Quote from 2cents:
as regards the ultimate justification for the attack, may i remind you that khadafi (lybia) only [insert]OFFICIALLY[/insert]renounced its own WMD programme and helped expose the whole WMD network starting from Dec 2003, ie 9 months after the beginning of the iraq war...
too bad for saddam & his 2 sons if they were deemed to be too dangerous to be left in place... after all they'd only been flaunting UN resolutions and dicking around with IAEA inspectors for what, 10 years? after having initiated how many wars and genocides again?, lost the count, sorry...
just to complete the picture of threats at the time, the existence of a WMD parts network from lybia to nk via the middle-east was well known by competent agencies, some hard stuff coming from russian arsenals, some soft stuff from pakistan... pakistan's khan only came out
officially in jan 2004, 10 mths after the start of the iraq war...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan involving iran as well (not iraq)
people can think what they want but as a leader, post 9/11, when you know the WMD parts traffic is going on in the region, you know who the end-buyers might be and where they want to "deliver", nobody really wants to help you on the basis of unity / non-interference in the fight against a common US "enemy", and you have a saddam & sons playing all sorts of games the way he has, and
france stupidly helping him make the relevant UN resolutions unenforceable, its pretty clear what your options are...
thats not to say that the ire against 60 years of naive and overly aggressive US foreign policy in the middle east (incl CIA-overthrow of a number of democratically-elected but unfavorable secular leaders) is unjustified though... not at all... if it weren't for these stupid acts of aggression, the radical islamists wldn't be where they are today...
still, who would wait for the nuclear strike itself as conclusive evidence?
