<p>I hope you do understand though that George Bush did not lie about Iraq. What he said about WMDs, first off, was the opinion of the whole world. No one in any real position in any country said that Iraq did not have WMDs. The question was weather the issue could be solved peacefully. I can even see why everyone thought Saddam had WMDs. If you look at the facts the only logical conclusion you could come to is that they did have WMDs. And I am not talking about Collin Powell’s speech or anything, but just the history of Iraq. When in the early 90’s America invaded Iraq they found WMD, including anthrax. Right? Please point out if anything I’m about to say is incorrect. The UN weapons inspector were called in to find and destroy the weapons. So they found WMD’s again in 1996 and did not destroy all of them. Then in 1998 UN weapons inspector’s are kicked out of Iraq. Clinton initiates a bombing of Iraq and calls them on their WMDs. So now between 1998 and 2003 something had to happen to Saddam’s WMDs. Right? He destroyed them on his own without proving it to the world? Perhaps. He sold them to a different country without proving that they are no longer in Iraq? Again it is a possibility. He moved the weapons into a different country for safekeeping. You surely agree that this is also likely. Regardless of what he did with the WMD’s which we both know definitevely that he had when America invaded they were gone. Albeit, long rage missiles, shells that could only be used for WMDs etc were found. But that ofcourse is not as dangerous as the real WMDs that hopefully were destroyed, but remember, we cannot eliminate the possibility that they are still around somewhere. So under that logic, Bush really had no choice but to invade Iraq, and this ofcourse does not take into account other WMD evidence.</p>
<p>Hussein did use WMDs in the past, and if he did have them, which was definitely, a possibility at the time he would surely not hestitate to use them again in some capacity. You agree, with that conclusion? </p>
<p>When it comes to terrorism, Saddams connection with terror is very clear. Lets for instance take the terror orginization, al-qaida, which is only one of many terror groups that want to destroy America. In 2002 a man named al-Zarqawi was injured while fighting Americans in Afghanistan. He then made his way to Iraq and recieved treatment in a hospital run by Saddam Hussein’s son. After the treatment al-Zarqawi did not leave Iraq but prepared, under Hussien’s direction a terror campaign after his inveitable ousting. This, ofcourse, is not the only link between Iraq and al-Qaida. For instance there were many meeting in the 90’s between them too, even though they stopped short of a definite colabaritive effort for a terror attack on the US. But, that did not bother Saddam who had contact with other terrorists and terrorist orginization. For instance, Saddam funded Hama, PA, PLO, PFLP etc…Although these groups primarily focused on attacks against Jews in Israel and around the world, they still succesfully and deliberately managed to kill American citizens. But thats not the only link with terror that Hussein had. One last instance I want to give to you, is a terrorist whose name was Abu Mazen. He hijacked an Italian cruise ship and threw overboard an American citizen, Jewish, but AMerican nonetheless. Saddam welcomed this man with open arms. And used this man as a teacher in many of the terrorist training camps that were run in Iraq. The connection betweeen terror and Saddam is there. The matter, however, is do you want to admit the link? Do you want to admit that since 9/11 there has not been a terror attack in the US and not one on American interests abroad such as an embassy etc. Certaintly a reason that terrorists attack in countries like England, Spain, Indonesia is that its simply easier to kill people there than here.</p>
<p>So now do you want to admit that the war in Iraq has done good for Americans and even the overwhleming majority who even though are not happy about the way things in Iraq are now, but are certaintly glad the Butcher of Bagdad is no longer able to terrorize them. The tension for religious violence was always there and it needed a catalyst which the US army proved to be. This is not necessarily a bad thing because that religious battle against this type of widespread Islam has to be fought. Better it is fought now than later. Bush ofcourse has not done everything right to say the least. But he has done alot and hopefully the continued presence of our American soldiers will help defeat Islamism, in its most brutal form. But this is not a job just for America. It is a job for Israel, France, England, Russia, Spain, Australia etc…Simply look at the current international conflicts and count how many of them involve Muslims.</p>