[cite]Posted By: AshTray[/cite]But a relatively short-range armoury, so therefore not a direct threat.
And exactly what missiles did Saddam have to trouble New York ?
The US argued that Saddam had been outspoken in his support of terrorism and that this threatened national security, not Saddam's armoury in itself. This argument was echoed by the UK and was eventually acknowledged as a valid one by the UN.
[cite]Posted By: AshTray[/cite]But a relatively short-range armoury, so therefore not a direct threat.
And exactly what missiles did Saddam have to trouble New York ?
The US argued that Saddam had been outspoken in his support of terrorism and that this threatened national security, not Saddam's armoury in itself. This argument was echoed by the UK and was eventually acknowledged as a valid one by the UN.
Although Blair told the British public that missiles Saddam had at his disposal could be launched at British targets in 45 minutes. Of course none of these missiles existed and I certainly conclude that the intel was falsified to gain public support for the attack. I am not suggesting that Tony Blair was party to the intel lies and was duped just like the rest of us. Someone in the USA knew the real situation but for whatever reason chose to distort the facts for their own ends. Saddams sponsorship of terror groups was no doubt a concern but was it any more of a concern than colonel Gadafi doing the same for decades without US intervention apart from the failure to kill him in the failed jet
Attack in the 80's ? Again I will not shed a tear at the demise of Gadafi but the cynic in me cannot help but see that oil is a common thread in US foreign policy and certainly military intervention seems to be exclusively reserved for countries with oil.
Then again, why would anyone let a little a bit of plain fact get in the way of some good old fashioned tin foil hat making.
Interesting reading Stu on your Wiki link. Fascinating how statistics can be made to fit almost any argument. I agave decided to discount any American foreign policy including the wars against the Cherokee indians from a timepoint of when the cold war ended. It strikes me that anything before that can pretty much be consigned to history and not have a significant impact on policy going forward. Once you manipulate the statistics in that way I believe that my original point certainly carries more weight. Not a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist as in reply to the thread title I don't believe that the USA was behind 9/11 unless you think that their foreign policy was a significant factor in the attack which I do.
Comments
And exactly what missiles did Saddam have to trouble New York ?
And exactly what missiles did Saddam have to trouble New York[/quote]
You could say the same about Mugabe and no American president attempted to shut him down.
Sorry but I don't get your point ?
The US argued that Saddam had been outspoken in his support of terrorism and that this threatened national security, not Saddam's armoury in itself. This argument was echoed by the UK and was eventually acknowledged as a valid one by the UN.
Although Blair told the British public that missiles Saddam had at his disposal could be launched at British targets in 45 minutes. Of course none of these missiles existed and I certainly conclude that the intel was falsified to gain public support for the attack. I am not suggesting that Tony Blair was party to the intel lies and was duped just like the rest of us. Someone in the USA knew the real situation but for whatever reason chose to distort the facts for their own ends. Saddams sponsorship of terror groups was no doubt a concern but was it any more of a concern than colonel Gadafi doing the same for decades without US intervention apart from the failure to kill him in the failed jet
Attack in the 80's ? Again I will not shed a tear at the demise of Gadafi but the cynic in me cannot help but see that oil is a common thread in US foreign policy and certainly military intervention seems to be exclusively reserved for countries with oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
Would suggest otherwise.
Then again, why would anyone let a little a bit of plain fact get in the way of some good old fashioned tin foil hat making.
Interesting reading Stu on your Wiki link. Fascinating how statistics can be made to fit almost any argument. I agave decided to discount any American foreign policy including the wars against the Cherokee indians from a timepoint of when the cold war ended. It strikes me that anything before that can pretty much be consigned to history and not have a significant impact on policy going forward. Once you manipulate the statistics in that way I believe that my original point certainly carries more weight. Not a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist as in reply to the thread title I don't believe that the USA was behind 9/11 unless you think that their foreign policy was a significant factor in the attack which I do.