03-14-2004, 12:33 AM
Jester,Mar 13 2004, 11:08 AM Wrote:But Iraq? That was pushed through entirely by Washington, and it's fairly clear which group was behind it: Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Would Al Gore have subscribed to this? I highly doubt it. I don't like Gore at all, but he's certainly not from that crowd.Iraq had it coming.
What you seem to forget is that the only reason there was a cease fire in the first Gulf war was because of some agreements made between Saddam and the U.N.. These agreements were that he prove disarmament, or face sanctions. Over the 10 years thereafter, Saddam repeatedly spit in the U.N.'s face, and all the U.N. would do about it was impose sanctions, sanctions that we all know did nothing but hurt Iraqi's because Saddam used them to his advantage, all the while blaming the U.N. and the U.S..
We had this discussion, remember? The sanctions did nothing. Saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.N. after invading another country, and they didn't do a damn thing about it. When someone won't listen to reason, it's time to punch them in the face.
We had good reasons to resume responding to an invasion when it was clear that nothing else would keep that jackass from exploiting people for his own gain.
The fact that Bush claimed we were really going in there because of WMD's and 9/11 has no bearing on whether the war itself was justified, other than Bush using a half-assed reason that he either believed or thought was more likely to convince people it was necessary.
I don't like Bush very much. I'm not a Christian, I support gay marriage, I oppose prayer in schools and other mixings of government and religion, and I oppose his policies on immigration. He'd put me in his Axis of Evil if I had a shred of influence. However, the war on Iraq was reasonable and necessary, and would have been lauded as a good idea by the people booing it now, had it been headed by Clinton.
Well, except for those countries that had oil deals with Saddam.