Quote:
|
....not likely in the near future...
|
That is what I think the entire debate gets down to......."not likely" does not mean that he wouldn't do it, and "near future" does not mean he wouldn't have done it eventually. Frankly, I couldn't forsee him NOT sharing his weapons with other enemies of the US. I beleive he wanted to have others do his dirty work for him, as he knew he would never be able to take on the U.S. himself -- and if he tried to the U.S. would crush him out of power. So, he tried to "brainwash" a bunch of people into thinking America was so evil so that they would do harm to America on his behalf. Saddam is a coward -- big time.
I beleive in preemption. The same way I wouldn't go outside in the winter with little clothes on and risk getting sick.
But I agree with you, it is all -- thankfully -- a moot point as Saddam is done and Iraq will be a better place for it. More importantly, the world is a better place for it -- and again, that is thanks to the United States of America.
BTW - I'll also point out that the sources you quoted have, so far, been inaccurate in their assessment of things. There have been no use of chemical weapons that we know of, and no acts of terrorism against the U.S. as a result of this war. Even the foundamentalist Muslims understand that Saddam was an evil man who would have turned on them as well if he had the chance. The quotes and sources you provided said a lot of things like, "....eventually...." and "....to date has not...." and "....we do not think....". None of them seemed to KNOW much, and mostly were postulating. That is not a risk I am willing to take.