RebelKev Wrote:A threat to our country? Yes. Being responsible for 9/11? No. They paid terrorists, had a terrorist training camp, tried to assassinate HW Bush, and were a threat to the stability of a region vital to the world.
[b]Quote:Bush has stated over and over that Saddam and Al Quayder he calls them) were linked.
</b>
:lolup: Hey, I never said he was the most articulate person in the world. By the way, I have never heard him call them that, if anything he over-pronunciates Al Queda. There are FAR more words he says that he can be picked on about. What the hell is a Peninshula? Anyway, Merry Christmas.
A threat to the U.S.? You've got to be kidding me! How can a man with a weakened military be a threat to the mighty U.S. when we were watching his every move? We had our satellite cameras focused on his nation, we controlled the airspace of his nation, we had inspectors on the ground, etc, etc.
He was not a threat.
He possibly did threaten GHWBush's life. But that was not the reason GW Bush cited for justifying the war.
As far as Saddam being a threat to the region and the world, that is laughable. That region has never been stable and merely ousting one dictator and occupying his country will not bring stability to that region of the world, especially when we pick and choose which dictators have to go without any sort of even-handedness about it. If we think Saddam is bad, then by the same reasoning process, Sharon is bad, as are the Kuwaitis, the Saudis and the Syrians. All of these have one-party totalitarian systems in which the multitudes of their citizenry are rounded up and jailed for disagreeing with the respective regimes.
We just picked the weakest of the bunch and went after him to show Americans that we can kick butt in response to 9/11.
As far as Saddam paying terrorists and training them, that claim is spurious! Do you have any sort of evidence to back up that claim?
Assuming the claim is true, for the sake of argument, then we have to attack and occupy various other nations around the world--nations that have far more extensive terrorism ties and training facilities. I am thinking specifically of Saudi Arabia.
I have not been in favor of this war for primarily three reasons and they are as follows:
1. The president did not argue persuasively that this war was necessary.
2. After 9/11 the American people needed to feel better about themselves by watching our troops beat up on an obviously weaker nation.
3. Attacking nations without clear justification is bad policy and it will haunt us in unimaginable ways for the rest of this century.
There are other reasons why I did not and do not agree with this war but the top 3 reasons are the primary ones.
There was no need to respond to my quip about the way the president speaks. That was very unimportant considering the meat of my previous post. Happy Kwaanza!