Originally posted by: kidjan
I can't say I find this evidence all that compelling, to be honest.
Iraq had WMD's in the eighties, when we helped them develop them and aided their WMD's. They had them after the gulf war, but nobody was pushing to invade. Plenty of countries have WMD's - including several that are antagonistic and have long range delivery systems (IE: Pakistan,which arguably supports far more terrorism than Iraq, North korea, which has the potential to deliver a nuclear payload to numerous US bases and also the western united states, Russia, which can't seem to keep track of its nuclear weapons, China, which also has ICBM's and has shown itself to be antagonistic if pushed, and numerous other countries).
None of the terrorists from September 11th were Iraqi. None had any ties (well, REAL ties - the Bush Administration seems to think they do, but their logic is suspect), and most were Saudi. Which begs the question: why in the hell are we going after Iraq when most of the "terrorists" were from Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia arguably supplies MORE terrorism than Iraq also.
The entire logic smacks of stupidity. Going after Iraq is clearly just a ploy for something else (election? cover up for the economy? oil? Who knows. I don't care; all I know is I don't buy it) and the world won't be a safer place after we've bombed them that much closer to the stone age - to the contrary, it may be more dangerous.
I wonder if Donald Rumsfield enjoyed shaking Saddam's hand back in '84. 😀