People also say to me that this war "isn't right." It's not "moral." What
the hell is this supposed to mean? No, we haven't been attacked by Saddam
effectively yet. Nonetheless he has shown himself to be our very determined
enemy. This is a man who has allied himself with Osama and the Islamic
fundamentalists who threaten the world, a man who has tried to assassinate our
president, who tortures his own people, who owns a motherfucking acid pool in
his own mansion, in which he slowly dips his political prisoners, as their
families watch and scream! No, I don't think we will respect him. Morals?
He gave up the right to preach to us about a moral war when he invaded and
looted Kuwait. He donates 10,000 dollars for every suicide bomber in Israel,
yes, is this is the man you wish to defend? Choose your friends wisely
Europe! This man does have the mandate of the people, he is a tyrant--and an
aggressive, dangerous one at that. He WILL not be allowed to threaten our
safety. One final option is open to peace, that of weapons inspections.
There is serious problem with this. We cannot keep inspectors in Iraq
forever. Eventually they will have to leave. Furthermore, they are not truly
effective. They will not prevent Saddam from developing his weapons, and
present only a momentary annoyance for him. Eventually, he will be able to
turn back to his laboratories. The eyes of the world can only rest on him for
so long, the attention span of nations is brief. Do we want to give this man
another chance at destroying our peace and safety? No.