Posted on 09/20/2004 7:57:59 AM PDT by PastaBagel
With military casualties exceeding 1000 and so apparent end in sight to the insurgency, it’s understandable that even the most hawkish among us may be having doubts about the war, and perhaps second-guessing supporting the war in the first place. But make no mistake, this was not an elective war....The fact is that prior to the 2003 invasion, the situation in Iraq was completely untenable and highly unstable. In late 1996, France had withdrawn its participation in no-fly zone enforcement, saying that its humanitarian aspects had been eliminated. It was only a matter of time before the U.N. grew tired of the issue. The U.S. could not continue enforcing no-fly zones forever. Ten years was enough. Iraq was not our colony or territory, and our moral authority for invading their airspace was already diminished. It was time to return Iraq to the status of a fully sovereign country. The only question was whether it would do so as Saddam’s or in some other form. And even a recent study show that if Iraq retained its full sovereign authority with Saddam in charge, he would have resumed WMD projects.
We had no choice to upset the status quo in our favor, because it was going to be upset against us. Saddam had to go, that was obvious. More importantly, however, he had to be toppled, by force, by the United States. Only a U.S. invasion could release us of our participation in sanctions and the no-fly zone, and allow us to support the Kurds, settle the weapons question, and shatter the Arab thinking, all at once....
Read the rest at pastabagel.com
"Saddam had to go, that was obvious."
Agreed, but why is this ass dart still breathing?!
He won't be for long...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.