DaVinci

So, you think tresspassing is OK? Its OK to break a law as long as you are not a thug?

So just to get this right. R's are old stuipid people and D's are the only cool people around? The artical is all fluff with no backbone. I will admit it is written well and does a good job of getting the persons message accross, but it is nothing more than a childish rant. They defend ALL D's and attack ALL R's. And thats just stupid.

He said the LEAST amount of blood shed. A Ground invasion would have been worse than any of the other Islands combined. This is a country that perfered suicide to surrender in a large number of cases.

Nah. I said *think*, you said *think*. We can both think what we want. But I think that the Catholic Church has killed more people than Amway. I could be wrong

He never complied because he never provided proof. If you would like to refute me, please show me the list of arms we knew he had (since he used them, he had to have them right?) and what he did with them. He lied till all his materials were lost or destroyed. I don't see how you can claim that he complied when he never willingly allowed anything. But I do not expect anything else from you. So, I will just drop it. You are looking to make an enemy out of anyone but Saddam.

Warning shots are for movies. No agency I know of uses warning shots in real life. Do not discharge a gun unless you *must*. Then shoot to hit your target. This seemed to work out fine, they left and he did not have to shoot them.

HUMIT is the best form of intel on the planet. It is very easy to understand how a human on the scene would know more about what is going on next door than some guy sitting in a cube at the CIA, or some signal traffic picked up by the NSA. I agree. We just disagree on if it was needed or not. Or if Bush did his homework before hand. The truth? Both of us do not know.

The problem is that people will fight for religion without reguard for today. Heck, 50 Virgins could be cool once you get then all trained. And training them would not suck

Agreed. I think any religion taken to extreme is messed up. In fact, I don't follow any religion at all. I think the Catholic Church is the worst organization on the planet.

I can see this is going to go nowhere fast. Or he just claimed he had none. You might have been willing to risk it, the President with a ton more intel to look at than you didn't feel that way (This is where you claim he only looked at the intel he wanted, and I claim he looked at all he had and made choice based on risk levels of each choice). Congress, allowed him to do it and I bet they had more intel than you as well (This is where you claim Congress didn't vote to go to war, and I claim that they voted to allow the President to use force. You claim that it is not the same thing (which its not), but I claim that if they were unwilling to use force they should have said so then Not gone along with the popular opinion and then later claim they were tricked/forced.) I think he did look at all the intel he had and made a choice based on what he had and the risk of each course of action. You think he just had a hard on for war that he didn't care. Then when you find stuff he kicks you out and no one does anything for 6-7 years. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, I would not call that contained. The resolution said he had to prove he was disarmed. He played games and tried tricks for 12 years. The sactions worked because it took so long to do anything? Thats like claiming that when a guy that killed when he was 20 dies of Cancer at 80 that justice was served. I can see this is going nowhere, so I don't see a reason to go circles. I think Saddam played games. You will not admit he never willing complied. You think Bush looked for a war. I think he look at the intel he had and made a choice. You think the sanctions worked. I think they worked only since it took 12 years to do anything, not because he complied.

I think that is great, and a step forward. But it is a very small step. The problem is so deep that killing 1,000 people will not make it go away. They will just replace them and build more. The problem is with religion. Some will kill for money, some will kill for glory, but those that kill for "god" are the worse. Religions pray on the poor. People with low standards of living are willing to die as long as they have the promise of riches in the next life. The only solution would be to raise the standard of living so that young people are no longer willing to die for "god". Thats pretty much never going to happen. The next solution would be extermination. AKA Cruisades part II. The first one did not go well. I doubt this one would be much better. Containment, and border protection. About the only thing that will work, and it will only work on a limited scale. People will always break through. Extreme Muslims will not just stop. And you can't kill them all. And you can't ignore them.

An amendment is a stupid idea. I think congress could do better things as well. Maybe doing something to fight crime, or increase the school system.

If you have such proof, give it to congress and they should impeach him then.

He never complied since he was supposed to show he got rid of them. He never did that, so he never complied. He picked what intel described a threat to the US. That is not the same thing as picking only the things that lead to war. The cost of ignoring the intel, if it was correct, could have been very bad. You have a guy that is reported to have a loaded gun in a house. Some say it is not loaded, and others say he does not even have a gun. He says he will see you destroyed and rotting in hell. What do you do? I said I would have supported more time. But I am willing to bet that there is plenty of intel that said that terrorists already have plans in motion in the US right now. I also bet that we as civilians do not have access to them. The great thing about intel is that it normally says a bunch of things. Sometimes the same thing, other times different. The objective was to disarm, not contain. The UN team in 98 said he had them. And that he had plans to build more. Why didn't anything happen then? Yep Saddam was to blame.

I honestly think that if you got off the "hatred of Bush, must blame Bush for everything" thing you would see we agree more than you think. That and the "anyone that disagrees with me is a NAZI, or a KKK member" thing. Like I have said several times, you seem pretty smart and well read. It is a shame you result to bumper sticker defenses.

I don't know what planet you are from. Lets look at one of my posts shall we? How about the one above yours? Yes, finally you admit it. Anyone that supported the war has a bit of fault. Not just one guy. You only want to blame one guy, but he could not have done it on his own. He may have wanted to do it, but without public support Congress would never have given the OK. So I blame Saddam for not complying for 12 years. The UN for not doing anything for 12 years. The Intelligence groups for bad information. Bush for moving in that direction. Congress for voting to allow it. And even myself for supporting it. That does not sound like I am making an apology and letting Bush off. I said I blame him, I also blame the others. You see anyone that does not want Bush's head on a pike as an "apologist". That just means you have such a hatred that you don't both to look at any information that does not jive with your feelings.

So? That does not mean he does not. It just means you have not caught him. And what does "may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint" mean? Sounds like you think he twists things to fit his agenda. Thats is quite close to lying.

Maybe you should make titles that don't make you look like a violent guy looking to shoot someone? My point was that your choice of titles gives the impression that people who are pro gun like violence. And you proved my point by becoming defensive.

And the mighty keystrokes had 12 years of Saddams tricks to back them up. It would also not be the first time that Saddam had fooled the inspectors. The simple fact is he never did comply with the resolution. He did make some efforts near the end, but that was after the US stopped just standing by and doing nothing like the UN had done for years. Hey, I would have been OK with more time for the inspectors. But I also know that there is information that being a private citizen I do not know about. So, if the Intelligence community can convince the President, The House, and The Senate. Then they might know more than me, or you don't you think? Or maybe it conflicted with the past 12 years of dealing with Saddam. How many times do you play the same game, by the same rules and expect a different result? But the other teams were your team as well, and they were wrong. Even when the team came back and said that he was up to no good, the UN did nothing. Yes, finally you admit it. Anyone that supported the war has a bit of fault. Not just one guy. You only want to blame one guy, but he could not have done it on his own. He may have wanted to do it, but without public support Congress would never have given the OK. So I blame Saddam for not complying for 12 years. The UN for not doing anything for 12 years. The Intelligence groups for bad information. Bush for moving in that direction. Congress for voting to allow it. And even myself for supporting it. As you said he is not the first and will not be the last. The next election will most likely be won by a Democrat. That might not be bad, except that it might be just because they are a Democrat and not based on anything else.

??????? I blame them all. Your desire to place the balme on one man you hate does not become you. It is too easy to place blame on one man for all of this. I would rather all the people at fault be held accountable so this can be prevented next time. Not to just let a personal hatred of one man make my choices for me.

That is a very lame attempt at a defense. If found guilty, the troops should face UCMJ. Of course some here already found them quilty. And an IED is a weapon that will allow you to return fire. So some of those "unarmed" might not have been. But unlike most on here, I will not absolve them nor convict them of their actions based on a news report.

Like it or not, when the US decided to be the "Adult" of the world, they put themselves into a position that requires a higher standard. I expect better of the troops. I expect Terrorists to act like that, but not soldiers. Of course, this is the first report and may be wrong. So I would not hang the troops yet. But if they are breaking ROE, then they should face UCMJ action.

As so your definitions change to fit your needs...Got it.

Wow, so one guy posts a good answer and all you can reply with is a KKK reference? Shame, like I said before you seem smart, but you say really out there things.

And you put yourself with Jesus and George Washington. Nice to know that.