Originally Posted by vivitron 15
i think that something which needs to be remembered in this whole "was the war justified" issue is that SH wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraw beforehand. This meant that there was the threat of WMD. It is this threat which lead to our going in.
Im sure that everyone agrees that we as a public, see relatively little of the evidence the GBush etc see. If they were to tell us everything, then we would indeed be in trouble. So, many important people, such as military chiefs and logistical experts will have collaberated to decide the degree to which we should think that he has them. Based upon military intelligence, it was decided that it is most likely he does have them.
GBush didnt wake up one morning and toss a coin, i can assure you of that. In fact, I would very much doubt that he had a great deal of say in the issue.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is this:
say there are no weapons, and we go in and remove SH - we are certain that we have eliminated an evil dictator from the world, and we are sure that there are no weapons which can be used against us.
say there are no weapons and we dont go in - well then we live under the constant threat of weapons, we will never know. so we spend billions on trying to find out, whilst the Iraq people suffer under his regime.
say there are weapons and we dont go in - well lets just say SH is having a bad day, and decides to have a huge fireworks party
say there are weapons and we go in - we get rid of the weapons, free the Iraq people and get rid of SH.
The way I see it, the threat was sufficient to go in, as it means that other countries know that the chances of us giving in to their "we wont let the inspectors in" are pretty slim. It is the same as where we dont give in to hostage takers, else everyone would do it.