NationStates Jolt Archive

I split this off from the thread re Raysia being deleted. This give one less conservative. Although I am not accusing Raysia of being "rational" or "cool-headed".

However, I dislike "preaching to the converted" and am actaully seeking a rational conservative, hoping that the term is not an oxymoron.

The majority (not all) of the conservatives that I have encountered here tend to prefer personal attacks on their opponent/s rather than debating the issue.

Seems that they will go through the usual steps of saying that :

opponents view does not count (they are Canadian for example)

opponents source does not count (it is biased)

opponent is anti-American (a good all-rounder for any criticism)

oopponent always takes the liberal viewpoint (yes, so ?)

opponent does not care that Clinton (or someone else) was wrong/lied/
failed to act/etc just as much (irrelevant ...two wrongs do not make a right, two lies do not make a truth)

opponent doesn't understand the complexities of the issue (another good all rounder, requires no facts or details at all)

opponent has no direct experience of combat (one of the wackiest I have seen...I have no direct experience of murder or rape either, yet I still consider both to be wrong)

after this usual litany, the conservative usually flees the post, sometimes leaving caustic messages like "well. I won't tell you anyway" or something similar.

This, unfortunately, becomes tedious, predictable and frustrating all at the same time.

Is it possible that a rational cool-headed conservative actually exists out there ?

Rational Conservative ehh? Sure why not...let me give it a shot.

It does go both ways.

Opponent is racist. Usually used to when opposing minority programs.
Opponent has no compassion. When opponent is against programs for the poor, etc.

I could go on but you get the meaning. Extreamists are dound on both sides ;)

Rational Conservative ehh? Sure why not...let me give it a shot.

Your "label" would tend to make me suspect that you are the usual conservative.

Perhaps you could start by "rationalising" it.

It does go both ways.

Opponent is racist. Usually used to when opposing minority programs.
Opponent has no compassion. When opponent is against programs for the poor, etc.

I could go on but you get the meaning. Extreamists are dound on both sides ;)

Yes, there are always extremists on both sides.

I merely seek a rational conservative within Nation States.

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

I am very conservative, and very liberal depending on the subject: see I am a free thinker.

Jim

I am very conservative, and very liberal depending on the subject: see I am a free thinker.

Jim

Did I leave out side-stepping issues?

I've been described as rational by others before. As long as you aren't a mass murderer, neo nazi, or convicted felon, I try hard not to launch personal attacks.

I am very conservative, and very liberal depending on the subject: see I am a free thinker.

Jim

Did I leave out side-stepping issues?

Present me with an Issue not just a generality and I will respond.

JIM SC

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Iraq had continued to try to build weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and the cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. Saddam's refusal to comply with 16 reolutions, allow inspectors total access, and comply with the US ultimatum forced the President's hand.

The only reason Mr. Hussein allowed UN inspectors back into his country to search for WMDs was because the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had to go before it was too late. They did not want to wage War in the middle of summer nor in the middle of winter for troop morale purposes and battle advantage.

I am a conservative with money, and a liberal mostly when it comes to people.

But i do hold some conservative values

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Iraq had continued to try to build weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and the cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. Saddam's refusal to comply with 16 reolutions, allow inspectors total access, and comply with the US ultimatum forced the President's hand.

The only reason Mr. Hussein allowed UN inspectors back into his country to search for WMDs was because the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had to go before it was too late. They did not want to wage War in the middle of summer nor in the middle of winter for troop morale purposes and battle advantage.


You forgot that he oppressed and killed his own people.

I am a conservative with money, and a liberal mostly when it comes to people.

But i do hold some conservative values


Nobody is Liberal or Conservative on every issue.

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Iraq had continued to try to build weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and the cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. Saddam's refusal to comply with 16 reolutions, allow inspectors total access, and comply with the US ultimatum forced the President's hand.

The only reason Mr. Hussein allowed UN inspectors back into his country to search for WMDs was because the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had to go before it was too late. They did not want to wage War in the middle of summer nor in the middle of winter for troop morale purposes and battle advantage.


You forgot that he oppressed and killed his own people.

And what is wrong with that? You can be either a slave or a master.

Jim

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Iraq had continued to try to build weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and the cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. Saddam's refusal to comply with 16 reolutions, allow inspectors total access, and comply with the US ultimatum forced the President's hand.

The only reason Mr. Hussein allowed UN inspectors back into his country to search for WMDs was because the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had to go before it was too late. They did not want to wage War in the middle of summer nor in the middle of winter for troop morale purposes and battle advantage.


You forgot that he oppressed and killed his own people.Or perhaps it was intentionally left out. *Is pretty much liberal and will keep out of this thread*

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

1) I think it had to do we the fact that we believed it did have WMD's...If you're up on the testimony of Rice and Clarke, I do believe both administrations (Clinton and Bush) thought there was enough evidence.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/observer/news/8204855.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040116.shtml

Now I agree that maybe Bush might have exxagerated the urgency of the situation, but if you're the President and you have compelling evidence, a failure to act means you could be complicit in the murder of your own citizens.

2) Some part of it was motivated by a desire to get Arab governments to shake themselves up...We've been giving them lectures, for a long, long time- but to no avail..so the idea is show them we mean business...
(atleast this is the sense i get from reading the writings of guys like Richard Perle)

I like to think of myself as a moderate. There are things the Democrats are for that I am for, there are things the Republicans are for that I am for, and vice-versa.
I personaly would vote for Bush if I was old enough on the basis that he is the best candidate currently, Kerry doesnt seem like the kind of person I would want running the country. Of course, what we really need is a multi-party system, so we can have an actual CHOICE as opposed to two people who both lie and do nothing :P
Im pro-religion, pro-Iraq war, welll....Im pretty much pro-everything, except for a few things which I dont like 8), IE: Pepsi.

At your service :D

I'm not a typical conservative, but I am rational.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Iraq had continued to try to build weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and the cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. Saddam's refusal to comply with 16 reolutions, allow inspectors total access, and comply with the US ultimatum forced the President's hand.

The only reason Mr. Hussein allowed UN inspectors back into his country to search for WMDs was because the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had to go before it was too late. They did not want to wage War in the middle of summer nor in the middle of winter for troop morale purposes and battle advantage.


You forgot that he oppressed and killed his own people.

Well, when you say "oppressed," if you mean used money that was supposed to be given to the Iraqis for food, housing, education, etc, and instead using it to pay for his own palaces and building a bigger military arsenal and implementing methods of terror such as the following on selected Iraqi citizens:

1) Burning with hot irons

2) Dripping acid on the skin

3) Mutilation with electric drills

4) Cutting out tounges

5) Rape

Then, Yes. He did oppress his people. He also used chemical warfare against the Iranians and the Kurds. These are just a few, there are many other atrocoties commited by Uday and Qusay as well. Saddam Hussein was also known for offering money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who targeted the people of Israel.

As far as Afghanistan goes, the United States has successfully eliminated over 70% of Al Qaeda leadership and captured or killed more than 3,400 of its members, immobilized Osama, and has wiped out the central base of the Taliban Regime, which harbored the terrorist network responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans.

Alot of this credit really goes to the brave men and women who serve in the United States of America military uniform.

I've been described as rational by others before. As long as you aren't a mass murderer, neo nazi, or convicted felon, I try hard not to launch personal attacks.
So, Smeagol-Gollum, could you present me with an issue? I'd love your verdict on rather I'm rational or not.

Yes, I have to admitt, President Bush was pretty tough on our regime.

If you remember correctly there was an extensive campaign launched against Al Queda and Afghanistan. But the problem was that there was no real central enemy. There was not one group with a big target over their heads that we could shwoop in and take out. Terrorists are everywhere nad insurgents arrise out of nowhere at any moment. The United States DID go after that threat (terrorists). In addition to the terrorists of Afghanistan and the Al Queda there was also another terrorist orinazation that lived and thrived that DID have a huge target over his head. This was Huessein and his "group o' cronies". After years of intelligence aquisition under both Clinton and Bush it came to the point where Bush felt there was an imminent threat to the global community. In fact, this threat had all ready been imminent in the past and it was about time that someone, something took care of it before thousands and millions of more people died. While in the process there were many people killed who fought to end such a regime and ultimately saved many people while a few sacrificed them selves for the cause. These men and women should be revered as heroes. Its tough to use the tragedies of war as evidence that going to war against Iraq was a bad idea when you think about how many lives they have and will save do to there efforts.

Hello :)

jk, im not really conservitive nor liberal. more moderate. but Im sure most of my views would conflict with the average 'liberal' :)

and the reasons for Iraq imo have already been shared on the first page


peace,

Culebra

I split this off from the thread re Raysia being deleted. This give one less conservative. Although I am not accusing Raysia of being "rational" or "cool-headed".

However, I dislike "preaching to the converted" and am actaully seeking a rational conservative, hoping that the term is not an oxymoron.

The majority (not all) of the conservatives that I have encountered here tend to prefer personal attacks on their opponent/s rather than debating the issue.

Seems that they will go through the usual steps of saying that :

opponents view does not count (they are Canadian for example)

opponents source does not count (it is biased)

opponent is anti-American (a good all-rounder for any criticism)

oopponent always takes the liberal viewpoint (yes, so ?)

opponent does not care that Clinton (or someone else) was wrong/lied/
failed to act/etc just as much (irrelevant ...two wrongs do not make a right, two lies do not make a truth)

opponent doesn't understand the complexities of the issue (another good all rounder, requires no facts or details at all)

opponent has no direct experience of combat (one of the wackiest I have seen...I have no direct experience of murder or rape either, yet I still consider both to be wrong)

after this usual litany, the conservative usually flees the post, sometimes leaving caustic messages like "well. I won't tell you anyway" or something similar.

This, unfortunately, becomes tedious, predictable and frustrating all at the same time.

Is it possible that a rational cool-headed conservative actually exists out there ?

Hmmm.... So liberals are all rational people, there's no such thing as an irrational liberal?

Quite the contrary. Liberals have abandoned all claims to rationality. Classical liberalism, with its relentless questioning of what is good and bad, its incessant self-doubt, is dead. Now we have the new breed, the ideologue: the politically-correct type with no interest in any opposing view, except to denigrate it. If you contradict the left's theories on racial quotas, you are a racist. If you speak out against "gay" marriage you are "homophobic" (whatever that really means). If you argue against mass-immigration you are racist again, or you're an economics illiterate, or both. If you question some of the science behind the theory of "global warming" then you must hate the environment and be in the pocket of the corporations and the whole "military-industrial complex" that really "runs" the US. And so on...

What this really shows is the incredible conservatism of the left. By this I mean how inflexible most of them are. There's no real debate with people whose whole mindset is already made up, and who respond to any questioning of their core values with stock replies or with contrived constructions ("homophobe") that are supposed to silence debate and consign the transgressor to that realm where the ignorant or the evil exist.

The left is more and more content with simplistic explanations of complicated situations and that's a real shame. If you want a real debate you need to be more open to the possibility that you, as a liberal, might be wrong. That commodity - self-doubt - is sorely lacking among the new left.

Kindly explain why Iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).Our opponent: Terrorists everywhere. Not all are directly connected to Al Qaeda. The British can take care of the IRA. The Spanish can take care of the Basque separatists. Hamas threatened the USA and then quickly changed their minds. I wonder why? Because we would have blown them to pieces faster than the Israelis could. We fight terrorists, not just Al Qaeda. I would rather blow Iraq apart than have the no-fly zones in perpetuity as Saddam slowly tried, or would try, to piece his WMD program(s) back together again. ~ Michael.

*takes his glove off and smacks Smeagol-Gollum in the face.

I challenge you, sir.

I split this off from the thread re Raysia being deleted. This give one less conservative. Although I am not accusing Raysia of being "rational" or "cool-headed".

However, I dislike "preaching to the converted" and am actaully seeking a rational conservative, hoping that the term is not an oxymoron.

The majority (not all) of the conservatives that I have encountered here tend to prefer personal attacks on their opponent/s rather than debating the issue.

Seems that they will go through the usual steps of saying that :

opponents view does not count (they are Canadian for example)

opponents source does not count (it is biased)

opponent is anti-American (a good all-rounder for any criticism)

oopponent always takes the liberal viewpoint (yes, so ?)

opponent does not care that Clinton (or someone else) was wrong/lied/
failed to act/etc just as much (irrelevant ...two wrongs do not make a right, two lies do not make a truth)

opponent doesn't understand the complexities of the issue (another good all rounder, requires no facts or details at all)

opponent has no direct experience of combat (one of the wackiest I have seen...I have no direct experience of murder or rape either, yet I still consider both to be wrong)

after this usual litany, the conservative usually flees the post, sometimes leaving caustic messages like "well. I won't tell you anyway" or something similar.

This, unfortunately, becomes tedious, predictable and frustrating all at the same time.

Is it possible that a rational cool-headed conservative actually exists out there ?

Hmmm.... So liberals are all rational people, there's no such thing as an irrational liberal?

Quite the contrary. Liberals have abandoned all claims to rationality. Classical liberalism, with its relentless questioning of what is good and bad, its incessant self-doubt, is dead. Now we have the new breed, the ideologue: the politically-correct type with no interest in any opposing view, except to denigrate it. If you contradict the left's theories on racial quotas, you are a racist. If you speak out against "gay" marriage you are "homophobic" (whatever that really means). If you argue against mass-immigration you are racist again, or you're an economics illiterate, or both. If you question some of the science behind the theory of "global warming" then you must hate the environment and be in the pocket of the corporations and the whole "military-industrial complex" that really "runs" the US. And so on...

What this really shows is the incredible conservatism of the left. By this I mean how inflexible most of them are. There's no real debate with people whose whole mindset is already made up, and who respond to any questioning of their core values with stock replies or with contrived constructions ("homophobe") that are supposed to silence debate and consign the transgressor to that realm where the ignorant or the evil exist.

The left is more and more content with simplistic explanations of complicated situations and that's a real shame. If you want a real debate you need to be more open to the possibility that you, as a liberal, might be wrong. That commodity - self-doubt - is sorely lacking among the new left.

You may note that I have already conceded the fact that there are, indeed, extremists on both sides.

And the "self-doubt" that you speak of is, I believe, equally lacking on both sides of the political spectrum.

"Simplistic explanations" I feel are also hardly restricted to only one side.

To your list, I would, however, feel compelled to add another vice that I feel is inherent in the conservative side of politics - the inability to recognise their own failings, and to move on.

As an example, I will return to the present conflict in Iraq.

The war was "sold" on the basis of being necessary due to the "imminent" threat of "weapons of mass destruction".

Now, even Powell is stating "the intelligence could have been faulty". I guess that this is, unfortunately, as close as we are going to get.

That Saddam headed a brutal and sadistic regime is undoubtedly true, but the war was never "sold" on the basis of "regime change".

If "regime change" was required, it could far more easily been achieved after the first Gulf War, but instead George Bush Snr was happy to leave Saddam in place, much to the sorrow and grief of both the Sunnis and of the Kurds.

And, if the possession of weapons of mass destruction is wrong in itself, it appears to be a strange criticism coming from the nation which has the largest stockpile of these, and which has used such weapons in the past.

The fact that Israel posses atomic weapons is now widely recognised, despite the fact that they have imprisoned journalists who dared disclose this ( watch the media for the next week or so). Yet, no condemnation.
India, Pakistan and North Korea (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil") have WMDs, apparently without a problem.

How would you respond to these arguments?

Now, you do realize that a single vial of a bacterium culture for small pox is considered a weapon of mass destruction, and is easily enough hidden in a glass jar in a cupboard in any home in Iraq, correct?

Take, for instance, a small city of 100,000 inhabitants. The search for WMDs would start in the most likely place: the industrial/research areas of the city. After that area was thoroughly picked clean, the search would move to area businesses other than industrial/research. Then, and only then, would the search move to private property - which would allow plenty of time and opportunity to move the WMDs back to the industrial areas.

Iraq > 100,000 inhabitants. Need I say more?

We went to war for a variety of good reasons.

The Saudi Oil fields are reaching or have reached peak and will soon level off and begin to lower production levels. We need to maintain a military prescence in the region to secure and horde the remaining supplies of oil. In addition it gives us a military base to project power into the CentCom region with accordance to the PNAC doctrine.

Iraq's WMD stockpiles had vanished from the CIA radar and we needed to re-assertain their posistion and account for their remaining stocks. Although VX destabilises after 4-6 years it was still necessary to assertain its posistion.

Saddam had fallen out of favor and was no longer behaving as a proper puppet, so we needed to install a new one.

It gets us closer to the Caspian sea and the large oil sources there should we desire to push Russia out of the area.

Due to our no-fly zone restrictions terrorist camps were springing up in areas that Saddam was finding difficult to control.

Russia had recently signed a large 40 Billion dollar infastructure improvement plan with Iraq. Fearing that our puppet would not fall before he strengthed a potential future adversary we struck more quickly.

Iraq had begun shifting away from a dollar based currency to a euro based currency. This threatened our economic interests.

Germany's Deutche Wella News agency had fairly recently launched a new sattellite (NileSat) to broadcast European news into the region, going in gave us a ability to rapidly increase American telecommunications and 'news' shows into the region.

Saddam tried to assasinate Dubya's dad. That would probably piss me off too, and I'd likely try and do something about it if I had the capacity.

It allowed us to continue to maintain a geo-political stranglehold on Europe, and most importantly France, who had been gaining large ammounts of oil from the country under the food for oil program.

Bush needed greater visibility on a 'war on terror', hence he attempted to draw links between Al-Qaida and Iraq. These links are tenuous but served to reinforce the notion that he was doing something or making progress.

China and India are comming online to the oil market, and having the worlds second largest producer under our belt will give us a signifigant sway over those very large populations.

It increases global instability which increases business for our weapons manufacturer consortiums.

It signifigantly benefited Cheney and various people under him and the associated corporations (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc...)

It served to distract the populace from the signing of Patriot Act 2.

... That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

One reason we did NOT go in:
To liberate the Iraqi people. That was a smoke screen to garner public support pure and simple.

Overall Opinion of the engagement:
Having a military prescence in the region is quite good, and I do like it, though I understand that we needed to be somewhat covert about the oil issues, I was hoping we would cut to the chase and simply out right annex the Southern Fields. Originally I was oppossed to the war, seeing Saddam as a contained entity under inspections until I learned more about Saudi Oil reserve reportings. Ultimately if we play our cards correctly we may be able to ride the Saudi field crash down to a safe level and come out on top. However I suspect that when Kerry wins the upcomming elections he will find a way to extricate ourselves from the region and thus cause us to lose that critical military prescence.

Yeah...oil...right...

Because...it's not like the US sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Nor do we get a larger percentage of oil from South America than from the Middle East... And of course, who can forget, it's all about oil because we're spending billions of dollars on infrastructure - that's billions of dollars it would take over a decade to break even on.

Saddam was never a puppet - a 'friend' at one time against Iran - but not a puppet.

And the rest? Pure speculation on your part. Those all might be side-effects of the invasion, but the only one that really makes sense, an in an amazing twist of irony actually defends Bush's claims, is that about the CIA needing to re-assertain the location of Saddam's stockpile of WMDs.

Remember, if you will, Bush never claimed we were going for the sole purpose of the liberation of the Iraqi people - that has always played second fiddle to the elimination of an imminent threat to the US, Saddam Hussein and Co.

Yeah...oil...right...

Because...it's not like the US sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Nor do we get a larger percentage of oil from South America than from the Middle East... And of course, who can forget, it's all about oil because we're spending billions of dollars on infrastructure - that's billions of dollars it would take over a decade to break even on.

Yes, but that doesn't actually matter, we can spend billion of dollars on their infastructure, but if we have access to their oil source then we can artificially lower the price of a barrel when the Saudi's peak. Where we get our oil is irrelevant, it's a globally traded commodity with a global price.

When the Saudi oil fields start to decline in production we will have to restore that supply in addition to adding the 2.5% increases we're expecting each year.

Here's something you might not have known, the oil market is currently operating at 98% capacity. Yet OPEC cut its production, primarily because of the Saudi's, why? Why the push to drill ANWR? Where is the driving force for this? Why has Saudi Arabia for the last TEN years reported no loss of reserves even though they have pumped out over 10 Billion Barrels every year?

Why did Mathew Simmons, one of the Bush Energy advisors give THIS (http://www.csis.org/energy/040224_simmons.pdf) presentation on Saudi spare capacity?

You're pro-bush yet you think that a big oil texas president would be stupid enough to overlook and underestimate our energy needs and concerns? Why the lack of faith?

I'm not claiming that taking the oil was BAD, I'm claiming that it was GOOD.

Take the challenge then.

Kindly explain why iraq was invaded when your real opponent should have been Al Qaeda (last seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Alrighty then...

First, The "normal" argument I hear in opposition to the war in Iraq begins something like this... "We know that Saddam is a terrible man that murders his own people, but..."

What can follow that sentence fragment that is spectacular enough that this crustation on the anus of civilization at large should be even allowed to live much less rule a population?

You don't think he murdered anyone? How do you explain the mass graves? Bodies don't decompose quickly enough for those bodies to have been planted by the vile Americans.

Second, The WMD... We know that he had them. We helped get him started way back when Iran was a threat to American security. We kept the receipts.

Regardless of the whether or not we ever find a thermo-nuclear warhead, the weapons he did use, specifically the missile that hit Kuwait City, were specifically forbidden by UN resolution. For this political body to be effective, someone needs to enforce their decisions.

Don't believe me, try this experiment on a more managable level. Pass a rule in your opwn home or place of business and never enforce the rule. See if people obey your decree. Watch first hand how people begin to disregard the other rules you have established.

As for why he did use any weapons against our troops... Even if he had the weapons in reserve, why would he? Our troops were capable of handling a chemical or biological threat. What purpose would it have served besides rallyiong the rest of the world behind the US. Holding these devices in reserve would have much better served his cause.

Third, according to Congressional Documents, which are a matter of public record, Iraq has been considered a threat since the first gulf war. Even the Clinton administration, of memory serves, rated Saddam as a threat of greater magnitude that bin Laden. And we have seen the level of danger he posed.

Fourth, we know of at least three terrorist organizations are either based out of or supported by Iraq. ANO which claims credit for attacks in 20 countries, killing or injury approximately 900 people. The MEK/MKO/NLA which has been credited with assassinations, terrorist bombings, foreign military- aided assaults, and several large-scale overseas attacks. And the PLF which attacked the Italian ship Achille Lauro and murdered a US citizen

Lastly, the "play nice" policies that the US had adopted in recent years, in my opinion, was the leading factor in the terrorist attacks perpetrated against us. Sure we gave a few people a slap on the wrist, but, by and large, we had allowed ourselves to be a global punching bag. We needed to remind the world what it meant to flagrantly disregard the value of human life... Especially when that life had pledged allegiance to this flag.

Saddam just failed to learn a lesson every school age child learns eventually. If you don't want to get bit, don't tease a barking dog. Khadafi was quick to rally to our side in the war on terror. Was it because he was appalled at the deaths of innocent Americans? I doubt it. He lesson was hard learned and he remembered it.

We claim to know that bin Laden is in Pakistan. Why haven't we gotten them? Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. We needed to make our point without risking a nuclear war. The leaders of Pakistan would have nothing to lose by launching their missiles in a conflict. We couldn't take that chance, but we needed to make our point.

Now that I have outlined the reasons, let us suppose for a moment that I am wrong. What motivation would we have for a full scale invasion of Iraq? The common culprits are oil and cleaning up after daddy. Neither of these reasons holds up to any serious scrutiny.

The Persian Gulf needs to sell their oil to the US more than we need to buy it. We receive approximately 17% of our oil from that region of the globe. We consume about 50% of the oil used each day. Now I don't know about you, but paying 20% more at the pump, while irritating, would hurt me a lot less than losing half of your income.

As for the whole line of BS about finidshing what George HW Bush started, the first Persian Gulf War was a UN action. (I know it's difficult to distinguish since both of these conflicts involved a large number of Americans. Look for the ugly blue helmets.) Second, the president of the US does not have the authority to send this nation to war. He can plan, suggest, and advise, but he cannot make the declaration. This is the sole responsibility of the 535 members of the US congress. Unless GW was somehow able to conjole, bribe, and / or blackmail the majority of these individuals, this cannot be his war, nor can it be his father's war. Frankly, I don't think he's capable...

Ok, your turn.

It would seem that the major issue that folks have difficulty with is how the war with Iraq was 'sold'. The WMD threat, etc. Form lines right and left of this and then present points for or against President Bush.

The reality is that people would be forming the same lines and making the same statements only substituting the name Afganistan for Iraq if America had invaded that country prior to 9/11. Who knows how that would have been 'sold'. America would have had no real reason to invade based upon the feelings that there were terrorists there that threatened American interests and a government that supported them. The acts of terrorism against American interests were not upon American soil at that time. Does that mean that there was not a very good reason to make a pre-emptive strike, an action that might have impacted 9/11?

The war against Iraq, for all the posturing and hanky waving, was a pre-emptive strike. One taken because the American government elected to error on the side of protecting America from the next round of terrorism at home. Whether the threat was real or imagined is moot and rather meaningless at this point. You may argue right or wrong, good or bad, the deed is done and it was done to remove a future threat.

I would rather shoot a threatening dog than wait to see if it was rabid after having been bitten.