http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Interesting article...that has a few interesting tidbits, but is mostly about implications of information that the author doesn’t have access to. Also irrelevant to my comments on Iraq, as it implies broader, not narrower, issues.
“So should the US be open for attack because we are one of the major holders of weapons of mass destruction?”
Moving the bars a bit? Completely different argument as to whether they had them, and had shown the will to use them.
“Look at any nation and I can guarantee that they have a few chemical/biological/and in a few cases nuclear weapons. Why have we not gone after N. Korea then?”
You may notice that we are still engaged with N.Korea. ..and it is an entirely different nut. That said, Iraq lost a war, and as part of its ceasefire agreement, was required to declare amounts and locations of all of certain categories of materials ( for some we found new post-GWI production), and present them for destruction. Every few months he was documentably shown to have violated these terms by hiding various very large amounts of his weapons and weapons programs.
“And who set “official U.S. policy” for getting rid of Saddam.”
Congress, signed by the PRE-GWBUSH President. Really, you need too much basic history for this conversation.
“Even on of the American UN inspectors said he didn’t have any left and that all we were doing was harassing him in those final few years before the war.”
The singular one who made an about-face at the time that it came out that Iraq had pictures of an inspector caught in pedophilia, and was blackmailing him? And who never would reconcile completely contradictory statements, or when directly asked denounce or retract his previous statements that Iraq was continuing to hide WMDs, or even offer an explanation for the quantitative discrepancy between what he’d previously documented was there - along with multinational groups of witnesses - and what had been destroyed?
Let’s face it the only reason Bush Sr. stopped during the first gulf war was because he thought his CIA guys could do what they did in Chile and overthrow Saddam in a few weeks or months. All the rest was just window dressing and an excuse to keep up the pressure. There were more UN inspectors than Ritter that were saying the same thing and the fact that once we did go in and none were found kind of proves him right no matter what he may have done afterwards.
WMD’s are just an easy excuse that we use to invade or attack another country but not the only one. We wanted Iraq because Bush Jr wanted to get him, it’s that simple, just a grudge match between the two.
And at the end of it what has happened? Well some have claimed that we use Iraq as a magnet to draw in all the jihadi’s and “grind them up” making Amerika safe. To which I reply, BS! None of those guys had any way of actually getting to the US in the first place and still don’t, they were local yokels that were too stupid to realize they were being used by the power players in the region. That theory was floated after it was realized just how much we screwed up as a way of justifying our continued involvement. It was in no way even a thought when we went in there.
Bottom line we killed a lot of people, they killed a few of ours and maimed even more and we are now leaving Iraq in even worse shape than it was under Saddam. It is more unstable has more jihadi terrorists and is more radicalized than ever. So how is that making the US a safe place? Especially when you consider that every country we invade we ultimately end up importing tons of “refugees” from those countries and already we are having issues now with home grown terrorist of Somali. If that’s not the definition of a waste I seriously don’t know what is. We achieved nothing over there and look weak leaving like we are, have built up a huge amount of hatred from the families of those that we killed and will eventually pay the piper for that.
You can put lipstick on a pig all you want but it won’t make the pig any more attractive.