JDG wrote:
-the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter
-the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation.
-the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
see above
-the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing
millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
see above
-the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab
conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
-the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a
terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 attacks.
-the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in
the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq,
allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in
assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the
United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the
development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK?
The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not after.
-the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others?
Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever.
-the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs.
-the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could
provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s.
-the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the
world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the
utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001,
constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same.
Thank you for your answers.
You're certainly welcome.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
