On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.

Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

--

FF