No answer on my first question, fair enough.

Go back on these forums to before the war started. The only thing these people kept repeating was how vast Iraq's WMD program was.

It's funny to see those same people now "convert" to humanitarians. "We didn't go to war over WMDs, we went to war because Saddam killed 5,000 (or if you ask barg it's 300,000, I expect him to be calling it 2 million by next week) kurdish rebels in the 1980's (which we supported) and because he fought with Iran (which we encouraged and instigated)"

The reason I say "funny" is because the ends don't justify the means. Throw the whole country into turmoil and murder 9,000 Iraqi's in order to bring justice to the kurds who died 20 years ago? It would be just as well for us to say "Who does this Saddam guy think he is trying to murder more people than the United States? We'll teach him how to REALLY be mass murderers."

Following the same logic, though, should we also be condemning Abraham Lincoln for "murdering 300,000 of his own people?" Or, instead, should we pass those deaths off as "southern rebels" similar to the way Saddam passed off his own rebels?

I'm going to do a write-in this election year for Saddam Hussein. He's getting at least one vote for U.S. presidency. And why not? He's killed less people than half of our presidents have.

Lastly I'd just like to ask the "offical" opinion from the retard-squad: should Israel's WMD and nuclear program be dismantled in the same "force-if-neccisary" method that we are using on Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya?