Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests The justifications for attacking Iraq

The justifications for attacking Iraq have turned out to be false. Iraq did not have viable weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons. If it did, they would have been used against us. Saddam is not a nice man. He used WMDs on his own people and he would have used them on us. Also, if Iraq were close to getting nukes, Israel would have bombed the plant, like it did before on October 7, 1981.

And Saddam Hussein is not in bed with Osama bin Laden. Hussein ran a secular government in which womenâ??s rights were prominent and religious freedom was celebrated. Many of his top officials were Christian. Also, he allowed western media influences. And he was a friend with the west (America) during his war against Islamic radicals in Iran. Iraq was everything that Bin Laden opposed, as shown in his Front Line (PBS) interview:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

At some point, it may have been necessary to launch a full-fledged invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had his way, he would have acquired nuclear weapons. However, the war was premature, unjustified, and hardly supported internationally. North Korea is/was more dangerous than Iraq. And North Korea clearly supports terrorist states. The only problem is that N. Korea really DOES have nukes. Itâ??s not about what country is most threatening, but more about which country is most vulnerable.

In fact, many of our allies like Saudi Arabia supported terrorism. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi and how many were Saudi? And where does Bin Laden come from? Do you wonder why the section of the 9/11 report RE Saudi was removed from public record?

Iraq has a lot of oil and Saddam launched a failed assassination attempt on Bush senior whilst Clinton was in office. Also, our military was already in the area having dealt with Afghanistan. And there is the argument that prevention is important. These might have been possible motivating factors. Who knows?

Yes, there are many possible reasons for attacking Iraq. But the claim about nukes and Saddam supporting the 9/11 attacks are all completely unfounded. Bill Oâ??Reilly has it right.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/163375p-143201c.html

Uh OK.

And you joined a Contour site to spout your ignorant propaganda and talk about nothing related to cars because...???

Here we go with another political discussion, wait 30 min before you start so my pizza has time to arrive. As for the newbie, do a friggin search

Isn't this a place where off-topic items can be discussed. And by the way, my point of joining the board WAS Contour related. Yes, I do own one. If you don't like the off-topic section, no need to read it.

Sincerely,

Scott

i agree......ignorant rhetoric.....and probably a liberal too. we could set him straight but it wouldn't be worth our time.