Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Short,
Did you hear the whole point that the panel made? Or just the part played on Headline News? Many networks conveniently left out the fact that Saddam was stockpiling money from the oil for food program, scientists and materials so that he could get the WMD program back up to speed just as soon as restrictions were lessened.
And remember, pre-9/11, the French, etc. were pushing for exactly that.
We went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Your candidate supported it as much as Bush does so anything he says should totally lack credibility unless you're sipping on the donkey-kool-aide.
What would you propose we do? Just leave and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves? You want to absolutely GUARANTEE that we'll have WMD coming out of there? Go right ahead.
Iraq is still an important victory in the war on terrorism. A friendly arab democracy will go a long way to bringing down the religious despots of the region and pushing governments towards Democracy. Are you against that?
What exactly are you against besides what's already done?
|
That's all based on "what if" he does use it for WMDs. But if you tell me he has WMD, then he damn sure better have them.
Yes I'm against us going over and making governments the way we want them. Don't get me wrong, thats some GANGSTA stuff to do, but it's not right. Our form of government (which basically translates into Capitalism) doesn't work for everybody. Our model isn't perfect.
How can Iraq be an important victory in the War on Terriorism? First, we HAVEN'T WON A VICTORY THERE YET!
Second, where was the terrorist threat? Please tell me. Saddam (which I will repeat) was just a mini-midget dictator who only controlled what was in his backyard. He's Mussolini without Japan or Germany to back him up.