Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser
And putting aside the word "legal" for a moment, do you think it was the right thing to do?
|
I do.
While the spin has been to put the blame on the intelligence community of the USA, it is fact that the intelligence agencies of Egypt, Russia, and England (and others, I believe) all told us the same thing. It is a fact that Saddam had used them in the past. It is a fact that he had offered safe harbor to Osama. It is a fact that he had repeatedly violated cease fire agreements on unfettered inpections.
In the post 9/11 world, when you have someone who has used WMD, refuses to abide by a cease fire agreement, is making overtures to terrorists who attacked us, and many intelligence agencies confirmed what our intelligence agencies said with regard to WMD, it was the right thing to do.
I report my arguments of old not in the interest of rehashing debate on the point, but solely because I was asked. I realize many disagree. My opinion is based on the facts that I have listed.
Loss of our soldiers is a sad thing. Loss of innocent civilians is a sad thing. I again point out that only 20% or so of the population of our original 13 colonies wanted independence from England, but it was the right thing to do. Many died. Soldiers and innocent civilians. Doing what is right often has a high price associateds with it.
Edited to add: You point out that "this wasn't the reason given" as justification for the invasion. In fact, the violations of the cease fire were at the forefront. We continued to give Saddam opportunity after opportunity to abide by the agreement and give complete and unfettered access to inspect wherever we wanted without warning, as was stipulated in the cease fire. He would not. This is what 17 (or so) UN resolutions dealt with. Because of those violations, we could not verify or disprove what the intellegence reports of so many countries told us.