To all of the “know it all’s”...
Please tell me exactly what the alternate consequences would have happened if we’d *not* taken out Saddam?
Remember, he DID have WMD’s. The Oil For Food program WAS corrupt and falling apart. He DID have hundreds of tons of yellowcake. He WAS waiting to restart these programs at the drop of a hat. He WAS the biggest sponsor of terrorism. He HAD used WMD’s in the past.
To say we shouldn’t have done this “knowing what we know now” is quite arrogant, it also requires buying into media lies and revisionist history.
He’s one alternate version:
We don’t get involved in Iraq. Oil for Food ends. U.N. weapons inspections never resume. Saddam restarts all WMD programs; nuclear, biological and chemical. Within ten years he’s more dangerous than ever. He’s trained 1000’s of terrorists. He gives them the means to attack the world. Hundreds of thousands are killed, if not more. ...the same people saying “we shouldn’t have gone in” will instead be saying the opposite.
Don’t forget Salmon Pak and the buried jets. And the buried WMDs.