In reply to:
We seem to forget that this all started with a bunch of cowards flying planes into the WTC.
Which Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with. If that's the reason for invading Iraq, then we really should've been invading Saudi Arabia instead, as they've been a known funder for terrorists for years, as well as 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudi Arabian. There has been absolutely no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein played any role whatsoever in the events of 9/11. The Bush Administration has hinted enough and put that thought out there enough that the general American population has come to believe it without any evidence to support it.
In reply to:
That aside, Saddam still needed to be taken out of power. Think of all of the people he's killed and oppressed while lving in many multi-million dollar mansions and supporting terrorists.
In terms of supporting terrorism, Pakistan and, once again, Saudi Arabia are FAR more guilty of it than Iraq ever has been, and yet for some weird reason Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are considered "allies" in this endeavor. Saudi Arabia even has public beheadings (something Iraq never had). So if we're going by cruel leadership, then once again, Saddam shouldn't be the prime target. And what about Rwanda (and countless other African nations). Those in power there were guilty of far greater crimes against humanity including true genocide, and yet we basically stood by and let it happen. So the whole 'we went in there because he was a bad man' excuse doesn't hold too well, either. Saddam was never the imminent threat the Bush administration made him out to be. In that sense the Bush administration and the "Coalition of the Willing" have utterly failed to provide evidence to the contrary. One would think that if you were dealing with an "imminent threat" you would be able to find some evidence of that threat rather quickly, let alone within a year of taking over.
