Quote:
|
But you missed the fact that they have found Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. They must have been used for paint ball games. Ya Think?
|
Do you have any evidence of this? No....thought not.
Quote:
|
You are way off the mark if you think Saddam just opened his doors for inspections.
|
Obviously Iraq was trying to be elusive for many many years. I do believe that the threat of war was crucial to getting inspectors back in. I think that President Bush was right to push hard. But to quote Hans Blix.
"In a broader sense, Blix writes that without the U.S. military buildup beginning in the fall of 2002, there would not have been a resumption of inspections. But, he suggests, had a moderate buildup of U.S. and British forces continued into 2003, and had inspections continued with no denials of access to sites or interviews with Iraqi technical people, "Iraq could have shown in time that there were no weapons of mass destruction." If that had not been shown by July 2003, Blix writes, "a majority of the Security Council might have been ready to authorize armed intervention."
Notice the word "continued". Under threat of war, Saddam was allowing unfettered inspections. It would be like the police catching a criminal. Yelling stop or I will shoot. Only under threat of being shot does the criminal stop. Then the cop shoots him anyway. The scenario is fine until compliance is achieved and the threat is still acted upon. War was not required with a legimate threat of war right outside his borders. Up until that the actual invasion, Bush's hard line was achieving what needed to be achieved. The war was not required after compliance was chieved however.
Quote:
|
It is amusing that intelligence is good now, but it was suppose to be good before and failed us. How do you assess the truth
|
It depends on the quality of the sources:
For instance read these tow articles:
[/url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=562588&storyID=3557617
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0119-01.htm[url]
The one that Bush quoted was extremely unreliable. The one Bush ignored was well known and all of his information was corroborated. But that information was ignored. Now after the war some information has shown what was claimed to be true, all WOMD were destroyed after the first Gulf War. The intelligence was not the fault, the selective interpretation was the problem.
Quote:
|
So what you are saying is, that stopping hundreds of thousands of deaths by Saddam is not as horrific as the loss (which is minuscule in numbers) that we have incurred since the US invasion.
|
Here we go with the revisionist justification. Do you really think that the Congress would have voted for war based upon the fact that he was a ruthless dictator alone. That is the only leg of the table left standing. But that is not enough in and of itself to justify war. Wasn't before the war and is only now to those who are desperately reachign for reasons. Yes, Saddams cruelty is well known, but do you honestly believe this is cause enough for war. I guess you then do believe that war is justified as a police action withthe US as the sole judge and jury. I don't.
Quote:
|
I see, so you are willing to believe Saddam, but not Bush.
|
Ther we go with more distortion and lies. Where did I quote Saddam or the Iraqi Government? I didn't even if you make the false claim.. But that is all you have..false claims. I quote only the UN and proven sources of FACTS. you have no facts to support your opinion.