Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
And the previous 7 years?
|
Before they were pulled out, inspections seemed to go pretty well, at least according to those who had been inspecting. Not to mention we blew the hell out of Iraq in the Gulf War.
Quote:
What did he do to Saddam for stonewalling? Why should Congress have taken it seriousy if they weren't happening?
|
The result of the inspections don't corellate with your opinion.
Quote:
Yes, we and the UN are at fault for putting up with this bullshit for this long.
|
Again, fact is, we gave up on inspections, partly because President Clinton needed to appear assertive about something in order to make up for troubling times.
We pulled them out, and likewise, when it was agreed that Iraq had not come into 100% compliance (NOTE: Not meaning they had nukes stock piled, simply meaning they hadn't met the standard set).
The UN and the U.S. Government failed then, and now they are complaining. Too little, too late.
Another question is why should Saddamhave obeyed? It was policy all throughout the 90s, both public and private, that nothing would improve inj Iraq unless Saddam was out. It IS not, and never HAS been about all of these mythical weapons that Saddam will hit America with.
Quote:
You mean, when they happen unobstructed?
|
Like now?
Quote:
You mean the ones they said they didn't have?
|
Again, why should someone commit suicide? The U.S. and the UN have never REALLY cared about inspections, so why be concerned now? Bush will invade whether they give up those missiles or not, which also proves that this is NOT about WMD. It's like holding a gun to someone with a gun, and saying "give me the gun, and I'll think about not shooting you."
Quote:
So, I can have an outlook, but sharing it makes me a warmonger?
|
No, I think you ARE a war monger. That isn't what I'm criticizing, what I'm criticizing is the need by most on the pro-war side to pretend to be peaceful puritans, and that their support for war is out of necessity, not desire. I don't buy it.