Now, to clarrify a little more about the war. Many people have been in support of this war under the "Hitler Theory." For those of you who are unfamiliar with this, I'll explain. In WWII, Hitler gained control of Germany and began to build weapons, etc. which Germany wasn't allowed to do from the previous war. Then Hitler began "expanding" his country. His military began to advance into the neutral territory surrounding Germany and take it over through militaristic force. Now, the rest of Europe who just got over one war, were reluctant to try to take on Hitler because they didn't think it was worth another war. So, they basically just let him have that land. Well, this was a mistake because Hitler had intentions on taking over the rest of Europe. And taking over that land and building militaristic supplies only strenghted him. If they had stopped him earlier, then WWII might not have lasted so long.
Now, the American News stations are portraying Saddam as a "Hitler Theory" threat. They say that if he's allowed to build weapons, then he'll become a threat to the US just as Hitler did in Europe.
However! The "Hitler Theory" does not apply in the case of Saddam. Now here are the first differences:
Firstly, Saddam has not taken over any land that isn't his. Iraq has done no offensive militaristic tactics, only defensive tactics, which was propelled by us in the Iranian Conflict as a further note. Basically, Iraq has not "advanced" across land the way Hitler did (this is the heaviest reason why Hitler became a threat).
Secondly, Saddam didn't make the majority of his weapons. Here is another one of my most important points. Most of the weapons found in Iraq were the ones the US gave them in the Iranian Conflict. And, the few that the Iraqis did make were made by the machines and technology we gave them for making these weapons (including Anthrax).
For this info, try here at the Progressive site: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
We basically told them that they were allowed to have these particular materials and tools for building weapons as long as they fought Iran for us "in return." That was the deal. But after less than 20 years, we broke our promise on that deal once Iraq became weak enough through post-war recession following the Iranian Conflict for us to attack them (Sound suspicious? That's because that was our plan---read my previous posts for that info ^_^).
In fact, the weapons that we didn't give them "already built" were shown to be made by the weapon building materials and tools we did give them. In fact, much of the weapons they built themselves (using our supplies) were made for the Iranian Conflict almost 20 years ago. They've made very little militaristic supplies since.
So, does Iraq have weapons?
Yes, but not enough to make them a threat to us.
However, has Iraq actually been building weapons?
Hardly any, if any at all since the Iranian Conflict, and again not enough to make them a threat to us.
Technically however, this makes us the ones who violated UN sanctions by giving Iraq the militaristic materials to begin with. Basically, we told them it was OK. So, unlike the Germans under Hitler at that time, the Iraqi people aren't a militaristic people. They haven't been making their own weapons for offensive militaristic purposes, they've just basically been accepting them from us (they're not violent). Get it?
And quickly, many of you may say that we shouldn't let Saddam have weapons to begin with. However, not letting Germany have any weapons was a strong part of how Hitler came into power to begin with (you can probably find this information in any history book ^_^). Just because a country has weapons and is anti-American, doesn' t mean it will automatically attack America nor does it mean it is a threat at all.
There are dozens of anti-American countries in the world (some are much more violent than Iraq), and yet none of them have attacked us or even threatened to attack us with the exception of a small group made up of people from different anti-American races (Al Queda). And most of these countries already have weapons and are producing them right now. Iraq is the anti-American country that probably has the fewest weapons, so why are we targeting them? Don't you think it would make more since to use this energy to target a country that already is a threat?
Thirdly, Hitler had the support of all his people, which made him a big threat in the event of a war. Saddam has very little support in his own country (like I said, he's just the lesser of two evils) . This breaks any threat his presence might have in a war. For example, most of the Iraq troops are just giving up now rather than fight "for Saddam." Needless to say, this wouldn't have happened with most German troops in WWII.