:har: Thats cruel, don't mock so much.

Well, you can, but fortunately we've largely moved on from that form of warfare. Wiping out every man, woman and child of an entire town or city as used to happen, would have been nasty enough. Imaging someone trying to do that on a national scale.

Over 5 million displaced people and over a million dead, what would you call that?

Geez Joe. A crazy dictator with a burning hatred of my country and access to billions of petro-dollars? You can't see any problems with that? :roll:

I suppose you believe that if we just stopped patrolling his borders and no fly zones he would have turned into a modern age Mahatma Ghandi, spreading peace, love and democracy across the globe?

I didn't say that. I was wondering how in practical terms, you envisaged him sticking it to the USA, in terms that say, would have cost you more than liberating Iraq has done.

What could he have done?

Al Quaeda aren't the only ones who can get people to strap on a bomb y'know. How about a bio weapon attack during the Super Bowl or some other large event? Don't you think that someone with his resources couldn't set up something like that if left to his own devices?

He had motive, and means, all that he really needed was opportunity.

Better invade just about every country in the world then.
After all it doesn't take much resources to make up a crude weapon to take to a large event.

Come to think of it hadn't america better invade america as we don't want any more nuts like Rudolph with motive means and oppertunity trying to create carnage at sporting events.


Amazing isn't it, when the claims made as justification turn out to be bull someone tries pure bull as a justification.

It does seem to be the case that August is saying pure fantastical speculation is sufficient grounds to invade a country.

And he's right, of course. That's pretty much where we are at the moment.

Saddam used chemical weapons, both against the Iranians during the Iran - Iraq war, and on his own citizens when deployed against the Kurds. In comparison, The last time chemical weapons were deployed against military troops on a large scale was World War One, following which, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 agreed that chemical and bacteriological weapons would not be used. That protocol was boosted by the OPCW Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, signed by some 165 nations on the date of ratification, with further signatures added in later years (including Iraq's, but long after the issue in contention here).

So you have near global agreement over seventy-five years that chemical weapons are a pretty rotten idea. Then you have a sovereign national leader who has demonstrated not only capability but also intent, not only against military forces but also against his own citizens.

So the rationale not to move on him is why? Oh, wait - so because the entire situation was so badly mishandled by the Bush White House that it looks today like they all lied - so because of that, the entire war was wrong.

Man. Some of you fellas live in rosy little worlds.

In short, yes. Going to war on fabricated rationale and intelligence was, and is wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction as described by the Bush administration. Also, the removal of the Hussien regime has not made the world a safer place, nor has it rendered our nation's interests any more secure. I also do not believe that it is the duty of the United States to serve as the world's police, and so I do believe the entire war to be wrong.

Pure fantastical speculation? Meh, if you want to see it that way it's your choice.

Man, some of you fellas are from a different world.
If his chemical atrocities were so bloody bad that something just had to be done then why the hell wasn't anything done when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds?
Oh yeah, its because he was a real friendly guy when he was using chemical weapons so it was all OK and the good idea is to support such people not overthrow them:doh:

I hate to say it but that Scottish pillock Galloway did have a point when he went in front of the US hearings.

Yes Tribesman world is complicated place.

Duci, I was not even out of high school when the war started and I went to college after graduation, so no I was not there.When I used "we" I meant our country.Yes the guys actually in the military are on the front lines but everyone has a stake in the war, some more than others but it's something that WE all must pay for, we all have a stake in the fight when we are at war.That is how and many others out there see it.I respect and understand your point of view, but disagree.

One thing I finally learned when it comes to politicians, moreso in war, is not to believe what they say, but check the facts from sources not related to them and compare the facts. Certainly I want so called facts from politicians, but anyone with a brain know those facts are going to be tainted with propaganda.

Nothing disgusted me more than seeing Americans react to Bush with fervor, waving flags and let's go kick some arse...Course these are the types the politicians depend on.

Now most of the facts are out to compare. Bush had all these facts. Anyone with a brain, an open mind with their mouth not stuck to a party tit can see Bush lied.

The average person could look at the facts and see Bush created fiction with patriotic fervor to start a war. Not only those facts, but the facts that the war would be impossible to get out of once in. His father was smart enough not to invade based on these facts.

The Senate hearings showed beyond doubt that Bush misrepresented his findings, chose to ignore real facts, choosing speculation instead.

Saddam was contained, our sanctions killing 500,000 children a year, he had nothing. Bush started a war because the timing was right. He was going to have this war.

Somehow in the end it the only line he could use, "we're here to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq."... We've done neither. We're more hated than ever in the region.