Wrongly Accused?

Well, if I understand everything right. The Coalition forces did the right thing by capturing Saddam. It would be the smart thing as well the right thing to do. Seeing how Saddam was building up nuclear weapons, his primary target would surely have been America. The coalition forces did the right thing to stop Saddam, not only to prevent a massive nuclear attack on America, but also to *free* Iraq from Saddam's tyrannical rule.
Why do I say that Saddam's first attack would be America? It is because he hates America, and there is nothing better than to get rid of what you hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Well, if I understand everything right. The Coalition forces did the right thing by capturing Saddam. It would be the smart thing as well the right thing to do.

---

I agree, at least some good has come of this war.

Quote:

---

Seeing how Saddam was building up nuclear weapons, his primary target would surely have been America.

---

Saddam was not building up nuclear weapons. No evidence of any nuclear program has been found since the UN weapon inspectors first went in, by them or anyone else.

Quote:

---

The coalition forces did the right thing to stop Saddam, not only to prevent a massive nuclear attack on America, but also to *free* Iraq from Saddam's tyrannical rule.

---

Iraq is currently in a state of anarchy. The civil liberties that the Iraqi people have acquired are only on paper, in practice the country is quite a police state; Under the control of the US military who pretty much have the right to do what they like.

I've heard that there wasn't any nuclear bombs or anything found within Saddam's grasp at the end of the war, but I'm just saying that it was at that basis that America went against Iraq in the first place.
Let's say that you were the president of America, and you had a report come into your office saying that one of your enemies is building nuclear weapons. What would you do in this situation? Wouldn't you say that it is smart to go up and stop the threat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

I've heard that there wasn't any nuclear bombs or anything found within Saddam's grasp at the end of the war, but I'm just saying that it was at that basis that America went against Iraq in the first place.

---

Exactely. The Coalition went to war with Iraq because of the alleged nuclear threat Iraq posed, and that threat turned out to be false.

Quote:

---

Let's say that you were the president of America, and you had a report come into your office saying that one of your enemies is building nuclear weapons. What would you do in this situation? Wouldn't you say that it is smart to go up and stop the threat?

---

I would want proof that this enemy posed a real threat before I went to war.

At that time, supposedly, they had enough proof that Saddam had nuclear weapons. They had proof (which turned out to be false like Spook said, but they didn't know it at that exact moment) which was good enough reason to go destroy their enemy.

the war was illegal anyway. you cannot go to war pre-emptively "cos he looked at me funny" evidence or not it was a war crime. and if bush was given evidence he might have been wise to have checked it out, not take it from one biased source. he was blinded by the idea of attacking iraq and lept at an alcholic liar's evidence.

the iraq survery group came out of iraq empty handed with no evidence of a current, functioning and capable WMD program in iraq.

people wants to feel that they are better than anyone, it's part of the human nature to feel like that. but some people use the religion as a form of gaining more power and money.