oh yeah, that's right...England was forced by an invading army to adopt democracy...
your argument is patently false.
Neither were the Iraqis. They turned out on their own, under threat of death, in a greater percentage than Canadians did last election. They elected their governent which is the right of any citizen on this planet. They have held three elcection under cercumstances that no Canadian would or could dream of yet they turned out. No one forced them to do this.
Saddam Hussein was forced from his many thrones by the American-Anglo force.
of course, thise was all after their infrastructure was destroyed and they had no government. It was your analogy about England having a terrible history of in fighting and choosing to forego the monarchy as a method of ruling, not mine.
Yes Saddam was a dictator - one that was supported by the United State government up to 1989!
Thank you for that history lesson. This is now 2006. What is the excuse of these countries (France, China, Germany and Russian) that cut deals with him and supported him after that?
Like the subsiduaries of Haliburton? Who also did business with Iraq by proxy of their foreign companies? Simply put, history is important so that one doesn't repeat their mistakes of the past. Saddam isn't the only dictator that the US has installed and or supported.
who is the one that is suffering from being myoptic.
Certainly not me.
Sure, even W. is admitting mistakes, but you're not myoptic 
newsflash Hoz
Oh boy...more history
- Iraq DID NOT HAVE WMD. Period.
I guess those Kurds were killed by excess agricultural pesticide inhilation? If you mean prior to the invasion. I guess you should have spoke up because you seem to know better than these learned people. Saddam, Iraqi Generals, CIA. MI5, France, Russia, UN, Saudi Arabia secret service. Now if Saddam did know....what a dummy. He had plenty of time to come clean.
Wow, thank you for the history lesson - so you're dismissing my argument using the "ancient history" argument, and yet using it to support yours? No WMDs were found in Iraq.
- Iraq WAS NOT involved in 9/11. Period
So what? They broke the 1991 ceasefire agreement with the UN-multi-national forces after being thrown from Kuwait. That mandate clearly called for force to have him removed. Instead countries like France, Germany, Russia and China cut deals with him while Saddam let thousands die while he built his palaces.
ROFLAO! The 9/11 argument is what the Bush administration used to justify the war in the first place. Do you really think the public would have supported the war is it was to "bring democracy" to Iraq?! The US is spending billions of dollars over there - the american people certainly could use some of that money to fix social security, not to mention hurricane Katrina...
- Saddam WAS AN ALLY of the United up until 1989.
Manchester? Dammit won't cheer for them again!!! One thing you seem to be really missing here. Didn't your mother ever tell you that you make right a wrong?
I'll restate the argument for you - the removal of this dictator was not an issue when the US was allies with him. Suddenly, after 9/11, his removal became a matter of global security. Funny how that works isn't it?
- Osama WAS funded by the United States until the end of the Soviet invasion of Iraq.
Damn Soviets....didn't hear of that one. Do you mean Afghanistan? Yes it is well documented so thank you for the obvious. Should the USA have done nothing? Just lay down and say" Well we supported him so we can't or shouldn't do anything now" ???????????????????
ah yes, again, the misunderstanding of why history is important...the point is with regard to "blowback"...simply put, many believed that the invasion would result in similar Bin Laden types, who would use the Iraq invasion as a method of recruitment which would add momentum to the extremist's supporters.
"Left-wingnut"? Maybe - but what does that make you?
Someone who is estounded at how bizarre people like you have become.