Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RocHard
I'm not fond of Bush, but I liked Clinton. However, Clinton more or less just sat on his hands while Saddam fired missiles at our planes patroling the no fly zone. We had a dozen reasons to take out Iraq, WMD was just one of them that the press pushed hard because it was scary. Funny now how it seems all of the terrorists are in Iraq, killing Iraqis. As long as they don't come to the mainland US I'm happy.
But there were WMD in Iraq. The day we attacked Iraq they fired missiles at us that had been banned because of their range. We found plans to build nuclear bombs burried in someone's back yard. And worse, a few roadside bombs have been found to contain gases and chemicals long since banned in Iraq.
There is no doubt in my mind we did the right thing here. Bush might be destroying the US, but this is the one thing he got right.
|
In one form or another this is written in the Canadien, American, British, Isreal and Iraqi military handbooks:
Conventional Weapon of Destruction: High Yeild Explosive - eg. Scud Missles
Weapons of Mass Terror: Chemicial & Biological - Miltarily ineffective.
Weapon of Mass Destruction: Nuclear or other Atomic explosive device.
There was no viable nuclear program in Iraq.
Therefore, there was never any weapons of mass destruction.
I guess the British and American Generals must have been home sick the day they taught in the "Military College"