Want Some Answers ???

Index
Home


Nothing restrained Saddam Hussein from his pursuit of weapons that would kill millions -- no economic sanctions, or isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. The Second Gulf War directly related to the failure to remove him. The end result of the Western crack-pot loony left, is not democracy but brutal dictators. Make no mistake, this murderous killer would still be in power today, if the liberal left of the Western world had their way.

The UN Security Council gave Saddam Hussein many chances to disarm. He showed utter contempt for the UN and the opinion of the world. The 108 UN inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials. But to verify Iraq had an explanation, refutation of claims or was disarming. It was up to Iraq to silence any concerns about banned weapons and satisfactory show there were none, or destroy them as directed. Nothing like that happened.

The UN in 1999 concluded Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He didn't account for that material or argue it didn't exist.

The UN concluded Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He didn't account for that material or suggest it didn't exist.

US intelligence officials estimated Saddam Hussein could easily produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. He made no refutation of this or denial. What about "the chemical weapons factory 35 miles northwest of Baghdad"? There "the Muthanna State Establishment made nerve agents in the 80s and 90s". Recently the UN refer to "2,500 rusting rockets containing deadly Sarin". (Not to mention the "180 tons of sodium cyanide"). It was bombed in the 1991 War but not destroyed. Also revealed recently that "the US found 5,000 chemical weapons in Iraq" ("following the 2003 invasion"). Even in 2004-11 "hidden caches of warheads" were still been found. Yet our news media (TV.1, TV.3 Herald Newspaper) for years and years, told us over and over, in every news report, the lie there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.

US intelligence indicated upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. On one occasion inspectors turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's declaration denying their existence.

From Iraqi defectors in the late 1990s it was stated Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs designed to produce germ warfare agents, moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. If true or false, Saddam Hussein did not deny these facilities or indicated they were destroyed.

The International Atomic Energy Agency stated in the 1990s Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a desire for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government learnt that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. US intelligence sources discovered Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for nuclear weapon production. Saddam Hussein did not credibly explain these activities but hid information about them.

The dictator of Iraq was not refuting, denying or disarming. To the contrary; he was deceiving. US intelligence sources knew of thousands of Iraqi security personnel who were at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompanied the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq was blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the UN. Iraqi intelligence officers were posing as the scientists that inspectors were supposed to interview. Real scientists had been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicated Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with UN inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein went to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, took great risks to seek weapons of mass destruction. The only possible explanation was to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With such weapons Saddam Hussein could fulfill his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East creating havoc in that region. Before 9/11 US intelligence sources knew of secret communications and statements by people (now in custody) which revealed Saddam Hussein aided and protected terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. So secretly he could easily provide weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before 9/11 many believed Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Terrorists and tyrants do not announce their intentions before they strike. Trusting the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein could never be a strategy or option, or all actions, words, and recriminations come too late.

Saddam Hussein used the world's most dangerous weapons on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees revealed how forced confessions were obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

How Does New Zealand's Fit In All This?

The New Zealand government cared nothing about the oppressed people of Iraq or the real enemy ruling their country. Nor did they care if his regime retained power. While the US waited 12 years for Iraq to account, declare, refute or disarm. Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world did NOT worry the New Zealand Labour Party or the Green Party. They did not accept there was any serious mounting threat. They made no protest to the UN, or cared about the danger facing friends and allies of New Zealand. Russia objected to Saddam's removal (their historical record is disgraceful). France also strongly objected, France has had a history of supporting dictatorships throughout Africa and ignoring human rights.

I applaud America's effort (laying down their lives for the freedom of others and at cost to themselves) by removing Saddam Hussein. What an impressive goal to restore and rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people! The US military remains the worlds largest and most effective mercy agency. Today 28 million Iraqis live in freedom. Who do we thank? Certainly not the critical news media of our country (nor Islam). They kept quiet about about the reality of the situation and criticized what they called "Bush" and his "illegal war". Their never-ending list of armchair critics over emphasized an 'oil war' and "WMD's". Instead US troops found massive grave yards (over 200).

The coalition toppled a dictator who invaded countries, funded TERRORISM (paying families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis) and would use innocent foreign citizens as human shields to hide behind. But Hussein did have chemical and biological weapons and used them against Iran. Millions died in that war. He also killed almost 200,000 Kurds (2 million fled their homes from his armies) and killed "100 thousand Shiite's in the South". He even personally killed political opponents. He wanted nuclear weapons but Israel bombed his endeavour in 1980. His personal doctor (Ala Bashir) described him as "cruel... no sense of love... believed in cultic powers... violent". He was one of the most profound killers of history, his removal was imperative.

To spare himself, he agreed to disarm WMD's. Yet for 12 years, as a threat to peace, he systematically violated that agreement pursuing intercontinental missiles. And he offered no evidence chemical or biological weapons were removed. The inspectors in his country were delayed and hindered. While camera's were illegal for Iraqis and men forced into the military.

Iraqi leaders admitted 3.9 tons of VX poison gas in an undisclosed location. The "Iraq Survey Group" although hindered and opposed did find "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under UN Security Council resolutions. And claimed "a clandestine network of chemical and biological weapons programs". After the invasion US troops did find tons of explosives, guns, gasmasks and ammunition. And chemicals 'camouflaged in military bunkers 6 feet under ground' that could be used to produce weapons. Oh, but they 'could be used' for agricultural purposes too, so our loony left News Media ignored that. After the invasion 'Iraqi people' uncovered mass-graveyards of bodies, clothes, children's bones, and thousands of pictures of people tortured to death. Iraqis claim "millions" were executed and some graveyards will never be discovered. At his trial Hussein admitted, "Iraq is full of mass graveyards". These were KEPT SECRET in NEW ZEALAND by our MEDIA. For years and years, over and over, in every news report, they told us the lie there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. Why the cover up?

The UN claim their Resolutions are "legally binding", but Saddam ignored them. Yet our News Media and MP's criticized the Iraqi liberation as Bush's "illegal war". So which war was ever 'legal'? Apparently dictators can legally kill truck loads of people? Was gassing Kurd's, torture chambers, death squads, kidnapping children, invading Kuwait, ignoring UN Resolutions all "legal"? Was a nuclear Hussein unimportant? For years our media and government called it "the war". A silly title from silly people who have never known a real war. An ideological tag of convenience insulting soldiers of WW1 & 2. Saddam and his sons were WMD's and would be still in power today killing their enemies (with nuclear weapons and long range missiles) if our New Zealand News Media and Politicians had their way!!

Month after month Helen Clark (PM), the Labour and Green Party, "Radio New Zealand National" (Labour Radio) and New Zealand Herald (loony left newspaper) criticized "Bush" and the US but ignored reality. So are guilty of dissectible ignorance and anti-Americanism. In Baghdad one could walk in off the street, sit down and watch 'enemies' of the state get tortured. Our Media cared nothing about "torture" until Guantanamo Bay became their fixation. Our GOVERNMENT didn't lift a finger to help Iraqis.

Traditionally the woolly-left wouldn't endanger their lives for anyone. But if the New Zealand government was really serious about "the war", why didn't they break off diplomatic relations with Australia in protest? No, in hypocrisy they past a motion unanimously for the freedom of the Iranian people (23/6/09) they never past for Iraqi people. And were real nosy about Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi yet silent about Saddam Hussein. They are a shame and disgrace.

It was priceless to see Blair, Bush and Howard resolute and united. But a disgrace Helen Clark insulted President Bush refusing to apologize (just expressed regret). Imagine if Bush was successful and democratic movements spring to life throughout the region?

No one wanted war when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland (but he could have been stopped in 1936). And stopped in 1938 after marching into Austria and in 1939 when invading Poland. After the war, German Generals insisted Hitler could have been stopped then, 'with a few weeks of sudden and sustained aggression'. But no! Not until May 1940 after the Germans broke through the Ardenne was war fully realized (too late). If a dictator loves big armies, is a murderer and invades other countries, do nothing and learn a painful lesson.

The nameless New Zealand Herald Editor revealed their ignorance by condemning the US over Hussein's execution. I was amazed he didn't support Gaddafi during the Libyan uprising. Our loony left News Media are anti-American, anti-Israel... anti-Christian... anti-Bush... anti-smacking. And pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-alcohol, gambling, prostitution, Obama, Islam and feminism. These they push and promote.

They were were STILL angry (even late as 2010) with the coalition against terrorism broadcasting one-sided news reports. Apparently for them, this was the longest "war" in history, but now officially over. Yes not until 2009 our media finally stopped using the title 'The War in Iraq'. So where were you when the 'war ended'? Our News Media cared nothing for the death of US soldiers, but toward terrorism displayed a 'non-judgmental' almost devilish attitude. Even telling terrorist how to win wars. Bush was the best President since Lincoln, Blair since Churchill, but Helen Clark was the worst Prime Minister in living history.

With Bush no other since Lincoln has talked so much about God as he. No other so boldly, publicly an genuinely lived out his faith on the job. The enormous responsibility drove him to his knees in prayer and supplication. BBC Justin Webb. "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. Its not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles."


Intro
Home