[billbears]

Not necessarily. Shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, for instance, was an act of war that went largely unpunished through the Clinton administration.

Other countries have shot as US warplanes in the past without all out invasion being the end result. I refer you back to the SOTU speech in 2003. Most, if not all of it, was not true. At no point in that speech was the issue of 'no-fly zone' broached. There was one main reason forwarded. No fly zones had nothing to do with it.

Seems to me that we could argue pretty effectively that we (1) aren't in favor of colonialism, particularly when we are the colonizers, and (2) it's not our business to decide what sort of government other countries choose to have.

I really don't see how you could argue either of those points effectively considering that actions by the US government in relation to the new government in Iraq have been the direct opposite

[Amelia]

I refer you back to the SOTU speech in 2003. Most, if not all of it, was not true. At no point in that speech was the issue of 'no-fly zone' broached. There was one main reason forwarded. No fly zones had nothing to do with it.

I told you my opinion, and referred you back to 1998. Saddam was shooting at our warplanes, he was violating the UN resolutions, and we thought (mistakenly perhaps) that he still had WMDs.

I don't necessarily think the administration has made the best possible case or argued its case as effectively as it could have.

I really don't see how you could argue either of those points effectively considering that actions by the US government in relation to the new government in Iraq have been the direct opposite

Yes, our most recent actions and arguments have been in contradiction to most stated historical positions. In fact, during the first election, didn't George Bush make a big deal of the fact that he was strongly opposed to "nation-building"?