I don't get it.
From what I know, there were multiple, multiple, reasons for invading, not just 1 single piece of intel. If this debate is framed in such a manner as to limit the reasons for going to war to just that 1 item then I guess you have a point. That was not the sole reason though. I could be wrong.
One point worth mentioning that is never brought up, invading, toppling the Saddam government has given a huge geo-political advantage in the mid east, which we can use as leverage against Iran. N. Korea has shown in recent days progress through diplomatic channels, (though how much who really knows).
How long was it after the fall of Saddam that the little tyrant in Libya(sp), I want to say Kadafi, basically threw up his hands and confessed to having WMDs himself simply out of fear. (I am sorry for some reason my memory is failing me at the moment so if anyone knows what I am referencing just jump in.)
But the point is, that would not have happened had we not invaded and conquered. Unless you believe it was just a coincedence.:wtf:
Oil is a big deal you are right, for the world not just us. Yet as we speak I just filled up for 4.67 per gallon, so again I fail to see the benefits of all that oil we are getting.
Strategery!
We cannot be everywhere all at once, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. If that's the argument (that we aren't taking on other evil doers so why did we go to Iraq?) That's kind of weak. So it would be ok to take out Saddam as long as we also toppled every other single government that was being ran by a tyrant. Somehow I don't think the left would support that, as well as the fact that it is not realistic. You have to choose your battles. How comfortable do you think the mullahs in Iran are right now, knowing that they now have a fledgling democracy forming next door. And that the influence of that alone may topple Iran as it is today.
Strategery.
We had a tyrant, whom had already demonstrated that he was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people with WMD's, and had expressed a desire to do the same to us. Not such a big deal until we are hit at home on 9/11 by terrorists. From that point on we have a situation where we have a world leader with the means to supply these terrorists with all sorts of nice things. We have a man that is paying 10s of thousands of dollars to people to blow themselves up in public places for the sole purpose of killing Jews, and bragging about it. Does anyone still think it was a needless military action, and that he couldn't do anything to us? Personally himself likely not, but I bet my last bowl that he would go way out of his way to help anyone else that wanted to kill infadels in America. Like I said, he was already doing it to Israel.
If we weren't justified in taking action, then what would it take exactly to justify taking action?
In closing, I challenge anyone that believes the world would be better off if we would have never gone in their to explain exactly how we would be better off. Not to mention the people that actually live in Iraq, how would they be better off today with Saddam in power still? I am sure they would strongly disagree.:jointsmile:
8182KSKUSH Reviewed by 8182KSKUSH on . Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty? For too many years now, left wing morons with support and encouragement from the biased media, have made the following idiotic contribution to the debate about the war on terror, and specifically the Iraq theater: "Bush lied, Americans died!" Perhaps he did, but on the other hand-- it turns out that 550 metric tons of uranium yellow cake, the stuff of which "dirty bombs" can be made, have been found in Iraq. Although there is no "reliable source" to quote on this shocker, we do have a Rating: 5