Teribus:

No-one quibbled about meddling in the affairs of an independent sovereign nation?

Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that.

But I'd note that "sense of the Congress" resolutions are far different from actually bombing someone, much less an armed invasion and occupation killiong many thousadns of people many of them civilians.

No-one complained about this affecting the sterling efforts of the UNSCOM Inspection teams toiling away 'searching' for WMD in Iraq?

Actually, some did. But not the PTB in the U.S. (executive or legislative). In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason).

Way back on Clinton's watch Iraq was identified as a threat, as the same people who arrived at that conclusion remained in place when GWB entered the White House, it is not surprising that they gave him the same advice - he accepted it, no reason not to, but NOT HIS IDEA.

The ol' "We're As Stoopid As Clinton" defence is in full flower, IC. You must have gotten your RNC "talking points" memo. But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq. That came from Dubyas' masters in the PNAC community and their famous memo. Clarke has talked about this, as have Wilkerson and others. It was a whole new game for them, and how they jumped for joy on Sept. 11th....

Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.

Oh, BS. At least in GW1, the Kuwaitis offered a token amount of their own troops to help free their country (although, if they had done the thing is typical Kuwaiti fashion, they would have hired mercenaries from SE Asian countries to do the dirty work that is beneath them....

[Iran] certainly did not make any attempt to make things difficult for the US, which they could have done.

When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?

I don't have a clue what age you are Arne, but my guess is not too advanced in years.

You could have saved yourself some typing and stopped after the first five words.

But if you ever did learn anything about things such as the 'Cold War', MAD, etc, ...

Can you sing "Duuuck ... and coooverrrr..."? But I've read York, Kahn, Rhodes, and whole raft of other books on the subject. Stategery aside, fact remains that the U.S. retains a whole s***load of WoMD. I note you don't dispute it; you simply try to brush it off ... curious tactic for one who complains that I'm "ducking the points"....

What do we get from you - "But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot." That is a response to a point made in debate Arne?

Oh, sorry, Teribus, shame on me for trying to stay on point in responding to your assertion that you may have opinions too.

But unfortunately most of the people in reasonable possession of their senses seemed to have followed the lead that you would have advocated in the case of Iraq.

Actually, it was the Republicans and their friends in the American Bunds that were most isolationist (if not openly suggesting that we ought to throw in with Hitler). Do keep that in mind when you think there's a lot of "moral clarity" in world politics.

But FWIW, although it was near-call with Hitler, it's neither certain that efforts to rerun history and say that early intervention in the early '30s would have made a difference (and more than that, a difference for the good) in the long run, nor certain that such policies would be better from a moral perspective. Sometimes we need a watershed event to wake us up, even if that may be near fatal to us. One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world. Bet that little point is going to zip right over your head.....

... they thought that the people in reasonable possession of their senses, otherwise known as Quislings and Appeasers, ...

Quisling was a Nazi lickspittle, not an appeaser. His name is forever linked with treason and infamy.

You want "appeasers", try the RW Republicans in the U.S., OK?

Arne's concern and comments regarding the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers is plainly an attempt to stir emotion which for some reason.

Which, of course, is lost on you. See my comment that you took offence to above about "opinions".

But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed (see the Rendon Group's fine wormk on the incubator babies). Second, any missing from the 1990 occupation and GW1 may have been long dead. Yes, it's terrible they got killed, and if Saddam had them killed, he ought to stand trial for it (would you say the same for the tortured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq under Cheney's watch? Should Cheney sit in the dock in the Hague?). But it's impossible to bring them back to life. I know of none of the alleged Kuwaiti prisoners (or even U.S. MIAs) that were found to have been held hostage by Saddam, and then killed in the runup to Dubya's war (or during it). Once they're dead, they can't be brought back to life, no matter how many UNSCR resolutions you issue. The best you can do is demand compensation and/or put the person responsible on trial once you have them in custody....

Going back to read some of your contributions at DSD

Doubt you'll be able to recognise which ones are me and which ones are Gordon the Muddlheaded with his fascination for touching himself and talking about it third person. But give it a stab, if you're really into digging into those miasmatic emanations from a RWer with brains'o'snot....

Cheers,