Exactly my point. By your logic, we were correct to do so. But look where it got us.

How many American lives could have been saved had we attacked them first?

Inspections were the only way of verifying that Saddam had no WMDs. Saddam would not allow inspections without interference.

You demand proof, but Saddam makes it impossible to get the proof. So you say we cant do anything because we have no proof. That is unreasonable IMO.

Cowardice is irrelevant. All I care about is remvoing the threat. It is retarded to believe that war should be fair.

Had he allowed inspections, we could have verified that. In the absence of verification we were unwilling to take his word for it. And we were correct not to take his word for it.

Your faith in their stupidity and incompetence is insufficient. Sorry.

It does not appear that way to me.

So? You could be cheering for the troops and still want us to lose the war at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I cannot think of a scenerio where I would hope for a US defeat for political reasons.

Exactly. And a loss means we will leave. it is a means to their end.

Politically, liberals have nothing to gain from a win. It can only make them look worse, and Bush look better.

They were not at war with US at the time they attacked us. So no, it is not out of context.

No, we didnt "know" that. We knew what Saddam had told us.

I disagree.

I do not accept your word because I dont accept you as an expert. Lots of people disagree with you.

Actually, yes you could. You could attempt to steal it or you could steal money and buy it.

If most Americans agreed with you, Bush would not have been elected twice.

Thats the point...you have already given up. And you want the rest of us to give up to. You are invested in defeat...if we win, it will prove you wrong, and you have nothing to gain from being proven wrong.

They dont? Are you sure? I could have sworn there was some kind of anti-Bush revolution that happened last election...did I dream it?

Or is it possible there isnt as much support for withdrawing as you might like to believe?

And America apparently wants the same thing...they didnt remove him when they had the chance, and they didnt elect a congress that could override his veto.

Bush see's the long term threat as worse than the short term pain.

You have no way of knowing that. Once again, you pull an assumption out of you aѕs and proceed as if it is fact.

And you are the final arbiter of right and wrong. Yeah, thats not elitist at all.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

According to the military, even with an initial invasion force of over 400,000, we would still be in the same position as we are today. The war was lost the day we invaded.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...118393,00.html

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

It's not revenge it's justice. Are you saying justice is irrelevant and if so why do we have so many people in jail?

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

As a deterrant. Or for public safety.

"Justice" is just code for "Revenge". You want payback. But Defense supercedes payback.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Justice is not code for revenge. Justice is bringing guilty people to court and having them pay for their actions.

How has invading Iraq made our country safer?

P.S. All those quotes about the weapons were from the 1990s you are aware we went to war 5 years after your last piece of evidence right?

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

I do not agree that Osama himself is the biggest threat to America. He didnt execute those attacks himself. He's just a leader. And he isnt the only terroriost leader out there.

I dont recall ever saying he didnt pose a threat. Just that the threat he posed does not warrant the resources you want to allocate to removing it.

You want to elevate him to the level of some god-like supervillain. But he is just another terrorist leader. Saddam was far more of a threat because he had the resources of a nation at his personal (and immediate) disposal. Osama did not.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

No WMDs.
Even the chief inspectors that were in there thought the war was a bad idea.
Half the world did not believe there were WMDs
If there was global support then everyone would have joined the war on Day 1 like in Afghanistan.
Bush does not listen to the rest of the world so why should Saddam have?
Just because Bush said he had too?
The UN did not agree with starting that war.
How many UN Resolutions does Israel have against it yet the USA does not expect Israel to comply?
Either the UN is for the entire world to follow or it is useless.
So, if Israel doesn't follow UN Resolutions why should Saddam?
Not agreeing to have UN inspectors in your country does not make for a solid reason for war.
How many times has Iran thumbed their nose as the US and yet they are still under a dictatorship.
No one can tell me why Saddam was a bigger threat than Iran at the time.
Iran is doing the same thing to their own people.
If Saddam's crimes were that bad and the sole reason for going to war, why did it take so long to go in?
The mass murders happened when Saddam was the USA alley.
What was so different just before the war?
Bush's foundation was WMDs.
The world did not agree.
If the entire world agreed, Bush would have got the backing of the UN.

So when Bush stood on the infamous deck under the infamous banner he must have lied when he said about the war in Iraq being part of the war on terror. Or do you agree that the war on terror could mean anything you want it to mean.

If Bush gets scared of catching a cold will he be able to shoot down anyone with the flu and include that as part of his war on terror?

Note my emphasis. You want them to suffer for their crimes. That is revenge. If you feel better using the euphemism of "justice" go right ahead.

Osama is not an American citizen. So there is no way to take him to court. He's an enemy not a criminal.

It has removed a large potential base of oeprations for terrorists. It has removed one probable avenue for them to obtain nukes.

The quotes were meant to illustrate Saddam's history of non-cooperation and lying. The quotes were meant to explain why we had to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise he would have continued this cycle indefinitely (at least until he was sucessful in developing nukes).

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

1. If that's the case they what is extradition about, what is the international courts about? Why does the US keep foreign prisoners? Your arguments are full of holes.

2. It has increased the base of operations of Terrorist organisations.