Originally Posted By mrichmondj Saddam didn't offer his weapons willingly -- so we went after them the forceful way! Oh, wait, we didn't turn up any weapons that way either.
Originally Posted By woody Iraq's invasion was never solely about WMDs. Iran still doesn't have any, but they have a strong intention to make nuclear weapons. Saddam had that intention too, but he was waiting for economic sanctions to be lifted and when US resolve dissipates to put his plan into place. There is no easy solution in the middle east except for one thing... they are fanatical killers and they won't stop trying.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< Iraq's invasion was never solely about WMDs. >>>> Then why all the theatrics with the WMD slide show at the UN? What else did we talk about there -- the future profits of Halliburton once Iraq is under U.S. control?
Originally Posted By woody Keep your eye on the ball... like the argument. Stop your conspiracy theories about Haliburton. Give this a rest. The threatrics of Colin Powell's slide show was unfortunate, but necessary. WMDs was still the strongest component of the war argument, although I thought the violation of the UN sanctions was enough along with the horrible human rights violations, and the previous use of chemical and biological weapons against its population and against Iran in the the Iran-Iraq War. Then again, the conspiracy theories are quite comical. Haliburton may be the American company that will manage the 6 American ports that the UAE company abandons. You can thank the conspiracy of the Democratic Party with Hillary Clinton triangulating against Bill Clinton. What a tag team!!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Every since Gulf I, there have been people making those claims -- notably the group that was not happy when we didn't oust Saddam the first time and make a land grab for their oil buddies.> But also prominent Democrats, including members of the Clinton Administration. <Funny how evidence to support those claims never really appeared until the presentation before the U.N. security council in 2003. And what was that evidence? -- a bunch of satellite photos that left a whole lot to interpretation.> The evidence to support those claims appeared throughout the 90's, and were used by the Clinton Administration to justify missile attacks on Iraq. And that evidence was more than just satellite photos - it also included eyewitness accounts from defectors, some of which led to the discovery of violations of the UN resolutions by Saddam. <Based on all the war justifications on Iraq, we have about 10 times the justification to go to war in Iran.> Not really. Iran doesn't have a decade long history of violating UN resolutions like Iraq had. <Why aren't we being pre-emptive with that regime?> We've been pushing the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Counsel. Wouldn't you prefer that we try to use diplomacy before force?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Then why all the theatrics with the WMD slide show at the UN? What else did we talk about there -- the future profits of Halliburton once Iraq is under U.S. control?> We talked about Saddam's support of terrorism. And our intel regarding that turned out pretty well.
