in my opinion the war would still be unjustified since there would have been better ways to handle the situation and since hussein didn't post a threat to anyone.
yes, youve made that clear...and im sure others feel the same way you do, as far as it not being justified either way. there is a large crowd of skeptics though, many on this board, that point to the "lack of evidence" for these wmd as the main reason (or one of the main reasons) that they feel we are unjustified in our military action. as far as hussein posing a threat, i respect your opinion that even with wmd he didnt pose one, although i still strongly disagree with it. it goes back to our whole "he is a madman"/"he isnt a madman" argument, which im sure youll agree we dont need to rehash at this time.
also i wanted to ask you why you trust the bush admin (or any admin for that matter) so much? it was already proven that several if not most of the "facts" presented by powell to the UN were faked (and in a very bold and poorly done way).
in answer to your question, first off....i do not trust the bush administration, period. i dont trust politicians, period. do i agree with the bush administration that we have proof of saddams wmd? yes i do, and it has nothing to do the "facts" presented by powell. my mind was made up long before that meeting....and my logic has been, and still is, simple. saddam had them, and admitted as much. saddam couldnt prove that he destroyed them. in my mind, this wouldnt have been that hard to do, as such actions wouldve been well documented, on paper, and probably on video (their disposal that is)......so by simple logic they are still there. the inspectors hadnt finished finding, documenting, and destroying what we knew he had '98 when they were kicked out, and we are just supposed to take his word for it that between '98 and now, hes gotten rid of it all? sorry, doesnt fly with me.
someone also posed the question: "why the need to play games with the inspectors for all these years if he had no wmd?" a valid question imo.