Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You guys seem to ignore the fact that Iraq continually ignored UN mandates.
|
Did the UN invade?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
With that it seems you would have allowed him to re-establish his nuclear program (assuming he did not have one at the time we invaded). Once he re-established that proram would you have let him develop nuclear weapons?
|
He wasn't developing nuclear weapons. They discovered that Sadam had bought those infamous aluminum tubes and one unreliable CIA expert said they could only be made into a centerfuge for purifying uranium. The problem is that the real experts from the department of energy said that they weren't for enriching uranium. The "mushroom cloud" comment by Cheney was another layer of deciet.
Sadam did not have the means to develop nuclear weapons. There exists no information or reliable testimony that suggests that Sadam was actively seeking nuclear weapons after Desert Storm or that he had the means.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Would you let him attack his neighbors? would you let him control the Middle East? At what point would you use the military to stop his defiant activities?
|
We're not in the Middle East. The act of providing defence for Iraq's neighbors, such as arming them or posting troops, is a lot different than invasion. Sadam did not even have the means to control his own country, let alone the rest of the ME. His military power was diminished to almost nothing by 2003.