posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 01:28 PM
First, lets go the sovereignty route. The chief duty of government is to protect its citizens, as established by our Founding Fathers. Our
'invasion' of Iraq was first and formost a preemptive movement to protect American citizens. Saddam was CLEARLY a threat.
Where were the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers waiting to cross the border into America and invade?
Where are the long range bombers?
Where are the ICBM's?
Saddam had no military way of threatening America.
He showed ample hostility toward citizens as well as intent to harm citizens. Saddam HAD WMD's, we know this, he used them to eradicate 5,000
Kurdish men, women, and children.
Iran gassed the kurds, not Saddam. Even the US Army War College says so. Even if it was Saddam it happened durring the course of a battle. The target
was Invading Iranian soldiers, not civilians.
He used them against Iranians during border skirmishes in the early 80's.
Iran also used chemical weapons.
Saddam also had many pro-Terrorist idealogies and links.
There have been no verified reports, or any evidence that he had anything to do with any terrorist groups. Their goals were to overthow Saddam, and
other leaders in the Mid-east. Saddam was the greatest obsticle to their goals.
His flaming rhetoric was lockstep with many of todays 'muslim extremist' Terrorist groups. We HAVE found links to the training of Al-Qaeda as
well as myriad other minor organizations within Iraq.
Link please. I believe all the instances you refer to have been proven since to be bogus.
Saddam was clearly bent on harming U.S. (and Israeli) citizens by whatever means possible.
How many more years was he going to wait? "Clearly" is not evidenced by his actions. Words mean nothing, and should have been expected in response
to our own provocations.
Now, lets go the 'international' route. Saddam was a tyrannical dictator who was a threat to the 'international' community. 14 pieces of U.N.
'legislation' gave us the right to go in and clean him out if he didn't do it himself.
Quite the opposite. None of the resolutions authorized the use of force. Not even 1441. International law was violated by us when we invaded Iraq.
By eliminating Saddam we have stabilized a region which most of the world relies on for energy supply, thereby benifiting the international
Stabilized? Inflamed is more accurate.
Lastly, lets go the domestic route. Saddam killed thousands if not millions of his own country men and muslim arabs. We have uncovered myriad
numbers of mass graves. Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds, Iraqi citizens. The brutal escapades of his 2 now dead sons are also well documented. He embezzeled
and squandered money, using it to built numerous lavish palaces while thousands of Iraqi's starved.
The numbers are not nearly as high as you suggest. America has killed far more Iraqis than Saddam has.
Saddam also showed unfounded aggression toward neighbors, both Jewish (Israel) and Arab (Iran, Kuwait). This man was a menace to his own people and
those surrounding him.
Who did he attack in the last 12 years? You are talking about old history. What happened over a decade ago is not justification for invading other
nations today. The current threat was slim-to-none.
Need I say more?
Why not just one thing that makes sense, were it possible regarding this war.
[Edited on 31-1-2004 by ArchAngel]