Quote:
Originally posted by Hwed
More of a threat than the United States? Clearly not, in hindsight. 
As you said, he had ties with Al Qaeda. Now that those ties are proven, they become "loose ties" as the liberals keep running the goal-posts down the field.
Would you rather wait for the mushroom cloud so we have something to point at? Either way, you'd have blamed Bush, if not for doing too much, for doing too little. As I said, the benefits of preemption aren't something you can't point at, because you're preventing something terrible, not responding to it.
|
I don't think that you can fairly estimate exactly what I would or wouldn't have blamed Bush for. Back to the matter at hand, there are many examples given by Colin Powell prior to 9-11 that claimed that Saddam was contained and not a threat:
Quote:
Pasted from: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0217-12.htm
“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies “have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.”
Saddam’s “forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago,” Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/p...y/me0222a.html
“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.”
Powell added that Iraq is “not threatening America.”
|
There are also quotes by George Tenet and Condaleeza Rice that downplay Saddam's threat...the tune changed, of course, after 9-11.
Quote:
As for WMDs, here's what we've found so far:
Biologics:
Brucella
Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever
Chemical:
Ricin
Sarin
Aflatoxin
Not to mention plans for nuclear weapons, attempts at buying nuclear materials, long-range missiles in violation of UN sanctions that clearly weren't working to begin with, except to line the pockets of corrupt Russian and French politicians.
Now if Saddam wasn't a threat, and had no intention of developing WMDs, why do you think he endured twelve years of harmful economic sanctions while sneaking around with all of the above?
|
Saddam was a secular thug, not a religous fanatic. His main interest was staying in power no matter the cost, and, as such, was a much greater threat to his own people than to any other nation. But don't take my word for it, just reread the Colin Powell quotes above.
If you are interested in what the real motive of the invasion was, simply read up on the Wolfowitz Doctrine. You may agree with Wolfowitz's reasons for invading Iraq, but they have nothing to do with the arguments that our government used to sell the war to us.