If There Are No Weapons of Mass Destruction?

gravity sucking once again?

fer damn sure

Bits of information are starting to filter up now as to which 'on board' countries are getting what share of US taxpayer dollars (or Iraq oil proceeds) for finally seeing the light of Sadaam's ungodliness. It's a story we'll never know much about because it, like so much else, falls outside the good vs evil cartoon.

Containing Communism was a constraint. The alternative was a nuclear war. Iraq is not worth containment, modifying it would be cheaper and more efficient.

murder civilians to avoid a little strain on Bush's patience.

efficiency is the hallmark of fascism

A very strange compliment to fascism. Do you consider democracy being a total failure in terms of efficiency?

a premise in the orignal design of our government was "inefficiency" the intent was that the separation of govenmental powers, while instilling a degree of inefficiency was seen as a means of maintaining democratic process. fascism on the other hand is far more effieient by casting aside the "democratic process".

Edgar - Are you arguing that it is worth any price to avoid a single civilian casualty in Iraq?

O f course not. But, on the other hand, there has to be a better reason than any I have seen.

Is war worth giving el quaida muslim radicals billions more dollars and millions of soldiers, that will happen...

Al Qaeda? What's that?

Sorry, that was a Shrub induced moment of amnesia!

blacksmithn and zed

It has been a masterful job of mis-direction, has it not? These guys have gotten frighteningly effective at manipulation of the media and the public discourse.

Yes, they have indeed. I'm just afraid that the Dems are in such disarray that they'll have difficulty fielding a viable candidate on '04 and that Shrub will win again, by default.

I can't imagine a bigger disaster for this country!

blacksmithn
Hopefully by the time 04 rolls around the American public will have awoken from it's stupor? Is that too much to hope for?

Bush again in '08

Everybody seems to agree on the nature of Saddam Hussein.

And there seems to be a big, world-wide agreement on what should not be done.

So, emotions aside, what should be done? We're already at the door of a country everybody says is the size of California, with enough personnel and armaments to overwhelm them in five minutes. If we are the agressors; if we are the ones with the personal agenda for this action, who is the victim?

A very strange thing has happened. The U.S. was able to make the U.N. a stronger body, after we had been deriding them for years. The U.S. has succeeded in making Hussein an underdog - and that is how it's looked at in a lot of places.

Maybe we're having our successes in places we didn't expect. Our fearless leader will next appear in front of a back drape that reads "We Won!"

Not at all. Your statement, while it may have been intended to be "tongue in cheek", was untrue. I offered a simple example from recent history to show just that. In no way did this take your response out of context, it simply showed that response did not hold up to scrutiny.


And my response showed that this is clearly completely untrue, as is the implication you intended--that Bush would not be tried for war crimes purely because he will win, rather than because he will have committed none.

Even something offered "tongue in cheek" can be wrong.

Fair enough, though I believe he was charged with war crimes prior to losing his battle with NATO/UN forces, for crimes he committed in military action which resulted in victory for him.