Obviously that's not the only criteria I would judge a situation like that on.

The international landscape is also somewhat different today than during the Iran-Iraq War.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

By also giving support to Iran.

And we could support him as a leader of a nation, without supporting him conquering a neighboring country.

---

Even if there were WMD, how could he possibly have been a threat to the United States?

It couldn't be called a humanitarian effort. I don't think anyone on this forum has tried to.

Ah, I see. So as soon as this tribunal is set up, Saddam would just surrender himself to it without a fight. Great idea. Are you MikeyG in disguise?

For one thing, because China, France and Russia aren't going to agree to depose a government they're in league with.

Well, never mind the criteria. Is it, in your view, acceptable to sell WMD components to Iran? That should be easy enough to answer yes or no to.

Lybia just said it bought its nuke plans from Pakistan. Iraq could have just as easily proliferated its research.

Do you mean dual-use material or material used strictly for weapon-making? I don't think we should pull the plug on their atomic energy program if that's what you are asking.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I never said he would not surrender himself without a fight. It has not been tried, so how could you even hypothesize what he'd do? And if, regrettably, it comes to it, the U.N. Tribunal can decide whether or not they want an international military effort to depose Hussein. I am proposing we try Hussein in the World Court, preferably with him. If he refused to submit to the World Court, then perhaps the U.N. could authorize military use against them. Since the U.N. charter was ratified in 1945 in San Fransisco, you'd think the U.S. government would have a lot more regard for it.

---
I like cheese and panties. Together. Cheese wearing panties.

A brand new user only making posts in FGH and you think they are someone in disguise? Gosh what cynicism.

We didn't try Milosevic before the war in Kosovo. How would you have handled that differently? Would you wait 4+ years to try the man while the genocide continued, to maybe invade if the judicial process said it was all right?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

What a coward Bush is.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Lybia just said it bought its nuke plans from Pakistan. Iraq could have just as easily proliferated its research.

We should invade Pakistan, then? I mean, they've actually done it, as opposed to Iraq, which just could have done. In fact, any country in the world could proliferate its weapons research. So why choose Iraq?

Do you mean dual-use material or material used strictly for weapon-making? I don't think we should pull the plug on their atomic energy program if that's what you are asking.

No, just material purely for weapon-making.

Yeah, definitely MikeyG.

Well, it still comes down to the same thing, military action. Okay, a UN-sanctioned attack would have been preferable to a solely US one. If I could make the UNSC support such an action, I would have. But the fact remains that France, Russia and China wouldn't!

Thank goodness for dissenting voices. The hypocrisy that masquerades as our savior would go COMPLETELY unchecked otherwise.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Please please, I'm no one's savior.

Thanks though.

I didn't say we should invade Iraq because if this, I was just answering the question "how could Iraq even hurt us with WMD?"

As long as they are classified as a nation that supports terror, no they shouldn't be allowed to buy nuclear, chemical or biological components whose only use is in weapons of mass destruction.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I really, really advocate world peace. REALLY. But military action has, in the past, and under the RIGHT circumstances, proven effective in certain areas. I hate to admit it, but we would not have won independance from the former Imperialist Britain without fighting. My entire argument revolves around the lackadaisical, devil-may-care, cowboy attitude of the previous administrations, Clinton included. Rushing headlong into war, and make no mistake, it WAS headlong, is fucking despicable. There is no possible way Iraq was a threat to the U.S., in ANY way. Too poor, and any use of WMD against us would have turned them into a Hiroshima. Supported terror? I bet very few people know that the Clinton Administration flew Hamas and yes, AL-QAEDA operatives over to Kosovo to aid our troops there. Which means that having supported terrorists in the past is a crime the U.S. should be charged for as well.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

How much of that did you make up and how much of that did you guess about?

Just curious.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Yes, I certainly MUST have made this up.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

No, it sounds like Milosevic made it up.

I'm sure Clinton's political detractors would love to propagate a story like that. Why have they not?

Could it be...totally made up??

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

You'll notice Clinton's detractors did not focus nearly as much on the Presidential policy as they did on the Presidential Polishing. That's probably why. The reason it is not well-propagated is because there is hardly a party line anymore. Clinton was pretty fucking bad any way you look at it, and Bush II is the fuckin' worst.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Maybe the reason why is that Milosovic made that story up.

They haven't proved it's real. I'm sorry I took the time to read your the article you claim to back up your point.

And I'm talking about Clinton's present-day detractors. Plenty of people still want to tarnish him. Your muck about the "party-line" is kind of surprising considering how politicaly devisive the nation is right now.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

That might bother me even a tiny bit if I gave half a shit about what you think.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Yup

Uh-huh

Yessir

Mm-hmm

*yawn*

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

The only connection I see in reading those articles is that Al Qaeda would have been sympathetic to a war which helped muslims. If there were real evidence Clinton and Osama were working hand-in-hand you would not be hearing the end of it in the media.

I'm not even sure what your point is either way. People didn't consider Al Qaeda the threat that it really was before 9-11. Big deal. Way to break a major news story.

Also I think everyone knows the organization stemmed from the mujahadeen movement we worked with in Afghanistan. Also, totally a big deal and a major breaking news story.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Either way, you said it was made up, and now you acknowledge the truth of it. Thank you for not being a shithead in this instance.

Both U.S. forces and Al-Qaeda forces were working towards the same goal in Kosovo. When two forces are fighting the same war on the same side, WITHOUT attacking each other, aren't they usually called allies?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I said it was made up that Clinton was working hand-in-hand with Osama. And I still believe it is. I'd really like a reason to condemn Clinton but I think what you are suggesting is just ridiculous.

They moved in there to stop a genocide, and helping muslims in any nation is (or was) on the Al Qaeda agenda. I still don't see your point. Are you saying Clinton should have seen into the future and invaded Afghanistan instead of bombing Kosovo? Or that he should have ignored a genocide because it was against the religion Al Qaeda claim to be the defender of?

Oh wait we were primarily using air power in that war anyway. How is it we could have been fighting side by side with Al Qaedea? Did they have magical flying donkeys?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I could have sworn you said 'Primarily'. We had troops. On foot.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Not many, Clinton was scared to have American-flag-draped coffins on the news.

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying Osama was leading a charge in Kosovo and we could have run in and nabbed him but didn't? Or maybe are you saying a group that was active in Kosovo has since become re-classified as part of "Al Qaeda" and we should send that information into the past to aid Bill Clinton in stopping the September 11 bombings? Or do you not have a point?

I'll agree that Clinton was a major screw up in terms of military actions. That doesn't condemn the whole of American interests though.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

No, YOU said Osama. I said Al-Qaeda. As you well know, Osama could not be in several places at once. he may very well never have set foot in Kosovo, but that doesn't mean his operatives could not be there. As you saw, it was ALWAYS Al-Qaeda in Kosovo, not some splinter cell later reclassified as Al-Qaeda. It was well-known that Al-Qaeda was and had operated in and around Kosovo.

No, I am saying that terrorist operatives are only terrorists in the eyes of previous administrations when they attack us or our ally states. Bush II is just a prodigy of the Reagan Administration, which was a giant example of this unwritten policy.

Clinton WAS scared to have American Flag-draped coffins on the news, which is why a lot of the ground troops were covert ops and black ops projects.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I like turtles.