In a message dated 10/22/06 6:57:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dix,

Let me ask you the same question Tim Russert asked Jim Talent R-
Missouri during a debate with his D- Challenger. "If you knew then,
what you know now about going to war in Iraq, would you still have
done it" He answered "yes".
HMMMMMMM. Yes, but differently and maybe not at the same time. Saddam had to go. Had we not gone in, everybody would be second guessing to this day whether he had the WMDs or not. The Duefler report said Saddam was even more dangerous than ever whether he had stock piles or not because he had the ability and determination to have them and he had undermined the sanction process so badly that they would soon collapse. Just think what he would be doing right now if his sanction had collapsed, with the price of oil it is now and him  pumping it at record levels. Iran, one of his mortal enemies, building nuclear weapons next door to him. Would he not feel justified in reconstituting any WMD's programs he had just as India was justified when Pakistan developed the bomb? Yes, Saddam was militarily contained but he was trouble waiting to happen. Being militarily contained was all the more reason for him to support groups like Hamas or Heezbullah with Syria. Iranian rockets and missiles smuggled through Syria with the possibility of Iraqi nerve gas on them. That would have been a nightmare  this past summer. 
__._,_.___

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Reply via email to