Saddam no threat?

[mikeandronda]

I lifted this from another forum I am on and I thought it was a good post.<br /><br />"I remember how much it bothered the French when the administration was arguing in favor of military action in Iraq, that our guys kept giving five or ten reasons in favor during every discussion. The French and the libs and the anti-war activists kept complaining, "why doesn't the administration just give us one good reason for going to war? Why do they insist on giving us ten?" I thought it was a stupid question.<br /><br />Now, ironically, they act like there was only ever one reason given: Weapons of Mass Destruction. And if one government report says that there were no "WMDs," then we're discredited.<br /><br />Never mind that Saddam was supporting terrorists financially, harboring retired terrorists in his country, and supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers financially. Forget that he had developed and used WMDs in the past, committed genocide against Kurds and Shia Arabs, and invaded Kuwait. It doesn't matter that he had tried to assassinate a former US President. It doesn't matter that his government had produced pro-terrorist propaganda, either. His refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years is irrelevant.<br /><br />There was absolutely no reason to believe that he would ever do anything to the US in the future. He was harmless!"

 

[JB]

Re: Saddam no threat?

From what we "knew" at the time, and had "known" for years, and from what the Euro-intelligence and Isreali intelligence told us, it was a thing that had to be done.<br /><br />Now we know that PART of what we "knew" was wrong, and some things we didn't know were also true, it was somethng that had to be done anyway.<br /><br />Saddam deliberately misled the world into "knowing" that he was loaded with WMD and willing to use them. He thought that would intimidate GWB and others. Wrong.<br /><br />Saddam "bought" France, Germany, the UN and Russia with oil bribes and millions in kickbacks.<br /><br />If he was still there, I would say go get him, and to the Devil with France, Germany, the UN and Russia. We didn't betray our alliances, THEY did.<br /><br />Kerry's job is to criticise and discredit GWB. Truth is not an issue.

 

[voodoo]

Re: Saddam no threat?

Originally posted by mikeandronda:<br /> I lifted this from another forum I am on and I thought it was a good post.<br /><br />"I remember how much it bothered the French when the administration was arguing in favor of military action in Iraq, that our guys kept giving five or ten reasons in favor during every discussion. The French and the libs and the anti-war activists kept complaining, "why doesn't the administration just give us one good reason for going to war? Why do they insist on giving us ten?" I thought it was a stupid question.<br /><br />Now, ironically, they act like there was only ever one reason given: Weapons of Mass Destruction. And if one government report says that there were no "WMDs," then we're discredited.<br /><br />Never mind that Saddam was supporting terrorists financially, harboring retired terrorists in his country, and supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers financially. Forget that he had developed and used WMDs in the past, committed genocide against Kurds and Shia Arabs, and invaded Kuwait. It doesn't matter that he had tried to assassinate a former US President. It doesn't matter that his government had produced pro-terrorist propaganda, either. His refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years is irrelevant.<br /><br />There was absolutely no reason to believe that he would ever do anything to the US in the future. He was harmless!"

Well said.<br />He was a dictator and a tyrant that the world should have gone and stopped him a long time ago.<br />We (Canada)as allys to the US and Britain should be there with you.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Saddam no threat?

if you really want to know why the Kurds and ****es really dont trust us go back to the late 70 till the mid 80's. we hung them out to dry. we indirectly killed thousands.<br /> our foriegn policy in the middle east has been so fragmented and lopsided that no wonder NO one wants us there.