heartsurgeon
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 4,260
- 0
- 0
i don't take the position, and i do not believe Bush has taken the position, that we went to into iraq for a single reason. i believe there werre multiple reasons, including the opinion that saddam had WMD, and that saddam was a supporter of terrorist activity (geez, i mean he was paying something like $25,000 to the family of any Palestinian who blew himself up in Israel..you don't think that's supporting terrorists), he was sheltering Abu Nidal, he had contacts with Bin Laden, he had lots of oil money, and a hatred of the U.S..He gassed the Kurds, he tried to assassinate Bush sr. He invaded Kuwait, he killed millions of iranians..Because I'm convinced that without the threat of WMD (real or false) we wouldn't have gone to war. Do you disagree?
i think lots of reasons where building up, and based on the best intelligence available, an abundance of caution in trying to protect americans from attacked in the U.S. again, Bush and co. decided after trying numerous diplomatic means to relieve saddam of his rule.
It was not "rushed into", this is a liberal canard..Saddam had years to comply
numerous liberal luminaries agreed that saddam was a serious threat
9/11 had happened.
are their WMD? i still suspect there are, i suspect they're in Syria, or buried, or in bunkers..maybe not a "critical mass" of such weapons, but you know, you only need to use one WMD in a highly populated area, and your going to get serious trouble.
What would we have done if we knew there were no WMD..i believe if there was absolutely no threat of WMD, Saddam could have been pushed out of power diplomatically years ago.