Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
except that iraq had no connection to the war on terrorism....
iraq was a central agenda item for the project for a new american century folk from 1991--check out their letter to clinton from 1998--same rationale, point for point, for attacking iraq.
every inquiry has pointed out that there was no such link between hussein and "terrorism" as is presently defined.
if this is the case, then why do reasonable people continue to float this argument?
|
We can debate the links between Iraq and terrorism to no end but the simple fact is it doesn't matter.
Iraq was the prime example of the "worst" that could happen to states who stood in opposition to the UN and US. The net result? Saddam's lifestyle didn't change. His money didn't go away. His power remained virtually in tact. Even when invading and dissecting a sovereign neighbor Saddam ended up losing his military and control of his airspace. Hardly a significant price to pay given the potential gain he would have seen if the world allowed his invasion of Kuwait to stand. Hell he even tried to assassinate the first President Bush and he still enjoyed his many palaces and cars.
The fate of Hussein was the very worst that states who sponsored terrorism would face. Now that fate has changed. Now they are absolutely aware that the things these state leaders have worked for most of their adult lives, power and position, can be taken away without following the normal political channels that can drag on for decades.