*resists urge to jump in*

I've been on guitartricks for too many years. I know better than to jump in on a thread like this. But anywho....

>>6strngs_2hmbkrs
>>iraq probably would've attacked us, probably an even more devastating attack then 9/11.

Iraq wasn't going to do anything. The UN sanctions put in place after Desert Storm in '91 crippled Saddam. He postured well, but it was all fluff. We didn't find so much as a wiffle ball bat once we got there. With regards to the gassing of the Kurds or the '91 uprising, both occured during REPUBLICAN administrations. So if something was to be done, it should've happened then, instead of blaming Clinton for ignoring a problem whilst getting some quality head off a young jewess.

The president had a personal agenda for going into Iraq. The principal lie we were fed started out as an imminent attack by Saddam and then morphed into, "well, he's a bad dude and has done alot of bad things". I agree whole-heartedly with the latter, but if we're to get into the game of regime change, we should:

A) Have the moral high ground (which has long since been lost)


B) Bring justice through nation building throughout the world.


In the foreseeable future, neither of these objectives will be accomplished. Each day we sink further into the quagmire. In my opinion, the saddest legacy of this whole time period will be the lumping together of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. I have a sick feeling that years from now, people will look back and think that two were connected. That's just a lie.