Those UN sanctions were part of the treaty he signed. Violation of the UN no fly zone, and attacking UN aircraft that are enforcing it are clearly aggressive actions....regardless of who's country they were flying over.OMIGOSH!!!! They fired on coalition aircraft flying over their nation!!!! That OBVIOUSLY means that Saddam had nuclear weapons ready to launch!!!! INVADE!!!!!!! Spend TRILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives, because Iraq FIRED on coalition aircraft flying over their nation!!!!!
Gee, how stupidly unpatriotic I must be for not being willing - nay, EAGER - to spend trillions of American taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives to keep Iraq from firing at coalition aircraft. I mean, that's REALLY unforgivable, unlike, say, when our destroyer blew up that Iranian airliner, or when the Soviets blew up KAL 007, or when the Soviets (allegedly - there's evidence for and against) torpedoed and sank the USS Scorpion with all hands.
No, your grasp is suspect because you are unaware of the particulars that lead to the invasion. You seem to rely solely on talking points.That counterweight to Iran is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly using material we supplied him in order to "counterweight" Iran. There comes a time when enough is enough. BTW, since your grasp on the history of the region is now suspect, are you aware of Desert Fox and the liberate Iraq act?
Ah. So because I strongly disagree with you ("Invade them! They fired on coalition aircraft!"), my "grasp...is now suspect".
We did deploy troops to Rwanda. I was one of them. Cambodia, in my opinion, is an international failure, and we are party to it.So why didn't we invade Rwanda to stop the genocide there? Why didn't we invade Cambodia to stop the genocide there? Why didn't we invade China to stop the genocide there?
I'm well aware of our ambivalence regarding genocide, and that takes us back to my "enough is enough" statement. I recommend you read "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" by Samantha Power.And how is YOUR grasp of history, sir, if you really think that America has any history at all of invading nations to stop genocides? Hell, if you'll ask the Native Americans - and the Filipinos, for that matter ("Kill every Filipino male over the age of ten!"), WE are not exactly innocent when it comes to committing genocide.
I understand your opinion, and disagree with it's selective application here. If you fully understood the history of Iraq, I might take it more seriously. War is not a distant, abstract, concept to me. I was one of the ones that had to get involved...as were/are many of my friends. Lecture someone else.WAR, sir, should only be something undertaken against what are potentially existential threats...and even then, it should be avoided if the "cure" is worse than the threat (see: Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine). Otherwise, war is very, very expensive, in terms of blood and money. Counting all the interest we are paying and will pay in the coming years, we are quite literally spending TRILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
She had full exposure to the intel...all of it...and she voted for it, while others voted nay.Based on the intel she was given by the Bush administration - which, of course, turned out to be false.