If US can invade Iraq and Iran for WMD's why can't they invade Pakistan that has WMD"s and has been found indirectly culpable for every know terrorist attack
126105
bcos there is no OIL in pakistan.
334813
If you want to label Pakistan as a terrorist state, please also include the US for their support to the Mujaheddin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and their support for Israel in Palestine. Please also include India for their support to East Pakistan (Bangladesh) during the 1971 crises. An irony of history is that the winning side is always the one to decide who the terrorists are. In Pakistan's case, that question has not been decided as yet so lets not get hasty with our conclusions!\n\nIf you are comparing the leadership of Pakistan with Saddam Hussain's leadership, I am sorry, but either you are trying to exaggerate an issue out of proportion or you have no idea what you are talking about. Its because of thinking like this why peace can never be achieved. Why not engage your time constructively rather than by trying (and failing miserably) to create rifts?
526585
It is exactly the same people who said Iraq had WMDs and should be invaded. Slowly they are building a case for possible future military action against Iran.
191119
Because GWB believed the incorrect intelligence reports from the CIA that Iran had Weapons of Mass Destruction.\n\nSaddam was just being the proud jackass that he is and was. As even GWB now admits, there were no WMD's.\n\nGWB took his eye off the real target..Al Queda. Saddam had no links to Osama, in fact he hated him.\n\nNow Al Queda are operating the insurgents in Iraq.\n\nSo now you are spending billions in Iraq, can't find Osama, then turn around and stomp on the poor Mexicans who are doing the work that no fat lazy US youth would ever think about doing.\n\nUnfortunately the true US patriots are the victims.\n\nSave your young peoples lives, to be used to defend your nation.
400330
It is  a catch 22 situation. If you don't sell arms to others, where does your arms industry go? And if you do, there is a real danger of them ending up being used against you. For example, Pakistan has provided nuclear techonology to North Korea. Now, that it is available, it can easily fall in the hands of terrorists who can use it to make dirty bombs that will make 9/11 look like a school picnic.
640526
First of all, the entire world believed there were WMD in Iraq, based on Iraq's own documents and history of use, and much evidence and material has been found to support the existence of active chemical and biological weapons programs, even a few chemical warheads.  The fact is that the chemical and biological agents can be produced quickly from raw materials when needed and only stockpiles of the raw materials are required.  Of course, these raw materials usually have other legitimate uses and thus can be reasoned away.  \n\nFurther, the invasion of Iraq was in response to the numerous violations of UN secuity council resolutions dealing with WMD, several of which authorized the use of force.  Saddam was known to, and bragged about, helping international terrorism, and even though he probably didn't have any direct connection to 9/11, his connection to terrorism in general is well established.\n\nSo, get your facts straight and stop spewing this liberal, why-can't-we-all-just-get-along garbage.  There is evil in this world and it must be rooted out and destroyed at every opportunity.
213585
I think Iran is far harder nut to crack than Iraq and it would be biggest Bush's stupidity if he try to attack the country at least now. Besides, Iran can't for now threaten anybody with its uranium-enriching level.
665779
it's not wise at all....to martin s on top, i really appreciate what u guys did in iraq to help the pple. however, why did the US invade iraq in the first place? on ground that they are havin WMD, isn't it? However, in my own understanding (correct me if im worng), the UN didn't agree to use military force, the US went in themselves..and for the saddam issues...whatever or however tyrant he maybe, it's still his country's problems...why did the US wanted to interfere??? u said Iraq has lotsa terrorist training camps all around in iraq, there're so many training camps around in the world, indonesia, afganistan adn so much more in the middle east, can the US really eradicate all?? I think the reasons behind it is still the availabilty of iraq's oil..why, weapons of mass destruction, well, North korea and iran had admitted to owning them, but the US didn't attack them...and iraq, US claims there're WMD, where the hell are the evidence??
158094
The concern, and it's a fairly legitimate one, is that a nation like Iran, which has had strong ties to organizations that advocate violence against the US in the past, might be willing to supply radioactive materials or nuclear weapons to such organizations in the future.\n\nIndia already has nuclear technology, but refuses to allow international agencies to monitor it's programs, which is a bit curious.\n\n"Developing nations" sometimes cause concern because of the potential to sell radioactive material or even nuclear weapons to radicalists.  And there is also concern that such a nation would build nuclear weapons and possibly use them against a rival nation.  (Pakistan and India are a perfect example of this)\n\nThe bottom line is this: nuclear weapons = trouble.  If more countries have them, there is a greater potential, not only for a nuclear war, but also accidents, contamination, leaking of nuclear secrets and the secret sale of dangerous weapons and materials.\n\nThe potential for all of these is much higher in a country that does not yet have strict environmental and safety regulations and global economic interests that would be badly damaged by international sanctions.
360296
??? I question your logic. We didn't go into iraq to SEE if they had wmd - we told the world that there WERE wmds there and we had to get them out. So right there - your logic is off.\n\nFP
366713
I'm not sure what your point is - they never did find evidence of WMD's in Iraq, and there was no legitimate connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.  (I'm with you on the 9/11 bit.)  What do you want the extreme-liberals to learn - to deny reality?
337904
As a start, Turbowedgie can go to hell. Sure, Iran did threaten, but they haven't done it. If it was based on threats, then we should have been invaded a long time ago. We have enough weapons to, at random, blow any country into oblivion and any of its innocent civilians, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We aren't threatened by the above countries, rubbing elbows with them and all. That's why we haven't invaded SaudiArabia or Afghanistan either. Iraq and Iran have nothing we want and aren't part of the Clique, so why should we give them any freedom.\n\n\nP.S. Iraq has no weapons. Don't get it twisted, get it right. We have been in there for oil, not for nukes or the WHOLE DAMN REASON FOR THE WAR, TERRORISTS! We stopped looking for Osama a long damn time ago. So for a distraction, we entered a bullshit war over oil and, uh yeah, a dictator that isn't unlike any other dictator in this damn world. We are truly in the end days...\n\nTo go further, it would be a hell of a lot better of a world if NO country had acces to nuclear weapons and tried NOT killing civilians for a change. Nuclear power should only be used for powering cities, providing help to the city, not vaporizing children!
565699
america doesn't give a shit about other people, they've supported probably half the dictators around the world at one time or another, we supplied both iraq and afghanistan with weapons when it was in our best interest. The wmd thing is bullshit, do you really think the united states would attack country that actually had nukes? of course not that's we invaded iraq and not north korea
573896
We needed Iran then to create an environment for us to sell weapons to Iran and Iraq. We need Iran now as a problem to keep the weapons eceonomy moving again.
158187
I agree with you completly. Our Gov't is ready for war whenever. It is just ridiculous that they are tying to start stuff with the USA. I mean just look at us in Iraq, they don't let us inspect their country for nukes and we attack. Iran is pratically starting a war with us and I bet you that we will attack them before the next presidential election.
15262
First of all if you did a little research no one ever said Iraq had nuclear weapons.  They had weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons and so on).  Democrats and Republicans said this.  And yes westerners are naive.  They think we can just leave these evil terror groups alone and nothing will happen to us.  Politicians are crafty because they have to get things done and make decisions that the naive people can't do.  They have to protect this country while people like far left freaks cry and think we shouldn't confront evil.
646087
Oil, simple and pure. 9/11 had nothing what so ever to do with Iraq. What should have been done is to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, and it don't matter what country he is in. Bush put that on the back burner to attack a sovereign country. I know that Saddam was a bad dude, I do not care. I know at one time he had WMD'S, I do not care. We have no business attacking Iraq for no reason and make up a reason as we go along.