[QUOTE=Sheik Yerbuti;1061642535]Bush is NOT the only one to say that. There were other UN inspectors who stated that they felt Saddam was hiding something. Go back and read the links. It's ALL there. Saddam HIMSELF admitted to making it look that way. Now, we aren't mind readers. If someone tells us that they are hiding something, and after an incident like 9/11, and the games continue with this guy we would be frigging idiots to ignore that.What does that have to do with your inability to prove what you say?? You're defending Bushes lie that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in, remember? I know you're trying to take a detour from that since I proved it was a lie, but that ain't gonna happen. I posted a quote from Hans Blix who was not only in Iraq, but said that in the short period they were there, they had already gained access to over 300 sites. You've been all over the map running away from that since.
Again, you haven't been reading the links QUITE obviously.Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in.
You repeated, and defended, that lie.
Oh, this one guy says Saddam is a good cooperative guy right? Good God, join me in the world of reality.Hans Blix's testimony indicates you're lying.
G'head, this is where you insert your next non-sequitur.Well I wouldn't want to make things more complicated for you.
I can read. Can you? You did say "decades old talking points." Don't be dishonest. It just makes you look like an ass."Decades???"
Can't you read, Chris?? Where did I said "decades old???" I said, decade old...
Take a look in the mirror. You either haven't been following along, or you just don't understand. I can't make that call.Sorry, but I just had to highlight you projecting that immediately after you misread what I wrote.
Pointing out your lack of self-awareness would be an understatement.
Again, how many times do I have to repeat myself? He may have let them in, and he may have let them inspect certain areas, but he was NOT open and honest, and he was NOT cooperative with a LOT of things.While that was true at one time, it's simply not true at the time Bush decided to invade.
Blix reported how they performed over 400 inspections at over 300 sites, including presidential palaces. You can continue to lie about the matter, but you cannot prove your lies are not lies.
What is completely insane is making the blanket statement that the world is a better place without him.
That's like saying the world isn't a better place without Hitler in it. Please. Saddam was a rotten man who would GLADLY rid himself of any obstacle and anyone who disagreed with him, as long as he could. Of course, he took a more cowardly approach with others who weren't at his mercy. He committed genocide more than one time.
Are you arguing that point?
Are you effing kidding me? That statement is SO contradictory it's not even funny!Of course that's true in most regards, but not all. There were benefits to him being in power, namely, he kept Iran in check. Since he's been gone, Iran has gone full-throttle in developing nukes whereas they wouldn't do that while he was in power because they feared him.
The way we went about removing him was not ideal. I would have preferred sending in some CIA assassins or a small team of assassins to take him out and spare our soldiers.So while it's true that the world is a better place without him, that doesn't mean we can't talk about the disadvantages about him being gone.
And the even more salient question is ... was it worth removing him?
Yeah, well that isn't the question. The question is "IS the WORLD a better place without him?" YES it is.At the cost of over 35,000 American casualties ... between 1 and 2 trillion dollars ... our moral highground lost in the deaths over over 100,000 Iraqis ... I say no, it was not worth it. Not even close.