A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Given the declassifed documents from the regime itself that are point towards terror links, the existence of WMD programs that were in breach of UN resolutions, renewed dealings with Niger to reactivate uranium procurement, the vast sums of ilicit money flowing to the regime from Oil for Food and the political situation before 2003 with the rise of the Saddam Fedayeen I don't see how it is wrong to defend the removal of Saddam.Irvine511 said:
continue to drink the Kool-Aid; the administration is nervous that no one else is anymore. it's much easier to regurgitate what the military and the administration tells you and quote misleading, out-of-context statistics.
STING, reality has bodyslammed you, continuously, on this issue. from WMDs to the danger SH presented to the wording of 1441 to Abu Ghraib to the reality on the ground to the strength of the insurgency to the brewing civil war.
but you're tenacity is commendable.
again: start another thread.
This administration is deficient, it has not been able to adequately enunciate the case for war and has failed to highlight what we know now, post-bellum, about the type of threat Saddam Hussein posed (it is not a simple, no-WMD stockpiles - no problem). Removing Saddam has removed a persistenct threat and has resulted in less people dying than if he was allowed to stay in power. It should have been done in 1991 sparing the world a decade of mass death and troops in SA.
Numbers of casualties in Iraq, attacks on coalition troops and civilians are important. Political developments in the country are also very important. It would be very true to say that when casualties are low with a downwards trend then it becomes more useful to focus on the delays in the political process to show a country on the very of all out Balkanisation.
Last edited: