Originally posted by Cammo Dude
America's first reason for being there was fine (weakening terrorism). But what makes me angry is that they had to go after Iraq too. ...through
making lies.
Iraq had no chemical agents that were banned. But a few years ago they did. That's the point that I think that America is over looking- they have
the anthrax labs because they once used them. So they look surprised that they are there and cleaned out. Do you think that they would have the time
to clean out lab pipes completely right before we came?
The government, and the media, blinded Americans into thinking that there were chemical weapons and agents of that sort there. Where are they? I
don't think the regime took them with them on their way out. Bush just straight out lied to the public that Iraq had chemical weapons. Remember
that his proof was "a reliable source."
CammoDude,
I think the propensity of Saddaam to wage war against his fellow Arabs (re

il for us), his acceptance of terrorist camps in northern Iraq and cells
of AlKillya in Baghdad are good enough reasons for me, especially after everyone in the world except Sadaam stated he possesed WMD of some sort and
quantity. The almighty UN verified this over the years- even if we find none NOW, Iraq would maintain the capability to restore its programs. Then
what? Remember the dead Kurds in 88?
At some time, tyranny must be held accountable even if the aftermath is less than ideal for some.
If Bush is such a political fool to lie to the people for all this trouble and no immedeate benifit, he truly is a fool!
The un, iaea and many other alphabet orgs gave him the info we acted on.