Originally posted by jimmac
It's easy to say " You're ignorant ". Tell me how I'm wrong bucko. I know that some claim that Saddam had WOMD before the war. The facts just don't support that. That's the main excuse for the war. There might have been other things but no WOMD. Bush did ignore the UN's wishes however. Provide proof please.
WRONG. Bush provided many reasons for the war. The WMD thing was only emphasized when we went to the UN. They were totally uninterested in the mass murders and human rights violations, we had to sell them with the crappy WMD intel that we had. Surely you see the irony in that.
Just like the UN you ignore the sheer humanitarian tragedy of the situation. Removing SH was the right thing to do. Lack of stockpiles of WMD doesn't change that fact. Even this tsunami hasn't reached the number of dead at his hands. here I'll post it again:http://massgraves.info/http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stmhttp://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/
weapons programs... check
mass graves... check
intent to resume WMD production at earliest date... check
corrupt government... check
connection to terrorism... check
banned weapons... check
From the UN speech:
"In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge."
Let me break it down for your "progressive" mind to comprehend - SH did not provide proof of disposal, without it there is no verifiable way to be sure he had done so. But wait! The UN was inspecting, right? Well gee, haven't we learned that the UN was then on the take? Yep, sure was. Not only that, how many times had they been kicked out? How many times did they claim he circumvented and derailed the process?
For a comparison, how long has it taken to verify the same thing in Libya?
There were many reasons to remove SH, and intellectually honest people can't pick only one of those reasons to base their disapproval of this war on, when the majority of reasons were proven true. Your radicalism prevents you from facing facts.
Not only that, another reason (if not reasons) has been and are continually being revealed during the course of the war.
In addition, all of the evidence has not even been touched, for the sheer amount of it all. You seem ever willing to call it before all of the facts are in. Which by the way, is a hallmark of you and your fellow "progressives".
I have noticed that your position has slipped a bit so maybe there is hope for you, after all.
When all the evidence is in, I predict that "progressives" like yourself will be shameful of their former stance.