--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/4/07 2:40:49 P.M. Central Standard Time, > > jstein@ writes: > > > > Good guys" usually dont' invade other countries... > > > > > > > > So were we the bad guys when we invaded Germany and Japan? > > > > > > We weren't fighting a pre-emptive war... > > > > > > now you're rationalizing. War is war. It's fought to be won. > > > > Non sequitur. We're the bad guys because we > > started a pre-emptive war against a country > > that had not attacked us and was not a threat > > to us. > > > > Excuse me, Iraq attacked us on almost a weekly basis. We > > patrolled a no fly zone that Saddam agreed to and our > > aircraft were constantly fired upon by his military. > > Oh, PLEASE. Saddam never agreed to the no-fly zone, > and they were never authorized by the U.N. They were > illegal to begin with. And the idea that Saddam's > pathetic ground defenses were a "threat" to the U.S. > is ludicrous. > > The no-fly zones and bombings were used by Bush > specifically to provoke Saddam into shooting down a > plane to give the U.S. an excuse to invade. That's > on the record. > > > The only way we could find out that he wasn't an immediate threat > > to anybody was to remove him from power and scour his country. > > No, it wasn't. The weapons inspectors were doing > a fine job, even despite the U.S.'s sabotage of > their efforts. > > > Until then, the world thought he was dangerous enough to > > pass 17 UN resolutions calling for him to disarm. > > He may have been dangerous to his neighbors, but > not to the U.s. >
BOth Condi and Colin said, in early 2001, he was of no danger to the USA and his threat had been contained concerning his neighbors.
