"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mJfe.64415$r53.13498@attbi_s21...
You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.
As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.
Who exactly? There were plenty of people saying that they didn't have
meaningful WMD, including most of OUR people actually involved in weapons
inspections. The administration chose to include data that supported their
position and ignore data that didn't.
Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.
I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little
detail -- but it inconveniently won't go away.
Everybody recognizes that Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people but
that doesn't say anything about whether they had them at a later date. In
fact, they did not.
Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.
Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.
Depends on who replaces him. Saddam was an evil tyrant, that is undisputed,
but he (as a secular leader) was also the natural enemy of fundamentalist
Islam (Our REAL enemy). This is a key point that most people seem to miss.
Saddam killed thousands of Iraqi civiilians. Over the past few years the US
has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. They will not forget this. Iraq
is not a natual country, it is made up a three parts that would perfer to
live with their religious/cultural brethren. Naturally it would be a
disaster (for us) if the country was split up between Iran, Syria and an
independent Kurdistan. This leaves us with the problem that SOMEBODY has to
keep Iraq together, probably by force. Saddam was doing this, now we must
do it or the government that we will be seen to have installed must do it.
Most of the rest of the world recognized this.
The bottom line is that we (in the US) were fed a lot of BS. It is natural
that we would believe our elected leaders initially, but we are stupid if we
continue to believe them after learning that we were lied to. Are the
Iraqis better off? Probably. Are we better of? Probably not.
Mike
MU-2
|