It's based on the US National Security Strategy document, as well as the stated opinions and goals of many key members of the current administration.
True, the justification for war has been disarmament. However, there is no urgent need for disarmament. The US administration also choose to...
What are you talking about?
What does the future have to do with Iraq's lack of weapons which could pose a significant threat to the US?
That's news to me. The most I've seen is an unqualified "we will stay as long as necessary".
Furthermore, define "stable" -- Iraq was more than stable...
What has that to do with anything? Furthermore, I have yet to see a specification for what "done" is supposed to mean here.
Disarm Iraq of what? Why?
Given that Iraq has never had any weapons that could pose a significant threat towards the US, this is an odd statement.
He's obviously sane enough to have staid in power for a very long time, even during hard times such as the sanctions. Before the sanctions, he also led one of the more prosperous countries in the middle east, especially considering its size.
Iran and Kuwait, with a few provocation missiles...
-- Corporal Ryan Dupre
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-628258,00.html
Don't breed some sort of idea that the military is full of great and noble people. It's just the same mess as the rest of society.
No credible indications of any such thing have been shown. NK, on the other hand can possibly sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. This is in stark contrast to Iraq, which doesn't have any significantly effective terrorist weapons to sell. So the terrorism angle is right out.
So? Israel can take...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.