tecoyah said:
I use the term "regardless" as a means to express my own confusion when researching the message coming from the Administration, I thought it was relatively clear.
You said regardless of what they said, well why regardless, just go and read what they, and the congress and the American government as a whole said both this administration and the previous. Then read the UN resolutions. It is perfectly clear.
As there are multiple opinions availible in this forum, felt I might gain insight by asking the question.
Well people can have thier own opinions but you asked a factual question, why we went to war and that was fully explained during the run up to the war. Nothing has changed regarding that.
My confusion stems from the changes in message over the last few years,
It hasn't changed, the same reasons that were important then are important now.
and my limited understanding of what we are accomplishing at this point, in the context of the mission set before us in Iraq.
We're accomplishing what we set out to accomplish as stated in all those references I gave you.
I felt I could gain some perspective by asking the members here for opinion on this issue....if you have no insight, and instead simply wish to debase me with poor insults, you have done so, now go away or make a basement thread where we can spar insults back and forth until you run away with a smaller Ego.
I'm sorry you take offense but I find it curious that someone with enough interest in politics to come here would have somehow remained ignorant of why we went to war. Did you not pay attention during the run up and the extensive debates that went on at the UN and in the Congress? Have you ever read the Iraqi Liberation Act?
I guess I can post a few for you as far as WMD? Then of course there were his ties to terrorist and terrorist groups, did you miss that too?
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Does that help make it more clear to you?
Now...back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Never left it, perhap I didn't engage in a Bush bashing you might be looking for.
