Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
9/11 caused a different way of thinking about Islamic terrorists and the threats to the US. Sh was an Isamlic terrorist who had used WMD before and had shown aggresssion by invading Kuwait. SH had made it clear he would attack the US if he could and he had attacked an ally of the US and US planes in the no fly zones. So, it was logical to say "hmmmmmm - maybe we ought to see if SH really has those WMD after all because we now know the US can be attacked on its own soil" --- I wish you would explain to me how that is a huge leap of logic or in any way wrong.
Again, if SH had complied for the prior decade, none of this would have happened. Yet, you assign no fault to him. Only W and never Clinton.
|
SH was never a threat to us! If you want to talk realistic threats to the US, I think Saudi Arabia or Syria are more likely hotbeds of terrorist activity than Iraq, who had been in the past our ally. What about Iran? with its Nuclear capability? I think those countries are better candidates for threat factor personally...
btw, I never "assigned no fault" to SH, obviously he should have complied. But I think his reasons for non-compliance had nothing to do with hidden WMD, and everything to do with not wanting to appear subjugated by a Western world in front of all his Arab/Muslim neighbors.