Replies

Here's more:

1987: Iraq fires two Exorcet missiles at the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait...told to leave. He said, "pound sand". We did.

1991: Iraq signs a ceasefire agreement they totally ignore. I don't know what dictionary iconoclast uses but when you don't meet the requirements of a ceasefire you might get fired upon.

Throughout the 1990's Iraq ignored the UN resolutions and the weapons inspectors as he played cat and mouse games and consistently shot at US and British planes in the no-fly zones they AGREED to.

They were required to destroy or turn over their WMD's and the programs to make them. They ignored it completely and even kicked out the UN inspectors never accounting for them.

They tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush (proven) and never paid the price.

Finally, after 9/11, it was time to quit playing games with them as they did everything Miss Marple listed. We dragged our feet for ONE MORE ridiculous UN resolution that REQUIRED they turn over or show proof of the destruction of the WMD's we KNOW THEY HAD because the UN inventoried much of them. They didn't.

All of this came to a boil and was again dragged out as we, again, built up our forces around them. In March 2003 we finally made them pay for their defiance.

And don't forget that under Clinton, regime change in Iraq was official US policy.

It's that simple and just because some crotchety old men can't see that doesn't change the facts.

Throughout the 1990's Iraq ignored the UN resolutions and the weapons inspectors as he played cat and mouse games and consistently shot at US and British planes in the no-fly zones they AGREED to.

Do you have the reference for where the no-flies were agreed to? I recall looking through UN Resolution 688, and the others, and seeing that we had the right to intervene, but I don't recall them agreeing to the no-fly the way it was implemented.

BTW, I was very vocal at the time in saying that Bush was going about it wrong by playing up the WMD angle. The true and legal justification for going in was in the UN Resolutions. IOW, I'm not just giving a post hoc critique.

By making the legal argument, with true justification, Bush would have had a stronger position in dealing with the UN, too. But he just had to play the emotional card, and that's where he lost. Rather than making the UN fools, he made us look that way. :-(

See...comments like that are why both neocons and paleocons hate me. :-)