My set of quotes was to dbguy, who asked: "What makes you say that Iraq was a state bent on exterminating the United States?" Easy- because it has repeatedly and explicitly stated so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Anyone with a brain knows that these statements were made for domestic consumption. If they had any bssis in reality, the US government would have attacked Iraq in 1994, not 9 years later."

Then you offend yourself, since those quotes were taken from Iraqi-controlled media. Anyone hearing those words would not know the context it was being. Look at the context: it has been consistent over a 2 decade span of time, surrounding different events. Its purpose- direct or as simple hyperbole- makes no difference whatsoever, both to the people it excites and to the people it terrifies. He had used it before, both on other countries and on his own people- there is no indication he would not have on the US or her allies.

Concerning taking action in 1994. Clinton did not take action against terror on any level after the first bombing of the Trade Center; he didn't even make serious attempts to secure Yasin's extradition. Hell, the man even made his administration avoid labeling Rwanda "genocide" so we wouldn't have to honor our anti genocide pact and send troops. There is no indication Clinton would have preemptively engaged Saddam, no matter the level of support he gave to terrorists, nor the level of weapons he possessed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Another pathetic argument. So according to you, one small can could annihilate the entire US? BTW. He didn't even have a small can of whevetever it was."


You ignore the context of the quote, or at the very least are unable to discern what it means. In this case, Saddam wishes us to share in his awe of such small-sized weapons causing so much destruction. It seemed to do the trick nicely against a quarter million Kurds, so yes- he did have "small can of whatever it was," and most certainly employed it's effects on dissenters. BTW- That "whatever" is mustard gas, serin, tabun, and VX.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We didn't seem to mind that he was using WMD on Iran, or anyone else at the time. In fact, after using them on his own people, we contgnued to support him."

The fact that America both secured its interest and the high seas by supporting Iraq in the Iraq Iran War with the largest engagement of surface warships since World War II is not the same thing as condoning or supporting the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds or Iranians during their war. You won't be able to spin envoys and "shaking hands" with Saddam to mean so here. Good attempt, however.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


“Firstly, the war crimes tribunal in Iraq has no interntaional recognition or legitimacy. We purposely kept him out of the Hague to ensure embarrasing details didn't get reported. Secondly, of all the acts of murder he commited, we charged him on the least of these becasue they took place BEFORE we started supporting him.”

Firstly, the United States legally handed Saddam over to the legitimate and legal interim Government of Iraq, who tried him under their laws and their court. I am willing to bet you are the same hypocrite shouting for Iraqi autonomy, and after it happens, decry the legitimacy of that autonomy. Because some felt he should have been tried under a UN appointed court does not diminish the legality or legitimacy of the court that did try and convict Saddam.

Secondly, “ensure [embarrassing] details didn't get reported?” You are too hilarious. You mean like capturing the execution on a camera phone, with one of the executioners screaming his appeased revenge on Saddam for the murder of his family? What a joke. We didn’t charge him with anything, his country’s courts did.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~

***It's not like a Taliban leader was captured, or over 100 insurgents killed yesterday. Wait, yes they were.


“Oh you mean like these insurgents? It always amazes me how we can be so sure that those we kill are insurgents until we get caught out.”


You only diminish your own point here. It was you that stated we are somehow not engaged in war anymore with terrorist groups. Our Iraq involvement has affectively “ended” our war on terror. Please- I pointed out to you that this was most certainly not the case, as shown by our everyday engagements with terrorist groups elsewhere in the world. You think the killing of noncombatants during wartime is an argument that our war has ended? Let me ask you something- how badly did the rest of your debate team hate you? A lot? A little? It’s ok, you can tell me.