I've wrote three papers on Terrorism, Iraq, and then Terrorism, Iraq and the Media. I don't claim to know everything but I do know that there was no evidence to invade Iraq. Between the claims of their supposed Nuclear programs that were disproven and false. Documents that were openly proven to be fordged. Information that was DIRECTLY lifted off a Graduate Students research paper in the early 90's that was used to justify the invasion. Even mentioned in Tony Blairs speech to justify invading Iraq. Then the administration linking Saddam to terrorists and 9/11 when there was no link that anyone has so far been able to prove. Its a sad mess that has to be finished.
While writing the paper on Terrorism and the Media I read one of Bin Laden's speechs Speech
It makes you think. Its important to look at both sides of the coin and understand ones enemies.
"Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve."
Xbox Live Gamertag: Jacklar
8gb Touch/ 160gb Classic
15' 2.4 MBP - 4gb/320gb 7200rpm
BB Bold - Soon to be iPhone with the update.
There were no WMDs. The US blew their intelligence on Hussein by failing to realise this man was an arrogant and ignorant dictator who had no real idea of what capability his country had in any respect. Since he regularly had his underlings shot or tortured, its hardly a stretch to imagine they told him exactly what he wanted to hear. Moreover, the US had no difficulty in finding people who, for a few thousand bucks or a Green Card, were willing to spin whatever story they thought the US wanted to hear. Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors were constantly harrassed and their job made difficult but they found no material evidence of WMDs before the invasion and the US troops and a special investigative team found no evidence after - despite enormous effort. Based on these facts, the argument that the WMDs were moved to Syria is ridiculous. The US has spy satellites trained on the entire country. US and UK planes patrolled substantial no-fly zones since the first Gulf War. Their evidence was either fabricated or incorrectly interpretted. Evidence or argument against WMDs was suppressed or discouraged.
Did Hussein contribute to the invasion of his country? Of course he did. Was US intelligence enormously flawed? Of course it was. That's what happens (on both sides) when you are only looking for evidence to support your own case. Such ignorance of facts is a very dangerous way of conducting world affairs. We've seen it before.
There were many legitimate reasons for actively destabilizing and removing the despotic Hussein and his murderous regime. Unfortunately, none of these reasons happened to fit with the Bush agenda of linking Iraq to 9/11 (never mind the oil and strategic angles).
Saddam was a constant pain in the ass to weapon inspectors. Why?
Saddam found himself between a rock and a hard place. He was force to put up a front about the WMDs because he was afraind the Iran would invade if they thought that the WMDs were all gone.People who have questioned Sadaam about all this say that he said that the Americans knew there were no WMDs and that he though that it was all for show for the American voters and nothing more.
"The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time" -- Albert Einstein
G5 dual 1.8ghz rev A
iBook G4 800mhz
Molar Mac (G3 AIO) 233mhz
B&W G3 400mhz