[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

So you insist that he was a threat. Yet by eliminating him it has strengthened your alleged irrelavent threat. After Afghanistan Al Quada was effectively finished. Iraq has given it a second wind and sparked countless more groups and created the necessary outrage to support them.

And I might ask, how was he any more a threat 4 years ago than he was in 91? In 91 he was allowed to remain. In the 80s he was allowed to gas the Kurds and the US interfered with the UN's ability to confront this.

The duality of the American relationship with Iraq suggests that his presense as a threat is as dubious as his presense as an ally. Bush Sr. was attempting to make Saddam into a despotic ally all the way up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Yes, by far a worse threat becuase of a man with revenge on his mind and the pwoer of a state behind him. He should have been finished in '91 - the biggest mistake of the Western world. After this where he wasn't able to unite the two great seas together, the western world was forever his enemy. Not a smart thing to leave him in power.

By the way, read up on Saddam - you might start changing your mind. He was a little deranged - much like his sons. His master plan was very interesting.

Oh I see. So he broke the deal so everything was "justified". Just because Iraq wasn't playing along doesn't mean that the only option is to turn it over and rip her government a new one. Further, all the evidence brought forward insisting that Saddam was a threat turned out to be a crock

Please provide proof for this broad statement since he had money, and power, and the French were even supplying him weapons. To call him not a threat and Al Qeida a threat is like comparing a man with a rifle to an army.

And yes - that is how a ceasefire is written. Hmm, lets see, to win a war with the western world, you accomplish your objectives, let the Western people start to fight, surrender, and then ignore the terms of the surrender. Nice! This shows how smart Western Society really is! (sarcasm...cough...cough!). More like how dumb.

Anyway, when a country writes a ceasefire, there are rules to follow if you don't want the winning party to finish what it started and over-run your country (duh!). In Iraq's case, this included submitting to weapons inspection any time and any place. Neither rules were followed in that regard. Other rules broken include kicking out the weapons inspectors (Imagine that!), ignoring no flight rules (kurds paid heavily for this rule being broken), and even firing on American F-16's!!!! Hmm, did I miss something or did the world ignore these little tidbits and still accuse America of going into a false war? What a bunch of hypocrits! It is actually funny to listen to!

Then to top it off, Bush Sr. was an assasination target 2 times by Saddam - both failed.

So my question is, is the Western World sleeping when all this is going on?

He was not about to invade America or drop a bomb on her. There was plenty of time to find another way. Yet Bush insisted on an immediate war. Since they found no functional weapons its obvious that the impetus for immediate war was illfounded.

Quite the contrary. We did the world a favor. yes, things may be in a little chaotic in that exact region, but in time it will balance out. In the meantime, the terrorists you talk about are pro-occupied. And no, they weren't done with in Afganistan since they still are not done with - they hide across a border we are not allowed to cross!!!

By the way, Bush gave a long timeline. Basically, it is more a question of being tired with the manipulation and stall tactics. If it were Europe, it would have taken them either getting nuked or 20 years of negotiations before they relized they were even duped!

He 'had' them. He had them in 91. After that you can't prove anything. The weapons inspectors couldn't prove they existed and then after the invasion no functional weapons were found.

Even if the capability existed, and a few pieces of equipment in the sand is far from a Manhatan project, again I ask. Where was the immediate threat?

Hahahaha! That is funny! Ahh, where were the inspectors even allowed to go? Look at AL's thread even - no place like that was one inspector even allowed close to! That is a pretty naive statement.

It was but one more mistake amongst many.

How very true. Going to war and finishing it was not the mistake. It was what came after.