Except for the fact that he did not pose a threat to anyone, least of all the US in 2001 or 2003, and the UN weapons inspectors, apparently the only people who knew anything about Saddam's inability to carry out any threats, were gathering the data they needed to make a case for the fact Saddam was a shell of what he had been in the past. Due to economic sanctions and no-fly zones. That greedy Europeans and Texans would go around the international laws establishing those sanctions is their failing, and gives Saddam no extra potency or substantiates any of his saber rattling. You read the Duelfer Report. It clearly acknowledges Saddam had nothing and was doing little more than trying to keep Iran from invading.
Yeah, Saddam was not going to be invited to your dinner table. So what? That did not justify the loss of life and expense of the attack and occupation on Iraq. It especially makes no sense in the context of retaliation for 9-11-2001, preventing another 9-11-2001, or for the path we have gone down to trample America's image by having us engage in torture as part of our policy against Muslims there. In fact, there is nothing about the invasion and subsequent occupation that can justify what we did.
You invoked, and then defended your logic, a completely irrelevant set of circumstances from the past that had no bearing on the situation at hand in 2001 through 2003. Saddam did not pose a threat to the US. We had no business attacking him and turning Iraq into the blood bath we turned it into - the Iraqi people were entirely innocent. Your argument sounds delusional, and that is a sign of psychosis.
As I have often mentioned, the WMD argument was not sufficient for me to support deposing Hussein. Nor was his flagrant defiance of a dozen or so UN resolutions. I understand why folks may buy into those arguments they simply weren't my reason.
Mine is based solely upon oil. Having KSA, Iraq, the Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran controlling the majority of the planet's proven oil reserves is bad for oil importing countries. Like the USA. Twice in the previous century those countries (and a few others) choked the oil supply to importing countries and caused massive world-wide upheaval.
Hussein had, on numerous occasions before GW I stated that he wanted to control Middle Eastern oil in furtherance of his desire for world domination. After GW I but before GWII Hussein modified his goal from one of personal power over the single most important commodity in the world to embrace an Islamist version of the same goal. Essentially, Hussein got religion at a convenient geopolitical juncture.
Had Hussein been successful in leveraging his personal ambition by using the Islamists dream of a new caliphate (al-Qa'ida (The Base) / World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders / Usama bin Laden
), the world today would look far different. Instead of democracy emerging among Arab countries, we would probably be facing world-wide attenuation of the oil supply. Recall that oil is the one factor in distribution of food world-wide for which there is no substitute today.
The risk of not deposing Hussein was to me, greater than the risk associated with deposing Hussein. Even if democracy in Iraq fails and Iraq returns to a dictatorship, the dictatorship itself will have much reduced power over the oil supply formerly controlled by Hussein. Also, a return to dictatorship will result in the complete dissolution of the Iraqi state, not unlike what occurred in Yugoslavia. That's certainly not the optimal solution, but it's still better, in my estimation, than having Hussein in absolute power.
How does it help your argument to say I sound psychotic? Are you an expert in psychoses? Would it help my argument if I called you names and stuck my tongue out at you?
Just stick to the point and be civil so that we both might engage in a mutual exchange of ideas and information. Continuing to insult me is not going to advance your argument just as my calling you names wouldn't advance my argument.