Raptor wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.

There's that. You're still wrong: it doesn't add up to a real war.

Like I said - we have to agree to disagree because I do believe that
Saddam more than "met the criteria" to be removed from power.

But that's just one thing.

How about the *way* of the war? You seem at least mildly reasonable.
Can't you join me in unreservedly condemning most of the means leading
to the hoped-for end? As wars go this one is a World-Class cluster****.

If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
Syria, for example).

Do I think the UN and Security Council should have locked arms and
provided an unambiguous, unified front to Saddam's WMD gamesmanship?
Do I think the UN and Security Council should take a VERY hard-line
stance against ANY state-sponsored terrorism? Yep. They should have
then, and they should be doing that now.

Do I support every decision that the US has made in Iraq? Hardly.
But unfortunately those kind of discussions are nearly impossible to
have on these forums since most of the discourse is of the shrill Al
Goresque "He lied to us" rhetoric.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame