America - The Official Thread

[MrktMkr1986]

I can't really complain about anything in his record other than the law requiring wives to tell their husbands about abortions.

He actually rejected a partial birth abortion ban in New Jersey on the grounds that it was unconstitutional - which is encouraging. But he was doing it from a point of view of precedent... he wouldn't necessarily do the same thing on the supreme court.

Other than that he seems like a fine choice - though I would have preferred Janice Brown.

I think I can see why.

Bias...I would say he is consistant.

Yes... consistantly biased.

Seriously, though -- he's a right-wing activist.

 

[Swift]

Seriously, though -- he's a right-wing activist.

Right wing activist? Well, I'd have to disagree. I know that he's a conservative, but I wouldn't say he's an extremist.

 

[Danoff]

Why is that such a big deal? They are married. A legal binding commitment to each other. I can see it, maybe, if they aren't married, but in this case it simply makes sense. If the wife agreed to the sex with a man, then what gives her the right to make the decision without her husband.

What are the legally required to do for each other? What other operations on her body is a wife required to inform her husband about? Should a wife be required to inform her husband of a hair cut? Or breast enlargement? Or laser eye surgery? Should she be required to inform him if she is taking "the pill" or any other medication?

It's her body, she owns it. If she decides to have an abortion she should be able to do that without notifying anyone.

What if her husband is in the military and cannot be contacted for a few months - and she feels that it is wrong to perform an abortion at that stage.

I can think of a thousand reasons why it is inconsistent and restrictive. But the bottom line is that (if you believe as I do) it is her body, she owns it, she should have complete control over it.

 

[Danoff]

Seriously, though -- he's a right-wing activist.

I think you're using the term liberally .

A right-wing activist would not strike down a partial birth abortion ban.

 

[Swift]

What if her husband is in the military and cannot be contacted for a few months - and she feels that it is wrong to perform an abortion at that stage.

That's actually part of the law

I can think of a thousand reasons why it is inconsistent and restrictive. But the bottom line is that (if you believe as I do) it is her body, she owns it, she should have complete control over it.

Well, in a marriage, 2 become one. and if you can't trust your spouse with information resulting from a JOINT action, then you shouldn't be married. If they both agreed to the sex, then they both should have a say in the outcome of it. That's only fair in my mind. Because she CAN'T make a baby without her husband. So he had direct input to the pregnancy.

Anyway, that's all from another thread.

 

[ledhed]

I need to know more about this guy .

 

[FoolKiller]

What are the legally required to do for each other? What other operations on her body is a wife required to inform her husband about? Should a wife be required to inform her husband of a hair cut? Or breast enlargement? Or laser eye surgery? Should she be required to inform him if she is taking "the pill" or any other medication?

It's her body, she owns it. If she decides to have an abortion she should be able to do that without notifying anyone.

What if her husband is in the military and cannot be contacted for a few months - and she feels that it is wrong to perform an abortion at that stage.

I can think of a thousand reasons why it is inconsistent and restrictive. But the bottom line is that (if you believe as I do) it is her body, she owns it, she should have complete control over it.

My issue with this situation comes from the fact that if that baby is born then the father is required to provide for that child even if he doesn't want to. If they get a divorce and the father says he wants nothing to do with the child a court can still make him pay child support. So I feel that if a woman can abort a baby without the father knowing or even if teh father knows and opposes then he, even if married, should be able to absolve himself of all responsibility of that child.

This is my general problem with many abortion rights people is that it is none of the father's (or anyone else's) business when they want an abortion, but if they want to keep that child then the father should be helping, someone else killing it prenatally is guilty of manslaughter/murder, and they suddenly want the government to intervene and give them money, shelter, food, and healthcare.

They need to decide if it is anyone elses responsibility and if it is a human or not.

That rant aside, and back on topic, I don't have any major issues with this new nominee from what I have heard so far. The abortion case we have been discussing I am actually out on because I am trying to weigh the difference between my argument I gave above or the one Danoff has given. I see both sides and I am trying to decide which I agree with more.

I could easily forgive one case that I disagree with. So far I don't see anything that just makes me not want to see the guy on the bench.

 

[Swift]

My issue with this situation comes from the fact that if that baby is born then the father is required to provide for that child even if he doesn't want to. If they get a divorce and the father says he wants nothing to do with the child a court can still make him pay child support. So I feel that if a woman can abort a baby without the father knowing or even if teh father knows and opposes then he, even if married, should be able to absolve himself of all responsibility of that child.

That's a really good point that I hadn't thought of before. Thanks.

 

[Danoff]

My issue with this situation comes from the fact that if that baby is born then the father is required to provide for that child even if he doesn't want to. If they get a divorce and the father says he wants nothing to do with the child a court can still make him pay child support. So I feel that if a woman can abort a baby without the father knowing or even if teh father knows and opposes then he, even if married, should be able to absolve himself of all responsibility of that child.

Agreed.

someone else killing it prenatally is guilty of manslaughter/murder, and they suddenly want the government to intervene

The issue of someone else causing a miscarriage is an interesting one. Since it is part of the mother it is akin to someone cutting off her arm or leg - perhaps worse than that since the destruction of potential offspring could be seen as even more serious (even by people who don't think it's a baby yet). So I can understand harsh penalties if someone harms the fetus against the mother's will (even if it's the father).

 

[Duke]

I don't mean to interrupt the abortion debate, but I want to keep this out of the WWIII thread.

I'm sorry, isn't this the opinions Forum? My opinion is that the US went to the Iraq war not to take down a despot and give freedom and democracy to the country... if that were true, there are at least 20 other countries that should be first in line (Cuba, Venezuela, Rwanda for starters). I'm just working on the conspiracy theory and on the fact that it's all about money. Oil money in this case.

Yes, it is the opinions forum, and you are of course entitled to have one. Calling it an 'opinion' does not automatically free you from the reponsibility to back it up with facts, particularly not if you expect to be taken seriously and have a discussion based on your opinion.

Which is precisely what I asked you to do, and precisely what you just declined to do. So therefore I'm under no obligation to give your opinion any consideration until you do provide some evidence.

And do I detect a hint of aggression in the tone of your first sentence?

In the 1940s the war was a great way to boost the conomy and bring the country out of a decade-long recession. I believe that is one of the reasons why the US hasn't pulled out of this war; because they're still waiting for that boost to occur.

Most of the reason WWII was a great way to 'boost the economy' is that the US initiated defecit spending on a then-unprecedented scale. Much of the boost also came from these huge development investments in infrastructure and private-sphere industrial capacity, funded during the war, which where then able to be utilized with great economic efficiency for civillian uses after the war. It is, after all, pretty damn easy to turn a profit when somebody else is paying the bulk of your startup costs.

While they are not smart enough to reverse the trend of massive and increasing defecit spending, the government is at least smart enough to realize that there will be no alleged BOOST from staying involved in this war now. Those second-tier efficiencies are not going to come into effect in this day and age, because the nature of the war costs and the industrial program has changed.

Most of the news here in Spain and in South America stuck to the news of the plane being shot down by "defensive" measures taken by the US government. Keep in mind that although Bush and his administration are not very liked here in Spain, movies like Fahrennheit 9/11 and anything that has to do with the demise of Bush are celebrated.

Honestly, demonstrate to me why I should care what the news in Spain or South America says on the subject of the crashed flight. They can say whatever they want - but it does not automatically become true just because they say it. And you're admitting that there is bias against the Bush administration, which only weakens the Spanish press's case.

 

[FoolKiller]

The issue of someone else causing a miscarriage is an interesting one. Since it is part of the mother it is akin to someone cutting off her arm or leg - perhaps worse than that...

So an abortion is essentially like getting a tumor removed or an appendix taken out? I've heard some people talk about it lik it is a parasite.

So, when it is wanted it is a part of the mother, but when it isn't wanted it is an appendix or parasite or tumor? This is what I don't get. From my point of view it seems like it is a crime to kill it when it is wanted but perfecly legal to kill it when it is not wanted.

 

[Danoff]

So an abortion is essentially like getting a tumor removed or an appendix taken out? I've heard some people talk about it lik it is a parasite.

So, when it is wanted it is a part of the mother, but when it isn't wanted it is an appendix or parasite or tumor? This is what I don't get. From my point of view it seems like it is a crime to kill it when it is wanted but perfecly legal to kill it when it is not wanted.

Moved to the abortion thread.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

My mistake...


In order for the US to dominate the world, you'd think it would destroy all dictatorships... but no...

Why do we ignore some dictators but take it upon ourselves to depose others?

For example, Sani Abacha (dictator of Nigeria) is left alone...
We never complained about Batista in Cuba...
P.W. Botha in South Africa never needed a "regime change"...
Ngo Dihn Diem was never deposed [by the US] (his own people killed him -- that's how bad he was)...
Samuel Doe of Liberia... Papa Doc and Baby Doc...King Fahd...Franco...Hitler... and my favorite of them all: Pinochet.

None of these dictators needed a regime change... why?

 

[Danoff]

In order for the US to dominate the world, you'd think it would destroy all dictatorships... but no...

Why do we ignore some dictators but take it upon ourselves to depose others?

For example, Sani Abacha (dictator of Nigeria) is left alone...
We never complained about Batista in Cuba...
P.W. Botha in South Africa never needed a "regime change"...
Ngo Dihn Diem was never deposed (his own people killed him -- that's how bad he was)...
Samuel Doe of Liberia... Papa Doc and Baby Doc...King Fahd...Franco...Hitler... and my favorite of them all: Pinochet.

None of these dictators needed a regime change... why?

Because it is more strategic to remove some dictators than others. Besides, it takes slightly more than the government structure to justify an invasion. We, of course, had more justification than that for the Iraq war.

But mostly it's a strategic position. We could make the case for war with lots of countries. We choose some but not others because we see more benefit in it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Because it is more strategic to remove some dictators than others. Besides, it takes slightly more than the government structure to justify an invasion. We, of course, had more justification than that for the Iraq war.

But mostly it's a strategic position. We could make the case for war with lots of countries. We choose some but not others because we see more benefit in it.

What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?

It's OK to segregate and oppress Black people (Botha 👎 ) as long as you don't nationalize your oil fields? (Mossadegh)

 

[Danoff]

What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?

It's OK to segregate and oppress Black people (Botha 👎 ) as long as you don't nationalize your oil fields? (Mossadegh)

It sends the message that we pick our battles. We don't simply send our troops in to die for other people's causes - there has to be benefit for us as well. I think practically every nation on the planet does the same thing.

From a practical point of view I think it makes sense to go where the combination of justification and benefit is the strongest.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It sends the message that we pick our battles. We don't simply send our troops in to die for other people's causes - there has to be benefit for us as well. I think practically every nation on the planet does the same thing.

From a practical point of view I think it makes sense to go where the combination of justification and benefit is the strongest.

I agree! -- Which is why we started Operation Iraqi Liberation, (according to Brzezinski) in the first place.

Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..."

Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power

It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space [the Middle East] and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat [hmmm... 9/11, maybe?]

 

[Diego440]

And do I detect a hint of aggression in the tone of your first sentence?

No, just harmless cynicism.

Honestly, demonstrate to me why I should care what the news in Spain or South America says on the subject of the crashed flight. They can say whatever they want - but it does not automatically become true just because they say it. And you're admitting that there is bias against the Bush administration, which only weakens the Spanish press's case.

Well, you don't have to care about it... but it helps if you're aware. Strategically speaking, it would've been the best choice to shoot it down: there are planes crashing against US landmarks, there is one plane in an area where it shouldn't be, what would the recommended course of action be? Shoot it down and ask questions later.

Because it is more strategic to remove some dictators than others. Besides, it takes slightly more than the government structure to justify an invasion. We, of course, had more justification than that for the Iraq war.

But mostly it's a strategic position. We could make the case for war with lots of countries. We choose some but not others because we see more benefit in it.

Which further supports MrktMkr1986's position of wars being a financial opportunity for companies around the globe? I'm sorry, did you say that? I may have read that somewhere else.

The view and reasons of the Iraq war that Europeans see may not be the same as the US. The reason why most European countries rejected the war is because they have already lived in it. True, the US helped some parts of Europe to come out of the war (WWII), but that doesn't mean they want to go at it again. Countries like Germany, Russia, UK, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Italy and many others know what it is to fight a war from your own backyard, and that's the main reason why they reject US policy. Of course, all this is Vox Populi, taken from experience and conversations.

By all means, feel free to pick it

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Which further supports MrktMkr1986's position of wars being a financial opportunity for companies around the globe? I'm sorry, did you say that? I may have read that somewhere else.

I did say that...

I still maintain that corporations instigate wars for profit. They have lobbyists who bribe Congressmen and "think tanks" that trick federal agencies into spreading corporate propaganda.

The United States is the world's largest consumer of oil .... Much of the world's oil lies beneath Iraq and its Gulf neighbors... experts say oil played a significant role in the decision to confront Iraq.

 

[Danoff]

Which further supports MrktMkr1986's position of wars being a financial opportunity for companies around the globe? I'm sorry, did you say that? I may have read that somewhere else.

Corporations? Being the reason we go to war? Not seeing it. They would be better off fighting to get tax dollars outright rather than trying to get it incidently after a war is faught (that, by the way, is what they do).

There are plenty of political and strategic reasons for wanting to go to war.

President Bush is accused often of being stupid. I agree that he isn't the smartest guy around - but which US president was a genious? Certainly not Bill. You'd have to go pretty far back in the list to find a US president that could be considered a scholar among scholars.

President Bush did not want to invade Iraq for personal or corporate gain. He isn't good enough at speaking or smart enough to be able to cover that well. He certainly is too religious to do something that heinous. It quite simply isn't him. What IS him is very much more like what he said.

Bush (and many others) saw an opportunity in Iraq. They saw the opportunity to spread democracy to a region that is highly anti-democratic. They saw an opportunity to stem terrorism at the base.

That is what I mean when I say that some countries are more strategic to invade than others. Iraq was a strategic point in the war on terror, and we chose it because of that. We also happened to be justified (several ways) in inavding, but that isn't why we chose it.

This is a point of confusion for many anti-Iraq-war folks. They see an inconsistency in the choice of Iraq over say... north Korea. Both were justified, why pick the one with oil? The reason is because the one with oil also happens to be the one that makes for the best place to fight terrorism.

Our president is not an evil mastermind. He's a fairly simply minded individual (which is why people like him - he says what he thinks). He told us up front why we're going over there... to fight terrorism. The WMD's were an attempt at justification, they happened to be the most risky justification he could have picked. There were several other reasons we were justified.

The view and reasons of the Iraq war that Europeans see may not be the same as the US. The reason why most European countries rejected the war is because they have already lived in it. True, the US helped some parts of Europe to come out of the war (WWII), but that doesn't mean they want to go at it again. Countries like Germany, Russia, UK, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Italy and many others know what it is to fight a war from your own backyard, and that's the main reason why they reject US policy. Of course, all this is Vox Populi, taken from experience and conversations.

The US is also familiar with war in our back yard. We have fought many wars on our soil. WWII came to our soil. We even fought two wars with England on our soil. Hell we fought OURSELVES on our soil.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Corporations? Being the reason we go to war? Not seeing it. They would be better off fighting to get tax dollars outright rather than trying to get it incidently after a war is faught (that, by the way, is what they do).

That's short-term thinking...

Bush (and many others) saw an opportunity in Iraq. They saw the opportunity to spread democracy to a region that is highly anti-democratic. They saw an opportunity to stem terrorism at the base.

Yet 15 out of the 19 hijackers (supposedly, because there is some speculation that some of the hijackers are still alive -- i.e. stolen IDs were probably used) came from Saudi Arabia... a dictatorship. Why are we friendly with them? They are highly anti-democratc, as were the previous despots that I mentioned.

The reason is because the one with oil also happens to be the one that makes for the best place to fight terrorism.

With that chain of logic we should be attacking Nigeria and Saudi Arabia then. They both have oil, they're both dictatorships, and they're both predominantly Muslim. The latter supplied 15 out of the 19 hijackers, and 70% of the former's population are Muslim.

Our president is not an evil mastermind.

Of course, not. But corporate PACs and "think tanks" are very powerful.

He's a fairly simply minded individual (which is why people like him - he says what he thinks). He told us up front why we're going over there... to fight terrorism. The WMD's were an attempt at justification, they happened to be the most risky justification he could have picked. There were several other reasons we were justified.

Why not just call it what it is?

 

[Duke]

Why do we ignore some dictators but take it upon ourselves to depose others?

None of these dictators needed a regime change... why?

Do you do this as an excercise, or what?

Most of the people you mention - with a few exceptions - where not dangers to anyone outside their own countries. They may have been brutal to their own citizens; no denying that, and from a purely humanitarian standpoint they deserved to be removed. But until we get down to Saddam Hussein, the majority of them were NO threat to the international scene.

And regardless of the ever-popular WMDs, Hussein had actually invaded his neighboring country and had actually launched real missles into Israel.

Castro we didn't dare attack directly out of detente with the Soviets.

Franco and Hitler came to power during a period of very pervasive and strong sense of Isolationism in the US. Of course, once that was isolationist sentiment was broken, we managed to help out a little in removing Hitler from power. With Franco, of course, the issue of how much of a threat was Spain to the rest of Europe is a deciding factor in our failure to invade Spain.

 

[Danoff]

That's short-term thinking...

It's much more solid than trying to get a war and counting on the contracts after the war is initiated. It's also much more moral (though still immoral) and much easier.

Yet 15 out of the 19 hijackers (supposedly, because there is some speculation that some of the hijackers are still alive -- i.e. stolen IDs were probably used) came from Saudi Arabia... a dictatorship. Why are we friendly with them? They are highly anti-democratc, as were the previous despots that I mentioned.

The justification was not there for Saudi Arabia. It WAS there for Iraq.

With that chain of logic we should be attacking Nigeria and Saudi Arabia then. They both have oil and they're both dictatorships. The latter supplied 15 out of the 19 hijackers, and 70% of the former's population are Muslim.

You're still looking at one side of the equation. To go to war we need a justification and a reason (not necessarily the same thing).

The justification to go to war with Iraq was the violation of the cease fire argreement of the first gulf war.

The REASON to go to war with Iraq was to create a democracy in an anti-democratic, anti-American region.

 

[Diego440]

President Bush is accused often of being stupid. I agree that he isn't the smartest guy around - but which US president was a genious? Certainly not Bill. You'd have to go pretty far back in the list to find a US president that could be considered a scholar among scholars.

You said that, not I

President Bush did not want to invade Iraq for personal or corporate gain... saw the opportunity to spread democracy to a region that is highly anti-democratic.

Sorry, Dan, I just can't buy that. There's too much data backing up the opposite (Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary for instance)

why pick the one with oil?

Because the US pays a lot for oil already. Why not make the war in a place where we can later keep the oil, or at least get it at a cheaper price? Also, attacking Iraq and not North Korea is very strange, especially since NK had claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the U.S.

The most commonly heard criticism prior to the war, at least outside the US, was that the reason to got o war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraq's natural resources. In March 2003 protests around the world used the slogan "no Blood for Oil".

He told us up front why we're going over there... to fight terrorism. The WMD's were an attempt at justification, they happened to be the most risky justification he could have picked. There were several other reasons we were justified.

I think it was Niky who spoke of the lack of connection between Saddam and 9/11. The WMD's were the actual reason the US used to get authorization from the UN to attack Iraq.

An investigative report published by Knight-Ridder in early October of 2002 showed that US intelligence analysts had serious misgivings about invading Iraq. The report showed that intelligence officials largely found no evidence to support the Bush administration's position that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat, but they were being squelched, while at the same time the intelligence community was being placed under intense pressure to find justification for Bush's position.

The US is also familiar with war in our back yard. We have fought many wars on our soil. WWII came to our soil. We even fought two wars with England on our soil. Hell we fought OURSELVES on our soil.

WWII? Oh, you mean Pearl Harbor? Well, PH was a military base. And the two wars with England as well as the Civil War were a loooong time ago. None of those wars do compare with war nowadays (not including WWII).

EDIT: I changed the last sentence, since it referred to another thread.

 

[Diego440]

With Franco, of course, the issue of how much of a threat was Spain to the rest of Europe is a deciding factor in our failure to invade Spain.

Plus, Spain didn't really fight against anyone in WWII.

 

[Danoff]

You said that, not I

That's who people elect. What can I say?

Sorry, Dan, I just can't buy that. There's too much data backing up the opposite (Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary for instance)

Fahrenheit 9/11??? Seriously??? You're trying to take facts from that peice of fiction? I can see we're not going to get very far here.

Because the US pays a lot for oil already. Why not make the war in a place where we can later keep the oil, or at least get it at a cheaper price? Also, attacking Iraq and not North Korea is very strange, especially since NK had claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the U.S.

It's like you're not even reading what I wrote. Read this:

It would have been cheaper to BUY the oil (yes even long term) than invade. It is not the reason we invaded. We invaded as an attempt to stem terrorism.

The most commonly heard criticism prior to the war, at least outside the US, was that the reason to got o war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraq's natural resources. In March 2003 protests around the world used the slogan "no Blood for Oil".

Maybe it's common, but it's wrong.

I think it was Niky who spoke of the lack of connection between Saddam and 9/11. The WMD's were the actual reason the US used to get authorization from the UN to attack Iraq.

The connection is regional. No other connection is required (see what I wrote about the justification for war earlier). The presence of a democracy in the region will affect the mentality of the people there.

WWII? Oh, you mean Pearl Harbor? Well, PH was a military base. And the two wars with England as well as the Civil War were a loooong time ago. None of those wars would compare to the chance of the world fighting against the US, now would it?

What are you talking about?

 

[Diego440]

What are you talking about?

yeah yeah, I edited it. I was referring to the fact that the wars with England and the Civil War are somewhat different from the concept of war nowadays. Since the invention of the machine gun (yeah, it was in the Civil War, but a primitive version of it), war has suffered a de-personalization, in which it's not one man against another, but basically a unit against another. Casualties have skyrocketed since then and it has become deadlier. I'm not sure if you get the point here?

 

[Swift]

yeah yeah, I edited it. I was referring to the fact that the wars with England and the Civil War are somewhat different from the concept of war nowadays. Since the invention of the machine gun (yeah, it was in the Civil War, but a primitive version of it), war has suffered a de-personalization, in which it's not one man against another, but basically a unit against another. Casualties have skyrocketed since then and it has become deadlier. I'm not sure if you get the point here?

While the gatling gun certainly had an impact, it still isn't anything like being able to use a stealth bomber and slip a fuel to air bomb on an unsuspecting army.

It's become impersonal because you don't have to shoot another soldier anymore. You can bomb the mess out of them and call it a day. Like the first Gulf War.

It would be interesting to know how the casualties stacked up if you did it per capita. Not so much how many soldiers died, but how much of a particular force was lost.

 

[Duke]

Casualties have skyrocketed since then and it has become deadlier.

Actually, that's totally untrue. Quite the opposite is true, in fact.

In Iraq, the US has lost just over 2000 troops in two+ years, or ~1000 per year.

In Viet Nam, the US lost a little over 47,000 troops in a little over 10 years, or about ~4700 per year.

In WWII, the US lost just over 291,000 troops in about 4 years, or ~73,000 per year.

In WWI, despite our short involvement, the US lost 53,000 troops in 2 years, or ~26,000 per year.

In the American Civil War, we lost about 220,000 troops in 4 years, or about ~55,000 per year.

These are actual battle deaths, not including other losses in service.

 

[ledhed]

You said that, not I



Sorry, Dan, I just can't buy that. There's too much data backing up the opposite (Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary for instance)



Because the US pays a lot for oil already. Why not make the war in a place where we can later keep the oil, or at least get it at a cheaper price? Also, attacking Iraq and not North Korea is very strange, especially since NK had claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the U.S.

The most commonly heard criticism prior to the war, at least outside the US, was that the reason to got o war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraq's natural resources. In March 2003 protests around the world used the slogan "no Blood for Oil".



I think it was Niky who spoke of the lack of connection between Saddam and 9/11. The WMD's were the actual reason the US used to get authorization from the UN to attack Iraq.





WWII? Oh, you mean Pearl Harbor? Well, PH was a military base. And the two wars with England as well as the Civil War were a loooong time ago. None of those wars do compare with war nowadays (not including WWII).

EDIT: I changed the last sentence, since it referred to another thread.

Here's your problem in a nutshell , you think " Fahrenheit 9/11" was a documentary . since that farce has been seriously dismantled and exposed for the propaganda story it is , I find it impossible to debate with someone who uses it at a base for an opinion...in effect " I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed oponent " .