Because we had a contractual cease fire agreement with them. Because we had embarrassed ourselves by allowing the revolt we sponsored to be crushed. Because with or without WMD he was the largest threat to the petrochemical homeland of the Middle East, and no matter if you'd like to admit it or not, oil is of vital national security importance. Because he decided to play chicken with us and the un, not allowing inspectors in, not meeting the terms of his cease fire or the various and sundry resolutions brought against his nation.
All answers, all rational, but none of them matter right Dana? Dana wrote: > all of those could conceivably be said to harbor or sponsor > terrorists. But hey, why not any other country? Bluster and bluff are > part of diplomacy. Quite a few countries mistreat their citizens. > Quite a few countries have islamist leanings and think the US is a > threat to their view of the world, The solution to this is not to > prive them right, however. > > On 3/24/08, sam morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why them? >> >>> again... why? Why Iraq and not Somalia or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? >>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257317 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
