Then again, Saddam said during interrogations that he was simply waiting for U.N. inspectors to leave before he started rebuilding again. While it has since been proven that he lied about having them, he still had the capabilities of doing so.
So, if we did take out Iran instead of Iraq, we would basically have the same problem in reverse: Amadinejad would be out of a job, and Saddam (an even more insane man) would still have his. So, which way would you rather have it? Either way, the anti-war crowd would have been roaring and chanting.
Here's the latest news on Iran:
The IAEA on Monday expressed "serious concern" that Tehran was still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads, as well as defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.How can you trust a totalitarian dictator nation? The answer is you can't. We can never take our eyes off these folks. And, if nothing else comes from winning in Iraq (which I think we will), we will have a nice stronghold right next to Iran so we can keep an eye on this guy.
"Washington and its European allies fear Iran wants to use the sensitive process of uranium enrichment to make an atomic weapon, but Tehran insists its drive is entirely peaceful and has refused to freeze such efforts.
Ever since we have had a presence in Iraq, Amadinejad has thrown temper tantrums, but he hasn't done anything credible. Sure, he could be a lying thug just like Saddam regarding WOMD.
But, one thing we do know, if he had them, there's no doubt he wouldn't hesitate to use them against Israel. Or, better yet, hand them off to terrorist thugs so they could do the work for Iran.
And that's the thought of the day.