Those are not facts... those are misrepresentations... just as Bush has been misrepresenting the case against Saddam all along. Saddam didn't refuse to comply with UN sanctions, and he had nothing to do with 9/11. According to information received by Bush from defectors in 2001, Saddam had disarmed completely in 1995, but Bush refused to publicize that confession. Saddam allowed the UN weapons inspectors back in with unfettered access. Colin Powell admitted in October 2001 at a public address that UN sanctions had worked and that Saddam was not a threat.... and on and on.
You are an interesting person. You don't believe a word a Bush administrator says, until it backs your position. Bush & Co. lied to us about the war, but before that everything good they said about Saddam was true & not possibly just politics???
there are so few people on this board who are worth listening to on an issue where the debate is generally divided on party lines. nolimitmd, cparso, red and martin are the only people that you can actually count on to be willing to say good and bad things about both sides. rex needs to take of the foil hat and stop reading democratic underground. contained chaos needs to slow down with the blind libertarianism (and the conspiracy theories) and use his head. jetstorm needs to relax on the fear of anything not overtly christian.
regarding your discussion, surely it depends on how on you define "last resort". i think war was absolutely necessary in order to maintain fear and credibility with our enemies. if we talk alot and never fight, the bad guys know it and keep pushing.
heres an opinion: (not neccessarily mine) bush wanted to find WMD, couldnt find them, so he starts a war because he was pissed off and felt that there had to be weapons there.
While Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are questionable at best and irresponsible at worse, I cannot agree with your post concerning the No-Fly operations. Flying patrols to enforce the UN No-Fly zones was entirely legitimate. Such patrols include protecting the patrol aircraft from harm. Bombing SAM missile sites, radars, and air defense centers is entirely legitimate under these circumstances. These sites were also hit many times in eight years under Clinton.
Neutering Saddam of all his air defenses was not part of any UN mandate, and, no, those defenses were not particularly encumbering our air patrols. Tell me if you recall a single American casualty or plane shot down? So, no, bombing Saddam's installations outside the no-fly zones was not at all legitimate. Furthermore, as the linked article reminds us, leaked British memoes tell us the purpose of the increased airstrikes: to provoke Saddam into an action that would justify an invasion.
And you always bitch at me for diverting away from an issue and toward an individual(s). YOU need to get the 'blind libertarianism' idea out of your disproportionately gigantic, baseball-resembling head. I've already enlightened you on that particular subject, you just refuse to accept it. Conspiracy theories are fun, by the way. I like to take skepticism to the extreme at times.
