Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nico-t
It was clear that bush and his boys were searching for arguments to start a war, they were the action and not a reaction. It has to be the opposite.
Its like a cop busting in your door without a reason and turning the house upside down in the hope he finds a butter knife, calls it an "assault weapon" and put u in jail. His goal is to put u in jail, no matter what.
Bush and his boys' goal was to invade iraq, clearly for economic purposes, and they desperately grasped any vague detail they could find to blow it out of proportion and use it as arguments for their plan. That way you will find a reason to invade any country in the world.
|
It was actually the US Congress...during President Clinton's time in office...that took it upon themselves to vote on and pass a resolution advocating the overthrow of Saddam and the Baath party. President Clinton failed to act upon this resolution and President Bush chose to act. I have personally been an advocate for the overthrow of Saddam and the Baath party since '91...when they first began to violate the cease fire agreements that they signed on for...and have been an advocate every year there after...for multiple accumlative reasons.
There were multiple good...valid reasons...for removing Saddam and the Baath party since '91 and 9/11 presented additional...good...valid reasons.