TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @KaminskiMed
@KaminskiMed - Naftali Kaminski
For friends in Israel & US who now support a US military action in Iran - a courtesy clip from Netanyahu’s testimony in US Congress, extolling benefits of toppling Saddam, advocating invading Iraq. We know how this ended Full testimony here https://youtu.be/RJcO53f3pz0?si=R1lP71EL6-_cHKW3 #FoolMeOnce https://t.co/wCww11cL2d
Video Transcript AI Summary
Removing Saddam Hussein would have enormous positive reverberations in the region, signaling to Iranians and others that such regimes are over and a new age is beginning. He notes that in 1986 he argued that terrorist regimes must be confronted, including by military force. In Afghanistan, expectations of a counterreaction proved unfounded; instead, many Arab and Muslim countries began to side with America. "The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism." He adds: "The three principles—the three w's: Winning, winning, and winning." The first Afghanistan victory makes the second in Iraq easier, and the second makes the third easier too, though it may change how that victory is achieved. He concludes that Iraq is a good and right choice, though he does not guarantee it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people and many others will say the time of such regimes of such chess bots is gone. There is a new age. Something new is happening.
Speaker 1: Has speculation on your part or you have some evidence to that effect?
Speaker 0: You know, was was asked the same question in 1986. I had written a book in which I had said that the way to deal with terrorist regimes well, with terror was to deal with the terrorist regimes. And the way to deal with the terrorist regimes among other things was to apply military force against them.
Speaker 1: Way we did it in Afghanistan.
Speaker 0: The way, for example, I want to answer your question
Speaker 1: I guess I'm running out of time, so I quickly was trying to get that we've done, I think, what you proposed in Afghanistan, yet I haven't seen that sort of neighborhood effect. Well, think there's been an enormous effect.
Speaker 0: The effect was we were told that there would be a contrary effect. First of all, people said that there would be tens of thousands of people streaming into Afghanistan, zealots who would be outraged by America's action, and this would produce a counter reaction in the Arab world.
Speaker 1: But I think you're not saying that when you take an action like we did in Afghanistan, we're gonna see all the other countries just fall.
Speaker 0: No. What we saw is something else. First of all, we saw everybody streaming out of Afghanistan. The second thing we saw is all the Arab countries and many Muslim countries trying to side with America, trying to make To be okay with America. The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism.
If I had to say, what are the three principles of winning the war on terror? It's like what are the three principles of real estate? The three l's. Location, location, location. The The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three w's.
Winning, winning, and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes the second victory in Iraq that much easier. The second victory in Iraq will make the third victory that much easier too but it may change the nature of achieving that victory. It may be possible to have implosions taking place.
I don't guarantee it, mister Terni, but I think it makes it more likely and therefore I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice. It's the right choice.