Originally Posted by sane-one";p=&quot

Once again I'm actually trying to get my core ideas disproven. I'm going to go very slowly through them so please, once you've answered one, don't leave this thread as dead in your minds. I am merely asking questions and am in fact tired of argueing.

Quote:
For one, he has started a war in the middle east that has set us back nearly a trillion dollars and cost us countless lives, both soldiers and innocent civilians.

If these deaths and dollars were for a cause greater than money or life, wich most would instictually say that liberty is, would they not be justifiable?

I know that there's evidence that would suggest he lied but how can we truely be sure? What if he genuinely saw Iraq as a stepping stone towards getting to al Qauda? It's logical to believe that if you can turn a region hostile towards such an organization, that would limit that organization's "havens". I doubt Saddam did much to combat terrorism (by the way, I've yet to find someone who wants to disprove the whole $10k to terrorist families thing; if you can I beg of you to do so). I know the hilights of the tapes. I said that he told us terrorism was coming but not from him; he didn't seem too enthusiastic about helping us stop it though. You have to admitt that Saddam was not being very cooperative. He was known to have used WMDs in the past and the tapes even caught him admitting that he was untruthful to the US and the UN about weapons research. Even if no physical evidence had come up, it's forgiveable that Bush could assume he was lying. There's what you know and then there's you gut instinct. You shoul never rule EITHER out as insufficient.