What Goes Around Comes Around

1. Congratulations. You "proved" that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam. However, the article clearly states that Saddam did not get any CW from us. Our policy was to ensure Iran didn't win the war with Iraq. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

2. Of course it's relevant. Go back and read my original 5 points in order.

3. Gulf War I was NOT over. That's a fact. Here's another one: The Korean War isn't over, either!

4. That makes no sense. The pressure was to get him to follow the rules, not to cause him to break them more.

1) America! Proof. Oh mty..isnt that Donald Rumsfeld?

2) Irrelevant. That was the gulf War not the Iraq war!

3) What facts? the Gulf War was over. Stop twisting!

4) Wait what? We know he broke the rules! Saddam was an a$$hole but the amount or pressure forced on Iraq prior to the invasion is still in question!

5) Exactly. Point proven!

Gomay. Give a man a gun and dont be suprised when he turns it on you...nuff said!

Now to your lame "answers."

1. We did not give Saddam any WMD. That's nothing more than baseless slander without a shred of proof. If you have any proof, post the link. (Other crazed lefties repeating the same slander don't count.)

2. A UN coalition of 34 nations, including 13 Islamic nations, threw Saddam out of Kuwait.

3. See, I told you you couldn't handle facts.

4. He broke the rules because we insisted that he follow the rules. One word: FAIL!

5. They were all taking bribes in what proved to be the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the world, Oil for Food.

So it's our fault that Saddam used the WMD? That's like blaming the gun shop for a shooting.

When you responded to point 3, you just insulted him and disregarded his point. How is that an argument?

So let's just address your points outright!

1) No argument! Oddly though..where did he get them and how was he in a position to use them? Oh yeah..AMERICA!!!!
2)Again, no argument! Thats still not iraq invading the U.S or the U.K is it?
3) Now you are proving you are clinically insane!
4) But he did! America put more pressure on Iraq causing Saddam to implode and kick all inspectors out of the country!
5) WRONG! If it was "legal" where was the rest of the U.N?

Belive whatever you want! I won't argue Saddam was one evil S.O.B. I wont even say I'm sorry to see him gone, I'm not. But argue all you like, the facts are, we invaded them when they where no longer a threat!

There are plenty of other countrys who are a lot worse than Iraq yet we dont invade them to install "democracy"...and we dont do that because they dont have oil!

The whole thing is a bloodbath..end of argument!

Here are a few facts that don’t fit your warped worldview.

1. Saddam had WMD. He used them on the Kurds and the Iranians.
2. Saddam was the aggressor in Gulf War I by invading Kuwait.
3. GW I never ended; it was suspended by a cease-fire agreement.
4. Saddam broke that agreement when, among many other violations, he did not VERIFIABLY dispose of his WMD.
5. We were, therefore, legally entitled to resume hostilities.

As to MI6, that was a minority report with little to recommend it.

I can't be chewed arguing in circles about it so I'll make it plain and simple.
When you invade another country, no matter how you paint it, you are the invader..the aggressor!
I dont disrespect soilders who defend their country from attack..but Iraq did not attack us, nor where they capable due to sanctions placed on them from the Gulf war! We attacked them and no matter how you paint it, there was no solid evidence that Iraq was capable of attacking either us or you. MI6 stated there where no WMDS 3 months prior to invasion but both The US + UK ignored that inteligence.Showing a few jet's that are hidden in the sand proves nothing. Every country capable has them.
Saddam was only in power do to American meddling and look how many lives it cost!
Now we have the likes of North Korea or Iran looking a lot more scary than Iraq ever was..yet I don't see anyone rushing to invade them!

The old "Bush lied!' canard has been thoroughly discredited among all but the fanatical Bush haters. It wasn't just Bush, but every intelligence agency in the world -- including the Brits -- who believed Saddam was a threat. Also, there were many reasons besides WMD for taking out Saddam. That's just the only argument you care to remember in your blinkered worldview.

Oh, you mean from all those deadly WMDs that they had?

Are you saying we should have waited for a terrorist attack from Iraq to kill thousands of innocent people before we acted, or should we have acted to prevent another such attack? There was more evidence against Iraq than there ever was against Afghanistan. Saddam had killed over 1 million people -- thousands of them with chemical weapons. Not convinced he was a threat? How about the mass graves? How about harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas? How about tossing out the weapons inspectors? How about attempting to assassinate a former US president? How about the torture chambers and rape rooms? How about, along with the UN, running the biggest corruption scam in the history of the world? Do you seriously think we could have just left Saddam alone, and everything would have turned out all hunky dory?