>>>>>Does it matter who he was trying to fool, knowing that the United States have great interest in that region - not only for stratigic reasons, but for... yes, oil?
>
>>>>Sure it matters. Why would he expect that a country that had a doctrine rejecting first strike to suddenly join the game and attack - especially without U.N. sanction? Most of the world did not expect that. Why would Saddam?
>
>>>Well, why would a school yard bully be surprised when his victim, whom he's being picking on for months, finally get enough courage to fight back?
>
>>Huh? The U.S. was a 'victim' that Saddam was 'picking on'?
>
>US was not a victim, but he made UN look like bunch fools for about twelve years or so. And yes he did take shots at US war plane patroling the no fly zone.
>
>But maybe I should have put it this way
>"Why would a serial killer be surprised when he is finally arested after years of getting away with murder?"?

I'm not big on bounty hunters. They operate either outside of or at least on the shady side of the law, and have no real concern about how much of a mess they make getting at the perp.

>
>Or...
>
>Why would a parole violator be surprised to be rearested after years of getting away with breaking his parole conditions?

Same as above. I dislike bounty hunters.

>
>
>>>At a risk of sounding arrogant, what does it matter to the United States what the rest of the world is doing or thinking? United States will act, FIRST, on the best interest of the United States. Perhaps the United States didn't think it was a good idea for someone like Saddam to gain control of all the oil in that region. He had already attacked Kuwait and made threats to Saudi Arabia.
>
>>Well, I'm not all that sure that Saddam would have been very successful attacking Saudi Arabia, but be that as it may, assuming the U.S. attacked Iraq because they wanted the oil available to themselves, then I think you're pointing at the wrong schoolyard bully. A bully is a bully whether it's Saddam or Dubya.
>
>Who ever said US wanted the oil all to themself. How about oil at fair market price for all.

Ah. The altruistic U.S. is having it's own sons and daughters die for my good? Thanks, but I'll take a pass.

>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm not sorry to see Saddam gone, but it would have been nice if it had been done according to international law, and if the U.S. were operating under international law since then, instead of snubbing their noses at it.
>
>....I'm not sorry to see Saddam gone, but ..... Yada yada yada....
>Which international law was broken?

Well, quite a number of sections of the Millenium Declaration to which both Britain and the U.S. were signatories. The U.N. are supposed to make these kinds of decisions, not the U.S. The U.S. signed and then said "stick it".

>>That the U.S. is happy to do the things they have always decried in others, is a very sad thing to see. Might does not make right. It only makes possible.
>
>I've said in the past, this isn't a popularity contest.

Got nothing to do with being a popularity contest. It has to do with hypocracy.