Reply #34: Eh?

[lastliberalintexas]

Just because bin Laden wanted to overthrow the man you think it's appropriate for the US to do so first? What kind of argument is that?

If and when that looked like it could become a reality, we could have stepped in then. But I would have argued that we should have stepped in to defend Hussein from the fundamentalists, and allowed the UN to continue inspections and supervise Iraqi progress in the areas of human rights. Iraq was not a great place and had a long way to go under Hussein, and UN supervision/guidance could have improved many conditions in that country. Now however, we have created a cesspool from which it is almost certain that YET ANOTHER fundamentalist pseudo-Islamist state will emerge. Nice work there Shrubbie.

And you still have provided NO evidence that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US or his neighbors so as to justify our invasion of a sovereign nation. All that you have said is that the Taliban and bin Laden/al Qaeda were, but those groups are not one and the same for Hussein. I am not a pacifist, and I support the so-called war on terror- I just disagree with the Shrub administration's methods and approaches to same. But our invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror, nothing to do with making the US and world safer, and nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.