Quote:
Originally posted by Shortfuse
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.
|
Dude, I know I was long-winded, but you really have to read the entirety of my post.
I get what you're saying about WMD, and the point of the article - I'll cede that it does suck that the intelligence was bad, and I don't like what that says about the current state of the CIA etc.
HOWEVER - the entire region is unstable. Stabilizing the Middle East, ridding it of the dictatorships and theocracies that turn a blind eye to terrorism while pandering to the so-called 'legit' wings of these organizations (as well as FUNDING them), IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WAR ON TERROR IS.
Again - answer the questions, interpolate. Your focus on WMD is seeing the trees, but not the forest. It's OK to hate Bush - feel free. But the entirety of the war is fairly sound - it's the only way to attack terrorism. Again - we can't just march into the house of Saud, unfortunately, or Tehran - baby steps, for the greater good (which includes Americans).