[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Yes - he is/was a much worse threat. Global terrorism to me means nothing. What are their real capabilities? Nothing. Yeah, they may find a bomb and place it somewhere, but so what. This is nothing to what a 'state' is capable of. To me we have lost sight of what a real enemy is with this little terrorism thing.

So you insist that he was a threat. Yet by eliminating him it has strengthened your alleged irrelavent threat. After Afghanistan Al Quada was effectively finished. Iraq has given it a second wind and sparked countless more groups and created the necessary outrage to support them.

And I might ask, how was he any more a threat 4 years ago than he was in 91? In 91 he was allowed to remain. In the 80s he was allowed to gas the Kurds and the US interfered with the UN's ability to confront this.

The duality of the American relationship with Iraq suggests that his presense as a threat is as dubious as his presense as an ally. Bush Sr. was attempting to make Saddam into a despotic ally all the way up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And how would you do that exactly? Besides, if nothing else, he broke the terms of the ceasefire giving the world the authorization to go in and finish him. So yes, everything was justified.

Oh I see. So he broke the deal so everything was "justified". Just because Iraq wasn't playing along doesn't mean that the only option is to turn it over and rip her government a new one. Further, all the evidence brought forward insisting that Saddam was a threat turned out to be a crock. He was not about to invade America or drop a bomb on her. There was plenty of time to find another way. Yet Bush insisted on an immediate war. Since they found no functional weapons its obvious that the impetus for immediate war was illfounded.

It is well known that he had them. It is also well known that we know he did not destroy them all. It is also known that the weapons inspectors when they were allowed by Saddam to walk on Iraqi soil found centrifugal parts buried in scientists front yards. Where did the rest of this go? Do you think for a second that he didn't also have chemical or biological weapons somewhere? Regardless, Saddam was given a timeline and he called the bluff and lost. Simple as that. Europeans are known for stalling till all eternity on issues of war, but not the US.

He 'had' them. He had them in 91. After that you can't prove anything. The weapons inspectors couldn't prove they existed and then after the invasion no functional weapons were found.

Even if the capability existed, and a few pieces of equipment in the sand is far from a Manhatan project, again I ask. Where was the immediate threat?

No. The dismantiling of the Iraqi army after the war is what caused this situation to occur.

It was but one more mistake amongst many.