I differ with you on the idea of war with Iraq, but I salute the fairness you show here by laying the blame on more than Bush. Unlike other people, I think it is obvious that you oppose what is going on in Iraq for well-considered reasons untarnished by political motives. As I said, I differ with you on the total of your equation, but I applaud the fair reason you use to come to your conclusions.

differ with you on the idea of war with Iraq, but I salute the fairness you show here by laying the blame on more than Bush. Unlike other people, I think it is obvious that you oppose what is going on in Iraq for well-considered reasons untarnished by political motives. As I said, I differ with you on the total of your equation, but I applaud the fair reason you use to come to your conclusions.

I have always enjoyed your posts for the same reason: fairness with a good punchline. Thank You

Great Post Bahu!

While I am no fan of former Prs. Clinton, I don't fault him for the terrible conditions in Iraq during the sanctions. Hussein alone is guilty of those conditions. Before the sad joke called the "oil for food" program, it was Hussein's refusal to honor the terms of the ceasefire and applicable UN sanctions that continued the sanctions in the first place. In the second, once the "oil for food" program began, Hussein had more than enough money to build palaces and rebuild his military... while his people starved, his oil infrastruction was falling apart, his hospitals and clinics were going unequipped and much of his country was without power or running water.

You raise an excellent point though. If Prs. Bush manipulated the intel, wouldn't former Prs. Clinton have first hand knowledge of what the intel was before Prs. Bush supposedly altered it? Or even if he merely created an atmosphere within the intel community that any intel that didn't back his position would bring sure retribution on the agency?

If Prs. Bush did do anything to manipulate the intel, the Democrats need only look to their guy, former Prs. Clinton for comfirmation... But what did happen? Former Prs. Clinton backed Prs. Bush in his decision to return to hostilities with Hussein, and even went so far as to back the intel of the time (2003).

Ironic that the one man who could refute Prs. Bush then, didn't, but now has no problem refuting the decision now... without ever saying that the intel was manipulated. ;~D

Thanks again for a good article.

The article was good, except that it again made use of the traditional left-wing principle.

Never EVER blame the fascist dictator.

As for "rising civilian and US casualties in Iraq"; that either means that the number of deaths per months has increased (in which case I would want to see statistics to back that up) or it means that the number of deaths in general has gone up (but it always does, even in Germany there is a rising number of civilian deaths even today, and there always will be).

Never EVER blame the fascist dictator.

Your response was good, except that it again made use of the traditional right-wing principle.

Always, ALWAYS accuse the left of siding with the fascist dictator.

I would like to see a link that documents that the U N appointed the United States as the enforcement agent for the Security Council. The fact that Saddam did not obey the U N Security Council Resolutions is a given. What gave the U S the authority to enforce those resolutiions?

What gave the U S the authority to enforce those resolutiions?

If I remember my grade 10 history class I think the phrase is "might makes right".

That does not give the United States power to assume the right to enforce the U N Resolutions. The answer is we DID NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY! That is why Most of the world does not support us in Iraq.

"Need we forget the bombing of Kossovo which resulted in thousands of fatalities."

To stop ethnic cleansing.

How did that authorize the United States to enforce U N Resolutions?

Always, ALWAYS accuse the left of siding with the fascist dictator.

Is it not true?

When the left blame everybody but Saddam for the effects of the sanctions, why should one not point it out that they always do that?

You sound like the defence barrister who, when the crown points out that the defendant has been caught committing the same crime again and again, argues that the crown keeps catching the defendant and that that should somehow absolve the defendant. Why would it?

Show me a left-winger who blames Saddam for what happened under the sanctions. Go on.

Once again the great Colon Gangrene has vomited his ignorance of reality and history.

The Ceasefire of 91 (From the Safwan Accords) was NOT signed by the UN, in fact, there were no UN officials involved. Then there was UN Resolution 687, which was the UN's involvement. For 12 years the U.S. waited for the Useless UN to grow a spine and back it's own empty threats against Hussein. For 12 years the UN did nothing more than threaten. For years the "oil for food" made criminals in the UN security counsil fat and rich off the starvation of Iraqi children.

Well, how much longer oh infantile oaf, Colon Gangrene, would you say we should have waited until we stood up and declared the Ceasefire between Iraq and the Coalition (Which WASN'T A UN Coalition) broken and took action?

Prs. Clinton actually did do this a few times... He actually could have done more, but hey, he still did more than the Murder and Rape for Hire UN scum.

Show me a left-winger who blames Saddam for what happened under the sanctions. Go on.

Me.

Now you show me a right-winger who doesn't.


You sound like the crown barrister who, when the defense points out that the crown has been caught wrongfully prosecuting the same defendant yet again, argues that the defense keeps catching the crown in it's unlawful behaviour and should therefore find the defendant guilty. Why would it?

That does not give the United States power to assume the right to enforce the U N Resolutions. The answer is we DID NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY! That is why Most of the world does not support us in Iraq.

Are you just plain stupid or what? Are we "part" of the UN? Unfortunatly we ARE! So as PART of the UN, enforcing UN resolutions fall to ANY and ALL member nations. So by signing on as a member nation that means the US is one of the enforcers. And also since we are most likely the biggest and baddest and have the most military resources we usually get tagged for things like this. Don't like it? Then get the US out of the UN!

This is facetious. When we take part in something the UN directs us to do, the Col would scream that we are puppets of the UN. When we go on our own and do something he disagrees with, we are a loose cannon thwarting UN control.

The Democratic party as a whole should look at Bahu's post, and then look at the Col's, and in that they could see 90% of why they are distasteful to the American public. Bush-haters shamelessly say anything they need to say in order to damage Bush.

When put alongside someone with real feelings, rational concerns, they are a joke. Frankly, it isn't their views that make people unable to vote for them. I could vote for someone who opposed Iraq if they did so like Bahu and otherwise had a platform I agreed with. What is poisoning Democrats in American is this insane attitude that you can say anything, do anything, as long as it is skewed against Bush as an individual.

Thank you, Col, for spotlighting how much different people like you are from people who have real, conscientious beliefs about politics.