Why Iraq is Taking So Long

Roger who blogs over at Scraps left a comment to my article Finding WMDs; Roger wrote, "Saddam was never a threat to the US and we let the real threats (Saudis, really) skate".

Roger, just a reminder: Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire (1) and so the 2003 invasion of Iraq is merely a continuation of the war that started in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait and was indeed a threat to our security interests there.

You may also not enjoy recalling the fact that Saddam was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Are not those hostile acts against the US?

Let's say, for the sake of argument that even Liberals can understand, that ten years after Japan signed the treaty of surrender, that they violated those terms, refused to allow us to inspect suspected military installations and even fired on our planes flying overhead, would any sane person say we had no right to return to a state of hostilities against Japan? Would any person be stupid enough, liberal enough, to complain that Japan posed no threat to us, that we should overlook their violation of the terms of surrender or their shooting at our planes?

And just so you know Roger, Nazi Germany never attacked the US and yet we invaded Germany. Was that an unjustified war?

As to the complaint that we let the Saudis skate: If the defeatocrats had supported the war we could have demanded the Saudis to stop funding terror or else. We could have told Iran to butt out of Iraq and to stop their nuclear program which they would not have even started but for the division back home caused by cowards like Murtha (may a non-Islamic god take care of him in Hell). With half the Congress thwarting our efforts against Islamic terror we were prevented from going after our other enemies.

I have no doubt that if we had had true patriots in Congress with full support behind our War in Iraq, the enemy would not have been so murderous in trying to make us leave; they would have been resigned to the fact that America would stay in Iraq until democracy prevailed as we stayed in Germany and Japan. If the enemy really thought that we had the will and resolve to stay for decades they would not have mustered the courage to fight; after all, they surrendered rather quickly when we first invaded, when they saw that resistance was futile. But once they learned that there were chickens in our Congress calling for early retreat, what else could they do but start fighting again?

I have lifted weights with dozens of friends over the years. I know for a fact that people will give up much sooner than their actual limit if they do not know what they are lifting. Ask anyone to lift a weight that is 5 pounds less than they can lift but do not tell them how much they are lifting and they will fail. That is to say, if a person has benched 250 pounds (his best effort to date) before and he is told that the weights in front of him are 245 pounds, he will be able to lift the weights. But tell him that it weighs 500 pounds, or something he thinks is beyond his ability, but to give it a try anyway, he will fail well before his limit, if he even bothers to try at all. A smart weight lifter will not even try to lift something well beyond his limits - that only leads to catastrophic injury. A smart weight lifter only increases his ability in small increments.

Encouraging Insurgents

Tell our enemy that their efforts are within reach, that within a few months they can make us leave, that we cannot take even a few casualties and we encourage their resistance. They will persevere in small increments. If they were convinced that we'd stay for a century, all the wind would have been taken out of their sails, if you'll permit that metaphor in a desert milieu.

But for yellow-bellied Democrats, we would have had the political will and the support of American citizens to smack down Iran without sending in a single troop. A few American planes over Tehran, without dropping a bomb, would have been enough for them to stop their nuclear program.

But for yellow-bellied Democrats we would have had the political will and the support of American citizens to demand that the Saudis stop the funding of terror organizations.

But it's hard to be resolute against our enemies when Liberals deny there is even any real threat from Muslims, that the War on Terror is just a figment of George Bush's imagination, or when liberal papers like the New York Times betray our national interests. If we are still so heavily invested with troops in Iraq, it is the fault of Democrats.

In the photo above, there appears to be no threat to human life; but only to the casual observer. Look closer and you will see that the appearance of harmlessness is an illusion, or if you are a liberal, a delusion. Saddam was such a snake in the desert who only appeared harmless to careless idiots.



TruthAboutIraq, Legality Of The Iraq War

The legality of the Iraq War is a matter both of international law and U.S. Constitutional Law.

From a legal perspective, it is also important to understand the 1991 cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States. Saddam Hussein clearly violated this cease-fire agreement, and thus the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be legally considered a continuation of the war that started in 1991.

### End of my article ###

Bloggers: For non-commercial use you may repost this article without asking permission - read how.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

View My Stats
qr code