That'd make sense if it was Bush Sr. running the helm. Dubya's playing checkers and he's waiting to get kinged in Iran.
Didn't America go after Saddam because of all the horendous things he emposed on his people??.................. The word genocide ring any bells?
No America did not. America went after Saddam because he supposedly had WMD's. There was only way that Bush ever said Saddam could avoid war, and it had to do with WMD's. The word genocide does ring a bell. The UN was going to bring up the issue at the time, but the U.S. nixed that motion, and continued to support Saddam during that time. People don't generally start wars for things that happened more than a decade ago.
Wow, just wow. Question: Why didnt we invade Sudan or Rwanda first, where over a million were killed due to genocide? Answer: Because we never cared about genocide.
Actually, just before the invasion, Bush said Saddam could turn himself over to American forces to avoid invasion, which has nothing to do with WMD's.
..I don't know how you got to that conclusion. The purported reason why we were threatening to invade him was WMD's - and the purported way to avert it was for him to step down, so that we could end their pursuit of WMDs - of course it later turned out that their wasn't much of either. How you transpose that into "nothing to do with WMD's" when it is inextricably linked is beyond me. Second - IIRC, it came out a few months ago that Saddam did offer to go into exile or let the inspectors back in or something at the last moment and the administration ignored it - they made their decision a long, long time ago.
Him turning himself over has nothing to do with WMD's, in and of itself. That is not to say that WMD's were not a reason for the war, only that tehy were not the only reason, nor the only avenue to avoid war. They didn't say, you must turn yourself over along with all weapon stockpiles, just Saddam. So, regime change alone would be enough to avoid an invasion, according to a pre-war statement anyway.
He said that based on WMD violations regarding the UN. Bush also attacked before the 48 hours were up.
Whatever the reasoning, there were no WMD stipulations involved, to my knowledge, only the removal of Saddam and his surrender to the US military. That makes two ways that he could avoid war: 1) turn over the WMD's (turns out that was not possible because they didn't exist) or 2) turn himself over to the American military, most likely to face trial for war crimes. Saddam chose neither option, and instead decided to have his country resist militarily, thus the war. It's true that we jumped the gun, but Saddam gave no indication that he was considering turning himself in, and they had intel on the location of high-value targets that was time sensative, jumping the deadline was based on that (I don't think anything came from those attacks, but that was the reason the 48 hours were not allowed to pass.).
My original question is not why we invaded or was it right or wrong? My question is why does the admin. refer to the invasion and occupation as the war on terror? Our actions have been- 1. Invade Iraq 2. Dispose Saddam 3. Install a govt. favorable to our policies 4. Defend the govt. against an insurgency One might argue that the war could best be called- The war against Saddam's dictatorship. The war against terrorism has been fought for years and has had the best results through covert actions. I can't remember in recent history any terrorism being defeated through military actions. Israel provides the best case study of a war on terrorism. I think that implying that this is a war on terrorism is simply a psychological tactic of using misleading phrases in the media to justify actions that wouldn't be supported with more honest explanations.
Saddam WAS a state sponsor of terror, so removing him from power could technically fall under the WoT umbrella.
by sponsor. . you mean they were being trained there? or that he was paying for them to be trained somewhere else? Rocket River
