you might want to re-read your history books

"only joining 2 world wars when it suited them and not when we most needed the help!"

Try reading up on 'lend lease' and the huge amounts of resources practically given us for free by the Yanks prior to physical involvement. Just a tad useful.

Iraq DID pose a direct threat to the USA, albeit an economic one. (though arguably a much greater threat than any WMDs he might have had). Flimsy intelligence in hindsight about the WMDs, but then is it worth the risk of ignoring a possible threat? The MET just raided a house on intelligence that appears to have been wrong, but do we now stop raiding houses just because the intelligence might not be 100%? If you want another July 7th, yes. The same principle applied to Iraq.

The f**k up wasn't going to war, it was going to war without a plan for what the hell to do afterwards. And for *that* Bliar & Bush need dragging over the coals.

Personally I suspect the war wasn't primarily about the oil, WMDs, regime change or anything remotely justifiable. It was simply unfinished family business that monkey-boy had been itching to get on with from Day 1.

But what the hell, it's one more brutal dictator gone, and we can vote two other's out of office soon enough.

Posted By: CWC, Jun 11, 11:02:23