Kerry's World with Saddam
John Kerry claims that he wouldn't have rushed to war, that he would have given time for inspectors to discover that there were no weapon of mass destruction stockpiles. It makes one wonder what a world with Saddam still running Iraq might look like a few years down the road.
Saddam had 12 years to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. I believe we can safely say that Saddam demonstrated utter contempt for rule of law. Would Kerry allow rouge nations to pick and choose the treaties that they intend to follow?
The Iraqi Survey Group appears ready to issue a report stating that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. However they also have stated that Saddam had set up dual use facilities and programs that could easily be re-statrted shortly after inspectors withdrew and sanctions were lifted. France and Russia both demonstrated that they were willing to do business with Saddam's rouge state. What assurances would we have that Saddam wouldn't re-arm minutes after the last inspector left Iraq?
The Kurds had established autonomous areas under a US no-fly zone. Southern Iraqi Shia were protected from Saddam's worst excesses by a US no-fly zone. Would a Kerry Presidency have continued to provide protection for Kurds and Shia indefinitely?
Saddam appears to have murdered perhaps 100,000 Iraqis and tortured many more. His sons seemed to consider Iraqis personal toys to rape, torture and murder for amusement. Was Kerry willing to allow the torture and murder of Iraqis to continue unabated as long as Iraq was contained?
Saddam financed terror against Israeli civilians through his $25,000 per suicide bomber family program. The terror prevented any possibility of a peace settlement between Palestinians and Israel. Would Kerry overlook this support for terror?
Saddam made an attempt on the life of President Bush and was reported to have wanted to kill President Clinton. Would Kerry have ignored these assasination attempts and instead wait until a former President was murdered before seeking an indictment?
Kerry seems to be willing to ignore treaties, weapons proliferation, crimes against humanity, terrorism and even assasination attempts on the leaders of nations if he can maintain a tyrant in a stable thugocracy. What would it take to rouse Kerry to action? An Iraqi marked fighter-bomber attacking the Tides Foundation building?
Kerry's world with Saddam would be a dangerous world where terrorists could count on the Butcherer of Baghdad for help and sustenance while innocent Iraqis are tortured and murdered to amuse his monstrous sons. Israelis, former Presidents and Americans in general would be under daily threat of murder and the world would be under threat of destruction by the world's most dangerous weapons. Most importantly, the jihadists would have hope in a world where Kerry demonstrates that nothing would rouse him to use military force. Kerry's world with Saddam would have been a world in decline, racing towards the new Dark Age that jihadists seek to impose.
Saddam had 12 years to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. I believe we can safely say that Saddam demonstrated utter contempt for rule of law. Would Kerry allow rouge nations to pick and choose the treaties that they intend to follow?
The Iraqi Survey Group appears ready to issue a report stating that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. However they also have stated that Saddam had set up dual use facilities and programs that could easily be re-statrted shortly after inspectors withdrew and sanctions were lifted. France and Russia both demonstrated that they were willing to do business with Saddam's rouge state. What assurances would we have that Saddam wouldn't re-arm minutes after the last inspector left Iraq?
The Kurds had established autonomous areas under a US no-fly zone. Southern Iraqi Shia were protected from Saddam's worst excesses by a US no-fly zone. Would a Kerry Presidency have continued to provide protection for Kurds and Shia indefinitely?
Saddam appears to have murdered perhaps 100,000 Iraqis and tortured many more. His sons seemed to consider Iraqis personal toys to rape, torture and murder for amusement. Was Kerry willing to allow the torture and murder of Iraqis to continue unabated as long as Iraq was contained?
Saddam financed terror against Israeli civilians through his $25,000 per suicide bomber family program. The terror prevented any possibility of a peace settlement between Palestinians and Israel. Would Kerry overlook this support for terror?
Saddam made an attempt on the life of President Bush and was reported to have wanted to kill President Clinton. Would Kerry have ignored these assasination attempts and instead wait until a former President was murdered before seeking an indictment?
Kerry seems to be willing to ignore treaties, weapons proliferation, crimes against humanity, terrorism and even assasination attempts on the leaders of nations if he can maintain a tyrant in a stable thugocracy. What would it take to rouse Kerry to action? An Iraqi marked fighter-bomber attacking the Tides Foundation building?
Kerry's world with Saddam would be a dangerous world where terrorists could count on the Butcherer of Baghdad for help and sustenance while innocent Iraqis are tortured and murdered to amuse his monstrous sons. Israelis, former Presidents and Americans in general would be under daily threat of murder and the world would be under threat of destruction by the world's most dangerous weapons. Most importantly, the jihadists would have hope in a world where Kerry demonstrates that nothing would rouse him to use military force. Kerry's world with Saddam would have been a world in decline, racing towards the new Dark Age that jihadists seek to impose.
posted by lugh lampfhota at 1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home