Quote:
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Quote:
|
The rationale for attacking Iraq has been linked to the War on Terrorism, and that is showing to be less and less credible and in fact a bogus excuse.
|
On the contrary.
There could not have been an effective war on terrorism, without there also having been an invasion of terrorist- harboring and terrorist-supporting nation(s) like Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether, in hindsight, one can tolerate that WMDs have yet to be found, or that the coalition relied upon unproven (or disproven even) allegations that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials is ultimately not the point. Given Iraq's record, and given the information the administration had at the time, I'm perfectly comfortable with a probabilistic justification for invading Iraq.
What's bogus is the post-facto opposition by schmucks like Kerry.
|
Totally disagree with the conclusion that to have an "effective war on terrorism" that a State, which has not been shown to support al Queda, to supply al Queda or to give refuge to al Queda, should require invasion and regime change.
There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, and therefore the justification of the Iraq War as an appendage of the War on Terrorism is fraudulent.
What is truly bogus is the information that was fed to the American public to support the invasion, as that information has been proven to not be factual.