Somehow your argument avoids the fact that the U.N. was up to its ass in corrupt exploitation of Iraq's oil money and had a great deal to gain financially from the status quo. So did France.
Why is this never an issue?
And it already killed 5,000 people and will go on killing US soldiers as long as they remain in Iraq and kill Iraqi children when they step accidentally on unexploded coalition cluster bombs.
I used to point out that the deaths caused by the Iraq war would be a small price to pay to avoid the hundreds of thousands to millions that would be killed under the future Saddam and Sons regime. I was reamed out endlessly for comparing "potential" deaths, however likely, to real ones. Under those conditions, I don't see how you can bring up the "potential" American or Iraqi deaths under the present circumstances as a legitimate argument.
Current Events » in reply to re: re: The un-WMD story begins to boil over
re: The un-WMD story begins to boil over