Originally posted by Shuckins
Horn,
Our Founding Fathers believed sovereignty rested with "the people." How could Saddam's Iraq be called a sovereign state when the majority of it's population was disenfranchised?
You're going to need more to justify your position than some cut-and-paste snippets taken out of context by an organization whose bias against the current administration is so blatantly evident.
You are mixing up the numbers. #2 is sovereignity. I gave you the definition (admittedly C&P'd from a web dictionary) and by ANY definition Iraq was a sovereign, independent nation-state which we invaded. And, as an aside, the definition has nothing whatever to do with the status of the populace, disenfranchised or no.
The administration acted on intelligence data that was the best that they had at the time, coming from both the CIA and the British secret service. They firmly believed that Saddam either had or was developing wmds. The failure to unearth such weapons does not make them liars, it simply means they made decisions based on faulty intelligence. While actual weapons have not been found, our forces have uncovered substantial evidence that he had programs in place to develop them. Some of his own scientists have testified to his determination to use these programs to develop such weapons.
I have found few opponents of the current administration who are willing to admit that Saddam's crimes against his own people were sufficient to justify the invasion. How many does he have to kill before it becomes important enough to matter? [/B]
The above was number 5 where you said, "They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there. Were you not listening when they listed other, equally important reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?"
The little shockwave thingie disproves your contention which is why I posted it--their own words, words used to scare the US populace into action. Irrelevant that the site or the author has an agenda--do you dispute that those were not the words of the administration? I mean, I saw most of it on the TV. I'm sure you did too. There were NO other MORE important reasons that presented a clear and present danger to us. None.
Your statement, "While actual weapons have not been found, our forces have uncovered substantial evidence that he had programs in place to develop them. Some of his own scientists have testified to his determination to use these programs to develop such weapons," is false or at best misleading. He may have been "determined" to go to Mars as well--it doesn't mean he had the wherewithal to do so. "Programs in place" is also misleading as again, he may have desperately wanted to, but again, didn't have the ability. He certainly didn't have the ability to deploy them on a battlefield, "in as little as 45 minutes" (Colin Powell to the UN).
Was he a BAD man? Of course. So was the slaughter in Rwanda yet nothing was done (we actually pulled out) and they kilt more folks in 90 days than SH did in 10 years. We must have forgotten to invade them. Oops.
He was contained between no fly zones and embargo, UN scandal notwithstanding. SH was going nowhere. I hope this answers some of your questions.
h
