Presidential Debate

[kandrathe]

EDIT - I realized after posting this that it’s quite a bit off-topic, and that Kandrathe definitely didn't mean what I quoted in the context I put it in and I apologize for that.  I fact, I think he was saying the same thing I am more or less, that America was a little quick to rush into the war, however he feels compelled to believe the war was neccessary to remove Sadam, whereas I disagree wholeheartedly.

I'm sorry?  Excuse me but maybe I'm missing something along the lines of they had no weapons of mass destruction.  Just because a country has a "means" to an end is no reason to invade them.  If that were the case then other countries would be invading the USA all the time.  Not to mention, IF that were the case as justification to why we invaded Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries with even more means, such as Korea or Pakistan?  Give me a break!  I respect you kandrathe, but that logic just makes me sick!
[right][snapback]57230[/snapback][/right]

Set the wayback machine to 1998, Mr. Peabody. Read this. Now consider what Al Queda was able to do the the US without state sponsorship. Iraq and 9/11 were not linked, and even if you believe that Iraq and Al Queda were not linked, the prospect of a State sponsoring a global jihadist organization was chilling. But, a WMD capable State sponsorship of a global jihadist organization was unthinkable. North Korea sells weapons to anyone with cash, and that is a problem. They are not at war with the US, and if anything are petrified now that their bigger brother USSR is not around anymore to intervene. Pakistan has problems with India, mostly over Cashmere, and not us. No, you need to look at who is threatening us. Which nations?

Then consider what Bush said last night in Pennsylvania;

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder.  We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons and one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.  We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America. He was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terrorists. There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks.  In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.  After 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions, we gave him a final chance to come clean and listen to the demands of the free world.

You should read current events:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

You should read the source, not what NBC wants you to hear. {BTW -- I watched it on CSPAN didn't feel I needed the MSNBC abbreviated version}

What makes me sick is how those nations and individuals who eroded the sanctions on Iraq are not held to account for bringing about this chain of events. How can we have any faith in the UN if their only "tool" can be so easily corrupted and bribed. I would have been with everyone else who wanted to stick with sanctions, if they had any teeth. But, after 1998, they were only a paper tiger.