More trouble for Cheney

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am not the one selling it. The UN is and was and passed many resolutions saying so and mostly unanimously.

I was clearly talking about this administration, but you must have missed that in your zeal to play devil's advocate or King of Argumentation yet again. Again, whether or not the United Nations thought he had weapons, the Bush administration invaded. They did not have the support of the UN, they had no coalition to speak of, and went about it unilaterally. Let's not even get into how they possibly violated international law as a member of the UN that completely disregarded rules outlined in the UN charter. Daniel Webster must have been spinning over in his grave when the administration invoked the words "imminent threat."

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, for over a decade, they had been killing in the name of these WMD via Oil for Food, no fly zones, etc. If you can show that is an erroneous statement - let's see it.

And you seem to think I'm excusing that?

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, the world thought they were there and must share in some of the blame for W adhering to that line of thought, though I readily agree W took the killing in their name to a much higher level. In the end, if you think there were no WMD (from when exactly I am unsure) - then the world has been wrong for over a decade.

Of course anyone who thought there were weapons has been wrong. And this administration knew there were no weapons. That is my point. They suppressed intel that proved that assertion and puffed up intel that contradicted it so that they could invade. End of story.

And I don't think they had any weapons to speak of since the early nineties.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . And I don't think they had any weapons to speak of since the early nineties.

Then why did the world think to the contrary? I mean that is some pretty heavy competition to your opinion

Also, I draw no distinction between W's falsely premised invasion of Iraq and Clinton's killing thousands if not millions via starvation and bombs - all in the name of the same WMD. I mean killing is killing. But, yes, W went a big step further than Clinton, though that step is meaningless to those who died over the last 15 or so years.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Then why did the world think to the contrary? I mean that is some pretty heavy competition to your opinion

It's not just my opinion, there are many who didn't believe Saddam had weapons. And if you think everyone truly believed that Saddam had those weapons, you're a fool. Our own leaders knew he didn't have them, for christ's sake.

Also, I draw no distinction between W's falsely premised invasion of Iraq and Clinton's killing thousands if not millions via starvation and bombs - all in the name of the same WMD. I mean killing is killing. But, yes, W went a big step further than Clinton, though that step is meaningless to those who died over the last 15 or so years.

I agree to an extent and, as you know, I'm not a fan of Clinton and find him to be just as murderous as the Bushbots. But I find the impact of an actual invasion of Iraq to be a bit more devastating than that of airstrikes. This is something that will never be "won" and people are going to look back at this as a mess of monumental proportions. We've f*cked things up in the Middle East beyond repair.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

It's not just my opinion, there are many who didn't believe Saddam had weapons. And if you think everyone truly believed that Saddam had those weapons, you're a fool. Our own leaders knew he didn't have them, for christ's sake . . . .

I am speaking of the UN resolutions and the terror commited under them. I use the word terror because if those resolutions were fabricated, which I think you think they were, then it is terrorism.