So we let Saddam build up more chemical and biological weapons than he already had? Sure, some say he didn't have them. But ask the Kurds. He used chemical weapons on his own people. He led the world to believe he had more weapons than he actually had. He led the world to believe he was close to having nuclear weapons. He had every opportunity to prevent what happened to him. He ignored UN Resolution after UN Resolution.
Of course, as it turned out he didn't have what he wanted the world to believe he had. But what if he had? Do you think he would not have sold any kind of weapon to the highest bidder? Yes, he was a threat to world peace. He murdered hundreds of thousands of people as the world stood by and did nothing. He invaded Iran and got his butt kicked. Then he invaded a country that was no match for him. Would he have stopped there? I doubt it very seriously. His past record certainly would not lead me to believe that.
I don't in any way support this war as it is going now. If we were going to do it we should have done it full force. Politicians can't win wars but they certainly can lose tham. We evidently didn't learn anything from Vietnam because that is exactly what we are faced with again.
And one thing a lot of people seem to forget is that Bush had enough support from Congress and the Senate to go to war. Flipper Kerry supported the war before he denied doing it. Hillary supported the war and then changed her mind after it became unpopular. Actually at one time the vast majority of the American people supported the war. That support started dropping as the war began to drag on. But the war is dragging on because it is being run by politicians more than the military.
Bookmarks