How does invading Iraq improve the security of containers shipped in to this country? If you wish to remove the WMD threat from the supply side, why attack a nation that there is, at best, very sketchy evidence on regarding the existance of WMD. Should one of the requisites for a preemptive invasion be definative proof of a threat that requires preemption?
Its the matter of finding a place to start. We had to go to the middle east, that much is clear.. even to *most* moderate liberals. Doing so ensued that the Islamic terrorists would be too busy worrying about our forces making drastic changes to their lands, while setting their forces off balance enough so that they will be much less likely to be capable of launching another 9/11-sized attack.
Its, "bringing it to their grounds".
About Saddam and WMDs. He was confirmed by the UN in the 90s to have had possesion of WMDs.
In 1995, Iraq admitted to possessing nearly 8,500 liters of anthrax, one production facility, 50 R-400 bombs, and five missiles with anthrax. A report from UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq may have produced as much as 25,000 liters of anthrax (with 10,000 liters still in existence), two production facilities, and more than 5 warheads.
If that is not enough "proof" that Saddam had WMDs at one time, I dont know what else you need??
As I said, we KNOW he had them at one time. Yet he would not comply to UN Resolution 1441 and tell us what he had. The UN would not back up their own resolution, so Bush gave a brutal dictator even MORE time and then went ahead and showed him that he was not another Bill Clinton.
So Saddam was a threat.
I know that for the Democrats argument to stand at all, and for Kerrys entire Presidency to have any legitimacy that this MUST not be true. But it is. The guy was CLEARLY a threat to our safety.
Everyone knows about the mass graves of the Shi'ite Muslims. He killed his own people as well. So he was not only a threat to our safety, but to his own people as well.
But I suppose we'll let that one slide huh?
And if you think that the report of WMDs from 1995 is not enough, could you even fathom what he probably had and disassembled or moved out of country before the beginning of the war??
So no, we havent found -much- yet. Unless you consider Sarin gas, enough of it to kill everyone reading this thread and many more.. not "enough".
It gets to a point of being ludicrous how beligerant some are willing to be to deny the facts about our SAFETY, for mere political reasons.
This is patently false. This was the case several months ago. Dr. David Kay and the Iraq Survey Team, to the best of my knowledge, completed the search for WMD, and Dr. Kay's report was that pre-war intelligence on the existance and/or readiness of Iraqi WMD was completely incorrect.
I have not checked updated sources lately. Unlike most around here, I only go off what I actually know, not FUD. Last I knew they'd gone thru a couple dozen sites. If you have a link to the completed search study, I'd love to read it.
No. We don't know if any weapons Hussein possibly had or was making are in Syria or Iran. We don't know if he was developing them. Before the invasion we didn't know if he was developing them.
Yes it was known as I illustrated above in a reply to your first question. I can find many reports of Iraq admitting to these programs at one time or another and many weapons that had already been created.
You are right about one thing, we dont know if they are in Syria or Iran.. that is a major problem.
One that is politically expounded upon by the Democrats and other leftist groups. I take it as valid critisizm.. but a BIT disengenous.
It is a political season though so its one thing that must be taken in strides.
By all accounts, Hussein was a secularist, the most secular Arab leader. The political modeling of the Ba'athist Party is irrelevent; the US supported Dictator Hussein for years in a war against Iran, a nation with a more democratic form of government.
No. THAT part is irrelevant.
It is only relevant for modern political means, but as far as the current situation it has no place. It is merely a distraction to say, "But the USA is evil, dont forget we supported Saddam!"
Its like trying to solve a problem you have currently but reading a history book to put blame on it.
If your goal is to smear American intentions, then by all means you have done so.
I for one, believe America has good intentions, contrary to what you seem to be attempting to illustrate.
But as far as Saddam being a "secularist", LOL Right. Religous or not, he allied himself with the likes of Al Qaeda.
He financially funded suicide bombers. This much is true, and all that really needs to be said when deciding whether or not hes a part of the overall problem we are trying to solve, or a distraction.
The largest Qaeda attacks before September 11th were the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. The largest Qaeda attack after 9/11 appears to be the Bali, Indonesia bombing, the Madrid train bombings. Al-Qaeda appears to possess a similar capability before and after the 9/11 attacks. I have always maintained that the 9/11 attacks were a real fluke, a once in history feat for Al-Qaeda. They were much more destructive and more elaborate than any other attack they have carried out. Let us hope I am right.
Thats not an accurate quantitive examination of Al Qaedas abilities before, and after the War on Terror began.
There is no real way to quantify such abilities. But you can be assured that now they are desperate and perform everything, and all they ever had as far as terrorist acts now, before we finish them off.
Its no suprise they are trying to influence elections and blackmail nations such as Italy to withdraw its support from the War on Terror. But acts of terror such as these generally, over time only strengthen the resolve of their enemies.
Such tactics usually blow up in the purveyors face, in the end. And it will.
Appeasing the terrorists, as you and your liberal cohorts would prefer as many have suggested to "back out of Iraq".. and even suggesting that the war was the wrong move is appeasing the terrorists that attacked on 9/11.
You can complain all day long, but the WTC was attacked before in '93 by a group that was financed by Al Qaeda, and Clinton did nothing. In fact, successful domestic terrorist attacks were exponentially higher during the 8 "peaceful" Clinton years than they are today.
Awefully strange considering the Leftist argument is usually that we have now "angered" the extremists and we are "getting our due" with attrocities such as the beheading of Nick Berg (RIP and God Bless).
The leftist defeatist attitude is exactly how 9/11 came to be. It was LONG overdue.
It would seem that Qaeda terrorists are a minority group within the entire insurrection which US forces are fighting in Iraq.
Al Qaeda has infiltrated much of the middle east. There is no "one" place to find nor eradicate them. Its a very hard and difficult mission.
One best pursued by instituting a democracy in Iraq, and defeating the ROOT of the problem.. not furthering the delay of dealing with the problem as Bush's enemies would prefer.. for not only their political season reasons, but for many of the groups (such as ANSWER) anti-American objectives.
The rest of your reply seems to be based in speculation with little to reply to other than my own speculation.
Unlike yourself, I'm not exactly sure what to make out of the Presidents speechs and words but I do know that when it comes down to it, the war on terror is a necessary evil.. and that Iraq was as good as place to start as any. It certainly had the ties to terrorism and banned weaponry as well as the past tendency to being empire building with the invasion of Kuwait.
All in all, I expect mistakes to be made. I expect blunders. These things happen.
But I know that Bush did not LIE. That is irresponsible and complete leftist dogma. If he lied, I'd be the FIRST person to get him out. I dont support the Republican party over the Democrats because I simply want the world to only contain free societies and protect America.. two things I DO believe in.
I know they are the "lesser evil".. or at least have been since my time beginning with the Reagan administration.
I enjoyed your reply, you surely outsmart the others here who agree with you!
BTW I really appreciate your more respectful nature. It makes for a much more enjoyable learning environment.