia or the France or the Iran or North Korea sells them the technology in exchange for petro dollars? Will you liberals change your mind after they incinerate an American city or two, or will you blame the victims again like Ward Churchill did? Maybe you won't because next time you'll be the victims.

Liberals wring their hands over the small number of accidental Iraqi civilian deaths, smooch repulsive traitors like Ward Churchill while wearing roosting chicken hats, giggle at Bill Maher jokes and lap up lies from Michael Moore “documentaries”. Real Americans enthusiastically cheer the protection of freedom and spread of democracy throughout the world, courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue. Oorah.

(photo courtesy of Clemson University)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by