Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Other reasons were given as well.
|
Two were given: WMDs and a link to al Qaeda. Not only have those proven to be faulty, but it is clear now that evidence that went against those two ascertions was ignored by the administration.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In war, conditions change. We are in war with an enemy that adapts to changing conditions they develop plans and strategies just as we do. We have unrealistic expectaions involving wars today.
|
Conditions change, but Saddam didn't go back in time and destroy his weapons or disable his links with the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Those simply were false ascertions made by our gallary of ignorance better known as the Buhs administration.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The Germans had nothing to do with Peril Harbor. We declared war on Germany and Japan. The two were linked. Sadaam and Al Qaida had a common enemy, it was us.
|
Germany attacked our allies and was a clear and immediate threat to us. The same cannot be said of Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
it will end when we win.
|
This is exactly the point. If we can't win, this will never end.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No civilian casualties due to terrorists attacks in our borders.
|
Which is like saying that we are winning the war against the martians becuase they havn't attacked. We were never in any danger.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If you disagree on strategy that is one thing, but I am not sure you agree with the threat to our freedom. If that is true why are you concerned about North Korea, etc, etc.
|
Odd language. They aren't a threat to our safety, they are a threat to our "freedom"? Are they carving up the BOR? Are they getting wire taps without warrents? Are they suspending Habius Corupus?
"Terrorists" are not a threat to our freedom. They *might* be a threat to our safety becuase they have been galvanized together becuase the US attacked Iraq without provocation, but they are certinally not a threat to our freedom.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I understand the confusion but the two are seperate issues. If 9/11 never happened and there were no Islamic extremist wanting to kill us, Sadaam would have still been a problem. At some point there would have been a confrontation. I am relived it happened when he was in a weakened state with no weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons, aren't you? Don't you agree, that Sadaam was a problem, that he wanted to re-build his military, that he wanted to control the Middle East and cause great harm to the US?
|
Saddam wasn't a problem, though, and that's clear as crystal now. He had no links to any terrorist organization, and he had no real weapons. As was made clear by the Shock and Awe massacre, we would wipe the floor with him and get almost no collateral damage in he process. Saddam was losing control of his country, he was starting to go broke, he had lost most of his allies, and revolution was on the horizon. Saddam wanted to rebuild his military, but he didn't have the means.
Saddam was no threat to us. He was even losing his power in his own country.