Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico
Saddam Hussein proved he had weapons of mass destruction when he gassed thousands of his own people. Anyone who would be willing to use those types of weapons on his own people would not hesitate to use them on others. He admitted before his death that he tried to make it look to the rest of the world that he was up to no good in developing other ways of using WMDs, even though he wasn't. Hussein played a game with the rest of the world and his cost him his life.
|
Bro...most nations in the world have the ability to gas a significant number of people...that's no reason to lie to justify an invasion. Hey...we've got that ability many times over...what if Russia felt a preemptive attack on the US to protect her interests were justified? We can't go around invading every country that has gas or uses it...we'd have war without end and it would be the death of us. But here's the deal...a Middle Eastern nation with nukes...now that justifies military action to protect Israel and our economic interests in the region, like oil. That's why Bush led us to believe they already had nukes or were on the verge of having them in a couple months.
Strong sanctions were already causing Saddam's regime to teeter on the verge of collapse. The IAEA, the UN, and the CIA warned that they believed Saddam was bluffing in his rhetoric... seeing that his regime was a sinking ship. If you can remember that's why they were demanding more inspections to verify the charges Bush was making. It all wasn't adding up. The Administration made the case that more inspections weren't needed because Saddam wasn't complying anyway and pushed for the war. Hate to say it...but if the inspectors got in again...they may have proven the Administration's accusations regarding nuclear capability and projects to be exaggerated.
Here's what gets my goat...if McClellan is right...the IAEA and the United Nations was telling us more truth about Iraq than the Bush Administration.