[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by Lil Lil: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: Quote: Originally posted by pritchke: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: A Triple Dog Dare???? *Uses best DeNiro voice* Are you talking to me...? Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question. Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it. The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.

You mean like Saddam gassing all the Kurds, killing traitors, and forcing the UN to impose sanctions after GW1 which would have never happen if we pressed on to remove Saddam.[/QUOTE]Since I believe the gassing of Kurds happened before the Gulf War, that wouldn't have changed. The death of thousands due to sanctions, the deaths of those from the end of the Gulf War to today are partly our responsibility for allowing an obviously evil dictator to remain in power when the opportunity to remove him was there.[/QUOTE]If I remember correctly, thousands (tens of thousands?) of our own people were at risk at that time because of the use of biological and chemical weapons and that our staying there would have had catastrophic results...at least that's what I understood of the situation as my ex-husband (in the service) was dying; a result of his own exposure to chemical or biological weapons in the region during that conflict. R. I. P. Bri.[/QUOTE]Sorry to hear that as well friend.