Well, yeah, Undertoad -- we're the antisocialists! Only stands to Reason -- the magazine.

Noodle, cool. Haven't looked at it just yet, but is this "The World's Shortest Political Quiz," with the diamond-shaped board? I landed in the upper-mid portion of it, last time I tried it.

Looks like a variation on that Shortest Political Quiz idea.

Economic Left/Right 6.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.46

Tolja I was a right-Libertarian. That's the quadrant I fall into.

Here's the problem UG. Statism is statism whether you're arguing for hammocks for the homeless or a large mushroom cloud over Tehran, you are growing government power and reducing freedom here, in the country we supposedly control. We have built a spectacular socialist enterprise in our military and among military contractors. There is also the interesting problem in the mid-east where given the opportunity the locals will vote for oppression (I guess we do that here on a regular basis as well). If Iraqis wanted to be free they would have offed Hussein a long time ago. 1800 dead American soldiers for an Islamic Democracy allied with Iran, are you really happy with that outcome? Our involvement gives aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom by increasing their recruitment exponentially. Bush will have to hit a lot more boy scout jamborees if he wants enough carcasses for that meat grinder. Watch carefully as the Republicans slowly realize what a CF this is and begin to pull back their support. I'd hate to see a nominal libertarian left defending Bush when his impeachment should be a shoe-in.

Impeachment? Nobody gets impeached for winning a war, nor should they; and no one here should seek to lose this war. I have never seen a real reason to treat GWB as the enemy (I've heard a great many that don't cut it); it's those anti-libertarian tyrants we are fighting, after all. They are not the stumblefucks we should surrender to. And do you see anybody at all trying to bust Saddam out? For his sins, he's going to get fairly tried, by Iraqis, and then get hanged and it couldn't happen to a nicer and more deserving guy.

Nope, they have a new bunch of tyrants scrambling for the top. They don't need the old one.

Even if we win we lose. We'll never make friends in that part of the world by dropping bombs. We'll lose the PR campaign every time. Our past association with tyrants makes that impossible. http://www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg The foreign nutjob terrorists are overplaying their hand right now and there will be an Iraqi backlash but it will pay no dividends to us.

Bush really did lie about Saddams WMD development, to justify his war, and that should lead to his impeachment.

And the next one...and the next one.....and the.... :cool:

No, but maybe they should be impeached for starting one uneccesarily.

From Nuremberg
Has a 'winner' ever been successfully tried? Probably not.

If we have won the war, why do we continue to send troops over there to be killed?

So, what if Bush were to send tanks into Canada just because he can and killed a bunch of Canadian non-combatants and the Canadians surrendered? A president shouldn't be impeached for such an act? What if Hitler had won in WWII? Would that automatically make him a good guy? History is certainly written by the victors, but I think your rhetoric is lacking in coherance and logic. A bad tempered outlook of "kill 'em all" does not make you a patriot, but, rather, a fool.

Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.

Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.

You tell me. Is that Iranian leader evil or is he good? Because he actually does what Saddam only threatened, then does this Iranian leader deserve to be attacked, captured, and put on trial like Saddam for using WMDs on invading American troops? You tell me where morality lies? Who then is the good and who then is the evil one?

I think this guy is making a play for some of the leftover virgins. Either that, or he's just an unmitigated fucktard who uses his freedom and democratic privilege to wage verbal war against the countries whose teats he suckles from.

Who is this fuckhead Galloway anyway? What's an "MP?"

Member of Parliament.

Galloway said a lot of the right things when he was before congress a while back.

That doesn't mean he's not an asshat though.

The guy is big on hyperbole, I'll grant - not that you would know anything about that subject, Mr. N! ;) Mr Galloway also claimed "the insurgents were ordinary Iraqis defending their country against foreign invaders." There's something to be said for that, let's face it. The US is a foreign country, we did invade Iraq. These two things are true. Many Iraqi's did lose innocent, civilian family members in the US invasion. The Iraqi's act to retaliate against us for this. There IS that component.