Quote:
Originally Posted by jibber
oh really?
the war on iraq was started ORIGINALLY under the premise that iraq was harboring al-queda and working with bin laden.
this was later proved to be completely and utterly false.
It was further justified that iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
this was also proven to be false.
Now where exactly was the distortion of facts?
|
Right in what you posted. It was believed that Iraq had WMD's all credible international and American intelligence at the time pointed to that. Doesn't matter if it was proven false, it's what everyone believed at the time.
Several UN sanctions forbid the Iraqis from possessing WMD's or Chemical weapons. The UN refused to uphold and enforce the sanctions so the US and other concerned nations took action.
Also Iraq has been proven to be a hotbed for Al-Queda and at no time did anyone say that Bin'Laden was in Iraq, we we're already in Afghanistan looking for him when the Iraq war started.
If you want to say the war has been mismanaged or was until recently, fine.
If you want to make a case for a short sighted approach to the war on terror, fine.
If you want to make a case against war in general based on personal morality, ideals, fine.
But regardless of semantics if you can see the difference between the good guys and the bad ones here and understand the gravity of the situation in whole I feel you are greatly misguided.
Your thoughts?