Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: rchiu
Exactly, we should rephrase the question. How many people, both American and Iraqi, and how much money are you willing to sacrifice to invade a country that:
1. Does not have the military to threaten us in anyway
I wonder why this is...perhaps because they decided to invade their neighbors a few years back? At that time, didn't they have the 4th largest standing army in the world? How about Kosovo? Did you go around marching on Washington about that little threat? Oh, wait, that aspirin factory sure had "the military to threaten us." ...anyway.
So in your word, Iraqi does not threaten us.
2. Does not have the WMD that we fear so much
..and you know this how? Could you please provide me with a source of this unfounded proposition? Blix? NYT? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
American had 5 month to search the country and hasn't come up with even one oz. of chemical/biological weapon, not to mention tons and tons. I believe in facts and evidence and I don't speculate, can't say the same thing about you though.
3. Has done nothing to provoke us
..except shoot at our boys flying watch in the southern and southern no-fly-zones, right? Oh, and violated how many more lines of the cease-fire agreement?
Our boys also shoot 1,100 missiles at 359 target between beginning of 1999 and Aug of 1999. Conducted 6 air strikes in Sept of 2002 in preparation for the invasion even before UN concluded Iraqi was in violation of 1441.
Again, had Iraq done anything to the American interest other then protecting their turf?
And don't talk about cease-fire agreement signed by the UN when you can't abide by UN decision.
4. Has no proven link to the terrorist group responsible for 911
..but pays $25K to "belt-bombers" in Palestine and has terrorist training camps deep into Iraq. I know, I know, we should have waited until Saddam used the $1B+ is hard currency, reconstituted his military to pre-Gulf War levels, developed the means the deliver chemical agents to American soil, killed half the people in California, then we should have taken ex post action...
How is belt bomber related to 911? And show me one link saying that Hussein and Iraqi government supported those terrorist training camp, or was directly involved in those camp. If the government really supported the training camp, why were those camp in remote northern area and not in some big modern complex in downtown Baghdad.
And your last statement can easily applied to NK, China, Russia, France and any number of countries that doesn't kiss Bush's @ss like Blair. Anyone of those countries can or already have mass amount of WMD and in your theory can deliver it to the US and kill half of people in CA. What are you gonna do about them? Should American go kill all imaginary enemy out of fear?
Just answer the question, what had Iraq done to us that we had to kill thousands of them while losing hundreds of our boys and hundreds of billion of our money to invade them? Are we any safer today then 6 month ago? Is the world more peaceful today then 6 month ago? Where Iraqi better off today then 6 month ago? Before you start spewing your opinion, let me remind you with some facts. Bombing in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia targeting American and other Westerner. Bombing at UN mission in Iraq. Bombing in Iraqi mosque