I don't disbelieve the fact that chalabi could be an iranian agent.
Muslims have such strong loyalties to islam that they invariably are double agents.
If a muslim isn't working for iran, he could be working for Pakistan or saudi arabia, the two al qaeda sponsors and countries with direct ties to 911.
However the fact of the matter is that we should do what's good for us, regardless of the facts about chalabi.
we didn't have conclusive evidence to prove that Iraq didn't have WMD's. As you can see al qaeda's zarqawi seems pretty busy in iraq these days.
There is a very strong possibility that Saddam could have had some WMD's, as he had been fooling inspectors for years. Considering that fact that zarqaqi is in iraq, it is very likely that these ould fall into al qaeda's hands.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary and against the backdrop of 911, we had no choice but to move against iraq.
We just couldn't sit, pray and hope that saddam didn't have WMD's and that he didn't have al qaeda ties.
If muslims lived in wealthier, educated, industrialized societies, it would have been the islamic reich and a menace to the world
Saudi arabia is wealthy. Iran was wealthy till we sanctioned it. Libya is wealthy.
Surprising these countries are the main sponsors of terror.
Surprising how pakistan and iran were peaceful countries, till aid money got to them and then boom they turned fanatic and violent overnight didn't they?
I'd say it had to do with the money.
I mean if hitler was the ruler of bangladesh, could he have been a threat?
i suppose its the wealth, industrial and scientific might of germany that turned him into a menace.
any thoughts to disprove this?