You seem to imply that any violation of a ceasefire justifies war, which is of course absurd.

Wrong. The ceasefire would have been null and void had the Security Council decided it was null and void. They didn’t.

It is true that Saddam violated UN resolutions, it is also true that the US violated the UN Charter.

In 1991 Saddam Hussein signed a cease fire with the allied forces to stop the war at the time. The two most important terms of this ceasefire were as follows:

1) completely disarm and destroy all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs and stockpiles.

2) allow verified searches of any facility to confirm the destruction of said weapons.

Still with me? Good.

Now Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I’ll say it again for you. Nothing at all.

Still with me? Good.

Now as soon Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, defied 19 UN resolutions, and restarted the programs in question, the cease fire is null and void.

Which means…that’s right… a state of war thus resumes between the two countries. (Which is probably the reason that Clinton made regime change in Iraq a stated goal of the US Gov’t in ’98.)

My whole problem with using ‘weapons stockpiles’ as a reason for going to war was that it only served to confuse people like you who seem unable to grasp the complex concept that is a ‘cease fire agreement’. There was no other justification needed on a global scale for resuming full hostilities.

Still with me? Good.

Now we can wax philisophic about whether or not we should have gone to war when we did. But the idea that it was somehow ‘illegal’ or ‘unjustified’ is asinine. (I’m not indicating this is your position, I’m just pointing out the obvious).

Post 9/11, the onus was on Saddam and Saddam ALONE to prove beyond any doubt that all the agreed upon terms in the cease fire were being followed.

If your comfortable with him having these active programs (Again, NOT STOCKPILES. I know this confuses the hell out of most liberals but having active programs (which, even the iraq report indicated all were active) was a major violation of the cease fire and more than enough justificastion for all out war)) in a country that was a hostile to the U.S as Iraq, then it’s your decision.

But it’s not outlandish to understand why a good portion of the country would want to dismantle this regime post 9/11.

AGAIN, NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 ITSELF.

Does that clear things up a bit for you?

Also a November 2003 DIA intelligence assessment stated that “we do not know whether ex-regime trained terrorists on the aircraft at Salman Pak”

All in all a pretty pathetic excuse for a war….

If I need to point it out, Stalin murdered between 30 and 60 million of his own countrymen, depending on which book you read. And he did most of this before WWII.

So was it then illegitimate for us to oppose the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

All of you libs answer that one for me.

The bottom line is that it was right for us to support the Soviet Union against the Nazis and it was right for us to support Iraq over Iran. During WWII Nazi Germany was the greater threat and during the early 80s Iran was the greater threat.

Yes I know that Iraq started the war with Iran. Let’s just keep in mind that the Soviet Union invaded Poland in Sept 1939 along with Germany. And then there’s the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact The Soviets were hardly complete victims during the war.

Yet we helped the Soviets defeat the Nazis. Again, did this somehow make it wrong for us to oppose the Soviets later?

Perhaps the strangest of liberals’ intellectual weaknesses is their inability to distinguish the difference between “plotting 9/11″ versus “harboring, training, and abetting terrorists.”

It’s what makes them such an endless source of unintentional humor:

“Conservatives think ‘X’! What a bunch of morons!”

“No, we think, ‘The integral of X between times t and t + n.’”

“There! See? Conservatives think ‘X’! What a bunch of morons!”

I’m reminded of a line from Fish Called Wanda, paraphrased: “Yes, stupid people do read philosophy, they just don’t understand it.”

Well, Jimmy Carter called Nicolae Ceausescu a “freedom fighter” and Nixon had some nice things to say about him, too. You can’t take these things too seriously because a certain amount of whoring is de rigeur.