Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
What is this, we can't settle for revisionist history, so now we're making it revisionist present? Or revisionist current events? Yes, he was an evil, crazy dictator. But the reason we went in there was because he was an evil, crazy dictator who could launch, sell to terrorists, etc WMDs to be used against the US. The administration made a mistake. You would categorize it as an honest mistake, but it was a mistake nonetheless. Please stop trying to spin it as something else.
|
I take it you mean the administration made the mistake of thinking Iraq had WMDs or something? I'd like to point out that it is not certain at all that Iraq had them, or did NOT have them. Only time will tell. It is becoming more and more apparent that Saddam was indeed hiding *something*, and has always been capable of building WMDs, even under UN sanctions.
I think the reasoning should be something like this: Saddam is known to be anti-US. He is *able* to build WMDs, and has done so in the past. He might pose a threat to the oil supplies, and thus the world economy. He also supports terror groups, and is a PR nightmare in Arab countries, where the UN sanctions are seen as evil and part of a larger US anti-Arab/anti-Muslim strategy. All these reasons pointed at one option: regime change. The US government just had to persuade the regular American Joe that his life might be in danger, and they could send in an army to solve the problem. The reason du jour was the WMDs, because Saddam was always obstructing UN anti-WMD inspections...