Originally Posted by antarius
Saddam still should have been removed, the Middle East still needs to be reformed, starting with a Democracy in Iraq; and Saddam was still a threat to the United States, it's allies and the rest of the world, and he still supported terrorism on a very active and regular basis - by paying Palestinian families whom had a family member act out a suicide bombing.
You're doing the same thing the Bush administration is doing: coming up with other reasons after the fact.
They're saying he was planning to get WMDs in the event that the sanctions were lifted, and that was a good enough reason. That's bunk. The sanctions were holding. We had time to get rid of Saddam without invading the whole freakin country and without the support of a treaty organization.
The overall concept of getting rid of Saddam is not one that I disagree with. However (this is where in a presidential debate one of the candidates would say, "here is a fundamental difference of opinion") the ends do not in my mind justify the means of an all-out military engagement costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
I, as a tax paying, voting, citizen of the United States, do not approve of my government going to war at the wrong time and giving a reason for it that turns out to be false, and then after the fact giving a bunch of other reasons why it was still necessary.