So your saying inciting a revolt, that resulted in tens of thousands of anti-Saddam iraqi's to be killed, is with in the terms of a cease fire? It's justified to go to war because Iraq refused to let inspectors in after a decade of searches. But not justified for them to refuse after we tried to start a civil war?
Please quit making strawman arguments and attacking them rather than the arguments I'm actually making. It's incredibly irritating, and not very effective.
I am not in any way defending Saddam, he was a murderous slime. Who deserved what he got. As to me saying anyone who disagrees with me is a moron,,, No I was responding only to one individual who was attacking anyone who disagreed with Him.
Actually, your original tirade was in direct response to HanesOnU who said, "So we should let someone like Saddaam just have a billion dollars? We said he could leave, he did not do that."
How, exactly is that an an attack on someone who disagreed with him. It seems to me that it's you that is on the attack. It is certainly consistent with the nature of your usual responses. You assert that anyone that disagrees with you is simply woefully uninformed, a Bush lover to the end against all reason, or stupid or duped by the Bushies.
WMD proven false, Terror proven false, so what reason was the real reason? people can fervently support the war, but giving VALID reasons for it is difficult to do.
It hasn't been "proven false" that reasonable intelligence indicated WMD was a real threat, merely that it turns out they weren't there when we got there. Foreign governments believed, based upon their own intelligence, he likely had a continuing WMD program. U.S. Intelligence certainly wasn't clear that he DIDN'T have a continuing program. We KNOW with out a doubt he had a program following Gulf War 1 and the ensuing years. We KNOW he continued to resist inspection (which is contrary to the argument that he has nothing to hide).
Using 20/20 hindsight doesn't definitively make that an invalid basis for what was done.
The WOT not proven false except in your opinion by your twisted argument that if the US takes action to root out one source of terrorism it must immediately do so at the same time against every source. That's not the way the real world works. Iraq was clearly a state sponsor of terrorist activity against the U.S. and its allies. To deny that is to deny reality. Reasonable minds can disagree whether that, in and of itself was appropriate moral justification for Gulf War 2.
AS I've said before, I believe reasonable minds can differ on whether the war was justified. You, apparently continue to think anybody that disagrees with you simply doesn't know what they're talking about because you've proven them false, false, false,.....when you really haven't done that very effectively at all.
I support our troops but not this War that was launched for false reasons. As I said earlier we did not let Saddam go into exile because then we could not control who replaced him. thus could not control the oil resources. That my friend is the ONLY reason we have an interest in Iraq. Without it's oil we would not care one iota what happens there.
I'd like to see some evidence that we would not have had considerable influence...near total control....in who replaced them. We still would have had the threat of military engagement if it was a Baathist successor. This is more of you pre-supposing facts not in existence. Furthermore, as has been pointed out quite effectively, Kaje's "quote" of the conditions left out at least one important condition. This was about more than just a million dollars.
As far as oil....of course it is a strategic interest in all of this....a valid one too. You're argument that we would not care one iota what happens there and is the only reason we have an interest, however, completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the region and the strategic value of having another potential future launching base and sphere of influence in the area.