You completely ignored my point that your "we let him go once" excuse is nonsensical.
And yes, we did abandon the Kurds and it was wrong.
But that has nothing to with the current situation. We also didn't treat the Indians very nice, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea.
No, I didn't ignore your comment. Maybe I didn't answer it in the best manner. If I remember correctly, the first time around, President Bush I said Sadaam was a Hitler and had to be done away with. We even got to hear the stories of babies being dumped out of incubators, seen Kuwaiti's hanging throughout their country, Sadaam gassing his own people, etc.
Sadaam was 'public enemy number 1.'
Then we had him. We had him defeated and we let him go and Sadaam killed the Kurds. Why didn't we go back THEN?
Now, you say that we abandoned the Kurds and it was wrong. Then you say we didn't treat the Indians very nice either.
And I'm the bad guy in this????
More and more people here will make good police officers.
it really is not correct to say that we abandoned the Kurds. They have a slice of Northern Iraq right now where they are able to live in comparative freedom. However, if Cap'n'Crunch has his way, we really will be abandoning them. Finally, I find Cap'n'Crunch's position in regard to the Kurds particularly ironic because he is in effect saying that because we abandoned then once we should prove our consistency by abandoning them twice.