I gotta disagree with you there. Bush's main argument for the war in Iraq was the threat he presented to the US, and the alledged "weapons of mass destruction." However, now the Bush administration has admitted that they have not found anything yet, and made a mistake. But they went on after that saying that they did find the materials to create them, and the resources to house them in the country. Bush says they have evidence of qualified scientists who can develop these weapons. well no s*** sherlock. The reason that Iraq has all these resources and all these specialists to develop the weapons is that the US supplied them to Saddam when Iraq went to war with Iran. The US had a problem with the fundamentalist regime in Iran at the time, so they figured that an easy and convenient way to get rid of it would be to give Saddam all the toys he wanted and let him go nuts. which worked, Iran was effectively screwed up to an extent that it could no longer pose a threat to the US. But now we've got another problem, Saddam has a bunch of weapons and resources, which he then used to attack Kuwait in the Gulf war. now it looked as if Iraq would go after Saudi Arabia, and the US could never have that (oil) so they got a mandate from the UN to only remove Saddam from KUWAIT, not unseat him from his own country. So when Saddam was forced back into Iraq, he went about screwing over his country, but never posing a specific threat to the US. Of course Bush cites alleged links to the Taliban, but there's never been even the slightest shred of evidence. were there any actual CONCRETE link to the Taliban, Bush would have presented it already, especially now, the Bush administration would want to put out ANYTHING that would somewhat validate thier reasons for going into Iraq in the first place, especially since its now obvious there were never any weapons of mass destruction. So basically, Bush went to war with a country for a number of loose, poorly constructed reasons with no concrete evidence to back them up.
|