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.