posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 06:23 PM
first of all, as you've stated, I proved he is a murder but not a terrorist? Define for me what you think a terrorist is because if you do some
research on the matter the reason he irraticated that city is becuase he held an election for office. In that city some people voted for someone
other than Sadam. So he had the whole city killed, thus using the force of "terror" to make sure no one else would go against him. As far as us
haveing justification in the war or Sadam posing a threat to us, he most certantly did. For one it has been found that he was one of the largest
financial contributers to Alqueda which claimed responciblilty for 9-11-01. He might not of planned it, but he surely funded it, and with money that
belonged to his people. Likewise and I don't think there is any argument here, he hated America and CIA sources showed he was close to producing
Nuclear weapons. At the same time he was improving his GBMS, bombs that could reach us. Don't think for one minute that if he had achieved his goal
he wouldn't have used them agains us.
More justification? Since the last gulf war we had 41 United Nation's resolutions telling him to dissarm. Let me break down those 41 resolutions
for you. First of all for the UN to pass anything, there has to be an anonymous vote passed with all of the countries belonging to the UN in favor.
Each of those resolutions said dissarm or else. or else what? Duh. But instead of attacking Iraq the UN kept giving him chances, proving them selfs
useless in this matter, and frankly sad to say, but imbarassing. If some one told you do this or else I will kill you and you didn't do it and they
didn't kill you, why would you listen to them? The UN turned into a JOKE. not after he violated the 1st or 2nd or 3rd resolution, but after 41,
Bush FINNALLY stepped in and said enough! Sadam was getting to close to achieving a nucleor arsenal. Bush then was KIND enough to go through 3 more
resolutions with Iraq. Why on the 44th the French and Germans wouldn't vote yes. Over 100 other nations agreed with us. I didn't fight alone over
there you know; I had English Men, people from Holland, Scottland, Denmark, Even Jemacia by my side. It isn't like Bush just said we are going it
alone. He DID say he was fed up enough to do that if he had to, but other countries agreed with him. Even Poland sent troops.
Don't let the media blind you. Look at facts closely and pick out the things that count. If Bush was wrong, do you really think over 100 countries
would have backed us?