[Radar]

But at other times, I think Spiderman said it best: With great power comes great responsibility

The United States government will never be responsible for defending any country other than our own. The size of our military and the weapons they wield don't change that fact.

In my opinion, these are the people who will be the most quiet when the US is vindicated post-war when the media can uncover the mass graves, torture chambers, hidden prisons, and most importantly: the ever so cliched weapons of mass destruction.

Finding weapons of mass destruction and even mass graves with MILLIONS of people in them would still not vindicate and attack against Iraq. NOTHING short of a direct attack against America (which Iraq has had no part of directly or indirectly) would be cause to send our military to fight in Iraq.

Yes, other people, who perhaps have no say in the matter, would.

Every country has a responsibility to defend themselves. America is not the judge or police of the world. The only country the American military can legally defend is our own.

Do you honestly feel as if Iraq marching upon Kuwait, regardless of the "almost" reasons I addressed in a previous post, was a legitimate action? That we were somehow in the wrong to assist Kuwait from the occupation by the Iraqi military? That, by consequence, we were wrong to enforce the terms of that treaty by which the Gulf War was ended?

Absolutely without a doubt, America was EXTREMELY wrong to take action against Iraq even when they were occupying Kuwait. As I have said and the constitution says, the American military is for defending American soil and ships. Not to defend Kuwait, not to overthrow foreign regimes, not to assassinate leaders to replace them with leaders we prefer, not for humanitarian aid, not to train foreign militaries, not to protect "American interests", not to dictate what weapons foreign countries have, and not to do anything other than DEFEND American soil and ships from attack. That means the only legal justification for the use of the American military is to fight off attacks from foreign nations and pirates when they occur; not perceived threats, not possible threats, not future attacks, etc. only actual attacks during and after they take place. "Pre-Emptive" strikes NEVER fall under the category of DEFENSE and the American military is defined in the constitution as solely for defense.

America had no place in Iraq in 1991 and we still don't. And the agreements Iraq signed after our unjust and illegal actions against them were under duress and can hardly be binding. If I put a gun to your head and make you sign the title to your house over to me, my ownership will never hold up in court.

Primarily because Iraq/Hussein has shown a somewhat fearful tendency to abuse self-restraint in the use of the aforementioned arsenal, we have the "legal" and "moral" obligation to lighten his load.

We have no such moral or legal obligation or even authority to dictate what weapons other nations have. Nor do we have the lawful right to enforce our wishes on them no matter how uncomfortable we feel with them.

In response to the second question, as I stated in the post above, those actions were based on the treaty of the Gulf War, in response to Iraq's aggression and attempt to take by force the independent and sovereign nation of Kuwait. Do you believe that such action was unwarranted, or that we should have "let those stinky Arabs deal with it themselves?"

I've never said anything about "stinky Arabs", but I do believe that the American government gets its very limited powers from our own constitution; not from the U.N., and not because the president or congress think it's the right thing to do. The constitution clearly made our involvement in Iraq in 1991 illegal. Kuwait has a responsibility to defend themselves and most likely could have gotten Saudi Arabia to take care of them. In the middle-east they have a saying that goes "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against our neighbor, etc". It's far better for the middle-eastern nations to handle their own problems than to use unwarranted and illegal United States military intervention to handle the situation.

I believe in liberty for all humans, and personally sometimes we're better equipped to deal with it than others. If your neighbor were abusing (trying to kill?) his child, wouldn't you call the police or attempt to help as well? It might not be "your business", but some things require the aid of those who can.

I also believe in Liberty for all people and America is supposed to be a shining beacon of liberty for other nations to follow like a lighthouse. But America isn't supposed to use force to make it happen. And your analogy of calling the police is poor to say the least. America IS NOT THE POLICE of the world. In America if my neighbor was killing his wife or children, I'd call American police. But American police (or military) have no authority over Iraq or their people. I hate Saddam. He's a disgusting murderer and deserves to die a horrible death. But no matter what he does short of a direct attack against America we have no business getting involved. He could boil a million babies in oil on television and skin their mother's alive and we still wouldn't be justified in sending our military.

However, that being said, as Colin Powell and Bush have stated many times (and the UN has not disputed), vast quantities of chemical weapons (mustard gas), biological weapons (anthrax) and deployment mechanisms (scud missiles, drones, etc) were present and accounted for several years ago. That kind of merchandise does not simply "get lost".

Perhaps they destroyed them. But even if they didn't, Iraq can have these weapons. They are a sovereign nation that doesn't require the permission of the U.N. or America to have any weapons they want even if those weapons are nukes.

Saddam is not dumb - perhaps disillusioned, but not dumb. He's made a life work of hiding these items, and he has had plenty of time to prepare for inspections.

I'll agree that Saddam is not dumb. He's a horrible person, but not dumb. And as a person who is not dumb, he would NEVER use weapons such as these against America because he knows if he did directly attack us, we'd turn Iraq into a sheet of glass.

Furthermore, it has to be made poignantly clear that these inspections are a farce from an ineffectual organization in an environment that cannot yield true inspections.

Perhaps. But it must also be made crystal clear that Iraq is under no legal obligation to surrender any weapons or allow any inspectors to check for them. Just as America would tell the U.N. to kiss off, Iraq could (and in my opinion should) have done it. But they have been cooperating.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe in your heart that the inspections are proving that those weapons must not exist because the inspections aren't showing anything? If anything, logic dictates that the inspections coming up empty handed proves clear violation of the original resolution, as it mentioned that proof of weapons disposal/destruction must be given, while it has not.

This is all speculation. The inspectors have helicopters and can fly to any location on a moment's notice and have areas to meet that are not bugged or monitored. They can freely move without anyone stopping their progress.

My question to you is, "How can you use the fact that inspectors didn't find weapons as evidence that he's hiding them?" It would be like me asking you for a million dollars and then accusing you of hiding it when you couldn't give it to me.