Wow, Dennis Miller is sure tan these days. And he's not getting much sleep either, by the look of things.
I'm sure you meant Kuwait. And I agree. I can see miles of difference between Saddam invading Kuwait for oil and Dubya invading Iraq for oil. It's two different countries being invaded and the US is a democracy while Iraq wasn't up until Monday.
Caption this: "There is one thing that I know, American people! Your president lied to you in order to invade my country!"
Re: Caption this: OK, that's true, but so what? The fact that Bush lied doesn't help Saddam any. It doesn't excuse anything Saddam has done. Unless our foreign policy was a LOT worse than anyone knows, nobody forced him to invade Iran, accept chemical weapons fixin's from us and a few other countries and gas his own people, or invade Kuwait. He can't blame those on Bush.
Re: Caption this: In Soviet Russia, rooms rape YOU! (Yeah, that should just about do it for my reputation)
The terms of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War stated that it was Saddam's responsibility to end all WMD programs and prove to UN inspectors that he had done so, including allowing unfettered access by UN inspectors to any site they chose. Again, it wasn't the US/UN/whoever's responsibility to prove that Saddam had WMDs, it was Saddam's responsbility to prove that he didn't have WMDs. Technically, the first Gulf War never ended, and merely continued in 2003 after Saddam did not abide by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement (which was approved by the UN and governed a UN-sponsored military action).
Which is exactly why the Bush administration was so hot-n-hawny to stop the inspectors from doing their job and then to ignore them or demonize them when they said Saddam had nothing. Bush was going to invade regardless of what Saddam did or the U.N. said Saddam did or did not have. What Bush did was the loose equivalent of stopping the police from investigating a crime so he could hurry up and hang the suspect before anyone could object to the lynching.
Sorry, but you are way off. The US spent months angling for a UN resolution with enough leeway to justify an invasion. While they would have preferred a second resolution expressly authorizing force, there's no doubt the lawyers from all the countries were fully aware of what was in the resolutions. While there's plenty of good arguments for saying the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, the claim that it is the same violation of international law as the invasion of Kuwait is just flat wrong.
Nobody here has mentioned the position of power he still may hold over all Iraqi. I think any Iraqi judge would be scared to even face him. Could this influence any and all outcome or is this just for show and he is going down regardless?
Re: Caption this: "You are wrong, Mr. ratdog! I swear to Allah! The fact that your president lied to the whole world in order to drive me out of the office, is totally going against the international law! For that, I should be set FREE! "
Re: Caption this "A true dictator never loses the ability to shake his fast so fast a camerca cannot keep it in focus! See? Still got it!"