Quote Originally Posted by Maggz
Kim jong il is a lowlife, but whoever thinks Saddam's regime was "DEFENSELESS" needs to check their facts. If we attacked KIM JONG IL's regime instead of Saddam's, there would be no difference in the outrage with all these antiwar people.

Saddam did WHAT with the weapons HE possessed? Not only did he hide them from the UN (and most likely sold many of them), but he killed over a half a million of his OWN PEOPLE ... dont you think that's a little worse than a missile test-firing ?

Plus, I dont recall KIM JONG IL sending assassians to the United States to kill the president.

What I'm trying to say is Saddam n his regime were not defenesless and helpless, they DID have major problems with America for YEARS, and if we went off to attack Kim Jong Il's regime rather than Saddams.... you would be hearing the same complaints and the "WHAT DID HE DO" bullshit from the anti-war crowd as we are all hearing now from Iraq.
I don't believe the U.S. gives a rats ass about the PEOPLE of other countries. If the criteria for going to war was to throw out brutal leaders, then why aren't we landing Normandy levels of troops to the Sudan? And at least Sadam was contained under Clinton and early GW, which left him about as threatening to U.S. security as Fidel Castro.

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is Hell!" --William Tecumseh Sherman