Originally posted by EternalOne: I could see this point, except for the fact that the entire worlds intel said the exact same thing. And its now been proven that even though Saddam didn't have the ability, he wanted everyone to THINK he did. We were fooled, but him fooling us only resorted in our attack.
i honestly don't recall any intelligence other than ours (subtract UK) supporting the case that iraq was developing nukes and was close to having one, had proven ties to al qaeda, or had confirmed stock piles of wmds. we stated all of those as fact and even went as far as to say we knew where they were in our presentation to the UN and could back it up once we went in. from my recollection other nations were basing their statements off of what we said/gave to them. in addition the evidence imo didn't support the case that iraq was an clear and imminent danger - meaning they could attack us in a yr or less. saddam always stated that if we attacked him then they would destroy us (lol!) but it was never the other way around.
i do agree that saddam was posturing the same as kim jong, al asad, and ahmadinejad are and have been. but to me that's like a 4 ft guy with no toes saying he can dunk on yao ming. nothing but talk.
edit: again we've been through all of this before and hindsight is 20/20 as you all say, but if you look back to our discussions in 2002 and early 2003 BEFORE WE WENT INTO IRAQ and you'll see i for one was saying the same thing back then about intelligence not supporting the immenent threat scenario or the top 3 reasons for going into iraq. most of you were saying "we don't know for sure".
