|To: Quincy who wrote (5773)||4/28/2003 6:38:10 PM|
|From: Orcastraiter||Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8679|
|With the chemical warfare equipment found, what if it is just well buried in sand?|
I'm much more concerned with people burying their heads in the sand.
The American people need to ask the hard questions. It's our right and our responsibility. Where are the WMD? If they are buried in the sand, then someone knows where. With the satelite surveilance any major excavation would have shown up. You can't hide 500 tons and 30,000 munitions that easily. 500 tons of liquid would fill about 2,500 barrels. About 50 semi truck loads, or 250 flatbeds worth, and this does not count the 10's of thousands of liters of chem weapons or the 30,000 munitions, which would easily double the number of trucks needed to haul it.
Something does not seem right.
When the president uses the case of WMD to justify an invasion, the intelligence should be so complete that those weapons would have been rounded up in the first part of the battle. Instead of going after the weapons, they went to protect the oil fields and the oil ministry facilities first. Leads me to believe that they had no concrete evidence of WMD.
The WMD argument was the one argument that brought national security into question. That made the case to congress for going to war a no brainer. The fact that Saddam was a tyrant does not justify going to war, unless we are prepared to go to war with every tin pan dictator in the world. That is a long list of wars we need to fight if such is the case.
I hope the Iraqi people will make the best of an opportunity for democracy. But I'm not sure that war was the only way of making that happen. Saddam could have been dealt with in other ways.