so you're saying america went over to Iraq because of non compliance with the sanctions?
Yes, and for numerous other reasons. Bush laid all of his reasons out on the table back at the start. Do a Google search.
What I am saying is so bloody simple.
1. It was the position of intelligence agencies the world over, from the UN on down, that Iraq had WMD stockpiles and programs in place to develop more. It wasn't just American intelligence that came to this conclusion. Even France and Germany were on board.
2. A system of inspections was put in place to determine the answer conclusively.
3. Iraq puts up roadblocks at every turn, disallowing the full and unfettered access that Iraq promised as a condition of ceace-fire. (He should have been removed at the first evidence of obstruction.)
4. Without these inspections, the only data to go on was the same intelligence (gathered by the intelligence agencies of numerous nations) that lead the free world (and several in the Middle Eastern world) to the conclusions mentioned in point 1. Thus it went throughout the 90s.
Flash forward to September 12, 2001
5. Bush has to take point 1 into account, because he's just promised to fight a war on terror. The administration reviews the same data and reaches the same conclusions that were held by the world just a scant two years before.
6. A very capable terrorist network + a sympathetic, weapon-possessing Iraq = not a risk worth taking if you're really going to stir up the hornet's nest of radical islam. The result of ignoring that threat could have been disastrous. You can't ask a man charged with the defense of a nation to cross his fingers and hope he didn't err on the side of anti-caution.
7. Bush had a choice. Believe the world and take action, or believe the promises of the Hussein regime and hope he was being honest
this time.
That, my friends, is as clear a choice as has ever taken place in the history of man. I don't know if you would be so quick to dismiss the weapons charges if the decision and responsibilty for that decision were on your shoulders.
man you guys believe the WMD thing so much you're willing to go to any stretch for it.
You're taking no less a leap of faith than those you would subtly deride as blindly stupid.
My belief: He had the weapons and the programs in place. He had 12 years to relocate them in whatever manner he saw fit while the UN issued condemnations and America, France, and Britain launched the occasional airstrike. In effect, "He had them, now they're somewhere else."
Your belief: The world was wrong all along. Saddam said he didn't have them and I believe that. The inspection process was working and should have been continued.
I'll come over to your side if you could please provide the date on which the UN made its declaration that Iraq didn't possess WMDs. What day was it that the inspections process was declared a success and Iraq was declared weapon-free. I only ask because that was a primary condition for cessation of sanctions. Please hook me up with that info, because I'm sure it would have made the news.
Now, prove the link between Saddam and Osama and I'll eat crow.
I neither believe that link to be the case nor do I feel compelled to argue with you in defense of it for one simple reason:
Will Robinson wrote:It's the 'War on Terror'.
Not the 'War on a Few Terrorists who are Hiding in a Cave Somewhere but not All Terrorists or even Most Terrorists....just a Few Terrorists'
Saddam was providing a sort of twisted insurance policy for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Again, Google will bear this out. And just like that, Iraq becomes a state which sponsors terrorism. In the world of "with us or against us," Iraq fell into the latter category.
I'm beginning to believe that your positions on this topic spring directly from this:
Ferno wrote:I think I was twelve when the first one happened.
I was 18 and this was the war that my peers freaked out about being drafted into. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't really follow world events too much prior to 2001, am I right? I only ask because it seems sometimes that you don't weigh the events of 1991 - 1999 too heavily in your conclusions about present day situations.
Also, how can you so easily dismiss all the evidence of the time that said Iraq did have them and jump into the no weapon group when the accusations of the other side still to this day haven't been disproved? They poured over a mountain range of evidence to reach their conclusions, what did you use to reach yours?