I'm being obtuse???
Jim - the USA is not an oppresive dictatorial regime with a history of genocide and aggression towards our own people and our neighbors. We don't carry people into the street and execute them for disagreeing with the leadership. We don't allow terrorist cells to grow unabated within our borders.
Forgive me, but I don't think a country sanctioned into outright poverty by the UN for it's total disregard of the rules everyone else must play by should be in any position to dictate the terms by which those sanctions are lifted. These are the rules for EVERYONE...there are no "Saddam Says" exceptions to be granted. Be indignant all you want, if you're interested in getting food for your people and have no WMD, you'll open the doors. Sovereign nations don't exist under conditions such as this...any claim that Iraq was a sovereign nation implies that the term is misunderstood (meaning that Iraq was neither fully self-governing nor independent under these sanctions).
I'm sick to the teeth of being made to feel as if Saddam is the Zaphod Beeblebrox of our place and time ("Saddam is just ziss misunderstood guy, you know?"). He was a crazed brutalitarian. End of story. If you take issue with the war, fine...but don't insult our intelligence nor the service of our armed forces by insinuating that he was a paper tiger.
The sentences referring to being enraged have me puzzled - not sure to whom you're referring. In deference to your perceptions, I'm certainly not enraged...not sure what the child rearing comment was meant to serve either, but I'd get a good chuckle out of it if that was targeted for me too.
Something odd about the site - I can't use the automated quote. Anyway, the point of calling you obtuse is you purposely misinterpret what is being said by nearly anyone to suit your outlook. By purposely I am not saying you do must be doing it consciously. Just that in order for the data to go in, you have to shape it to suit your outlook. Regardless of what it is, even your own links.
I never suggested Saddam was a nice guy, to anyone. But he was the leader of a nation. A sovereign nation by all standards of perception except yours - in which you agree he was rendered unable to even feed the people of Iraq, much less afford a clandestine WMD program. His relationship with the outside world was regulated by the UN but his ability to run his country internally was not being restricted. While anyone paying attention would find his treatment of his own citizens disgusting and horrifying, HE DID NOT REPRESENT IMMINENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES IN 2002 OR 2003 WHEN OUR PRESIDENT DECLARED HE WAS EXACTLY THAT BASED ON NEXT TO NO VERIFIABLE DATA.
It is readily apparent Saddam was a paper tiger. He was a paper tiger who looked and acted like a badass MF, but he was a paper tiger. The act was part of his self defense plan against his neighbors, who he spent nearly his entire reign antagonizing, killing, gassing with chemical weapons and was likely justified. I am sure, given the chance, Iran would have loved to kick his ass out, hang him and have their way with the people of Iraq who differ in their choice of flavor of Islamic faith.
The enraged and child rearing comments were directed at the response of our government to some taunting by a paper tiger. Completely out of context and proportion, and we are now paying dearly for it, and will be for decades.
I am sick to the teeth of the invocation of the service of our armed forces as a reason for holding back observations of the truth of the matter in Iraq. The fact that the political judgement of our President and his associates was so poor has nothing to do with the service rendered by our armed forces. In fact, I think the idea that if the President screws up and kills thousands of American service people, and maims tens of thousands of other American service people while also killing and maiming orders of magnitude more Iraqis, and we decide calling him on it somehow degrades the value of the Americans he had killed by his poor judgement so we go silent, we are, in fact degrading the value of the lives of the soldiers that remain in service, while we do nothing to learn from the mistakes that cost the lives of those who have already died. That is a complete lack of respect and honor for the brave men and women who volunteer to serve this country. Their lives should only be put on the line when we have turned every stone and taken every step to ensure invading or going to war is the only choice. That didn't happen here. Forcing the Congress and the Executive Branch to take note honors those who have served, while ignoring it as you propose, dishonors them.
Review the Cuban Missile Crisis and the case made to the UN back then, then go to one of those space views of your neighborhood (I think Google does it now) to see what kind of free photography you can get your hands on now. We do not need to discuss classified space satellite imaging capability on the internet, but you should be able to concede the free stuff from Google and Yahoo is probably not as good as the stuff the military and CIA has today. The U-2 stuff from the 1960's showed which guys next to the missiles were Russians and which were Cubans. You should be able to safely presume the stuff from space is probably equal to or better than the U-2 stuff from 40 years ago.
And, by the way, the rules everyone else must play by from the UN do not include limits on weapons systems development, including chemical and biological and nuclear WMD. Saddam got his ass tied up when he invaded Kuwait unprovoked and then had to surrender to the US and its allies in the first Gulf War. Otherwise, how would Pakistan have a nuke, or India, or Israel, or France, or the UK? How would any of them have chemical and biological weapons? Saddam was treated with special care because he was acknowledged to have been off base when he jumped Kuwait. I think there are a lot of people in the world who supported our invasion of Afghanistan, who subsequently withdrew their support for our actions when we invaded Iraq unprovoked by any actions of Iraq against the US. If we weren't the cash cow for the UN and thus a permanent Security Council member, we might be sanctioned ourselves. Do you suppose we would comply with weapons inspectors from creepy counties all over the world coming in under the auspices of being the UN's weapon's inspectors?
Your case is nice and neat when you shape and mold the facts to suit. If you just look at them though, they don't support. Read that Duelfer Report. It was an eye opener. Jim