Hey all,
Just read the news n all...
I reckon this whole thing does not change much in reality. In politics I think it looks quite rosey, but does this make the world a better and safer place? whats the point? The capture of Saddam does not justify the war and won't solve any wars to come.

It makes a difference to Iraq's people. It changes their perception of their security and future. But no, it doesn't justify anything or prevent future wars anywhere but possibly Iraq. That, we'll never know.

it does make a difference, a huge difference. but look at history, the middle east has been in one war (civil or not) or another for ions. unfortunately, there will always be battles and wars over god and allah. that's just the way they see it. too bad. :blunt: of course there are other reasons too, but they always seem to bring allah and all that into it.

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits were for cancer surgery (6.1 weeks), cancer radiation (8.1 weeks) and general surgery (10.3 weeks), while patients waited longest for orthopedic surgery (32.2 weeks), eye treatment (30 weeks) and plastic surgery (28.6 weeks).

Getting diagnosed for a problem in the first place also proved to be more burdensome for Canadians, according to the survey.

The median wait for an ultrasound was 3.6 weeks; for computed tomography (a CT scan) it was 5.5 weeks; and for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) it was 12.7 weeks.

The above is from an article in cnews regarding the Canadian Healthcare system.

32 week wait for Orthopedic surgery? That's longer than it takes most broken bones to heal, people. See something wrong there? The waiting periods for diagnostic imaging are equally horrifying ... you can be dead before your appointment to have a head CT to determine if you are stroking out ... this is NOT progress. This is not adequate patient care by any stretch of the imagination.

You can get emergency treatment in the United States whether or not you have insurance coverage. You can have these diagnostic procedures performed. You do not have to wait three to six months for an appointment.

People with low/no incomes qualify for medical assistance, which is many cases is better coverage than a lot of paid iinsurance plans. (I know that the mental health coverage for PA Medical Assistance Subscribers offers more benefit days than equivalent private plans, and I'm told by more than a few patients that the medical coverage portion is good as well.)

It will be relevent because, even if Saddam was not actively aiding the Iraqi Resistance, he was a figurehead to rally around (well, other than God).

1) Who gets the reward for providing a tip that lead to Saddam's capture?

2) The only serious crime Saddam is really wanted for against Americans was his treatment of POWs during the Kuwait Liberation war. However that trial has already concluded. The courts ruled against Iraq, and ordered a large repairation to the victims. The only reason that court ruling has been stifled - the George Jr administration outrightly refuses to let those victims receive their just compensation.

3) If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait). In a similar case, Spain tried to put Pinochet on trial for the murder of Spanish citizens when this American supported dictator did same as Saddam to his Chilean citizens and foreign nationals.

4) Only way the US can hold Saddam is as a POW. But the US never declared war. How can one have a prisoner of war when no war was declared - legally justified either by US or international law. Just another problem with invading another nation when the UN did not sanction such action.

Point three is very unlikely for many reasons. One, the current US administration treats Iraq as a prize and does not permit other nations any access to the spoils. Saddam being one of the spoils. Second, the current US administration openly refuses to support or trust a World Court. Submitting Saddam to The Hague might mean the US, by action, falls under the jurisdiction of that court. Third, if Saddam is as evil as portrayed by the current US administration, then the death penalty is a defacto necessity. However the world court (I believe) does not support a death penalty.

Point 4 is a serious legal issue. We hold those non-persons in Guantanimo because there is no legal justificaton to hold them. How then can Saddam be held - legally? Currently Saddam is being called a POW even though legally that cannot be.

The entire resolution to these questions may be found in another president (and President) - Noriega. IOW details of how Noriega is held in prision in the US may need be re reported due to relevance.

So do we put Saddam in prision with Noriega? Do we hold him in America? Do we take him to TX so that he can be executed using TX justice (let Saddam's lawyer sleep through the trial since the verdict is preordained)?

I believe this administration views the law only as an inconvience. I believe they have already ordained his execution. It would only hurt US approval ratings throughout most of the world. But this administration does not care. US opinion ratings have dropped from 60 and 80% to less than 15% and mostly in single digit percent. IOW I believe it is only a matter of time before this administration executes Saddam - either legally or by some prision accident.

Oh yeah, I agree. Rereading my post I was not clear on that point: I want him to have a nice trial. (Say, Nuremberg-like.) I just think it's more important to have it for everybody else's sake than for Saddam's.

tw, for point one, I read (sorry I forgot which site) that they said it was highly unlikely it would be collected because the intelligence used to find him was gained through "hostile interrogation."

I, for one, welcome our new Saddam-killing overlords.

Been spending too much time on Fark, sorry.

tw wrote:
Iran, my friend, is NOT an Arab nation.

tw, the Iraqis get him and they get to put him on trial.

The US does have many beefs with Saddam beyond POWs, even if he is your personal hero. For instance, he tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated. Despite my feelings about Bush Sr. I do think that's appalling behavior.

He is also connected to the 1993 WTC bombing and the funding of much terrorism.

The Iraqis get to try him and it will be incredible for them. Here is a guy who had all the school textbooks altered to portray him as basically a God -- and crushed the will of the people through killing and terror. They say some of the schoolkids still revere him and don't understand. The trial will inform their society.

The Arab world is stunned that he didn't go down fighting. The Palestinians are furious that their big hero turned out to be a weasel.

Saddam being caught means absolutely NOTHING. It's not an accomplishment, and it's nothing to be proud of. George W. Bush violated the Constitution, launched an unprovoked, unwarranted, and cowardly attack against a country that never posed a threat to America, never attacked America, never trained, harbored, or funded those who did attack America, and had no connection with any groups who did. Those who invaded Iraq are traitors who have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. George W. Bush is the largest enemy of the Constitution and America and is more dangerous to America and the world, than Saddam and Bin Laden combined will ever be. Anti-American assholes who supported the illegal war in Iraq are cheering over his capture like the trained little monkeys they are. Saddam is a scumbag and a murderer, but so is Bush. And Bush took our once proud military and turned them into a bunch of cheap thugs and hired killers who endanger America and the world rather than secure peace and defend it.

This is all more rhetoric in an attempt to get re-elected, but it just won't happen. Bush will be voted out of office assuming he lives to election day. He's got as much chance of being elected as OJ Simpson and he's killed far more people than OJ even thought of killing. The traitors (Bush Supporters) are having a party today, but I will be having one in a year when we remove the biggest threat to America from office. I hope the traitors (Bush Supporters) live in shame for the rest of their lives but odds are they're too stupid to realize they have anything to be ashamed of.

The Iraqi government approved a new Constitution last week that doesn't include the death penalty. The American government captured him after this and will turn Saddam over to the Iraqi court so he won't get the death penalty.

Radar wrote:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...4a.hmedium.jpg

Who exactly are you speaking for?

I'm speaking for America and for the Libertarian Party. America has no justification what-so-ever to attack Iraq in 1991 or in 2003. It wouldn't matter if Saddam had a million nukes, and had murdered 300 million women and children by skinning them alive and boiling them in oil. That still doesn't give America the authority to get involved. The U.S. Government may only do what is specifically listed in the Constitution and NOTHING else. That includes STARTING wars with a DEFENSIVE military against countries that posed no threat, never attacked America, never helped anyone else to attack America, etc.

Those who support the war in Iraq are against everything America stands for. And showing a lame photo of a happy Iraqi doesn't change that. Every single person killed in Iraq rests on George W. Bush's head. Every American, British, Italian, Iraqi, etc. that died were killed because George W. Bush violated the Constitution and started an unprovoked war.

The authority of America ends where America's borders end.

I'm going to take a guess and, just by listening to the press conferences, say that we didn't really expect to capture him alive. All these years we've been bombing buildings and shooting at taxis in the hopes that we'd get him and now, after no shot was fired, we have him.

...and we have no idea what to do with him. We can't take him to the World Court and I don't think we can put him on trial locally without outrage from the international community. Outside of more embarassing health exams aired on television, I think we're going to question him a lot and allow him to spend some time thinking about what he has done in some undisclosed jail cell.

Radar -- I'm curious, what wars in the past 100 years should we have had any involvement in, then?

I agree with everything that Radar has said.

The capture of Saddam means nothing more than that the US troops might get to go home sooner.

The US should never have been involved in the first place.

Oh and Kitsune: None.

Not a SINGLE ONE.

Not even WWII. Japan attacked because they felt that war was innevitable because the US was showing itself as an ally against the Axis.

Can you honestly tell me that not a single American being killed in a war in the past 100 years would have been a BAD thing?

World War II (American soil was attacked although we provoked the Japanese by cutting off their oil supply and other trade embargos), and Afghanistan (American soil was attacked). Although without America's military interventionism in World War I, Hitler never would have come to power and there never would have been a World War II, but that's another story. And Afghanistan would most likely have been avoided if our military had been in America instead of being spread over the globe like the Roman or English Empires pissing off everyone else with our bullying and muscle flexing.

The Constitution defines our military to be used for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. DEFENSE never includes starting unprovoked wars, using our military to defend other countries, humanitarian aid missions, training other militaries, peace keeping missions, etc.

Radar:

WWII - Do you mean the Japanese or the UBoat attack?
You see the UBoat attacked a ship carrying ammo and supplies...and people. US was already involved in a war by helping UK.

Afghanistan? Tell me...how did Afghanistan, the place where their idea of advanced technology is an AM radio attack US soil? 911? Thats hardly "Afghanistan". But of course we all know that 911 certainly wouldn't have happened if US hadn't gotten itself set up as the big bully of the middle east.

Honestly, Radar, if you ran America there wouldn't be an America. We would have been destroyed decades ago by the very people that you so desperately want to ignore.

Like who?

Give me a break.

Look at Australia. Who has initated terrorist action against them latley?

NOBODY.

Do you know why?

The Japanese. The U-Boat attack was our BS excuse to get involved in WWI. America violated our neutrality agreement and was sending arms to England in the Lucitania (A cruise ship that had been converted from a war ship) and was sunk. Edward Mandal House pushed us into WWI.

The Japanese attacked us because we cut off their oil supply and put other trade embargos on them. They attacked in retaliation and we knew they were coming (we moved all of our expensive aircraft carriers out to sea on "exercises" on December 6th, 1941 so only the old and less expensive ships were attacked...see rainbow 5)

Al Queda was responsible for attacking us, and Afghanistan (which was ruled by the Taliban) harbored and protected them. They stood in our way rather than turning over the criminals who blew up the WTC on 9/11. So yes, the attack in Afghanistan was justified, but was a failure because we didn't get Bin Laden. This was a major reason in why Bush violated the Constitution and international law by attacking Iraq. He wanted to take attention away from his MANY failures as a president including his failure to get Bin Laden.

Please. If I ran America, we'd be more free, pay no income taxes, have a DEFENSIVE military, be liked throughout the world with hardly any enemies if any, we'd be more prosperous, better educated, etc. The elderly, poor, and sick would have more assistance from than they do now, we'd have affordable healthcare, lower unemployment, less people in jail, etc.

America would be secure, strong, happy, successful, and FREE.

Radar. Wouldn't you say that the fact that Japan attacked us during WWII was because of the trade embargo which can be considered as an act of war.

I do not think that the US was right to attack Afghanistan. There is still no 100% proof that it was Al Quada who was responsible for the attack nor is there any proof that the Taliban fully supported the attack. I hate Afghanistan with a passion, I think it's a shithole and inhabited by cruel, savage and brutal people. Still I don't think the US had a right to attack them based on suspicion.

Finally, I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been a 911 if not for all the previous US interventions in the middle east.

Lose 30 pounds in three days!

Work from home and make $150,000/year stuffing envelopes!

I bought 700 houses with NO MONEY DOWN!

FREE sex with bikini babes!!

All this and much, much more if only you elect ME!!

:rolleyes:

The massive and horrible nightclub bombing attack in Bali, engineered by al Qaeda, was actually an attack on the hundreds of Australian tourists dancing and drinking there. It may have been a response to the Aussie's handling of East Timor. They struck in Bali and not in Australia directly because Indonesia had a poor security infrastructure.

http://cellar.org/2003/own3d-2.jpg

:p

I've already said they attacked us in retaliation for our actions, but the trade embargos were a result of Japan murdering millions and millions of Chinese people (far more than the number of Russian and Jewish deaths from WWII combined) but America was wrong to make those embargos. We should have refused to trade with them ourselves, but we cut off their oil from Dutch suppliers so there was some justification for their attack.

I totally agree with that statement, but disagree on the this one...

Actually there is 100% proof that those who blew up the WTC were members of Al Queda. Some of it was in their own suicide notes left behind, and their ID's. Although 17 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and we sure didn't attack them.

The Taliban may or may not have agreed with the attack on the WTC, but that is irrelevant. We asked them to turn over Al Queda and they refused, so they were harboring criminals which makes them criminals.

If the American military was doing their ONLY job of defending AMERICA instead of being a huge show of force around the world pissing everyone else off with our military interventionism we never would have had a September 11th attack. In a way all of them died as a result of the foreign policy choices of the Republicans and Democrats.

And the worst part is we have a cowardly, ignorant, traitor in the oval office trying to whip the American public into a frenzy to get support for his own terrorist actions. He's made government larger, costlier, and more intrusive than ever before. He created the unconstitutional "Homeland Security" department which is nothing but a department to spy on Americans.

If the "Homeland Security" department is supposed to defend our homeland (which sounds very close to the fatherland), what's our military for? Defending the Empire?

Those seem like unrealistic promises, while all of mine are solid, easily obtained, genuinely possible plans. We had everything I've said in the past, but lost it thanks to Republicans and Democrats. All of what I've said can be backed up by simply educating yourself. Start with the Libertarian Platform, and then read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, Restoring The American Dream by Robert J. Ringer, and others.

And I think Australia was a poor example. Switzerland would be a better one. They've been surrounded by war for more than 100 years but haven't been attacked? Why? Because they've got a powerful military, a well-armed general population, they always remain neutral, and never practice military interventionism. That and they've got most of the secret wealth of world leaders stored there, and rigged to blow up and be buried in mountains of rubble if someone attacks.

Here's a nice article for you to read...


They Didn't Attack Switzerland

To use your very own idiotic picture on you:
BBC Link

Owned you say?

Radar, I think you might find it interesting that "Homeland Security" translates to "KGB" in Russian.

KGB!=CIA.

Main goal of the KGB was to preserve the regime. NOT to protect the people.

Just always found it funny.

It is helpfully instructional to see the Libertarians, self-proclaimed "friends of liberty":

- So completely horrified by the liberation of millions upon millions of people
- Rejecting the hope of liberation of an entire region of the world
- Advancing the notion that a nation's sovereignty can be established and maintained by torture, mass killing, and bogus elections
- Blithely and conveniently ignorant that free trade really requires complicated involvement with the rest of the world, who may not agree with our ideas

One might guess that guys like Radar really prefer to be contrarian in all cases, and that it's really a personality problem more than a coherent political philosophy.

Yah, bingo.

Libertarians are about protecting the LIBERTY of the US. NOT the world.

It is NOT our RIGHT to 'liberate' other nations. End of story.

Libertarians do not support oppression or involvement in foreign affairs.

In other words: We may not like the way Saddam treats his people, but it's not our place to get involved.

That’s how freedom works you see. If we attacked Iraq, killed Saddam and freed the Iraqi people, would they really be free or would we have suddenly made ourselves the world ‘bully’ who forces everyone to play by ‘his’ rules?

Let's go through Undertoads BS one point at a time...


Neither I, nor any other Libertarian that I know is horrified about any country being "liberated" or experiencing freedom. We are horrified at the misuse of our military to START unprovoked wars and to intervene in the affairs of other nations. I love how the idiots who support this war try to turn it around and suggest we don't support freedom if we don't support the American military violating the Constitution. I wish the Iraqi people all the best in getting their freedom as long as it doesn't entail the US using our military for anything other than defending America from attack which Iraq never did.

Bullshit again. I HOPE all regions find freedom, but again, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for America to send our military to make it happen. They must earn their own freedom. America isn't here to "liberate" anyone. And for the record, the people of Iraq are no better off now than they were with Saddam.

It's worked pretty well in America. And it's pretty stupid to claim a country has no sovereignty if they don't have a government that we approve of. America has no authority beyond our own borders and no other country must answer to us. Even if they are run by a dictator. All governments including dicatorships get their power from the consent of the governed. If the people of Iraq truly wanted to be "liberated" they could have beaten Saddam and his supporters and won thier liberation on their own. There are many examples of governments being overrun with people even when those governments had superior arms.

This is laughable. First off we don't have free trade. And Free trade doesn't require any complicated involvements with the rest of the world at all. Only an idiot who knows literally NOTHING about trade would make such a ludicrous claim.

Free trade means just that. We trade freely with all countries, but don't make complicated treaties that involve using our military. If someone wants to trade with us and we want to trade with them, we're free to do so. The founders were EXTREMELY clear on their intent to NEVER use the military to defend any nation but our own, but to freely trade, communicate, and make non-aggression treaties with others. Free trade does not require any promise of the use of our military and only a fool would claim it does.

I'm not being a contrarian at all. If I seem like my ideas are always contrary to yours it's because yours are contrary to reality, logic, and common sense.

I'll ask this: why do we, The United States, go to other countries to liberate them? Are we really the police of the world, out to free populations from tyrannical governments? Do we involve ourselves in wars because we cannot stand to see people opressed?

Or are we really just in it because it is in our interest? For security?
Maybe only for global stabilization?

Or just financial interests?

The Excuse:
We cannot stand to see people opressed.

The Reasons:
Because it is in our interest. For security.
Financial interests.

I know exactly what Ls support, FNF; I was one of 'em, and in a big way.

The other way that freedom works is that free countries typically do not attack each other. And so, a more free middle east would be a huge gigantic boon to the security of the US.

The war itself was not all that costly, killed about a hundredth of the number of people Saddam himself killed, and was done by an all-volunteer military. What's the big effing deal?

The "reconstruction" will be very costly, that's the part you should oppose I'd expect.

End of story for you, perhaps.

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

86 Billion

Cost of the planned mission to Mars is about 70.

Now don't get me wrong. But frankly I'd much rather see the US go to Mars, not lose a single man(hopefully), make amazing scientific discoveries and help mankind through science by finally tackling the "final frontier".

But that’s just me..

The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis is, however, that we had proof that missiles were there. We had satellite photos showing them.

We went into Iraq because a general showed CG images of trailers with test tubes and bunsen burners in them.

Wrong, we attacked because Iraq was NOT a threat. Notice we didn't attack an actual threat like North Korea. Bush wanted to take attention away from his failure to capture Bin Laden so he attacked a non-threat (Iraq). They weren't percieved as a threat and weren't a threat at any point.

Notice they found one man in a hole in the ground of Iraq, but still no WMD's. And even if Iraq had a thousand WMD's, that doesn't make them a threat. England, France, Russia, China, etc. have nukes, does that make them threats?

Attacking Iraq for weapons they MIGHT have and MIGHT use in the future is like going door to door to arrest all gun owners and executing them for murders they MIGHT commit in the future. Except the attack in Iraq was even worse because they didn't even have the gun, and we have no authority to tell them they can't have one.


I sure do. The Cuban missile crisis happened as a direct result of America putting nukes in Turkey. Russia put missiles in Cuba in retaliation for America putting them in Turkey. Russia only removed the missiles from Cuba AFTER Kennedy was smart enough to back down and take our nukes out of Turkey.

We never would have had that crisis if we didn't initiate the threat against them.

Why did we feel 'threatened' by Saddam who sat about and did nothing but not North Korea who parade their military about and BRAG about their 'weapons of mass destruction"?

Feeling 'threatened' is NOT a good justification to attack. I can feel threatened by your existence, but that doesn't give me the right to end it.

The Cuban missile crisis is a BS example because you fail to mention that US had plenty of missiles damn close to the USSR also. (Turkey I believe. Not 100% sure, but I can check.)

Placing the missiles in Cuba was a "me too" on the part of USSR. In fact it was later found that most of the missiles were NOT operational. But that’s besides the point.

If libertarians were in power at the time they'd not have the "Oh yeah?!" cold war going with USSR.

So you are saying the the UN, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton were all wrong? They all said and agreed that Iraq had WMD.

Like I said, we can disagree on whether Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the US (directly or indirectly by selling some toxins to terrorists) but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

And who 'incapable' of posing a threat?

Canada is capable of posing a theat. Canada has 'weapons of mass destruction' (WTF is WMD supposed to mean? What "isn't" a weapon of mass destruction anyway? You have WMD. We will now use our WMD on you!)

Anyway, lets attack Canada, they too are capable of being a threat and I think I can get some people to agree that they have WMDs.


Your logic is horribly flawed.

People are easier to find than non people, because they frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people. Weapons just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything (unless a person uses them).

Your logic is horribly flawed.

People NOT trying to hide: frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people.

People trying to hide: just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything.

WMD : = BIG
Person: = Small.

WMD := Rare, if seen will be spotted.
Person:= All over the place. Easily disguised.

The fact that not a single WMD has been found to date only proves that there are no WMDs.

I'm sure that even the now incustody Saddam will support this. He's got nothing to lose by telling the truth now.

Fact is:

IF there were WMDs he'd have used them before he fell from power when he had nothing to lose. He didn't. This means there are no WMDs.

How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The UN inspection teams hadn't found anything in violation of UN terms by the time we invaded and they wanted more time to continue their search and run tests. At one time Iraq did pose a threat to surrounding areas, but in the past two years there was no evidence (except for false or misleading) to support that Iraq had WMD.

Every sovereign nation (Yes, Iraq is a was a sovereign nation even when Saddam ruled it) makes their own laws and decides for themselves which weapons they will or won't have. No nation is required to ask the US or the UN permission to have them. Merely having weapons doesn't make you a threat to the US. In fact Iraq had no reason to attack America before our unwarranted attack on them in 1991. And even after our unjustified attack in 1991, they still didn't attack us or help anyone else attack us even after we starved them to death and kept life-saving medicine from them for 12 years.

The UN has no authority over sovereign nations.

The US government doesn't get power or authority from the UN. It gets its VERY LIMITED powers from the Constitution and nowhere else and is prevented from doing anything not specifically listed in the Constitution.

That may be true, but I think its more likely that he interacted with people. There were probably people living in the place he was staying at, for example, protecting him, getting him food, etc. Its possible that one of them told someone, who told someone, who them gave him up.

Did he actually stay in the spider hole for the entire time the U.S. army was there? Was there a 1 year cache of food in the spider hole? If not, then he was somewhere else and then traveled to the location of the farm. He would have had an opportunity to be seen during this travel time.

Or perhaps he stayed at the farm but only went into the spider hole when the U.S. forces arrived. In that case, perhaps someone saw him through a window during his stay at the farm?

Perhaps he was involved with the rebellion, in which case he would have interacted with numerous people.

All or none of these may be possible, but even so, I am extremely skeptical of the suggestion that he stayed in his spider hole and didn't interact with anyone for the entire duration of the occupation.

FileNotFound wrote:
I haven't used any logic to defend the war on Iraq. I indicated that we invaded because we felt threatened. I substantiated the threat by detailing the substance of the threat and demonstrating that others outside the US agreed that the WMD were there.

And by WMD I refer to nerve gas and other biotoxins outlawed by various international treaties.

That Canada has WMD is no reason to invade Canada because we don't feel threatened. Now if we run out of Molson then I'll lead the charge but to compare a peace-loving country like Canda to a sadistic, blood-thirsty, power hungry tyrant who had already attacked his neighbors is some seriously flawed logic.

I really think it boils down to whether or not the threat was substantial or not. Its easy not to be afraid once the threat has been neutralized. Its not very smart to not be afraid when the threat is real.

You may have the last word - I've said my peace.

Run out... of Molson? I will lead that charge if we experience such a disastrous dry spell. :D

How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The modern threat is "assymetrical warfare". No non-insane dictator would ever consider a direct confrontation with the US military. But today, you can do incredible damage to the enemy with a suicide bomber carrying a suitcase, or a handful of assholes with boxcutters.

This situation is completely unlike even seventy or eighty years ago, when to do damage to your enemy required you to employ the complete infrastructure of your country.

I agree with that, and while Iraq had no known involvement with 9/11, they did fund suicide bombers.

...but then we need to hurry up and get into Saudi Arabia, who gives a hell of a lot more money to suicide bombers and their families, including those of the 9/11 hijackers.

But you don't see our administration itching to invade that country anytime soon.

*cough* Bullcrap

Which is completely irrelevant unless those suicide bombers attacked America and none did. The US Military has one and only one purpose, to defend against attacks. Not to launch unprovoked attacks when someone FEELS threatened. If a nation says outright that they are going to attack us (Iraq didn't), or they are in the process of attacking us, we may use our DEFENSIVE military. Otherwise we may not.


I dare anyone to tell me the difference between attacking Iraq who NEVER posed a threat (not even a percieved threat) to America, and going door-to-door arresting and executing gun owners in America.

Here's a few indisputable facts for the ignorant...

1. Iraq is a sovereign nation.

2. America has no authority beyond our own borders.

3. The U.S. Military has only one purpose and that is to defend AMERICA from attack (not percieved threats with no proof)

4. Sovereign nations don't require the permission of the UN, or any other country on earth (including America) to build and have any weapons they want.

5. Having weapons doesn't make a country a threat to America.

6. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11th attacks and had no connection with those who did.

7. Starting wars doesn't promote peace.

8. It's easier to hide one man in a hole with a guard to get him food on occasion than it is to hide the "factories" of WMD's described by George W. Bush.

9. The U.S. Military violated the Constitution by attacking Iraq and George W. Bush violated the Constitution by starting an unprovoked war against a NON-THREAT like Iraq.

10. The attack against Iraq didn't defend America and in fact endangered America and the rest of the world.

While the US has a military and its stated job is to defend this country and only this country, we have entered into various agreements that force our military to protect others, such as NATO.

Do we sit back and let a long-time ally perish at the hands of an opressor if they are attacked? If we, The United States, were attacked, would we not expect assistance for our allies?

This is a greater lie than even Barak posted. No matter how hard they tried - and they tried even by creating an intelligent service that was not "corrupted like CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency" - the White House could not find a single credible fact relating Saddam to the WTC attack.

Who was Saddam's greatest enemy. Muslim Brotherhood. Why would Saddam cooperate with his greatest enemy to attack the WTC. Anyone with any knowledge of international news and history knows that Saddam did everything he could to avoid conflict with the US. That fact was fundamental to everything Saddam did. Those two reasons immediately demonstrate how much the above quote is a dam lie - something only a Richard Nixon type would post. Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC destruction. Only those seeking to promote fear and loathing would even post such nonsense.

Saddam's objectives were to be the great leader of Central Asia - in the tradition of the great Hammuri and the empire of Babylon. Long before Saddam would be a threat to the US, he first had to be a threat to his neighbors. He was no longer even a threat to his neighbors. Attacking the US provided him with nothing. In fact, only the paranoid would suggest Iraq was an asymmetrical threat to the US. In the meantime this current president also feared missile attacks from Saddam. Just as absurd. But fear runs rampant in this country now that George Jr is president. How to stay popular? Invent enemies. Promoting fear was the purpose of the above lie about Saddam and the WTC.

Saddam had nothing to do with supporting his greatest enemies or in the attack on the WTC. That is so fundamental a fact that to say otherwise says one is blind and deaf, or one worships Rush Limbaugh's hate and fear campaign.

Because we handled East Timor so much better. Oh no, that's horribly wrong. We supported a genocide that no one talks about. We overthrow democracies when we don't like the leader voted in. Then we wonder why people hate us.

Quzah.

Nothing in this government is 'easily obtainable'. Too much red tape. Remember that song about a Bill that they played on TV? About all the steps it has to go through? Not that that is entirely bad, but nothing is easily obtainable. Except becomming President. All that takes is one state.

Quzah.

The treaty making power granted to the government in the Constitution refers to non-aggression treaties and trade agreements, not the promise of using our military to defend other nations. The founders knew the danger of this and made mention of it.

In fact the reason World War I became a World War rather than a local dispute was because there were complicated treaties among several nations the pulled them into the conflict that wasn't theirs.

The US should remain neutral in all conflicts; even those of our allies. In fact when you're neutral, all countries are your allies. Name an enemy of Switzerland. When countries know they will be on their own if they start a war, they'll be less likely to start one.

If you have a moment, I think you'll be pleased to read this little essay by Harry Browne

Cost schmost. There are some I think it is six trillion dollars worth of oil in one of the two countries we liberated alone...

AH HAH! THIS is what I was looking for...

Quzah.

Here, let me help, you seem to have some wool over your eyes...

We invaded because we felt threatened by (them controling more oil than we felt they should. It would be much better if we had that oil.)
I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any(, so we should go bomb the fuck out of North Korea because they have openly threatened and disregarded how we think they should behave with regards to nukes.)

So go on bad ass. Get your butt over and invade NK. After all, they're openly threatening us. Or don't you care because they have no oil? GW, is that you? Nah, you can compose sentences at least.

Quzah.