McFly,
You are right on target. There was no precipitous need to engage in a pre-emptive war in Iraq. Iraq was a fully contained and essentially disarmed country. Its military infrastructure was dilapidated and incapable of mounting any kind of offensive. For the past 12 years, Saddam has frittered away what's left of Iraq's oil revenues to build personal palaces and monuments. At some point, his regime would have caved in on itself all on its own.
There were no weapons of mass destruction and no real connection with Al Qaeda. The accusations made by the Bush administration were, at best gross exaggerations and at worst deliberate lies. We are going to spend billions of dollars and lose hundreds of American lives on the basis of this incredibly inaccurate "intelligence."
It was a terrible mistake committed by an incompetent dilettante.
Donald
Current Events » in reply to Perhaps you are asking the wrong question
But you are offering the right answer
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Bush U.N. speech persuades few
- Meanwhile: Baghdad Blasts Undermine Bush Bid for Iraq Backing
- Bush refuses to kiss U.N. ass
- Why did he address the UN, then?
- can't answer a simple question can you?
- re: Why did he address the UN, then?
- Perhaps you are asking the wrong question
- re: No
- Why did he address the UN, then?
- Bush’s U.N. fiasco
