A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott, notwithstanding everything you said between:
"It was a number of things. First, he was a brutal tyrant who was
murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most
heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable." AND "Seventh, he
provided an excellent object lesson on the perils of thumbing one's
nose at
the US for other terrorist nations such as Libya and North
Korea...among
others. That's some of the principle reasons we invaded. "

That's NOT what Colin Powell was preaching at the UN. The justification
for going to war with Iraq was made to the world community, at the UN.

Fu*k the UN. What we choose to tell the UN has nothing whatever to do with
what we base our independent sovereign actions on. The UN is a bunch of
leftist pussies who hate America and who wouldn't lift a finger to help us
if we were under attack. They do nothing but dither, debate and pontificate,
and the people who run it are massively corrupt. The UN should be disbanded
and kicked out of the US entirely.

Screw the world community too, if they were too blind to see the horrors
taking place in Iraq and the dangers posed by Hussein.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


The weapons inspectors were well on their way to NOT finding WMD. The
aluminum tubes et al turned out to be a hoax.

No, they didn't.


He threatened world peace you say?!!!

Yup.

Fer crissakes man, your army
walked all over him in a few days! How could this man threaten world
peace?

By using UN oil-for-food money to fund international terrorism, including
the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union by
terrorist organizations, for one.

Are you now telling me that your intelligence agencies (the one
that KNEW he had WMD) did NOT know that his armed forces weren't worth
a popcorn fart? Threaten world peace! Not likely!

I never said he threatened world peace through military invasion.


As to refusing to allow mandated inspections. Was that a UN issue, or
was that an issue for the USA?

It was an issue for the US, which we misguidedly contracted out to the UN in
an ill-considered attempt to curry favor with the international community.
Turns out the UN really didn't give a crap about holding Saddam's feet to
the fire, because the UN, as an organization, hates the US and is happy to
see us embarrassed or put at risk. Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement
SEVENTEEN TIMES in the 12 years after the first war.

That's sixteen times too often.

When the UN failed to reinvest Baghdad with UN troops after the FIRST
violation of the cease fire agreement, the UN gave up any right to complain
when the US eventually (and belatedly) decided to act unilaterally to
enforce the agreement.


Nope. It was WMD.

Nope, it was a lot of things.

But even if it was only WMD's, nothing changes. He had WMD's, he used WMD's,
he concealed WMD's, he illegally retained information about the manufacture
of WMD's, he moved WMD's about in a shell-game to avoid detection, he
refused inspections for WMD's, and he very likely exported WMD's to Syria.
That's all the justification we needed.

BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency, supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.

So, we'd better go clean out that nest of vipers too.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser