|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 19:18:07 GMT
He was Hussein's spokesman, and he was telling everyone they had WMD's. That's not irrelevant to your statement about the war being unnecessary "because Iraq had nukes, right?" What do you think we should have done after 9/11? Just lick our wounds and lock the cockpits? 9/11 created a whole new breed of war that, once again, we did not start. I guess it was unfortunate for Hussein that he was so prominently aligned with what we were (and still are) battling. Maybe he should have just let the UN Inspectors in when they knocked the first time. Also, it probably wouldn't have hurt to tell Bob to STFU. On September 20, 2001, PNAC sent this letter to GWB: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." That letter was publicized the very next day, and still everyone was on board. So what happened? Chemical weapons are not "weapons of mass destruction". The implication was that Baghdad was a threat to America's national security. It was not and was not associated with Al Qaeda. It's a war crime when Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people. But we are not the world's police men. Bad things happen. Plenty of tin god dictators have chemical weapons. It's obvious that hysteria over 9/11 was used to justify an invasion. But again, Hussein was not a supporter of the religious extremist terrorists. He was as much their target as the U.S. You also forget that Iraq was an ally of the U.S. against Iran until they invaded Kuwait. Bush Senior was a skilled statesman and foreign policy export. He went in to liberate Kuwait, which was in American interests. But he left Hussein in power because he knew the alternative was chaos. So now you're saying it was unnecessary because of the timing? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_ActSigned into law by Bill Clinton in 1998.
|
|