That’s rather the rub, isn’t it? You (and most democrats really) prefer to wait until a threat has reached a level that we can no longer do anything about before you finally want to get involved. Let the threat grow and grow, then, maybe we’ll get involved.
My neighbor is an asshole. He might one day lose it. I could just go shoot him, but I would hold up well in court arguing that he migth one day go too far. You and Bush and his supporters tend to put the world in such clear terms, either we kill him now, or we die. Of course, as CATO pointed out. If Saddam was that kind of threat, why weren't we dead already?
You have to make judgements concerning the level of threat. No reasonable person suggested that Saddam was capable of posing a serious threat to the US. heck, the ease with which he fell attests to this. Even that incredible defense he put up in the first Gulf war showed clearly he could be taken any time we wanted, hence not the kind of threat that warranted invasion the cost we paid, and continue to pay.
Sure it is. PS. I truly find “mere dangerous” to be laughable. You take care of threats when they are evident. You don’t keep passing the buck as both Bush1 and Clinton did. When that happens, the danger levels have increased to a point where they can not really be managed any longer. Saddam has acknowledged that he still had the scientists available and had every intention of restarting his WMD program once Bush left him alone. If the threat had not been taken care of while still “mere dangerous” he would have eventually gotten to a point where he was “semi- dangerous or even higher (we can call that plain dangerous if you like). In other words, the threat was never going to be eliminated, as you like to claim.
The rub is in taking car eof. As Saddam was bottled up and incapable of even defending hims self, what you miss is that he was dealt with. And the trheat to us is still not eliminated. In fact, it is worse today. Saddam was a no body, but a no body who helped keep Iran in check. Today, we have give aid to our enemies and helped iran to be stronger in the region (that's why they helped us go into Iran). You might want to investigate the first time Chalibi betraryed us.
Ah, I always love the people that know what is on everyone’s minds. I had many discussions with co-workers and friend (republicans and democrats) and almost all thought that Saddam acting in that manner meant that he almost certainly had something. I’ve even had some fairly recent conversations with people, and they always agree on that point. So, I see the exact opposite of you. For you to announce that the images on TV of weapons inspectors being turned away and delayed didn’t have any affect on peoples perceptions just seems like a very silly argument.
I don't claim to know what is on everyones mind. No where did I make that claim. Strawman much? And no, if one stoppe dand thought for but a few moments, you would realize we saw most of his weapons destroryed. It was possible and believed that he had some left over wmds, but not that he had stockpiles or that he was gorwnig with active programs. No evidence supported the growing claim, that is, unless . . . of course . . .you used intel inappropriately. Without Curveball, Chalabi, or Libi, the case can't be made at all.
If only we based our security on the thoughts of UN weapons inspectors who only get a part of the picture then you might have a great point. Still, I don’t see how it was a “leap” to war. The ceasefire agreement had been in violation for a long time (going back to Clinton). Numerous resolutions later an invasion finally occurred.
Instead of Curveball, Chalibi and Libi? Again, the point is they were on the ground, slowly making progress by their judgment. If we were interested in the inspections and the process, we would have waited. We weren't.
Sure you can. Saddam failed to follow through with his obligations, the UN passed a resolution that serious consequences would follow if he didn't follow through. He didn't follow-through and serious consequences followed. I don't care what some other countries thought was meant by serious consequences. You can't get much more serious then what happened. Bush even went the additional step of getting authorization for the war from congress.
No, the UN did not say what those consequence would be or that they would be merited out by the US. And did you notice congress did not declare war? Cowards though they be, the fact is they did not declare war, and some even argued that he had to it within the UN. But, let's not let facts slow us down.