Quote:
Originally Posted by Goat Blower
Well, if we'd have all known that beforehand, it would've made it much easier to make the decision. But we didn't, and a decision was made, sometimes you have to do that, popular or not. Had Iraq fired a missle our way at some point, we'd all be mad at Bush for not doing anything. Iraq definitely had a nuclear program, but even when that information is given to the American public, some democrats cry foul and have it removed stating the info could get into the wrong hands. Since we just took it out of the wrong hands, that's a weak argument in my book. More like bad timing for them as far as elections go. Hmmmm.
|
We did know about it. There were very few things presented as evidence of Iraqs weapons programs, including the aluminum tubes being imported and a supposed mobile chemical factory. Even if these things had been true they would not have added up to a solid justification for war. Interestingly it was shown (after the fact) that the evidence was absolutely bogus and this was known before the invasion. This is why the entire world was opposed to the invasion in the first place. They knew and we knew Iraq was not a threat. Unfotunately that is not the story the government told the american people.
Further more the United States has no right to complain about weak intelligence when we were the ones who forced a withdrawl of recently admitted weapons inspectors so we could attack. It went like this: Iraq stalls and keeps inspectors out. The UN and world governments get pissy and push for admittance. Iraq allows weapons and nuclear inspectors in. The US tells them to get out so it can attack.
Besides that, just because we don't have pictures of all the weapons with Saddam posing in front of it doesn't mean they weren't there. They had plenty of time to get rid of them before we came over and it's widely though that a lot of it was trucked into Syria. There's also been reports of high levels or serin and other toxic gases dumped into the rivers there, it wouldn't be hard to get rid of. I think it's just a matter of time before we find something big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goat Blower
I'll agree, Saddam obviously wasn't directly responsible for 9/11. Did he help Al Qaeda along the way? Very good possibility. Did he knowingly harbor and Al Qaeda, I can pretty much guarantee it. Just because you don't see it on the nightly news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you've been in the military during any conflict at all, you'd know that.
|
Again, there is no evidence supporting this. Saying there might be a possibility it happened is no justification for anything. In fact, there have been many more documented meetings with US officials and Al Quaeda officials than Iraqi and Al Quaeda. I'm not suggesting any US Al Quaeda connection, but pointing out the total lack evidence on that connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goat Blower
Point is, going in and killing the bad guy isn't cut and dry in this case. But along the way, we got rid of a murderous dictator and are restoring democracy to a country that's been in fear for decades. We're also building schools and giving freedom to people that are just realizing what it is. So even if we haven't gotten what we came for yet, we've left doing more for that country than all the "save the world" organizations combined could ever do. I feel good about that.
|
To some degree I agree with you. I don't think we are doing a whole lot of good in Iraq currently, nor do I think our actions come close to comparing with those of the thousands of aid organisations world wide, but we are in Iraq now. We are trying to do some decent things. I truly hope that we can do some good in the long run. Current trends suggest otherwise, but it's possible we may create a democratic country. It's possible we may help create an economically stable country. We've screwed up a lot with arrogant and unjustified actions. the least we can do now is work our asses off to leave the place better than it was when we went in.
As a side note, I think we would have been much more justified in aiding Kurdish rebels in 91. Whether or not it would have been good strategy I don't know, but at that point we had a decent reason to do it.