Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AppyPappy
I don't think even if he had been fully co-opertive that we still wouldn't have gone it. Because even under full co-operation nothing or virtually nothing would have been found, thus we still would have claimed that he was being non-responsive.

Among my peers, once the 2000 election was finalized, we joked that Saddam's days were numbered and that with this administration, there was unfinished business and that it would be done. Wasn't sure why or how, just knew that it was a given. 9/11 gave the reason. But I still believe had 9/11 had not happened, there still would have been some trigger point that would be our cue to proceed. Yes, Saddam was a bad boy and would have tempted fate. And yes, he was a goner was the oath was taken in January 2001.

24 posted on 04/07/2005 8:32:46 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: joesbucks

I don't think so. I think Saddam was thumbing his nose at the sanctions and agreements. Saddam sought a confrontation with the US and the UN. If he had won that battle, the whole world would have known that we were paper tigers. Saddam was already sponsoring terrorism and we declared war on all terrorism after 9/11. If we had ignored Saddam, he would have become the terrorism kingpin, hiding them beneath his military.

Saddam gambled and lost.


25 posted on 04/07/2005 8:36:37 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson