Reply #11: For our late and unlamented friend Kaks [View All]

[gratuitous]

Unfortunately, you got tombstoned and your post was removed, so I'll be working in a bit of a vacuum. But that's okay; I can probably take you in a battle of wits with one brain tied behind my back (just to put it in terms you're familiar with, even if you can't understand it).

See, before your hero George W. Bush was illegally installed in the White House by a cabal of activist judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, a lot of people in the United States knew that Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad man. In fact, some of us knew it even with Young George's current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand back in the 1980s, supplying Saddam with weapons and munitions, both regular ordnance and chemical.

While Young George's political backers were making a shitload of money in the 1980s arming both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, making sure that there was maximum carnage for each country, we demonstrated against the regime of Saddam Hussein. We found him to be a brutal dictator even before Young George's father Old George found it was cool to dislike Saddam Hussein. And if not cool, at least politically expedient.

All through the 1990s (gee, that seems like such a long time ago to someone of your chronological and political immaturity, I'll bet), some of us continued to press the case for regime change in Iraq, but we also (and here's where it's probably going to discombobulate your caveman mentality of "George Smash!") advocated relaxation of the UN sanctions against Iraq. We knew that an effective opposition to Saddam in Iraq was only going to come if it was nurtured and nourished, and with the sanctions in place, the only people in Iraq who would be in line for anything would be Saddam and his supporters.

In 1998, you may remember that Bill Clinton was being pressured heavily by the folks in the Republican party. If you think real hard, I'm sure you'll recall that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingstone both had to give up their House seats because they had the same zipper problems that Bill Clinton had, and it just wasn't very seemly for them to be going around talking impeachment for the same behavior that they themselves were guilty of. It may have been the last gasp of the last shred of Republican dignity. Certainly folks like Henry Hyde, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert and much of the rest of the GOP leadership in the House isn't overly burdened by a conscience or a sense of propriety.

So in 1998, the resolution that you posted was passed. It meant that the United States didn't much care for Saddam's regime, and would like to see it changed. And that's about it. There was no further action taken, certainly no illegal invasion was launched because of this resolution, no soldiers were sent to kill and die, nobody was tortured, and billions and billions of dollars from the Treasury weren't squandered on a futile effort to "bring democracy to the Middle East" at the business end of the barrel of a gun. That's probably what has you so upset. Of course, since you're gone, there's no point asking where you're stationed, or how much action you've seen. I have my suspicions though, which you can read by highlighting the blank section that follows:

You haven't seen any action, because you're a loudmouth chicken hawk who prefers that other people fight and die in his place, while you bitch about having to pay taxes.

Anyway, your boy George, hero of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, is run by a bunch of chickenhawks who've never seen battle, never heard a shot fired in anger, and who don't know the first thing about running a country. I'm sorry you're so angry; perhaps you should get some counseling to help you deal with George Bush's kakistocracy, kaks.