Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
If something like 9/11 was possible, then what could Hussein be capable of doing/funding/planning/ with the terrorist-types he sympathized with and funded?? This subsequently brought out the theory of 'pre-emptive warfare', or striking your enemy before he strikes you. A sound military principle.
|
I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam funded terrorists. I remember the CIA being desperate to try and prove it but the rest of the world not buying it. In fact, didn't Bin Laden supposedly approach Saddam to set up training camps in Iraq only for Saddam to ignore him?
Pre-emptive strikes may be a sound military principle in theory, but normally they are arranged when there is credible information that an attack is imminent, not when the supposed enemy is lounging by the pool, smoking an Havana and listening to Jazz FM. Otherwise what's to stop the US just bombing the crap out of the rest of the world "just in case"?
So far we've heard all the following "reasons" as to why the invasion of Iraq was necessary:
1. They had WMDs (no they didn't)
2. They violated UN resolutions (some of the US's allies have violated more, with the help and approval of the US)
3. They were run by an evil dictator (there are dictators just as evil as Saddam currently allowed to do whatever they want without even being so much as told off by the US)
4. They were going to attack the US (with what?)
The mere fact that we're being presented with more than the one originally used to justify the invasion shows to me that there are some people who were just desperate to have a war in the first place, regardless of reason or consequence. At best the "justifications" are hypocritical, at worst they are just lies.