But from your tone, and choice of workds, it would sound like you actually doubt that Saddam is a supporter of terrorism..
You have to admit that the Bush administration has not made a convincing case of it. A better case can be made for Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. But no, we have to invade Iraq.
It looks very much like Bush decided to invade Iraq and then started frantically to look for an excuse - Iraq is linked to Bin Ladin, no but they have WMDs, oops can't find them but he is evil...
Whatever...
why are you so intent on preventing actions being taken that lead to his downfall??
Read my lips: I don't care one bit for Saddam. I would be a happy person if his own people took him down tomorrow.
What I am opposing is a US invasion of Iraq. I believe it is the worst possible choice at this point, not only because it is WRONG from a human (war = death) and legal (sovereignty) points of view, but also because it will be completely counterproductive as far as "war on terrorism" is concerned.
And need I remind, my dear Zonder, that it is Saddam's FAILURE TO COMPLY with UNSC BINDING RESOLUTIONS that justify the overthrow of his government
... THEN IT IS UP TO THE UNSC TO DECIDE WHAT THE NEXT STEP IT, not your warmongering, vigilante cowboy of a president.
(If you make me say this one more time, I will be nauseous :-) |
