On Nov 6, 12:46*pm, harry wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:28*pm, "
wrote:





On Nov 5, 12:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what was/is his reason for not seeking redress from Saudi Arabia?

Redress for what, exactly? Most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi
citizens, but there was never any link to the Saudi govt. Al-Qaeda
was ****ed off at the Saudis, Bin Laden in particular had no use
for them. The Al-Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan, not
Saudi Arabia.


Bush and Bliar gave the reason for the war as WMD. THEY LIED.

We know without question that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam had used them
against his own people. We know from the UN weapons inspectors that
Iraq never accounted for what became of them and consistently refused
to cooperate with the inspectors right up until the end. Saddam was
sure
acting like he had WMDs.

Nice to be a Monday morning quarterback. But that does not make
Bush, Blair or the UN liars.





Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran and India *HAVE WMDs, Why haven't
they been attacked?
You are talking gibberish.

Because none of them signed a treaty ending the invasion of Kuwait
that called for full cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors and
the
destruction of all their WMDs. None of them were shooting missles
at US planes patroling the no-fly zone in Iraq either. And I think
Bush
and Blair saw the opportunity to eliminate one more rogue country
acquiring WMDs. As for Iran, they may get whacked yet. Stay
tuned. Or do you think it's peachy keen that Iran get an A bomb?