Quote:
Originally Posted by solpadeine";p="
OK, I'm not gonna try to defend an argument that Iraq has no ties to terror. I'm sure there are ties. But, given that criteria for invading another sovereign nation, shouldn't we have gone into Saudi Arabia first? I see a hell of a lot more ties to the Saudis and terror. What gives? Are they really working so much more with us than Iraq was?
|
The Bush family has quite some profitable connects with the Saudi royal family. It's only due to American support that the royal family is still in power. As long it remains favorable for America to support the oppressive Saudi government it will stay in power. The same applies to Musharraf's Pakistan.
Really, the arguments justifying the invasion of Iraq are becoming more and more loose as they examined closer. Sure, I'm 99% sure Saddam still had WMDs at the time of the first threats, but he played his politics well, unlike Bush. Bush seemed way too much to be rushing towards Iraq, bypassing proper procedures, loosing much support. But oddest of all, half way through the campaign the war suddenly turns into liberating the Iraqis and not the WMDs.
WMDs? We're not here for them. We're here to liberate the Iraqis and help "them" establish their own pro-US democracy.
...
For the record, I agree Saddam had to go, but the procedure for the war was completely wrong.