soc.culture.iraq

"La N" wrote in message
news:% $ @edtnps82...
>
[snip]
>>
>> I don't agree. You can argue that Saddam had to go if you want, but
>> there is no justification to base this on the WMD argument because if
>> the inspectors had been allowed just a few more months in Iraq in
>> 2003, this issue would've been resolved without the need for war.
>
>
> WMD is just one of *many* reasons the US gave for going to war in Iraq.

Really? Care to nave some of these *many* reasons? And care to provide ANY
supporting evidence and show how these reasons supplied justification for
invasion? We all await the support for your sweeping statements and bald
assertions with baited breath.


> It was the rationale they hyped the loudest because fear is a great
> motivator

I would suggest that it was the rationalle they hyped because given a French
veto of a UN security council resolution propesed by the US, advocating
invasion, it was to only possible reason related to Resolution 1441.



> and what they had hoped would be a tremendous coalition builder.

Not at all! Fully ninety eight and a half percent of the original force was
US! Nowadays it is laeger than per cent US! Hardly a coalition compared
to the Kewait invasion?