Re: "Saddam had nothing to do with Iraq and vice versa"
As the previously reply noted, you may have been awake far too many hours before writing this. I conclude, however, that you mean to say we didn't attack Iraq because of Saddam's presence and actions there. I think you are wrong, obviously wrong, even if you think OIL is the sole motive. But, whatever you think.
Re: "One thing is for sure now. He didn't have them in 2002"
No, that is not for sure. What if it really did became a virtual certainty, however? Surely you wouldn't say it would mean Saddam didn't/doesn't care to attack us anyway he could/can, would you? I believe he intended to use any means he could to stay viable. Attacking America had plainly been high on his wish list. Long ago polls revealed Americans believe in going to Iraq even without WMD's being found. I think that amounts to most Republicans and some 25% of Democrats(a number which could get bigger, and probably most swing voters, too). War is very very expensive, and very helpful when needing to stop raving lunatics out to kill.
Dan B. |
