Teribus: [Arne] ....."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."

Of the latter they were hacked off because he did not ask for approval of both houses and it was a poorly thought out exercise that could not accomplish the aim.

Oh, I fully agree ... ummm, sorry, waiddaminnit, you were talking about Dubya there, weren't you??? Oh. Litella-ish "Nevermind...."   ;-)

Are you trying to tell us that after setting Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy, The US did not bomb Iraq after it said it would put its faith in the UN efforts and in the wishes of the people of Iraq? ...

You're getting incoherent as well, Teribus. Better lay off the sauce.

Dessert Fox achieved very little, actions taken by the US since summer 2002 have achieved a great deal.

Well, here again I think I see your point: If you're an undertaker, yes!!!

[Arne]: ...."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)."

I don't believe that I said that Saddam kicked UNSCOM out just before Dessert Fox....

Never said you did. Just clarifying a point the Republicans like to muddy up.

... UNSCOM were advised to withdraw their personnel on the recommendation of the US Government. UNSCOM were kicked out of Iraq in 1997/early 1998 by Saddam, which was one of the factors that sparked the incident.

Here you fall off the deep end. What happened was that Saddam wouldn't allow them to return after Desert Fox. Which is, in a way, rather understandable, as Saddam doesn't have lots of incentive or reason to make nice when we inspect, then take out the inspectors and bomb him, then want to put inspectors back in. Bad reward schedule, you know... Not to mention that Saddam had also gotten a bit pissed that the U.S. had been introducing CIA (or other intelligence) agents into the inspection teams who had their own little agendas, and Saddam thought that this wasn't quite cricket (the U.N. wasn't very happy about it either, as it makes their job in other areas more difficult and gives other countries an excuse for refusing inspections due to the tarnishing of the inspection missions with clandestine spying, something that is not the mission of the inspection teams).

[Arne]:....."But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq."

When did I say that it was Clinton's idea to invade Iraq ...

Oh, you didn't say it. But you did imply it and/or use Clinton's stance as support for the invasion you so dearly love. And you're continuing to do so. Funny how the worm turns, and now Republicans and the Dubya sycophants are touting Clinton as an "authority", eh? Didn't you know he was impeached ... I mean, IMPEACHED???

The stuff about PNAC and their memo - Red Herring.

You misspelled "fact". But quite like you to ignore it, as it really does throw a spanner in the argumentative works for you....

But noted he did not deny that the countries mentioned above did assist the US, not just Israel, nor does he deny that they are all US allies in the region.

I noted they sent no troops!. They allowed U.S. military operations, hardly contributed. They certainly didn't support the invasion in advance; rather simply agreed (or didn't agree; see Turkey) to allow troop basing in their country. I won't opine on whether they wanted to actually contribute in their heart of hearts and were just inhibited from such by political realities, but the fact is that such "contribution" was pretty much of a passive nature (and not particularly different from their pre-invasion-plan actions WRT U.S. troops over there).

And a FWIW: Oh, I don't deny that "Bandar" Bush is Dubya's ally. Heck, the Saudis got the golden glove treatment after 9/11, and we have Dubya walking hand-in-hand with the Saudis.... But not a single Saudi troop went to Iraq. Did you have a point?

[Arne]:...."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 would say that the only people who have been shooting themselves in the foot recently Arne have been the Iranians.

Oh, really? With their buddy Chalabi back in the U.S. good graces, with their Shia allies likely to be running Iraq, Iraq (after 10 years of war with Iran) reduced to rubble and no military threat, and Saddam removed as an opposing power in the Middle East, all with their not having to lift a finger (except of course, perhaps cooking up some phony "intelligence" or otherwise fomenting the was), I'd say the Iranians won ... "big time". They got us to do their dirty work for them. Quite the coup, I'd say....

[Arne]:...."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.".....

Perfect description of Iraq 1990 to 2003, and of the international communities responsibilities and actions.

Yeah, you missed my point. Colour me surprised ... Not!

No, Iraq was not the equivalent of 30's Germany. But see if you might think of some other candidates that might be starting to look a little like them....

The Ba'athist Party in both Iraq and Syria is a National Socialist Party based on the German Nazi Party.

Godwin's Law, eh? Yep, and commies are Nazis because Nazis are the National Socialist party, and Dems are commies because they're seen in public within a mile of Michael Moore (and we know<> he's pink), and thus they're all little fascists ... ummm, make that "Islamofascists" and "Saddam-lovers" too..... There is an anti-Semitic streak to the Ba'ath party, but that's hardly unique to them in that area. But to compare them ... nay, equate them ... with the Nazis is something that should sicken any thinking person.

[Arne]:...."First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed"

You don't know Arne, but you automatically assume that they didn't because it suits your arguement?

Burden of proof is on the proponet of a proposition. You're assuming (or at least arguing based on) facts not in evidence. If you want to be more specific on who died when and why, and why this is such a big deal requiring that another thousand lives, this time U.S. troops, be lost to "cure" these deaths, we might have something to discuss.

And as an aside: I argue my own position (and not under a pseudnym either). If you want to argue with someone else, then just go do it. I'm quite sure my parents have their own opinions, but that's their prerogative to defend, and they're quite capable of doing so. They'd most probably think that you're most unwholesome slime as well, but that is their decision to make.

Cheers,