[Dr. Frank fan]

Alberta's Child,

You need to stop defending to dirtboy a point ("the US would never place troops near a WMD country") which you've already admitted to me is bogus.

The US did this in 1991 and you know it, you even gave me your theory for how they did it successfully (without having the WMDs used). So why are you still defending this bogus point?

[dirtboy]

You need to stop defending to dirtboy a point ("the US would never place troops near a WMD country") which you've already admitted to me is bogus.

He's just doing his daily intellectual yoga exercises. One must keep one's positions limber and flexible, you know.

[Alberta's Child]

Because it's not a bogus point. If the U.S. effectively "stages" a war against a country with WMDs, then those WMDs aren't really a threat to the troops after all. Which means those WMDs could not possibly have been a legitimate reason for the war, and therefore any argument on this point is meaningless.

Something to note here: If the U.S. secured Saddam Hussein's "cooperation" in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power, then what price do you think we paid to secure his "cooperation" in 2003?