What does the most valuable resource on earth matter to be sitting underneath a maniac, such that it not only gives him a potential war chest, but the power to influence the global economy and stability? You are aware of the value and importance of oil? It's been in the news for the past forty years.
Saddam continued to defy the U.N. and U.S. with rhetoric and sorties in the no fly zones. I think that he was enough of a threat to not risk him deciding to cause the next 9-11. Period. It was worth it even if he wasn't planning anything, and once we are shorn up in Iraq I hope we keep going out on the march, wherever appropriate. To hell with you for not caring enough about protecting America.
...support which has so far been completely unproven.
That's taken out of context. The question is "how could Saddam strike us when his military is (by my own civilian estimate) weak?" My answer is, with terrorism. Not that he was plotting terrorism.
Let's see here: al-Qaida was the Taliban's weapon. Then you say that al-Qaida was in control of the government. Then you say it's the Taliban's fault, implying that they were not being controlled. Which is it?
The Taliban allowed al Qaeda to come in, and they effectively hijacked the government. When the Taliban refused to turn them over, they became inseperable. Either the Taliban couldn't control them or sided with them. Either way I don't understand why you are arguing this point.
No kidding? Here I was thinking that they completely agreed with me. Now I see that I was totally wrong.
America gave the Taliban the courtesy of asking them to turn over al Qaeda. When they denied I don't know what conclusion you could be left to draw. Are you actually arguing that the Taliban should remain in power? If not, what is your point?
You did not address for a second the point I made that there is no proven collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida whatsoever.
That's because I've never said al Qaeda, in respect to the 9-11 attacks, was linked to Iraq. I've said that, like al-Qaeda, Saddam could enable an attack on the U.S. I said it plainly several times in the last few pages. I say it plainly again.
Germany was blatantly disregarding orders and had been amassing a huge armed force. Conversely, all evidence points to Iraq having complied and disarmed as it was told to. The comparisons of Iraq to 1939 Germany and of the war in Iraq to World War II are completely unfounded.
Only under the assumption that Iraq could only be a threat with a huge armed force. As I said, again and again and again, it's pretty obvious that a nation doesn't need a military to threaten harm at present date.
Please, someone once again take this out of context and ask why this doesn't justify bombing England. I can't wait.
quote:
Immediate = In the near future.
Threat = We could/will be attacked.
You're still full of shit when you keep saying we invaded Iraq legally according to international law, MaKK.
Saddam could have "in the near future" "could have tried to attack us." Welp, pretty easy requirement to meet.
---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008
