The Jays Wrote:No, the reason I don't want to hear your logic because it is about as sound as a glass house built on the San Andreas fault. Your argument is nothing but blame Clinton, Hail Bush. What else was Clinton supposed to do short of breaking with internation protocol and pre-emptively go to war with Iraq? The fact is that the US worked through the UN and UNSCOM, as was the way we were supposed to do after the Gulf War, to make sure Saddam was kept in check in terms of weapons, and that we sanctioned the country up to their ass. And in 1998, two years left in Clinton's term, US Ambassador Peter Burliegh told UN Inspector Richard Butler to pull out when Saddam wasn't complying, and then Clinton proceed to sign into law funding for opposition groups for regime change in Iraq, as well as bomb the shit out of weapons facilities for four days, and what'd your homies on the right say? That Clinton was just trying to shift focus away from the blowjob he got. The dude just couldn't please your people no matter what.

At no point during this thread have I call Bush the anti-Christ or stated how he's the reason for all the world's problems, but he's fucked up on a larger scale foreign policy wise and domestic policy wise than his predecessor. He took a budget surplus and complete international support going into 2002, and has been blowing it ever since, but this is taking us away from your question on whether it is yay or nay for hanging Saddam. He got killed because he murdered alot of his own people, so yay, but that ain't the reason we went in, we served up a heap of bullshit to the UN, they said no, and so we went in anyway, then we found nothing, the UN is all "told ya so", and now we're in a conflict which mostly consists of our troops driving up and down streets, looking at curbs and rubble, and trying to spot and set off the explosives that the Iraqis keep setting as a way to tell us, "hey, fuck off."

Goatweed Wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-233844812484249985