Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa honesty.. yes i like it. here's a dose of honesty.
Saddam had NO affiliation with AQ. two reasons. Firstly, Saddam never worked the religious angle. In fact Iraq was the first arab nation to actively involve the female population in the workforce. Secondly, AQ would never have been allowed by saddam as he never shared power. And if AQ was active, it WOULD mean split loyalties.
In fact AQ was BANNED in Iraq and Osama spoke out officially against saddam on several occasions. No link here my friend no matter how many lies your president tells you.
Iraq most certainly DID have WMDs at one time. However as hans blix stated, there were NO WMDs in iraq when the US invaded. And that too has been proven by the US inability to FIND anything.
The UN NEVER sanctioned any invasion of Iraq. Only thing that happened was that colin powell tried to CONVINCE the UN to go to war based on a couple of sketchy sattelite images. And honestly if the US didn't have so many nukes, he would hav ebeen laughed out of the security council. ANyow it seems the images were irrelevant since no WMDs were found.
The UN REFUSED to invade IRaq which is why the US invaded with the *giggle* "coalition of the willing". the unwilling didn't need a coalition.. they were a majority of the world population.. most of them non muslim.
There is NO QUESTION that the Saudi government in vehemently supported by the US government. Otherwise saudi arabia should hav ebeen invaded for the same reasons as Iraq. It has VERY ACTIVE AQ support. It is horribly discriminating against women. And it is a despotic dictatorship. So how come no coalition of the willing goes in there to shoot some terrorists.
I agree that the terrorists are the most awful thing. I mean i would slap the shit out of one if i saw him. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that the US actions about the world is REDUCING your security. Not increasing it.
My stance is always that of non-violence. No violence is ever justified. That goes for unwarranted invasions of a foreign land AS WELL AS blowing your ignorant ass up in a crowded restaurant. |
1. Did Saddam have - and use - WMDs in the past? THE ANSWER IS YES.
2. Did Saddam refuse to allow full and unfettered access to UN inspectors? THE ANSWER IS YES.
3. Did Saddam repeatedly refuse to abide by UN Resolutions? THE ANSWER IS YES.
Let's stop acting like Saddam was some innocent little fella that accidentally got caught in the crossfire. Everything Saddam got, he arrogantly brought on himself. |