jthomas666 said:
The Germany analogy worked better in the first Gulf War, when Iraq was actually invading another country.
Your sole point was that a person who attacks is a bigger threat than one who doesn't. In fact I will quote you: "Someone who has attacked us is a greater threat than someone who might attack us. I do not understand why that is such a difficult concept. " You keep missing the point.....Germany did not attack us....You now seek to morph this into other justifications such as the invasion of other countries (thus indirectly supporting my point). Germany occupied the Rhineland in 1936, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1936, Germany occupied Sudetenland in 1938, Czechoslovakia in 1939, Poland in 1939, Finland in 1939, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in 1940 and begin the Battle of Britain. Why did we wait? Out of curiosity, did you support the first war? Do you think Saddam was incapable of invading his neighbors or supporting terrorist activities such as palestinian suicide bombers?
Interesting. That suggests the problem with your 100 lb weaking v the 345 defensive lineman. The 100 pound kid is a greater threat if he is willing to attack and the defensinve end is not.
Therein ends your argument. The 345 lb brother IS WILLING TO ATTACK. Don't confuse willingness with ability.
In the first Gulf War, the coalition had smashed his army, and appeared to be on the verge of heading for Bagdhad. When we invaded a second time, we did so with the express intent to removing him from power. At no time did he attack our forces with WMDs. I don't know about you, but if someone is coming after me with the plainly expressed intent of killing me, I'm going to be using everything I can get my hands on to defend myself. So, either he had none, was unable to use them, or was unwilling to use them.
I am glad you recognize the second option of being unable to. He certainly had the willingness asa demonstrated by his public statements. In Saddams own words:
"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."
Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991
"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)
The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001
"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"[September 11 was] God's punishment." Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"
t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001
True, Hussein will never sponsor terrorism again (which is a good thing). And if a policeman just decides to gun down a drug dealer who is standing on the corner doing nothing, that dealer will never sell drugs again (which is a good thing). That still doesn't mean the cop did the right thing.
Bad analogy. Saddam was no drug dealer. He was a mass murderer. What if that drug dealer had murdered millions of people and was hold up behind his own army threatening to do more. Would you say we should try to talk to him or should we send a SWAT team in to haul his butt in to be tried for genocide?