"France chose not to go to war because it believed that a) peaceful means of avoiding war had not been exhausted and b) Iraq didn't pose a threat. With the benefit of hindsight, it's pretty hard to argue with either position."
First off, anyone who uses France as a moral position doesn't know France.
But that is a different story.
Secondly, remember the surrender agreement Saddam signed in 1991?
What was the stated penalty for violating said surrender agreement?
How many times did Saddam violate the surrender agreement between 1992 and 2001?
And before you say the surrender agreement was signed 'under duress' I'll remind you that surrender agreements usually are signed under duress, otherwise it wouldn't be a surrender agreement.
You also forget that Saddam shelled out roughly 25,000 dollars to the families of Hezbullah and Hamas suicide bombers, and he had tried to pull an assassination on President George Herbert Walker Bush using dynamite stuffed into the flower boxes of the building he was at.
Failed because the guys planting the explosives were inept.
Now, Saddam wasn't a threat?
MMM-Hmmm.. I think you've just outed yourself.
This little piece of info is always ignored ny the left!