Saddam Hussian used chemical weapons in a limited way against Iranian troops in the Iran/Iraq war from 1980-1988. Just wanted to make that clear.
When it comes to intelligence on what Iraq may or may not be doing, the USA has by far the best intelligence. The invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam is to prevent the possible linkage with a terrorist organization in the future. This should be done to prevent a great tragedy from occuring in the future. The evidence that this is necessary is overwhelming, his past behavior and actions are all the evidence that is needed. Saddam has already demonstrated by his actions, especially since 1980 that he is a threat to the international community. The several parliment members he murdered back in 1979 when he assumed leadership of the Iraqi government is reason enough to take him out. But add to that his invasions of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the threaten invasion Israel, and then bombing of Israel with Scud Missiles, disobeying the Gulf War Cease-fire terms which he agreed to, then you have the most compelling case for the overthrow of a government in perhaps the last 50 years. Saddams actions have robbed the region and much of the world of peace and security. Plus, he has violated and failed to comply with the Gulf War ceace-fire terms. The only reason are military stopped its advance in Iraq in 1991 was because he signed the agreement. He has broken the terms and that alone gives us the right to invade. Saddam is a criminal, and it is undisputed that he is guilty of the above.
The Majority of the people of Iraq want Saddam Hussain overthrown. That cannot do it themselves because Saddam controls the army, the government and the media. The people of Iraq are hostages. There is no democracy in Iraq, its a dictatorship. Saddam does not govern with the consent of the governed.
A US invasion of Iraq is in fact the best thing that could happen to the Iraqi's in their long term future. It would require installing a democratic government and Billions of dollars of aid, plus US military forces to protect the country from the likes of Syria and Iran. Under our protection, the Iraqi economy could again become the most prosperous in the region as it was 30 years ago. Iraq with the power provided by its rivers and large oil reserves, plus one of the more secular societies in mid-east, could develop into a very wealthy society if Saddam is removed and political and economic development can occur. The best thing that can happen to a country if invaded by the USA, is that they stay and overthrow the government and allow a democracy and free market economy to develop. Thats what happened with Germany and Japan. The USA invaded, took down the dictatorship, installed a democracy and promoted a free market economy. I don't see the Germans and Japanese complaining. No suicide bombers either! Two of the wealthiest democracies on the planet after the USA. By the way, suicide bombing is the idea of extreme elements that sieze the hearts of the desperate. An invasion of Iraq would be to sieze those extreme elements and provide wealth and opportunity to the desperate just as we did in Germany and Japan.
Notice the USA has no desire to invade India because it has nuclear weapons, so the idea that George Bush or anyone else is peeing their panties because other countries have nuclear weapons is absurd. Its a countries leaderships behavior and actions that justify concern and if need be invasion to head off a disaster. You should be peeing your panties too if Saddam Hussain has or gets a nuclear weapon.
The proof that we have that Saddam has the intent of terror with weapons of mass destruction is his actual use against Kurds and Iranians to do just that!
Saddam has gone on national telivision multiple times offering the families of Suicide Bombers 25,000 dollars a piece and encouraging more money to support the campaign and asking other countries to get involved.
As far as funding terror attacks against the USA, the invasions of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are ones because of our interdependent economies. He already held hundreds of US civilians hostage in late 1990 and put them at military targets as human shields. How can you say that is not terror? In addition, an Iraqi fighter pilot launched an anti-ship missile at the USS Starke in 1987 causing enormous damage and loss of life. It was labeled as a mistake, but many think the evidence suggest otherwise, rather testing the waters on US reactions to certain events.
Bottom line, there are few invasions that would have more legitamacy than this one. The only reason the USA has not done it in the past is the cost. Today though, the growing risk of not invading is starting to outweigh the cost!
