Barack wasn't in the US Congress at the time. I.e., he knew dick about any intel we had.

We should all be anti war. I don't know one person who is pro war. I understand a justifiable war, but I've been against this war from the get go. We invaded a soveirgn nation that had done nothing to us. War should be a last resort type of thing. Not cook and cherry pick the intel by 5 deferment Cheney. Obviously what we were doing was successful. We haven't even found a super soaker.

Dis anybody catch former Navy Seal Jesse Ventura on Larry King last night. The man spoke to me. He could be Machiavell in this room. A Ventura - Paul ticket would win the whole she bang.

Machiavelli Wrote:A Ventura - Paul ticket would win the whole she bang.

Can you send me some of what you're smoking?

Machiavelli Wrote:We invaded a soveirgn nation that had done nothing to us.

Please explain to us how a Dictator who didn't respect the most basic rights of his own citizens and signed a Cease Fire Agreement to remain in power was a "Soveirgn Nation".

GGniner Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:We invaded a soveirgn nation that had done nothing to us.

Please explain to us how a Dictator who didn't respect the most basic rights of his own citizens

How about China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.............

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:We invaded a soveirgn nation that had done nothing to us.

Please explain to us how a Dictator who didn't respect the most basic rights of his own citizens

How about China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.............

Did we have a cease fire with any of them?

For the record, I don't really give a crap about basic rights for people in other countries.

dfarr Wrote:Did we have a cease fire with any of them?

For the record, I don't really give a crap about basic rights for people in other countries.

Yes, North Korea. However, they're not actively supporting an activity we're trying to destroy.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:We invaded a soveirgn nation that had done nothing to us.

Please explain to us how a Dictator who didn't respect the most basic rights of his own citizens

How about China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.............

good question, it depends on your definition of "Sovereign" really. If you use a very loose/liberal definition than China and SA are, probably not with North Korea. If you use a strict definition definitely not, since they are police states and major human rights violaters.

Iraq had already lost its sovereignty with the no fly zones mandated by the UN and the fact that by the standards of International law, which saddam agreed to this stuff when he signed the Cease Fire Agreement which allowed him to stay in power. Iraq would have lost its soverignity anyway because it had violated the Genocide Convention(for which it is a member), violated the spirit of the Non-Proflieration Treaty(for which it is a member), supported and harbored wanted international terrorists wanted by every police and intelligence agency in the world(Abu Abbas, Abu Nadel, Abd Yassin, Musab al-Zarqwie etc-)and it had waged aggressive war aginst it's neighbors(Iran and Kuwait). So Iraq definitely wasn't...

but a strict individual liberty oriented version of this word, none of them would apply. Interestingly, supposed "libertarians" like crackpots like Lew Rockwell view China as some sort of great nation now because they have a "free market", ignoring the human rights violations and how authoritarian they are.

Machiavelli Wrote:We should all be anti war. I don't know one person who is pro war. I understand a justifiable war, but I've been against this war from the get go. We invaded a soveirgn nation that had done nothing to us. War should be a last resort type of thing. Not cook and cherry pick the intel by 5 deferment Cheney. Obviously what we were doing was successful.

Of course we are all anti-war... as I qualified it for just about ANY reason... meaning we all have a point at which we find it justifiable. I've written MANY posts about the tendencies post WWII to call on the military to do just about everything that some group thinks its okay to do... whether it be Bosnia, Vietnam, Lebanon or Iraq.... even New Orleans. Perhaps not you, but I find it interesting that many of the people who are against using the military for quasi-military actions, are the first to think that we should use the military for NON-Military actions. Again, not putting you in that group... but the problem is, when you expand the role of the military to include things that ONE person supports, you must also frequently expand it to include those that someone ELSE supports. If Clinton was justified in using the military in Bosnia, then so was Bush in Iraq. Bosnia didn't have WMD either, and certainly never threatened us... not even verbally. If not for Bush, then not for Clinton either (or almost any other recent President).

How in the world can you describe having a large percentage of people who practice the largest religion in the world being taught by their leaders to hate and want to kill us as the entry way to heaven as being successful? We can disagree on lots of things, but to ignore the fact that Hussein supported and encouraged this, REGARDLESS of whether or not he specifically supported Bin Laden is a falsehood... and I believe you agree with that. You certainly wouldn't support an American President who acted like Hussein did. I'm not saying you need to agree that the response was appropriate, but 9-11 certainly showed that it doesn't take WMD to impact our way of life in a big, negative way.

The bar for attacks on us has been raised time after time over the last three decades until FINALLY, we had a massive attack on our own soil. You and I may not like how we got here, or all of the things that have gone along with it... but you can in no way argue that what we're currently doing hasn't been a more effective deterrent than anything else we'd done over the last 3 decades in terms of deterring attacks on our civilians.