If they didn't shoot him, then the analogy isn't quite apt. Also, yours was an expansion on mine in which he was shot.

But it really doesn't matter. You've switched from arguing justification to arguing responsibility. They aren't necessarily the same thing. However, since the justification Bush gave for the war turned out to be wrong I would argue that he has none. And while you may not be responsible for the results of a justified act, I would say you generally are responsible for the results of an unjustified one.

Again, he could have put himself on solid, in my opinion, grounds for pressing the war but chose not to because they didn't think they could sell it successfully. Instead they overreached and presented a version of events that I honestly believe they believed to be true because they knew it would sell better. But in doing so they put themselves onto more tenuous ground and just end up looking silly flailing about for any handhold when that ground gave way under them.

How is it not suitable?

"I've committed a violent crime. A home invasion robbery."
Saddam invaded Kuwait.

"The police extracted me and slapped my hand and put me on probation."
Coalition forces kicked him and sent him back to Iraq with sanctions and a cease fire agreement.

"I repeatedly violate my probation."
How many times did Saddam violate conditions of the cease fire?

"A tipster tells them I have a bomb and hostages in my house."
How many intelligence services were telling us he had WMD?

"I won't let them in to check it out so they break down the door."
He is supposed to let us in, no questions asked, as a condition for the cease fire. He doesn't, so we invade.

He didn't die, so not being shot actually makes it a better analogy.

If you don't see why it isn't apt I don't think I can explain it to you so that you'll accept it.

We may not have shot Saddam Hussein but we shot an awful lot of people. So, if you insist on your analogy it would be like the police knocked down the door arrested the criminal and shot his friends who just happened to be there.

OK - he had a bunch of friends in his house with him who shot at the police after they broke in the door. They were killed.

Not that it matters, I suppose. It's an analogy.

Yes, one that has gotten off the point that it is silly to say that Saddam is the only one who holds responsibility for going to war.

Was that the point? I don't seem to recall that. At least it wasn't my point. Oh, well.

So much for another LoT beat-your-head-against-the-wall thread.

No, it was my point.

Synchronized headbanging:


"@#$%!! Liberals!!"


"@#$%!! Conservatives!!"

BANG YOUR HEAD!!!
METAL HEALTH WILL DRIVE YOU MAD!!!

oh sorry, wrong thread :)

You know, CoasterMatt, I was going to post that but I thought 'Nah, no one would get it.' :D