i know their reasons for going to war were faulty. still glad they took saddam out. that guy was a problem child that was going to have to be solved eventually. luckily they took him out before he crossed the Rubicon by becoming a nuclear power like north korea did. we're stuck with them mother****ers, we don't need any more eternal dystopic dictatorships with nukes.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
correct. the case for war was that saddam was creating new wmd's. everyone knew he had old wmd's because he used them on the kurds quite brazenly.also, this is not news but rehashing of old tired tactics, not only in the media but on kmc as well.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=409400&highlight=wmd+found
One of the points in the Iraq Resolution was:
"2. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
I'm pretty sure that Iraq not turning over their WMDs was a violation of agreements made after their Kuwait mistake.
To be more direct/concise, one of the points for the Iraq Resolution was for the continued possession of WMDs and the continued production of WMDs. It wasn't just the continued production (which were lies).
even without old WMDs saddam never sacrificed the capability to produce them. i dunno how they define capability but basically as long as the science, infrastructure and know-how is there i don't think there is a really compelling obstacle that prevents the proliferation of said WMDs if push comes to shove.
I remember when Ron Paul opposed the Iraq War...
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html
This was before he was known. He was called a traitor to the GOP for going against his party....
This paragraph is especially telling of what happened after we invaded Iraq:
"My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously."
the rhetoric behind the war really had no bearing on the outcome in terms of duration. even if they originally used the right talking points iraq would've devolved into a hellhole of sectarian violence. and if they had come to the conclusion not to act we would be left with saddam still in power until a very bloody revolution or some other unforeseen circumstance, most likely with the aftermath of the very same kind of sectarian violence spoken of above.
I'm more concerned of the government officials on CNN and FOX going on and on and on about WMDs in the follow up to the war and how they will be found and how Saddam supported Al Qaeda (even though he hated Bin Laden and was made dictator by the CIA in order to fend against Islamic extremist organisations like.....ISIS) encouraging uneducated people to fight in the army.