Back up. There are LITERALLY DOZENS of countries that have weapons they COULD and just might use against the US. Do we attack them all? All at once or one at a time? Remember, they don't quit being a threat just because we're busy beating someone else up. In fact, that fact makes them more of a threat. Does NK come to mind?
Why don't we just conquer the entire world and be done with it? Pax Americana, anyone?
"I think we'll find chemical weapons. I think we'll find biological precursors that may or may not have been weaponized. And I think we'll find a continuing interest of -- on nuclear weapons."
And hundreds of millions of people (at least) think we won't. So what? "Think" doesn't count. "Got it!" counts.
So he admits that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.
His opinion is of no consequence. What IS of consequence is actual evidence.
But Mr. Wilson then changes the subject by saying Saddam's toppling still wasn't justified
I have not wasted one picosecond crying for Mr. Hussein. But I wouldn't for Kim Il Jong either. And he's much more of threat; he's got nukes and missiles and has threatened to use them on the US. Why is he still around? Seems to me that he should have been first if we're cleaning up the world.
"Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
They don't. We go kick their ***es afterwards. Just like Afghanistan. That war was justified.
Or is it your position that we destroy anyone who might pose a threat?
Think about it. France has nukes and is none too friendly towards us. Do we drop a few on Europe?
Where is this line you wish to draw?
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ..................................... When he failed to comply, the U.S. had full legal rights to act.
Pardon moi? You missed the letters "U.N." in there maybe? Seems to me that the UN didn't WANT that resolution enforced. Sure appeared that way sdince they refused to authorize use of force to do so.
So we are the enforcement agency for other international organizations and gov'ts? If Iran or the Arab League authorizes passes a law dictating the death penalty for anyone criticizing Islam, do we enforce it?
Is it not up to the UN to see that its resolutions are enforced? If not, why not?
And speaking of ignored UN resolutions: When is the attack on Israel scheduled?
When can we really say that the World Trade Center attack was "imminent?"
So you have proof Iraq was involved in 911? If so, I'll change my mind on this matter. I already said the Afghanistan war was justified.
For that matter, when did the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Nazi invasion of Poland become "imminent."
Pearl Harbor: a little before 8 AM Hawaii time on December 7, 1941.
Poland: early morning September 1, 1939. And did you notice that France and Britain did not declare war on Germany until after the attack had begun?
Although they could have soon after Herr Hitler became Chancellor and started re-arming Germany. They certainly could have used force when the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland. The difference here is that the Treaty of Versailles, to which they were parties, prohibited that.
Is any nation authorized to attack any other that violates a UN resolution? Be careful; this is a trick question.
And we pay Presidents to make these kinds of difficult judgments.
Yeah. And we pay them to be right, too.
tried to kill a former U.S. President
Speculative, counselor. Prove it.
How about:
Saddam Hussein did not try to assassinate George Bush, Sr.
Bush, Jr. loves to tell the story of how Hussein "tried to kill my dad." But it's not true. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh debunked the story in a December 5, 1993 article in The New Yorker titled "A Case Not Closed." The bomb was actually miles away from Bush, Sr. and was likely a set-up by Kuwait to keep Clinton from easing sanctions on Iraq.
truthaboutwar.org
But the US DID try to assassinate Castro. Does this count in this scale?
Their political opportunism on Iraq aside, we doubt that in a post 9/11 world the American public will want their President to wait to defend this country until he sees the whites of Mohammed Atta's eyes.
You can whip them into a raging patriotic frenzy for a while. Won't be the first time.
But can you keep them there? At some point you will have to produce evidence or this will backfire and blow up in your face. When too many body bags come home, they are going to want to know why they are fighting and how you plan to end it. And when the war will be over.
And if you don't deliver, the other party gets a chance. |
