As usual FQ is 180 degrees off.
We should have killed Saddam in 91, but Bush #1 did not want to get bogged down in the Urban warfare that anyone with the IQ of a turnip could predict.
FQ shows his lack of research by his ridiculous claim that sanctions were working. As we were invading Baghdad, French and Russian planes were still delivering weapons and high end Night vision equipment.
Food for Oil ? Don't make me laugh, probably one of the most egregious scams ever run by the UN, the ones who made money were Putin and Company.
According to various sources, most recently Tariq Aziz, Saddam had indeed divested him self of his weapons program, however, because of his fears of retribution from his neighbors, (Iran ) he refused to prove this publicly, and THAT was the specific requirement of the UN resolutions, there fore whether he had them or not, he was in violation.
The only one that sanctions worked for was BJ Clinton, every time he had a hearing about Monica, he announced it by bombing something in Iraq as a diversion.
As to the War in Iraq, First off, what you and the other peace mongers can't comprehend is that you are talking about 2 different conflicts , the war "With " Iraq only lasted a couple weeks, it was followed by the major combat portion of the "War on Terror", where we have been fighting both Sunni and Shiite extremists, In other words, Al Queda AND Iran. Iraq was actually a good candidate for this since they were a relatively modern nation, used to having a strong central Govt. that could be replaced with another strong central Govt.
I have no doubt at all that as soon as we leave they will fight among themselves and the winner will establish another dictatorship of some sort because that is the only type of govt capable of maintaining order in that culture, our involvement however, helps assure that it's Iraqi's fighting , with out interference from AQ or Iran, and may even keep it at the political level and minimize the number of" bodies in the street". In Iraq, we have a clearly defined bench mark for "Victory", that is a functional Central Govt. that is capable of tending to it's own security.
Afghanistan is a completely different kettle of fish.
Our only stated objective for going there was to kill AQ members and punish the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden.
With the removal of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, and the flight of AQ from Tora Bora that mission was complete, the alleged "Nation building we have been engaged in since is nothing but an expensive useless sop to liberal emotion and their inability to admit the need for a purely punitive operation. The fact, based on past history, is that, no matter what we do in that country, with in 6 months of us leaving they will remove any strong central Govt and revert to the decentralized "tribalism that has served them for hundreds of years.
People have condemned Karzia for talking to the Taliban, and the possibility of him doing a deal with them.
No matter what you think, he has no choice, The Pashtun's, (the ethnic group that the Taliban belong to ) are the largest minority in Afghanistan and Pakistan, any other solution would be like having a national referendum but leaving out Ca, NY, and Texas,
The British, and Russians have spent a couple hundred years triing to install a strong central govt in A-stan with out success, the only things we prove with our continued involvement is our naivety, and pigheadedness.
Will they continue to kill each other ? Of course. does any body truly care ? Not so much.