FACT: Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. in September of 2001.
Absolutely fact. In '95 we were attacked by Americans. We should route terrorist wherever they are which wasn't Iraq. 15 of the 19 were Saudi. They trained and organized in Afghanastan. Saudi Arabia has done the bare minimum in the 'War on Terror' and Afghanastan is all but forgotten thanks to the body counts coming from Iraq.
FACT: The U.N. and just about every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddaam had WMD.
True--but incomplete. These intelligence agencies of the world believed they had WMDs based on the claims of pretty much *the* 2 main intelligence sources in the world. The US and Britan. It's not like there were tons of Russian, Spanish, German, Nigerian, etc. coverts uncovering mounds of information leading to the independent conclusion of 'Saddam has WMDs'. They begrudgingly came to that conclusion based on the selective intelligence we released. We said they had WMDs... we said they had links to Al Qaeda... we said we had proof.
FACT: There are proven links between Sadaam and terrorists.
Fact, but again incomplete. The independent commission claimed "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated." Bin Laden asked for Iraqi assistance, they said 'no'. In fact, Al Qaeda plotted *against* Saddam some years before. Al Qaeda talks to a lot of countries asking for help, it's the people that offer it we should be worried about. And even WE supported Iraq at one point in time. If you're into the whole non-credible evidence scene, there are reports the we supported al qaeda during the Balkan Wars -- but let's discard the incredible and focus on fact.
FACT: The U.N. passed numerous resolutions promising 'grave consequences' if they didn't comply with international law.
Correct. The UN had inspectors on the ground days before we started bombing. The argument of 'grave consequences for non-compliance' only works if they are non-compliant. So far, the only things we found out of compliance are a couple of old-as-dirt empty warheads and Saddam's tendancy to give the inspectors a headache. Not things I'd be willing to spend American lives and billions on when our real enemies are 300 miles to the south.
The process was working until we stopped it. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we bombed it. Our 'bastion of democracy' in the middle-east is quickly becoming the world-wide hub of terror. We can all agree that Sadaam was a bad man but the administration chose a poor target, time, and strategy.
And as an aside (because this is opinion and doesn't seem to be a problem on this forum as much as others), the 'If you don't support the war you're unpatriot' argument is just plain ignorant. Being patriot doesn't mean being stupid. It doesn't mean following orders and towing the line when you know you're wrong. Patriots want what's best for the country which isn't always what the administration wants. It's quite possible to be patriot and be on either side of this war however self-proclaimed patriots that can't be bothered to actually learn about what they're supporting is the lesser patriot in my opinion.
Now, please, back to your bickering
I shant comment again but I will read any responses you care to leave.
Someone give this guy a medal
by Bjorn Keizers » Jun 25, 2004 @ 11:23am 
