Look, asshole... your superiority complex is getting in your way again. On
this thread as well as some others you have gone to great lengths to type
what you mistakenly think others think and try to make a case for your
superior intellect. It isn't working. You don't have to power to discredit
anyone but yourself, and you're doing a bang-up job of that.

Your confusion may be because of your basic misunderstanding of the
situation in Iraq. Please don't expect others to educate you in areas you
could research for yourself.

Most intelligent people don't have problems comprehending that the first
phase brought hostilities to a halt with a number of conditions that weren't
met. Some of those conditions were the disarming and the inspections to
confirm that the conditions were met. Here's a flash for you, asshole, the
conditions were NOT met. That's primary the reason hostilities were
resumed.

I'm finished with you. You aren't worth the trouble.

George Willer

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Your opinion is noted, Ed... as ridiculous as it is, it doesn't address
the
topic of this thread, and your comments are complete nonsense.

George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

What you meant, if you could hold a complete idea together all in one
place,
is that, in your opinion, not taking out Saddam the first time is the
cause
of the second Iraq war. That's certainly true, in a de facto way, but it
was
NOT one war all about the same thing.

The first was about Saddam flexing his muscles to become the dominant
power
in the Middle East. In fact, based on what he'd been told by the US
ambassador, he (and others) felt that the US had given him the go-ahead on
Kuwait. Big mistake on both our parts.

The second war supposedly was about the threat of his supplying weapons
that
can kill millions of people in the West to terrorists from other Middle
East
countries. At least, that's what we, and the rest of the world, were told.

But most of the world knew at the time that doing so was NOT part of
Saddam's plan. His coercion of the West, if he could accomplish it, would
come from controlling almost all of the Middle East's oil. That was his
planned route to Middle East domination and to becoming a major power
center
on the world stage.

Colluding with terrorists to attack the US was not only counterproductive
to
the strategy that he pursued throughout his career, it would have been a
huge risk with no payoff at all. He didn't have any strategic interest in
attacking the US and he had no reason to expose himself to crushing
retaliation even if he succeeded. Unlike the Islamists, he is not such an
idiot that he would bring on a self-destructive war for the sake of
religion-based, vengeful insanity. His strategic interest was in coercing
us
and the rest of the West by controlling the flow of oil.

So the first war was fought because we (and major European countries)
didn't
want Saddam to get his hands on all that oil. The second one was fought
because George Bush II was ****ed off.

I realize this is a challenge for you, but, with a little study, you can
figure out why the French, Germans, and others who had an interest in the
first war had no interest in the second. Thus, we had two wars, the second
one fought largely on our own, with no close and powerful allies but the
Brits -- most of whom looked askance at the whole enterprise, anyway.

--
Ed Huntress