I really don’t want to get into another argument about this, so I’ll reply to these comments, and not to any later ones.
What mattered? That Sadam could provide good documentation, or that he give up all his WMD?
But since he failed to provide the documentation showing he had disarmed, we were authorized, and justified, in attacking, and making sure he did.
I would prefer to have had another resolution to that little snipit.
That would send a great message to the world; “it’s ok folks, neither the UN nor us mean what we say the first time, and we’ll give you several chances after the first ultimatum. Take your time.”
We did not need to prove we meant what we said.
We didn’t invade to prove we were strong enough to do it; we invaded to force Saddam to comply with the UN resolution. Ever heard of the Munich Agreement? Giving insane dictators chance after chance is not a good strategy.
We are pullig troops out of deployments all over the world. Is that the the act of a strong nation?
That is the act of a smart nation. We don’t need to leave those troops in Europe, so why keep them there? Interesting too that Kerry not too long ago was in favor of pulling the troops out of Europe, but now that Bush is doing it, Kerry doesn’t like it. Oops; another flip-flop :roll: .
i’m sorry - what was that 5000-odd paged document that Saddam had given up (that the US had taken and no-one had ever heard of since)?
I had understood that this was to be documentation that showed that he disarmed.
I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not saying you’re making that up, but then since neither of us know what was in that document (assuming it existed) it’s pointless to bring it up.