Subj : Why?
To   : Sam Alexander
From : Frank Reid
Date : Mon Oct 03 2005 11:35 am

  Re: Why?
  By: Sam Alexander to Frank Reid on Mon Oct 03 2005 10:40:00

 > Most folks in Washington will agree that Saddam was not directly linked to
 > Bin Laden, and the attack in Iraq wasn't justified for the reasons Bush
 > gave.  I didn't like or trust the guy, even when he was my governor in
 > Texas, but I think his saying he believed Saddam had WMD is true -- to an
 > extent.  Saddam yielded to Bush's every want in trying to prove there were
 > no WMD and Bush still invaded him.  Am I glad Saddam is out of power, sure I
 > guess, but I think the reasons Bush gave to attach were bullcrap.

I agree entirely, with the exception of Saddam yielding to U.S. (and, for that
matter, UN) demands.  He was a "convicted" criminal of the world based on his
invastion of Kuwait a decade earlier, and he had no "sovereign right" to hide
what he was doing.  He lied, deceived and cheated the UN for a decade, until he
finally came to his senses at the eleventh hour when he realized we were not a
paper tiger and were coming in again.  Unfortunately, for him and for us, his
last minute conciliations were not enough.

Unfortunately, being powerful also means that you sometimes must wield that
power.  If we hadn't invaded, Saddam would still be in power, and he would
today be figuring out a way to lie and cheat in his quest to dominate that
region.  And we would be on the 45th UN resolution calling for him to play
nice.  And, who knows, maybe he would also have finally succeeded in making
friends with people of like mind that didn't act under the guise of national
borders.

I think only the history books will be able to decide how this chapter of human
civilization plays out... it's impossible to assess it objectively while you're
in the middle of the play.

---
 þ Synchronet þ BBS Doors (www.bbsdoors.com)

.