[Alberta's Child]

In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

This just about sums up my reasons for opposing this stupid war since Day 1.

[Mr. Silverback]

This just about sums up my reasons for opposing this stupid war since Day 1.

1. You're not making any sense. There aren't any "reasosn" to oppose the war in that paragraph at all, it's merely a recounting of the history of one bill.

2. Stuff like this...

No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

...is why I think Freepers who are fans of Ron Paul have had a large protion of their brain removed. Clinton cited any number of legitimate security concerns when he advanced that bill. Clinton specifically cited the possibility that Iraq might pass WMDs to terrorists or use them on U.S. troops or allies. If preventing that is not a "legitimate national security concern" in Ron Paul's world, he deserves a Darwin Award. Heck, he deserves a lifetime achievement Darwin Award.

[pfony1]

I gather that you are ANNOYED that, since Bush closed the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11.

Shame on you for wishing that more American civilians were dead!

[Allosaurs_r_us]

This just about sums up my reasons for opposing this stupid war since Day 1.

I don't know about the politics of this war and I really don't give a rusty about all of those who try and make this some kind of political war zone. I believe it is our DUTY to protect those that cannot or do not have the means to protect themselves from the monsters of this world. Anyone who would try and defend the Butcher of Baghdad for the purpose of political shenanigans has no business in this discussion. The man was killing millions of his own people for the sole purpose of remaining in power. I do not believe any human being on this planet needs any more excuse to remove him from power than that. We removed Suddenly Insane because we could. Why does any sane person on earth have to find any other reason than that? If this board would allow four letter words, I have a dump truck full aimed at those that think we needed any other reason besides he was committing mass murder and he needed to be STOPPED!

The man was no better than Hitler and in many ways much worse. It would be traitorous to the human race to sit by and let an individual wreak such havoc on our fellow humans without doing something to stop such crimes against humanity. What in the hell is wrong with those of us who need or want some profound excuse to send this SOB to hell? We have been complacent many other times in recent history and look what it has caused our society. It is past time to play political Bull Shirt! Every time I read these threads I am forced to try and understand what in the hell is wrong with society when we need some kind of mandate from a political wing to justify snuffing out a tyrant. I'm sorry, I just don't know what in the hell  the argument can possibly be when death is so easily recocognizablly being committed by one individual.