Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Looks like were going to have to agree to disagree host. Iraq did, in fact, have WMD. This was not a secret. The entire world knew it. I'm too lazy to go look for the links right now, maybe you might want to? Its a matter of public record. We've been over this before here. He killed a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War, putting mustard gas, nx/sarin-derivative and blistering agent, among others, to widespread use. He used nerve gas on the Kurdish rebels in Halabja, Northern Iraq. But don't take my word for it, research the matter yourself.
|
1) chemical weapons are not WMD. i realize that they've been lumped into that catergory, but that's a pretty recent development. first of all, they don't destroy anything, and second of all, even under pristine conditions, you'll get more terror then death from them. remember the tokyo subway gas bomb? i think 11 people died when sarin was released into a subway station filled with hundreds of people. not very destructive.
2) his having chemical weapons in the 80's weren't the basis for the war. the basis was that he had be rebuilding his weapons programs since the gulf war, which has been proven to be false.
Quote:
|
We'll possibly never know for absolute certain if he did/did not have some type of connection to 9/11, but what is known undeniably is that he had a pathological hatred of the US, he provided sanctuary to known terrorists, he personally sponsored Palestinean terrorism in Israel, he had hostile relations with every single neighboring country in the region (invading one of them) and led his country to economic ruin, a la Kim Jung-Il of N. Korea. He was an international pariah.
|
you're right, we'll never know for 100% sure. but so far 99% of the evidence seems to suggest that he had no relations with al queda. and while that 1% chance means it was still possible, the other 99% is pretty damning to the point that he wasn't in cahoots with them.
Quote:
|
I really don't care what further evidence this Administration or any other subsequent Administration can or cannot bring to bear to justify action against Saddam Hussein. His public record makes the case for itself as far as I'm concerned. It takes very little imagination to conceive of the type of damage this guy could have done by arming terrorists as hostile to the West as he was.
|
so basically, you're saying that you don't care about why we went to war, you just like us being at war. cause the reasons don't seem to matter to you. i guess being blindly partisan is nice and comforting... makes you all warm and fuzzy inside...
possibly surprising, i would have been for the war if they'd just said "he's a bad man, he's got oil, and he tried to kill my dad, and he's violating sanctions that were part of the cease-fire agreement." but he didn't, he decided to create a pink unicorn to get the poeple to believe in...