Last time I checked, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were American interests, and according to recent maps they all border Iraq, so to me it is very imminent and real and indisputable. I seem to recall almost 17 years ago Iraq invaded Kuwait, and prior to that they battled it out with Iran for over 10 years. And Saddam continuously violated the no-fly zone rules by shooting missiles at our jets, and again he made no effort to convince the world that he did not have WMD's. Given Iraq's past history, I don't really feel comfortable "assuming" that he had no WMD's with our interests so close. Sure things would be a lot better overall for everyone (except the Iraqi people) if Saddam had just given free and unfettered access to ALL of his facilities, and had been completely upfront with the world. But since Slick Willey set precedence of cowering to any enemy, perceived or real, I guess Saddam figured he could afford to screw around with us, and now here we are. I am not saying that this is all Clinton's fault, but I feel that if he had been a bit more aggressive with countries like Iraq, things would be very different right now.
Bruce G Money wrote: > My point is that even if Iraq did have a few WMD's laying around, they were > in NO WAY an immediate threat to the US or our interests. That's disputable, > but that's what I believe. > > In Hatton's analogy, the danger is imminent and very real. That's where it > breaks down for me. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:246544 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
