Originally posted by EliteAccord
War is a dirty word. Yet War is necessary sometimes. Look at the Revolutionary war it was necessary. Look at the Civil War it too was necessary. Look at World War 2. It too was necessary. Were we going to allow Japan to destroy the Pacific fleet and allow them to take over the USA? Were we going to allow the Nazi and the Axis power to take over Europe and annihilate all Jews in Europe even though Germany didn't do anything directly against the USA?
WWII was the Axis powers essentially trying to take over the world, which is a definite threat to the USA. Besides, we didn't enter the war until
after our allies were losing
and the Japanese launched a direct attack on us. Iraq has not attacked our allies or us.
Let say England and USA went after Hitler back in 1938 before the start of WW2. Would it of been wrong to do a preempitive strike and remove the Third Riech and the Nazi from power? I bet most people would of said yes it is wrong. Yet look at what happened when nobody had the courage to step up against what is unpopular (war) and do what is morally and ethically right. 7+ million innocent lives later have we learned the lesson that we should remove a possible and potential threat before it becomes a real threat?
A preemptive strike is a preemptive strike. It's not like we knew what Hitler's plans were ahead of time. Hindsight is 20/20.
Whether or not Iraq is directly linked to the attacks of 9/11 it is linked to terrorist against American interest and that is sufficient threat to prevent something from occuring then wait for the inevitable to occur.
What one person sees as inevitable, other people see as a potential threat. The administration itself has not said anything beyond the fact that Saddam is a potential threat, only their supporters have said otherwise.
Just because Saddam didn't fund or give arms to Al Qaeda terrorist doesn't mean he is innocent. As long as he allows Al Qaeda to live, train, and prepare attacks in Iraq then Saddam is just as guilty for being an accomplice to the crime itself.
Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Once again I will point out that the administration has not tried to make a direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the only people who have done that are the people who are convinced the administration is doing the right thing for one reason or another.
For example, If I lived in Canada and Al Qaeda terrorist wanted to rent my house. And I knew that they were terrorist plotting to attack USA. Would I be innocent since I wasn't directly related to the terrorist activities or knew that they were planning an attack? And the same group drove a truck with a bomb into the garage of the WTC. I didn't give them money, supply them with food, nor did supply them with arms. Would I be innocent since all I did was be like Saddam and harbor and allowed terrorist a safe haven to organize, plan and attack?
Yet more hypothetical speculation that doesn't prove anything.
The track record and history of Saddam is tainted with lies and deception. It isn't like he is clean and just got a parking ticket yesterday. He is guilty in numerous crimes. Crimes that should of and could of been punishable by death long ago. Yet he lives.
If his track record is so bad, we shouldn't have supported him in the 80's. He's always been a dictator, and he hasn't gotten any worse. He's always been bad. The reason we're attacking him is because the administration has convinced itself that he is a potential threat and that we should get rid of him because we can.