Iraq to poor to attack

Iraq are too poor to attack

Many people argue that saddam hussien should not rule iraq because there is no democracy, and the fact that he was not voted into power. I remind you that George W. Bush was not Voted into power either (court decision on dogdy ballot papers in his relative's state in florida).

U.S.A. believe Iraq is a threat to the rest of the world, after the gulf Iraq was left in pieces and secret service know that Iraq have little resources to put on a good fire works display let alone an attack on the rest of the world. Don't you understand that Saddam Hussein poses as much as of a military threat to the United States as the Isle of Man poses to Britain? For decades, we have been told that we needed Polaris, we needed Cruise missiles, we need Trident - because if we don't have nuclear weapons, we'll be invaded. Based on that logic, would it not make sense for Saddam Hussein to try to get hold of weapons of mass destruction? Not because he wants to invade America or Britain - but because Iraq is itself under constant threat of invasion. Or does the deterrence theory only apply to America and Britain?
This war against Iraq was planned long before September 11 and months before George W Bush even came to power. According to a newly-leaked US secret plan, a clique around Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney and George Bush's younger brother, Geb, were planning an attack on Iraq to bring about "regime change". The secret document argues for total US military domination of the oil rich Gulf by the US and says that conflict with Iraq would provide the "immediate justification" for an invasion. The aim of the US is absolute control over the world's resources - especially the oil wealth of the Middle East and Central Asia. If thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands have to die, then so be it. And then it will be the turn of Iran and North Korea, the other two states named in George Bush's "axis of evil" speech. That's providing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Arab states back the war on Iraq. Because if they don't back the war on Iraq, they'll be next. And they know it. Of course, Tony Blair's promised dossier will claim to have "incontrovertible evidence" that Saddam has secretly been in league with al Qaeda and possibly even orchestrated September 11. But for "security reasons" it won't be possible to publish the details of that evidence. That's because no such evidence exists. Saddam Hussein has carried out many atrocities in his time. But blaming him for September 11 would be like blaming the IRA for suicide bombings in Israel. It is nothing short of hypocrisy for Bush and Blair to point to the alleged dangers of future Iraqi weapons of mass destruction whilst the American government enthusiastically arms the vicious Israeli state. Israel already has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them. Israel is also viciously attacking the Palestinian people and denying the Palestinians the right to an independent state. which is a different story all together so ill stop right their