Ok, you read. It's easy. I said that you are advocating we should have invaded eventually. NOT that you think we would have or not given the circumstances. should would should would basic stuff here
Then you must have skipped over that part that said that Saddam was waiting for things to cool down so he could get back into the arms game.
A guy playing the waiting game somehow trumped several guys already wallowing in the joy that is to possess weapons of mass destruction? It's like old times in this thread with all the hokey arguments for going to war in Iraq being bandied about. I shed a tear for nostalgia.
you cannot seriously believe that if saddam had eventually aquired the nuclear capability of say, france he wouldn't use them against anyone he could ? he is out of the equation and the world is a better place as a result. Anyone who fails to see this is living in la-la land.
You got some window into Saddam's head? Were you at any time privy to his most inner desires? His most dastardly plans for world domination? Surely you must have been, as it seems a prerequisite for the power to proclaim anyone who disagrees with you to be living in la-la land.
I guess I was privy to the same window you were...seems I recall him invading Iran at the cost of 100's of 1000's of lives....( were you bitching then ?) then invading Kuwait...I guess you think he had somehow changed his spots ?...he guy had a HISTORY son and I for one have learned from history...without question you are not only in la-la land...you obviously belong there...
Look, save your "son" bullsh!t for your kids. This war didn't have to happen when it did, how it did and nothing you can ever say will prove that it had to happen.
sorry son...but you are dead wrong...just like you would be if you were a hostage in bagdad...what, you think they would cut your head off quicker because you were against the war ? These f--ks LIVE for your destruction and the only thing they understand is force...and thats what they are going to get...
Seriously, stick the "son" sh!t up your butthole. Somehow you've come back to the situation at hand, which is good, as that is the subject of the thread. I guess you missed where I argued for invading Falluja. I'm glad we agree.
I saw these reports and I have to question the accuracy. They don’t seem to jive with the news reports coming out of Iraq. 100,000 deaths equates to 188 civilian deaths every day.
Then it would have been the Bush administrations fault for not paying attention to him, like AQ before 9/11 and after Tora Bora, and keeping him weaponless, yes sanctions had made him weaponless(WMD). Bush could have threatened Saddam with force, check Forced him to let weapons inspectors back in, check Made him give full access letting the weapons inspectors find out that he had no weapons, doh Tell Saddam that if he didn't want to get invaded he would have to agree to having weapons inspectors in his country forever and if he restricted their access a bunker buster will be coming his way. Thus providing a clear legal justification for an invasion and helping placate and convince allies, nope
The November 6-12th issue of The Economist has two articles about the varrying civilian casualty reports coming out of Iraq. The report by The Lancet that gives the 100,000 figure comes from random sampling extrapolated from just 73 actual deaths.
The 17 UN resolutions covered all of your suggestions but Saddam didn't comply. The fact that he didn't have weapon systems that EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE UN, thought he had, was never a serious consideration because the acted guilty as heck[b/]. Right now in California we have a very similar situation going on in the Scott Peterson trial. He may, in fact, be innocent but he ACTED VERY GUILTY. Hence, 80% of the people around here think he did it. That is what makes all of this hindsight judgement questionable. All Saddam had to do was provide records to the destruction of weapon systems everyone knew he had back in the early '90s. He should have provided access to all the sites as required by the '91 peace treaty and UN resolutions. But NO! He stalled. He acted like he had all the things that everyone thought he had. Then came 9/11/ But then this stuff has been covered ad nauseum...
Yeah, what was that about? It wasn't like we invaded their nation, destroyed their military, cause a civil war to take place, place trade embargos, or constantly fly military aircraft over his nation or anything.
Your memory isn't the best, seems like all this was in response to saddams invasion of kuwait and at least 40 other countries were in that particular coalition ( including the french)...or do you believe he should have been left alone in kuwait ?...who would have been next ? the saudi's ?....saddam killed tens of thousands in his misguided adventures including (but not limited to) iranians, kuwaities, kurds and his own people who weren't kurds.