On 10/4/07, Alex Eckelberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to admit, there's a lot out of context there. By 2001, Saddam > was crippled, he hated Al-Qaeda, evidence was very weak (if not, > nonexistent) that he was trying to acquire nuclear technology... etc. > > Alex >
First: http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/11/no-evidence-of-a-saddam-osama/ Second, I'm saving the rebuttal I was going to send with all of the !s and stuff, whats the point? Your argument that Saddam was crippled can not stand because the last thing anyone should want, let alone a country, is a desperate and wealthy enemy. The fact that he hated Al-Qaeda, or that the hatred was mutual even, hardly detracts from their known, stated and oft cited philosophy that any means justifies their ends. They had used one another in the past and we had - and have - no reason to believe they wouldn't again (and that was especially true after invading Afghanistan). As for WMDs, well, I don't have restate everything provided in the link I've provided - its a worn out argument. Bush 1 thought it, Clinton thought it, Bush 2 thought it and then did something about it. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
