SecretMethod70

Maybe this was just a misunderstanding of what he meant by "Gulf War" but, if not, you need to read up on your history a bit. The Gulf War was set in motion August 2, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US did very little in the way of attacking Iraq beyond what was necessary to push them out of Kuwait. So, if by defending his country you mean continuing to fight for the ability to continue his crimes, then I suppose you're right. But we never say that someone who murders a police officer resisting arrest "had a right to defend himself." Why? Because he was defending actions which were ultimately wrong, whatever they may be. Same with the Gulf War. Saddam was defending his ability to invade a small neighboring country. He had no right to invade it and thus had no "right" to defend himself.

The UN refused to believe him as well. And he never provided all the proof and documents they asked for. This is an indisputable fact. Maybe it's true - maybe he didn't have WMDs anymore, but either way, proof has never been provide of ALL of their destruction.

Whether or not he had WMD's at the time of this war, I can'ty answer that for sure. I know what I think. But there are certain indisputable facts that apparently you're missing if you think that Iraq was "defending" itself from some injustice in the first Gulf War and if you think they provided proof of the destruction of their WMDs.

Believe whatever you want about the justification of this war. There isn't any PROOF that either side is correct. But believe what you will while understanding that Saddam instigated the first Gulf War - and NO ONE disagrees with this, except perhaps Saddam - and that while they may or may not have had WMDs anymore, proof was never provided.

Opinions are a lot more valid when they're based off the correct facts.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling