Quote:
Originally posted by Donut:
I tried to edit the 'offending' word Thoran but I get a message to say 'Sorry, the time to edit your post has elapsed' or somelike.
I guess Z has changed the settings because of people deleting their threads.
Perhaps you could imagine it says 'pro-war' and then address my point.
|
No problem...
Well, I didn't respond in that thread, but my response to the question is that while I thought (and still believe) there are Chem/Bio and possibly Radiological weapons in Iraq, I never really thought the war was about WOMD's. It seemed to me that the President was using the existance of these weapons as a justification for action, but the minor threat posed to the US by these devices IMO didn't justify action... I always thought Bush had other reasons for the war (which I hope he tells us someday).
My support for the war wasn't based on the short term risk of Saddam and his WOMD's, but rather a combination of the long term risk (which IMO was significant) and the potential benefits to his country and the world of his removal. Another factor in my opinion was that he was reachable. 12 years of refusal to follow UN resolutions left him vulnerable to attack... and I credit Bush for taking action even though I think the downside risk far outweighs the upside potential for him personally.
As far as the change in administration focus, you can believe whatever you will... perhaps it's spin, perhaps it's the real reasons Bush did this coming out. Who knows, and no doubt people will believe what they want based on their own position. Doesn't really matter I think... what's important is what is done going forward (which I'm not too optimistic about thus far).