They would have been. But it would not stand to logic that because Iraq violated the ceasefire that war was justified.

If we hadn't gone in and Iraq had become the al Qaeda haven it looks like it was likely to turn into, I believe many of the loudest anti-Iraq voices now would have been saying the ceasefire violation was more than enough justification.

lol except iraq's becoming a terrorist haven was a direct result of our intervention there.

None of the conflicts the US have started where justifiable in the way we executed them. Most of the conflicts where all about the imperialistic spreading of american dogma ie Korea and Vietnam or lone wolf rogue nation action or interefering in purely internal affairs. The only way we should go to war is if it is a unilateral unified UN action or in immediate self-defense when there is a clear and credible internationally acknowledged force moving against the US.

We are not justified in being a lone wolf rogue nation. The rest of the world would be justified in treating the US as such. Just think if the rest of the world imposed a trade embargo against US. What would we do go invade everyone like a childish schoolyard bully because they dont wanna play with us anymore? Probably if the republicans had their way.

It didn't in the least look like Iraq was going to turn into an 'Al Qaeda haven'. Saddamn hated religious fundamentalists, and went after them with a passion.

lol, right; it wouldn't be nearly as bad with Saddam funneling oil-for-palaces money to terrorists he was helping to train.

Who weren't al Qaeda, in any case.

Go ahead and show all the terrorists he was training.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...1_rolleyes.gif You gotta watch when you break into the middle of a conversation that you know what's actually being said.

Now you're betraying your ignorance of the situation in Iraq before we went in. Saddam and his regime were nowhere close to allying themselves with Al Qaeda.

What do you think all the bad guys in the world work together?

Thing is all of the links of him to terrorists broadly, none of them linked him substantially to Al Qaeda specifically (nice back pedal there) and none of them linked him to major attacks against the US. Whats more there was nothing to suggest he could not have been contained or dealt with later when or if he ever became a threat. Ignoring Afghanistan while we pissed everything away in Iraq was stupid.

Yeah, thanks. You gotta watch when you're conversing not to make claims you're unable to support.

If ignorance is being displayed, it certainly isn’t on my part;

Not at all; but when you have OBL seeking out Saddam for assistance, then Saddam seeking out OBL for assistance, call me crazy, but it seems quite likely to me that, with an invasion imminent, they find some common ground.

He WAS linked to al Qaeda, as I posted above. He wasn’t unquestionable linked to any attacks on the US (although there is evidence to suggest Iraq’s complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing), but there’s no way to say that would always have been the case. After an attack, it’s too late; all you can do is sit back and wispfully think what SHOULD have been done. I thought 9/11 would have taught that lesson, but I guess not for everyone.

You're welcome. I have no problems supporting the claims I make. You just need to understand what claims I'm making.

No, quite clearly either you don't, or you need to see a rhetorical doctor about a terminal case of hyberbolic exaggerationism. Let's see here......

'Reportedly', 'sources reported that perhaps.....', 'apparently', 'may have occurred....',

Not exactly justification for your rather over-the-top If we hadn't gone in and Iraq had become the al Qaeda haven it looks like it was likely to turn into.... Why, what ironclad evidence!

Sorry, you haven't made even a tangentially effective circumstantial case.

Ah, there’s the problem. In Tanngrisnir3’s world hypothetical situations need ironclad proof. Fortunately I made that statement in the real world, where no such rules exist.

No, not really, 'ironclad' barely exists in any world. What I require, to entertain such vapid speculation, is something a little north of wild conjecture based on maybes.

And the real world is where your type of speculation is easily exposed as hollow.

Then address my points, rather than wasting our time and space with all these off topic posts.

Dude, read your history.

The Korean War was a UN War. In fact, the name of the offensive that pushed the North Koreans back north was the UN Offensive. And while the US was the major combatant, many other countries were involved. This includes the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, France, Freece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it to others incorrectly.

Now how are those "Civil Wars"?

Korea was partitioned into 2 nations in 1943 under the Cairo Declaration. Before that it was a protectorate of Japan (1905-1945). Before that, it was a sattellite of the Chinese Empire.

With the end of World War II, Korea became 2 nations. And it remains that way to this day, with both nations having representatives in the UN. What you call a "Civil War" was an invasion. It was as much of a CIvil War as Iraq trying to take over Iran or Kuwait, claiming that traditionally they were the same empire.

The same goes with Vietnam. Partitioned in 1954 by the Geneva Conference, the North invaded because they wanted control of the entire nation. In fact, over 793,000 fled the newly formed "North Vietnam" in 1954 when the nation was given it's independence.

It was more of the same, a Communist nation attacking a neighbor because they wanted to control everything.

And if you believe that, then you should accept the rights of Germany to annex Prussia, Austria, the Saar region, Rhineland, Sudetenland, and eventually Czechoslovakia and Poland. Because even though these were independent nations, they were all once part of Germany. Therefore it had every right to seize them back.