When the news actually makes you laugh with a picture...

[Len Budney]

Americans wouldn't be there if the insurgents weren't there using the innocent civilians for human shields. And worse.

Insurgents wouldn't be there if we had refrained from toppling a country that posed no threat whatsoever to us. Arguing that we're morally obligated to be shooting up their neighborhoods because they're so dangerous (thanks to us) is a bit like blowing up city hall and the police station, and then saying, "This town needs me to maintain law and order!"

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

It's a war zone.  Bad things happen. If the Iraqis had it together to oust Saddam then they wouldn't be in that situation...

You appear to be saying, "If the Iraqis had obeyed our wishes, we wouldn't be over there imposing our wishes on them using lethal force." Which sounds strikingly like, "If she had only agreed to have sex with me, she wouldn't be in the situation (of being brutally raped)."

Who died and left us God's pen, with which to write decrees like, "You shall topple your ruler who poses no threat to us whatsoever, or else we'll come in and slaughter you by the bushel"?

--Len.

It would only appear like that to someone intent on undercutting this country and forgetting history.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered millions of his own people.  There i no debate on this.
Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region who invaded other countries.  There is no debate on this either.
Saddam lost the Gulf War and agreed to certain conditions, conditions that he failed to abide by.
There is no debate on this either.
Saddam had a 30 year history of harboring terrorists and fomenting terrorist type plots.  No debate here either.
Saddam was in material violation of a number of UN resolutions, resolutions the UN refused to enforce other than to pass more resolutions and call for restraint.
So to say he posed no threat to us and the US just went in for no apparant reason is disingenuous at best.

[wmenorr67]

Len, are you saying we should have waited for another 9/11; and then find out that Iraq trained the terrorist?

[Tallpine]

Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region who invaded other countries.  There is no debate on this either.

The US seemed to like that just fine when he was using our weapons to fight Iran. 

[K Frame]

"The US seemed to like that just fine when he was using our weapons to fight Iran."

And we liked it just fine when Stalin was using our weapons to fight the Nazis.

[The Rabbi]

Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region who invaded other countries.  There is no debate on this either.

The US seemed to like that just fine when he was using our weapons to fight Iran. 

Wow, it's in the water.  Another non-sequitur.  How does that change the basic point, that Saddam was a force for instability and aggression?

[Len Budney]

It would only appear like that to someone intent on undercutting this country and forgetting history.

Given you can't read my mind, imputing motives to me is ad hominem and a personal attack.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered millions of his own people.  There i no debate on this.

The highest number I've ever seen is one million. Which is certainly quite a lot, but does that justify our killing a comparable number? Meddling Halfwit admitted that our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for half a million deaths, though she reassured us that it was "worth it." Since then, the death toll is variously estimated between 50,000 and ten times that number. It's easily foreseeable that before the US is done with Iraq, we'll have killed as many as Saddam--but since we're the "good guys," we can only assume that the million we kill needed killin'. Not to mention the couple million people already rendered homeless, either as internal or external refugees. In short, under the best possible interpretation, the cure is as bad as the disease.

But it's hypocritical to use Saddam's badness as a cloak for the invasion, considering that we refuse to invade worse places with greater suffering. For that matter, we ignored his brutality back when he was our guy, and we armed him against Iran. We are obviously not motivated by humanitarian motives.

But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette? Back when George Washington condemned foreign adventurism, were there no bad guys out there that needed killing? Of course there were. The point is that we aren't God, and is isn't our job to trot the globe righting wrongs, abasing the proud and exalting the humble. Attempting to play God in this way is doomed to failure, even if we have the purest of motives at all times--which we don't.

So to say he posed no threat to us and the US just went in for no apparant reason is disingenuous at best.

"Us" means "the United States." He posed NO threat to us. He probably threatened "our interests," where "our interests" refers to our plans for other nations we have no business interfering in, but he posed no threat to any of the fifty states, whether military, economic or political. He was utterly powerless to project power beyond his borders, let alone get within a thousand miles of any of the United States. We've redefined "threat to us" to mean that if Saddam does business with Bahrain, "we" are harmed.

If we applied to same sort of reasoning in our own lives, seeing the girl next door talking to the pool boy is a "threat" to me, because she might end up dating him, in which case she probably won't be interested in having an affair with me at some future time. Therefore, I shoot the pool boy and drain the pool in "self defense."

--Len.

[wmenorr67]

Some people would say that UBL posed no direct threat to us also.  That is why Bill Clinton didn't take him when offered on a silver platter.

[m1911owner]

But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette?

About 3,000 people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and others on the USS Cole, various U.S. embassies, etc.

[wmenorr67]

And on a lighter note; Jose Padilla has been found guilty of supporting terrorism.

[Len Budney]

But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette?

About 3,000 people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and others on the USS Cole, various U.S. embassies, etc.

The dead people that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with? How exactly do you make that connection? Someone shoots my kid, but I can't find him--so instead, I find a random person on the street whose looks I don't like, and I gun him down?

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette?

About 3,000 people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and others on the USS Cole, various U.S. embassies, etc.

And in the London underground and on a bus, in a nightclub in Bali, people in Casablanca, in a Moscow theater...

[m1911owner]

The dead people that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with? How exactly do you make that connection? Someone shoots my kid, but I can't find him--so instead, I find a random person on the street whose looks I don't like, and I gun him down?

Plenty of people in Iraq had a lot to do with that.  Sadam Hussein, various terrorists who were based there, those who ran and learned at the terrorist camp with the airliner that was there for them to practice taking over an airliner, etc., etc., etc.

[Len Budney]

Plenty of people in Iraq had a lot to do with that.  Sadam Hussein...

Who was well known at the time to have no ties to Al Qaeda--indeed, to be an enemy of Al Qaeda, because they were religious extremists and he was a secular socialist. What connection are you claiming? And with what proof?

...various terrorists who were based there...

Proof?

those who ran and learned at the terrorist camp with the airliner that was there for them to practice taking over an airliner, etc., etc., etc.

Proof that Salmon Pak was used by Al Qaeda?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The US demanded extradition of Bin Ladin from Afghanistan, which was proper. The Afghans asked for evidence before agreeing to extradite, which was also proper. The US refused and invaded, which was improper, and they did it without declaring war, which was improper--but at the very least, they were in fact targeting the location that Bin Ladin was known to be. Although it was not handled correctly, Afghanistan was at least defensible with reference to 9/11. Iraq, on the other hand, is not.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

It would only appear like that to someone intent on undercutting this country and forgetting history.

Given you can't read my mind, imputing motives to me is ad hominem and a personal attack.

I don't recall using your name anywhere.  Thus it cannot be an ad hominem.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered millions of his own people.  There i no debate on this.

The highest number I've ever seen is one million. Which is certainly quite a lot, but does that justify our killing a comparable number?

No, but it would have justified his own citizens overthrowing him, which was my original point.

Meddling Halfwit admitted that our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for half a million deaths, though she reassured us that it was "worth it." Since then, the death toll is variously estimated between 50,000 and ten times that number. It's easily foreseeable that before the US is done with Iraq, we'll have killed as many as Saddam--but since we're the "good guys," we can only assume that the million we kill needed killin'. Not to mention the couple million people already rendered homeless, either as internal or external refugees. In short, under the best possible interpretation, the cure is as bad as the disease.

Now who is engaging in ad hominems.  The fact that the number has been "variously estimated" tells me no one knows and the numbers are being manipulated for political reasons.

But it's hypocritical to use Saddam's badness as a cloak for the invasion, considering that we refuse to invade worse places with greater suffering. For that matter, we ignored his brutality back when he was our guy, and we armed him against Iran. We are obviously not motivated by humanitarian motives.

No, it is hypocritical to say that if we dont invade everyplace then we cannot invade any place.  It is not his "badness" (whatever that is) that made us invade him, it was his flouting of UN resolutions, etc that I detailed in my post.

But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette? Back when George Washington condemned foreign adventurism, were there no bad guys out there that needed killing? Of course there were. The point is that we aren't God, and is isn't our job to trot the globe righting wrongs, abasing the proud and exalting the humble. Attempting to play God in this way is doomed to failure, even if we have the purest of motives at all times--which we don't.

Every nation has the responsibility to its citizens to act in its own best interest.  The U.S. has many interests, business and political.  This was no different.

So to say he posed no threat to us and the US just went in for no apparant reason is disingenuous at best.

"Us" means "the United States." He posed NO threat to us. He probably threatened "our interests," where "our interests" refers to our plans for other nations we have no business interfering in, but he posed no threat to any of the fifty states, whether military, economic or political. He was utterly powerless to project power beyond his borders, let alone get within a thousand miles of any of the United States. We've redefined "threat to us" to mean that if Saddam does business with Bahrain, "we" are harmed.

If we applied to same sort of reasoning in our own lives, seeing the girl next door talking to the pool boy is a "threat" to me, because she might end up dating him, in which case she probably won't be interested in having an affair with me at some future time. Therefore, I shoot the pool boy and drain the pool in "self defense."

--Len.