aramike

quote: Your knee-jerk defense to anything anti-Bush/anti-Republican is something you should look at. Huh? Do you actually READ? Where / how am I defending Bush / Republicans? I'm simply pointing out that your arguments and assertions of that, SOMEHOW, the Presidency would be involved in individuals leaving the country is ABSURD. In fact, YOU'RE the one leveling the accusations against Republicans / Bush; your sources are simply calling it like it is. That would seem to indicate that the only "knee-jerking" here would be yours. Evidently, everything that *MAY* have gone wrong must be SOMEHOW related to Bush and Republicans, right? Read what I wrote again. I'm in the middle - not you. Why is it that your only defense of your CLEAR errors always involves you attempting to malign someone else with YOUR follys? I'll tell you what - I've read the rest of your rant and find it to be absurd as usual. So here's the deal: If your basing the Iraq War being flawed on that it is unconstitutional I'm just going to wait (and wait, and wait, and wait) until you show me how. And then I'll address the rest of these absurdities. You think that I'm blindly a Bush backer, somehow. I've demonstrated several times that I am not and that I'm an issue-by-issue individual. I think you're just hiding the fact that your BLINDLY anti-war. So prove it. Show me how its unconstitutional and we'll carry on.

I wouldn't read anything into the trailer, as they are produced more by sales people than anyone really associated with the film or the story.

quote: If you would read the original link I provided, FBI documents were recently released (After both the 9/11 Commission Report & the Snopes article) which were in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. I concede the point that the planes took off during a time in which general aviation was not fully grounded. However - that does not negate the point that bin Laden's relatives got out of this country virtually unquestioned and with this latest report it appears that Osama helped arrange it. If true - this puts an interesting light on our friends the Saudis whom are your favorite terror sponsors to ignore. *Kool Aid ALERT!!!* If that was your whole point, $ilk, then why did you attempt to back it up with this: quote: I do indeed find it curious that this could happen considering Bush had ordered all planes grounded. The F.B.I. is a part of the executive branch.Furthermore, where did you even GET that idea as in the documents backing up the very story you cited state otherwise? Forget "strawmanning". Try, "grasping at straws". Even IF there's something to this, it would be more of an indictment of the FBI and NOT Bush. To suggest so is pure silliness and shows a total lack of understanding on how the government and its agencies work. ...and this is particularly funny: quote: ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADENTHE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUNDMust've been Bin Laden, right? Couldn't be the "OR", could it? This is why it is important to maintain at least SOME semblance of objectivity. It would suggest that you're simply reading what you want it to say. The sad part is that you really want it to say those things. Tsk.

*Phew* Common sense prevails...

quote: What was covered up until now is that Bin Laden directly financed and planned his relatives exit from the United States... or didn't you bother reading?Apparently YOU weren't bothering to read in 2002 when this was originally reported. Good coverup. You'd do better to stick to your actual logical libertarian arguments against the war than to go with Michael Moore-style talking points. Oh yeah, and that report was later DEBUNKED by the same 9/11 Commission who's report you love to revel in: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp You should try researching your allegations a little more. quote: I do indeed find it curious that this could happen considering Bush had ordered all planes grounded. The F.B.I. is a part of the executive branch. Umm, unfortunately for your argument, it didn't happen while all planes were grounded. Oops. quote: The head of the executive branch is George W. Bush. He is responsible for those under his command - even if he couldn't stop it at the time - he owes it to the United States to find answers instead of piling up a huge denial to hide behind.Yeah, sure, buddy. Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

quote: I find it curious that no other planes were allowed off the ground after 9/11 - but Bin laden's relatives had U.S. airspace to themselves without being questioned. The F.B.I. further covered this up by redacting all information until Judicial Watch (a Conservative group) sued them under the Freedom of Information Act. Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here." Where does the buck stop with you? You're repeating yourself. It is a common and acknowledged fact that Bin Laden's relatives left the country after 9/11. It is also a KNOWN FACT that the FBI allowed this to happen. Now unless you're STUPID enough to pretend that POTUS should be directly overseeing the operations of the justice department, ESPECIALLY during a time of INTERNATIONAL CRISIS, you should probably drop this point as it really has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. I mean, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - someone that somehow thinks the Iraq war is unConstitutional (while also not providing HOW after SEVERAL requests) WOULD probably be someone that thinks that the government works in such a way that POTUS would be able to oversee such an action by the FBI...

quote: This list isn't exhaustive by any means: I dislike seeing the russians meddling in a few former USSR republics, I dislike seeing the chinese meddling in Tibet...I agree on those two points. Considering the former, I especially find this meddling dangerous as Putin seems to be attempting to centralize control. quote: Btw I can give you a list of over 30 countries where the USA have intervened since WW2, and in some cases even induced the fall of DEMOCRATICALLY elected regimes, but why do I suppose that this does not interest you the slightest ?There are things we have done that I have both agreed and disagreed with. I'm more concerned with the right now. Your list doesn't concern me in the slightest not because it is unimportant but because it is irrelevent to this discussion. quote: Therefore yes I do have an agenda: everybody at HOME. So, now your turn, what's your agenda ? "Free" the world, and as UNEXPECTED side effect induce the creation of a global order which circumstancially should be as sympathetic as possible towards US interests ? Did you forget that there may be an unintended side-effect to "everybody at HOME"? I support something in between. A global order would indeed be disastrous however to bury our heads in sand and xenophobia could be equally disastrous. quote: But they didn't, and there's a reason why they didn't: the foreseeable mess you are in today, and unfortunately, the mess you have caused not only in ONE country, but the direct destabilizing repercussions on the four other countries lying around. Yeah, the French have forsight. Kinda like the forseeable mess their workers protection laws have thrust their economy into. Good one, buddy. And isn't it amazing that when there are over 15 murders (IIRC) in Chicago over a recent weekend it makes 3rd page news. But where to do you think the headline "5 Iraqis Killed" was placed? That's not destablization - that's media bias. As to why France didn't go to Iraq, here's a quote from Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Minister of Foreign affairs: we didn't go militarily into Iraq because President Chirac clearly said that France will always be on the side of international law which has to be decreed by the international community and so by the United Nations. As we don't think that unilateralism is a way of responding to crises, he chose not to go into Iraq militarily. Umm, care to explain to him what the term "unilateral" means? Furthermore, if we use his context wouldn't the conflict have been even "LESS unilateral" if France had signed on? Even so, doesn't seem that foresight had a lot to do with it... And if you're SO concerned about globalization, this kind of thinking out of France should frighten you - not make you feel vindicated.

I'm blown away at how long these parents tried to reason with this twerp. I would have pulled the plug after I told him twice.

quote: Bush can't do anything about the Saudis who got flights out of the U.S. without being questioned - even though it turns out Bin Laden may have directly financed and arranged their departure according to the FBI?Yeah, you're right - the president of the US has time to micro-manage every little detail of a nation of nearly 300 million people. I know you can't help yourself but to be anti-Bush about EVERYTHING thusly overcoming your ability to objectively see issues individually, but I'm going to ask that you try. quote: Or IIRC, the current administration has also been caught publishing propaganda disguised as what appeared as real documentaries or interviews on US medias.LOL! That's rich. If its BAD news its credible media at work, and if its GOOD news it MUST be mere propaganda... I tend to know that the situation as a whole is somewhere in between. I guess its hard to arrive at that conclusion if you have an agenda, however...

Again we double back into the tired argument of not doing what we CAN do because of the other things we can do nothing about.

quote: Originally posted by MattV: It's just part of building the socialist state we'll all soon be living under. The socialists in this country are quickly - and not quietly - gaining in strength and numbers, and everyone seems to be content to just let them. What happened after the National Socialist Party gained control of Germany in the 1930s? Word.

quote: Quoted it out of context. Go back 2 exchanges to what led to the judicial review remark. I was discussing that I believed that the Supreme Court should take on the War Powers Act and you whined that I was calling for legislation from the bench when I was calling for judicial review. Resolution or not - it is Public Law 93-148 and has the force of law. The Constitution is very clear that Congress has the authority to declare - i.e. commence war, raise troops, provide funding. The Executive has the power to manage the war. It is called division of power. Allowing the Executive to start conflicts I believe is indeed unconstitutional. OK, what point are you making? We've gone over this 80 times now - where in the Constitution does it prevent Congress from resting power with the Executive to go to war? Are you going to answer that or just continue to call it unconstitutional for the heck of it? If you're arguing that its open to judicial review, you're dead wrong. We don't live in the UK where almost all policy IS open to judicial review. In the US only STATUTES are eligible. The judiciary has absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to review a resolution passed by congress simply because they may believe that it is against an earlier resolution (war powers act) as it is completely legal for the legislative branch to, in effect, change its mind with a majority vote (UNLESS they ammend the Constitution, which in this case, they have not). quote: Guess I'll rely on Reuters to state the obvious this time: Printing Money: "A term used to describe a government increasing the money supply. This can be achieved in a number of ways including actually printing more bank notes, or issuing new government debt, which is then bought by the central bank in exchange for credits that can be spent in the real economy." i.e. it is not only used to describe the literal act of printing money. I may stand corrected on the term, but I do believe I used the words "printing PAPER money". quote: You are right about one thing... having to stop to explain basics does get tedious.This coming from the guy who keeps claiming things are unconstitution without actually reading the Constitution? quote: We engaged in no direct relations with Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War. We basically refused to even talk or attempt to diffuse the situation. Even enforcing sanctions by dropping some bombs directly on him would have sufficed. Hell - I even support diplomatic relationships with Cuba. Not talking to him and chest beating in the press helps nothing. We should be setting an example. I prefer setting the example to the rest of the world that if you have a despotic government the most powerful nation on the planet with NOT conduct business with you. quote: I agree - we don't support the policies of the people in charge. But why should the average Iraqi or average Cuban suffer for that?Because ultimately they are responsible for their government existing. It is also not our job to ensure the well being of the citizens of other nations; rather only the citizens of our own. quote: Our policy of letting Saddam starve his people for a dozen years helped create the fundamentalists that are running the show now. You're off your rocker if you think that any of our recent policies helped create muslim extremism, even in Iraq. Reconsider that point please so I don't have to dig up 100 links to illustrate mine. quote: But since I pointed out a flaw in policy you will knee jerk to defend it I guess.What I find to be "knee jerk" is to simply say "talk to everybody" despite the circumstances around it. That clearly isn't a well thought out policy and would be closer to a pacifistic knee-jerk reaction. quote: My biggest problem with Bush is that outside of 2/3 picks for the Supreme Court and a willingness to bring up Social Security Reform - I can't think of anything good that he has done.The tax cuts were HUGE for the economy. No Child Left Behind would be awesome if not for liberal obstructionism and the teacher unions who couldn't care less about actually educating children. Not ratifying the Kyoto Treaty will probably save us BILLIONS. I disagree with Bush on several issues, but I stick to the issues. I don't follow party lines.q quote: Maybe John Bolton at the UN... that was amusing. The GOP hasn't done anything I could support - and the DNC hasn't either. The GOP is infested with RINOs who are too weak-kneed to take on democrats. Otherwise we would have Social Security fixed by now. By the way, I believe the democrats blocking SS reform will be the defining issue of our time that comes back to bite us in the ass the hardest. quote: Agree with him or not - Ron Paul has been consistent. I was watching some videos earlier from 1988 and he had the exact same message.He may be consistant but being consistantly wrong doesn't help his case. The US can't affort to bury its head in the sand.

Just a couple I have time for: quote: I said "War Powers Act" I don't know how many times. Read before responding.No, you said: "It is called Judicial Review. It has been part of the Supreme Court's duties since Marbury Vs Madison in 1803. Seriously." In fact, I even quoted it. And considering that the War Powers Act isn't a federal statute but rather, a resolution, it isn't subject to judicial review. quote: They voted to give the President power to use his judgment alone to determine whether or not to take us to war. It is in black and white.Yeah, and they had no idea that he'd use those powers. Give me a break. This one's common sense. There's no one who legitimately believes that congress didn't essentially declare war. quote: Semantics isn't it? "Printing money" is a metaphor in any event in the context I used it. Obviously the treasuries job is to literally print money, but that money's value is depleted when the government spends more than it takes in.Umm, I'm not sure how you can even ATTEMPT to spin the phrase "printing money" as a metaphor. It was a terrible one, if it indeed was a metaphor. quote: You also state that it doesn't matter how much the government prints - but it does indeed matter if that enters circulation. We can't just print $80 Trillion and then pay off our debts with it without massive inflation - irrelevant of the gold standard.Didn't I say that already? Oh yeah, we can't just print off $80 trillion and pay our debts, period. Who would accept it? quote: There is more than one way to solve a problem. Sanctions/War were not the only options in this conflict. Do you think it is truly asking too much that we have tried a different diplomatic approach rather than chest beating?I had to skip to that because its one of the most unenlightened things you've written. Do some research and THEN come back and tell me that there was no diplomatic approach taken.

I've gotta pick-and-choose here because this is again getting tedious: quote: I assert that because of our nation's history, because of our traditional manner for declaring war - as all Presidents have followed up until World War 2. I would prefer that the Supreme Court take on the War Powers Act as I believe the legislature is reneging on its responsibilities by giving the President the final decision instead of making the decision themselves. I believe that since the Constitution gives the legislature the power to 'declare' a state of war - the legislature should declare war instead of authorizing the President to declare war if he chooses. End result is the same - but it makes it easier for the legislature to ignore responsibility and have the mess we have currently where everyone is pointing at Bush (rightfully so) and running away.So you believe that the Supreme Court should legislate??? Umm, yeah, you want to use the term "unconstitutional"? And then you say "rightly so" regarding pointed to Bush, but call it a mess. If it's right, it isn't a mess. Nice try dodging your inaccuracy regarding the Constitution. quote: Tell that to any parent who has lost a child.OK, so we shouldn't allow driving either, right? Wait, you think we should? Tell that to any parent who's lost a child simply because someone else was trying to get to work on time. That's a ludicrous argument. quote: Some of them also think the entire thing is b.s. as well.OK, let's give parents veto power, too. Why bother with the democratic process when parents with a clear bias can obviously run the nation just as well? quote: The gold standard is an incredible weapon for a foreign enemy, in order to crash an economy, FLOOD the market with gold, and watch as the economy goes into the toilet. OK, I'm going to explain this "money printing" garbage to you once and for all - its damned near irrelevent. The government could print trillions upon trillions of dollars if it wanted to - doesn't mean that ANY of it would just mysteriously find its way into the populace's hands. A vast majority of the world's money is now electronic - as are entitlement payments. Printed money is all but irrelevent. It's not like they would be dumping it out of airplanes... Printed money means nothing. Money-in-motion means everything. The price of COMMODITIES affects the value of the dollar along with the presence of the dollar affecting the price of goods. However, simply printing money does NOT make it present for trade. As for flooding the market with gold, it wouldn't impact inflation greatly as it is not a "tenderable" commodity. It's presence would only affect the price of gold, NOT the value of the dollar because WE ARE NOT ON THE GOLD STANDARD. Heh.

quote: Though the Constitution grants authority to the Congress to declare war, there is no specific format as to what form this declaration should take. I believe (as do many others) that Congress is responsible for officially declaring war. Neither side is 'correct' until this is tested in the Supreme Court - something unlikely.Correct. But YOUR assertion was that the conflict in Iraq was unConstitutional. Still trying to figure out what you base that upon. In fact, due to your attempting to illustrate that I'm trying to make a point by essentially saying "because", I'll let you explain that before we go any further. Oh, and you may want o research your economics a little more. The lack of using the gold standard is partially why paper money printing has very little impact on inflation these days.

$ilk, this is getting tedious. Please point out the part of the Constitution that you feel is being violated or give it a rest. The Constitution does NOT require a declaration of war. NOWHERE IN IT is there that requirement. Therefore not declaring war is PERFECTLY Constitution, despite what you believe. And yes, you're arguing semantics because CONGRESS authorized military action. War is war no matter by which name it is called. Furthermore you keep accusing me of simply stating that something isn't so, which is ACTUALLY what YOU are doing - not me. I've provided FULL backup to my points and even offered to spell out the math for you on economics. Care to show me yours? This oughta be fun... OK, onto to other things now that you've been thoroughly debunked regarding this supposed Constitutional issue: quote: I understand the involvement of the government in economics. The problem with inflation is not due to the free market activity but has to do with government policies as I stated. Just waving yoru hand and saying "the economy" without clarifying the culprit doesn't make you well-versed on the area, it just makes it look like you are buying the line that Bush and Co. feed you.Has nothing to do with Bush. Has to do with simple mathematics and economics which have existed well prior to any Bush president. Care to provide math on this or are you sticking with the "your I've already offered to provide mine TWICE (which you yet again ignore). quote: 1. It is 3.2% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Then again you saying it is 'not' is more proof than that - just like your arguments about the economy and the Iraq 'war'.Actually, currently its closer to 2.5 and new estimates on the CPI (know what that stands for?) says the year may end closer to 2 depending on holiday spending. quote: 2. Why is it bad? I thought you were the economics genius? Currency devaluation has an effect on retirement accounts, it has an effect on savings, it has an effect on many areas that lead to our welfare state. You know - the whole 'more taxes from our pockets - DO YOU LIKE MORE TAXES?' line you were going on about earlier?Wow, you really are an amatuer in economics. Ever hear of the "Gold Standard"? Didn't think so. Most economists believe that a STEADY inflation is good, by the way. Look it up. quote: Yes I know the argument for moderate inflation being part of the economy. I also know that my personal finances, assets, etc. would look quite nice if I borrowed a million dollars a month - but when the bills finally came due I would be s.o.l. We are borrowing from our future to pay for the present, and ultimately our grandchildren, great-grandchildren will foot the bill. If inflation continues at its current rate, in 20 years a hundred dollars will have lost around 83% of its purchasing power. Not to mention the entitlement system bankruptcy that is moving right along. Virtually the entire Federal Budget has already been promised to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid by 2020.Yes, it WILL have lost 80% or more of its purchasing power, but by the same logic that causes that to happen everyone will have 80 - 90% more money to compensate. As far as the solvency of government entitlements go (Social Security, Medicare, etc), you will have no argument from me. But those are hardly related to inflation whatsoever. Just think about it: in 1913 10 CENTS had the purchasing power of roughly $1.90 today. So there's been incredible inflation. However, Americans are by-and-large richer now when incomes are adjusted for inflation. Why is that? Because in a free market some inflation is good. Steady inflation forces competitive salary and income growth which is traditionally HIGHER than the rate of inflation. The necessity of growth wouldn't exist without inflation. quote: Yeah, George W. Bush, Cheney, and the other globalists need to get their act together and remember that we should focus on our own problems first.Well, if you don't see how the middle east is now our problem like it or not, you're not as smart as I thought you were. quote: I agree - and won't even point out the irony that you rush to point to UN resolutions as giving us authority to invade when we are the ones that gave them authority. Be careful - if you abandon the U.N. you might have to resort to real reasons in future wars.It is indeed irony to hate the rules but have to play by them. It is not, however, hypocrisy. quote: I believe it is common sense to see that destabilization and virtual elimination of the government and not quickly replacing it because you fired everyone led to the problems we have now. It did not take long for Paul Bremer to begin re-hiring Baathists to help maintain control. Just like we kept former Nazis during the reconstruction of Germany. It would not take Charisma - merely an ordered transition and ultimately Saddam's tactics of repression. And you're certainly not a student of ME history if you believe that an ordered transition of power would have occurred. quote: I didn't say that - but I did indeed point out that our policy was pretty dumb. Saddam got millions of dollars, bilked the oil for food program - and the people of Iraq suffered and turned to extremism. I'd call that a dumb policy to 'punish' someone while he could care less sitting on his gold toilet while the people starved but obviously you still have rose-colored glasses to look at our foreign policy. Bush Senior's advisors advised him against invading Iraq for the very same reasons we shouldn't have invaded this time. A country with 3 ethnic divisions that ran so deep they want to kill each other and the only thing holding it together was the dictator. Wow, you have a good point there. So your solution would be ... turn a blind eye!!! SHOCKING!!! And also my point in the first place. Yeah, it was a dumb policy to punish Saddam - economically. quote: I don't refuse to see anything. I just didn't see one. Has Iraq ever attacked the United States? Has Iraq ever threatened to attack the United States? Did Iraq possess the capability to attack the United States? No on all counts. Where is the threat to the United States? Terror ties? Despite the 9/11 commission report findings on this - it is a laughable argument considering the countries on either side of Iraq possess more terror ties. Read this: http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...-weapons-report To quote: "This report will make no one sleep more easily, although it does give the decade-long attempt to contain Saddam more credit than critics do. It also argues that containment is imperfect and will eventually fail. quote: Sure. So who was Saddam planning to attack? What weapons did he have? Oh yeah...Yeah, sure, live in that world and think that it is I and those like me who are naive. No chance that Saddam got rid of his weapons, heh? Try this article: http://washingtontimes.com/national/200410...22637-6257r.htm Oh, and what weapons?

quote: 1.) No war declaration powers are granted to the President of the United States under the Constitution. Just because since WW2 the Congress has been avoiding its Constitutional responsibility to declare war and has instead been shifting this power to the President does not make it Constitutional nor does it make it right. I would rather the representatives of "We the People" take responsibility than a single person....and you don't find that anywhere in the Constitution. It's semantics, pure and simple. quote: 2.) The sixteenth amendment should be repealed as well as the income tax. Never did I claim that it was un-Constitutional, merely that it was an affront to the rights of the people. There is a proper size and scope of the Federal government. We have a vastly oversized behemoth that is inefficient and Socialist in practice. I would like to see power in the States per the tenth amendment.It's odd how you can attempt to use the Constitution to validate a point and then turn around and say that a part of it is wrong. By that logic anyone could just say the part of the Constitution YOU are using as a reference is wrong. However I'm not sure what that part is... quote: 3.) The dollar being worth less has less to do with economics (free market goods and services) and more to do with government spending and policies of the Federal Reserve.Umm, government spending and Fed policies ARE part of economics. Furthermore it has to do with basic economic principles of representative money (aka trade balance). You're clearly stepping into an area you're not too well versed on. I'd advise either researching it or stepping back. Again I extend my offer to spell out the mathematics to you. quote: The economy has done just fine on average over the past century. Good job defaulting your argument. You state that government spending is having a negative impact on the economy and THEN state that the economy is doing just fine. Umm, does not compute. quote: When we run out of money in the treasury - we print money. This decreases the value of the dollar - and increases foreign holdings in our country.Printing money has VERY LITTLE to do with it. In fact, almost nothing at all. Ask any economist. Or research it yourself. You're not even in the ballpark on this one dude. quote: This decreases the value of the dollar - and increases foreign holdings in our country. The long-term costs of the Iraq debacle is going to be paid for by our children and grandchildren - because their dollar will likely be worth a lot less than ours today. On average we are losing 3-4% of its value each year. This is unacceptable.1: Inflation is not 3 - 4% annually, which is what you just stated. 2: The value of dollar is dropping perhaps 3% annually AGAINST value of european currencies, sure. But you state this is bad without stating why. What was your term for that again? quote: 4.) Since when is it our responsibility to police the world and enforce U.N. resolutions? I would rather the United States declare war based on its own interests rather than use U.N. resolutions to back its position.Me too. But unfortunately we're on a world stage and liberals have required that we play there. quote: Why do we veto every U.N. resolution that is against us - ignoring them if they are so important?Because we are a nation with veto power and pay the vast majority of UN dues. Why should the UN be able to take from us without a return? If it were up to me, we would abandon the UN. And watch it crumble. It is the most toothless, wasteful beauracracy the world has ever known, and that's unfortunate. quote: 5.) The reason there was a power vaccum in Iraq was because of our de-Baathification policy. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater and then expect a tenable situation to emerge. If Saddam Hussein had died, either his sons or another dictator would have assumed the reigns of government. No intelligence officer or foreign relations specialist in the world believes that for a moment. That's why it's not even a LIBERAL talking point. His sons would NOT have had the charisma to seize power, and there would have been severe infighting. These are heavily agreed on suppositions. quote: The only weakening of his regime was as a result of sanctions. As a matter of fact - much of the rise of Islamic extremism in Iraq can be traced to our sanctions - before the Gulf War women in Iraq held positions in government, could attend university, etc. During the sanctions, tribal governments began gaining a foothold and women were relegated to the home. Now - because we collapsed the system completely - a democratically elected group of religious extremists will guarantee worse conditions for women. You're right; we should have allowed Saddam to carry on with his murderous government and not have punished him for his invading of his neighbor (Kuwait) or his consistant violating of human rights. I guess the old Iraq was quite alright. Hey - atrocities aren't atrocities if you don't have to watch them on CNN, right? quote: (Iran's leader was democratically elected)So was Saddam Hussein if you believe that kinda crap. LOL quote: In any event, I believe if a proveable threat exists to the United States and we are in danger of being attacked we have the right to respond. And I believe there was one. You just refuse to see it. quote: Much the same as if someone breaks in my home and points a gun at me - I should be able to shoot first. I agree. But what if you saw a guy armed to the teeth driving down the road, and you saw that he had his address in his hand? Should you not be allowed to act further in advance? I would say yes. quote: However - I don't believe in pre-emptively breaking into my neighbors home, shooting him, then propping up his wife as the head of household because I thought that maybe someday he would tell someone when I wasn't home so that they could break into my house.Not NEARLY the same thing. Do you even pay attention to the facts anymore?

quote: Please explain how exactly that quote's meaning changes in any context. "A people free to choose will always choose peace... unless they are from the United States of America" Seriously - understand when context matters and when it doesn't. "Hence iraq"? On the one hand you point out how Saddam was abusing his people - on the other you basically state that they were consenting to his rule because "governments are based on the consent of the governed." Your own logic is faulty. My logic is fine. By saying "hence Iraq" I was pointing out that Iraqis are free to choose and not choosing peace. As for context, one could argue that we're not a people free to choose. quote: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the government to make war on "bad" people around the world who have absolutely nothing to do with us?Umm, Aritcle I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 1. quote: Wasn't it you who said that government gains its authority from the consent of the governed? Based on that logic I would be correct in stating that it is the Iraqi's business and not our own. Glad to know that you saw the light....and if you read the ENTIRETY of what I wrote you would have noticed that I've provided for times in which is it necessary for others to get involved. If the government is hostile to us or our allies, then yes, it is our problem. quote: Someone who doesn't hold to the same principle regardless of who they are referring to are called hypocrites. Does the context truly matter with this statement? "People don't make wars, governments do - unless you are the United States of America." Your "context" complaint is baseless once again.Context means everything when quoting someone if you're going to attribute a deeper meaning to those who you are quoting. Reagan was referring to the Eastern Bloc. Pure and simple. You can keep pretending to hold the Constitution dear all you like, but until you get the overriding concept of "for the people, by the people", you're going to fall short of its spirit. quote: Sean Hannity and other 'true believers' in Bush's policy like to use the first half of that quote, conveniently forgetting the second half (Taking it out of context - *gasp*). That is because Reagan believed in peaceful solutions to conflict wherever possible. War should never be the first option.I'm not Sean Hannity nor a "true believer" in Bush's policies and I agree that war is never the first option. But I also happen to know that war was NOT the first option. Nor the second. Nor the third. Nor the fourth. How many UN resolutions do we need? quote: You are 'strawmanning' - a classic and utterly ineffectual debating tactic when you cannot argue the point.Actually, judging by what I quoted, YOU are the one strawmanning as I've explained EACH point of disagreement throroughly. You should try reading the entire thing. quote: The usual misquoting tactic consists of cutting off part of a quote and then removing it entirely from its relevant context. Show me exactly how I did this. Quoting Reagan referring to the Eastern Bloc powers where governments and the populace were seperate entities and then attempting to spin that into including democratic, CITIZEN governments is how you did it. I thought I had explained that fairly completely. Guess not. quote: Strawmanning again. In any event it isn't an ideology of the 'domestic terrorist' except when defined by Bush, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez. I consider it the 'ideology' of someone who believes in more freedom, not less freedom.Umm, no, YOU are not strawmanning. I made a VERY concise point and instead of debating said point you're deflecting it. quote: In terms of what 'liberties I have lost' it is not so much a matter of black and white so much as it is charting the course of government growth.Good way of saying that you haven't lost any. Heh. quote: The Federal Government has a say in how much water is used to flush my toilet. The Federal Government has a say in taking money by force from my paycheck that I really have no say in where this money goes.In case you weren't paying attention, the government is responsible for putting the water in your toilet in the first place. And you also have the same say in where your money goes as they did in colonial times when the Constitution was written - called the electoral process. Either way, neither of these complaints are valid. In fact, if you're going to use the Constitution as something to lean upon to make a point, you should try reading it all. There's a certain little ammendment known as the XVI Ammendment: code: Amendment XVI The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. quote: Do you really believe that the proper role of government requires 30% of every dollar that you earn?Do you really believe that your income would be the same if there were no taxes? Economics 101. quote: Do you ever stop to think why a dollar today is the equivalent of what 4 cents was worth in 1900?Yes. Inflation. More money, similar resources, prices go up. Simple economics. I will be happy to provide you with the mathematical model if you'd like. You probably could come up with it yourself. quote: Do you ever stop to think why we are borrowing money from China in order to be able to afford this grand crusade you support?I agree with you on this is you're suggesting that it is wrong to borrow money from China. As to why - yeah, I have stopped to think why. It's called a massive "trade deficit". And ultimately, if Congress can ever grow a backbone, this COULD pay for itself. quote: Do you ever stop to think why we are not securing the borders? Why we are virtually unconcered with anything but window dressing (i.e. sticking guys to harrass old grannies in line at the airport) to give the illusion of security when government's primary concern seems to be grabbing more money for itself?I agree with you 100% on this as well. quote: Through your posts - you seem to espouse the belief that the process for going to war under the Constitution is irrelevant, and that as long as we go to war at the behest of a single person we should support it.I'm not sure if you even are aware as to what the Constitution process for going to war is, to be honest. And I don't think that it's irrelevent - I think that it was followed. And if your memory is SO short that you think it was at the behest of a single person, well then it becomes clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Congress approved military action in Iraq. Period. Use whatever terminology you want, but that's EXACTLY what happens. COMPLETELY Constitutional. You may want to question Ron Paul rather than blindly following him. quote: Your standard for going to war and causing the deaths of thousands of our own soldiers, and tens of thousands of the civilian population of the targeted country seems to be that "their leader is a bad person."Umm, no, not at all. I don't support war against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, etc, etc, at this time. The list goes on. I support war ONLY if all other options are exhausted and if the war is in protection of American securities AND interests. That includes economic, by the way. quote: I am willing to bet that you would support a nuclear first strike against a country such as Iran or North Korea - neither of which has ever attacked the United States.You bet wrong. Whereas I would bet that you would support someone else using a nuke on us because we shouldn't take proactive measures to prevent this at almost all costs. Actually, I know you wouldn't support that because that's silly. As was your inference. Please restrain yourself and ASK me what I would support. quote: This is an insane policy.It would be. Thankfully it's not our policy. quote: Ultimately - do you believe that we can afford this crusade or are you perfectly content with having our children and grand children foot the bill?Umm, I thought I said I think we should be preparing to leave??? OK, if you want to discuss the dollars and cents of it, fine, here goes: We can't afford not to. We need the resources in that area as protected as possible. Before you resort to the classic liberal cries of "No Blood for Oil", consider this: what happens if the oil is cut off, or the cost DRAMATICALLY rises? Let's see: the price of EVERYTHING goes up from a loaf of bread to a gallon of gas. Why? Cost of transportation. The poor can no longer afford to go to word and therefore the government must subsidize further programs for assistance - coming out of yours and my wallets. Health care gets more expensive as the cost of medicines and transportation arises. Again, we're not going to have people dying in the streets so guess who has to pay for it. Now yes, a lot of this could be alleviated if we could simply become less dependant on foreign oil but your liberal buddies won't let us. So what choice do we have? Oh, and it STILL isn't that simple. Saddam Hussein, even kept in check, is dangerous. Despite not being much of a threat to his neighbors any longer he still has absolute power over an oil-rich nation. And he won't live forever. So Saddam dies and there's a power vaccuum. You can hail his secular government all you want, but who do you think is going to swoop in when all is said and done? Iran. Just look at what's happening now WITH an elected government and a US presence! Maybe Saddam wasn't close to nukes but do you want to argue that Iran isn't or that they won't use them? By neutralizing what amounts to nothing more than a terrorist regime we've made a very clear statement as to what is and isn't acceptable on the world stage, like it or not. We have a clear interest in preventing ANY government openly hostile to the US from obtaining any ability to hurt us, period. Unless you like risking our citizens and paying higher taxes. Oh, and before you go off and try to point out the nuisance that Iran has become, think about it and why our actions were VITAL to our security concerning Iran. If you think that a secular leader MAY have been dangerous think of one who thinks us as infidels worth only destruction. Oh, and with nukes. You must love paying taxes.

Fun with quotes: quote: "A people free to choose will always choose peace. - Ronald Reagan Was he wrong? Yes he was. Hence, Iraq. But I think the context was a little different. quote: "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." - Ronald Reagan Was he wrong? No he wasn't. He was completely correct. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of liberty. But we can't do anything about that, can we? quote: "People do not make wars; governments do." - Ronald Reagan Was he wrong? I believe this was a quote referring to communist governments because in a government for the people, BY the people (which is oddly the basis for the Constitution we both believe it) there is no distinction. I'm fairly certain Reagan knew that and was referring to the Eastern Bloc. quote: "Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means." - Ronald Reagan Was he wrong? Err, what the hell does that have to do anything? Who's claiming we're at peace here? quote: How 'liberal' of me to quote Ronald Reagan...To quote him out of context, yes. Extremely liberal and a classic liberal tactic. quote: What I see is that neo-Con Trotskyites have hijacked the Republican Party. Terrorists will never be able to come over here and take away our way of life and our freedom. We have that handled ourselves by surrendering to the 'greater good' our liberties. Wake up.I'm awake enough to know that you're somehow claiming to have lost your liberties when you really haven't whatsoever. Which of your rights have been infringed? That's the ideology of the domestic terrorist - find an excuse to distrust the government. It's not that I believe that the government should be blindly trusted; it's just that I believe that we have enough things to hold accountable that we needn't chase ghosts as well.

Oh man, here we go... $ilk: quote: I don't understand a "moral" obligation to bring war to a people that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis....as if tens of thousands of Iraqis were not dying under the previous regime. I guess it's better if its under the cause of a madman dictator's power trip than it is in pursuit of freedom. Or not. quote: We have Darfur where millions are dying. We have North Korea where hundreds of thousands are dying. We have other African nations where millions are dying. Most of the people who were dying in Iraq were dying due to sanctions that were brought by us. The thousands of Kurds who died did so because of gas that we provided Saddam with. Again you attempt to justify not punishing bad behavior due to your percieved bad behavior of the past. Even if you WERE right in implying that supporting Iraq against Iran was wrong at the time, (which you're not), you're suggesting that because we would have made a mistake in the past we shouldn't take steps to correct it. I disagree. Also, you can keep listing hotspots of inhumane activities all day - doesn't take away from the fact that Iraq was one as well. And if you want to imply that sanctions are the cause for troubles in Iraq, I guess we should have let Saddam off completely for invading Kuwait, right? I don't think so. quote: I have re-examined it. According to the Constitution under Article I Section 8 Congress holds the power: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" If it was such a moral obligation - our representatives have the moral obligation to declare war. Good job degrading the issue of war into mere semantics. Congress gave the Executive the power to conduct hostilities. I guess we COULD have used the term "war" but, ultimately it would be the same result and therefore your point seems irrelevent. As does Ron Paul. quote: Not if Congress did not declare war. We went to war with the consent of the President. Ron Paul offered a resolution to have Congress declare war. It was rejected.Because the result is the same, it is irrelevent. Again, let's attempt to avoid distracting the debate with semantics which is EXACTLY what Ron Paul hopes to do. quote: I look at 30 years of terrorist attacks where we have been told it was as a consequence of our presence in the Middle East. I look at our presence in the Middle East and notice that it is primarily for control of strategic resources such as oil. I look at our foreign policy in which we brought war against Vietnam (today we trade with them) and other countries to no gain. Then I look at people who wrap themselves in the flag and tell us that "they hate us for our freedom." I look at 200 years of executions and other brutalities committed by Muslim extremists for, IN THEIR WORDS, non Muslims being INFIDELS. I find it interesting how you accept their political excuse for their behaviors and ignore what THEY THEMSELVES SAY otherwise. quote: War is never just and righteous in the end. The fact that things devolve into a war is a failure for all of humanity. We should never clamor for war, whether the head of state of a country is 'evil' ultimately it is the people of that country who will pay the price of our involvement. There are a couple points here that have to be made: 1: A government, no matter how brutal, rules only at the consent of its people either by way of expressed consent or by their inaction to stop it. Ultimately every country is a democracy after a fashion. Therefore its people must pay the price for said government's crimes. Now if the people somehow find themselves unable to rebel due to fear of retribution and another power enters play in order to assist, the people of that nation are still accountable for said nation's actions and may suffer casualties. It is not up to another nation to die for what other people are too afraid to die for. 2: To say war is always unjust in ludicrous and is the EXACT attitude that allows despots to rise to power in the first place. quote: I believe that war is sometimes necessary - but I will never delude myself into thinking that it was the only course.That statement contradicts itself. If it is not the only course than how is it ever necessary. Wow, how liberal of you. You almost made sense (by saying that war was sometimes necessary) but they invalidated it by saying it is not. Why? quote: Maybe Jesus was wrong? Matt. 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Considering that Jesus was referring to ones neighbor this seems somewhat out of context. Oh yeah, later in the New Testament there's the Book of Revalations which describes a war between good and evil that Jesus would support. quote: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Mat.5:33-41).OK, so Muslim extremists wish to deprive your rights to debate this. You should allow them to do that. Didn't think so. Nomad: quote: Wrong. It is about establishing the order or priorities. If you have a heart condition and a broken finger, what would you think about a doctor dismissing the first to focus on the latter ? This simple fact nullifies the whole premise of action in itself.You go on the assumption that Iraq was a mere broken finger (which is wasn't). In any case, say you're only equipped and able to treat the broken finger. Should you not? Your premise is flawed and nullifies nothing. quote: I'm asking questions, and these are on topic since everything is related. Or can you only tackle questions in accordance with your mindset ?I can handle any questions. But ask them. Don't make statements of assumption which would be, alas, putting words into my mouth. Did I miss a question or are you attempting to spin something here? quote: Wrong, it's again an order of priorities. When knowledge providers are scarce, you settle the problem at the provider level, not at the consumer one. Is this so difficult to understand ?That is by far the silliest response, and attempt to illustrate is as something that is easy to understand doesn't make it any less so. Good job not saying anything at all, but acting like you did. quote: Mickey Mouse geostrategic crappola. Iraq wasn't a terrorist hotbed until you guys destroyed the country.Umm, yeah it was. I mean, I understand that there was a fair and balanced CNN type entity there prior to 2002 under Saddam that reported everything that went on and that they may have missed a few things, but from what I understand is that Iraq was controlled by Saddam through FEAR (also known as "terror"). I'm sure it helps think that you validate your arguments by suggesting that Saddam was a national leader and not a terrorist, but I have news for you: sometimes someone is both. quote: This is a well known principle for anybody which understands how the collusion of politics and corporate America work.Jealous? quote: That said, don't spread dodo all over the world (because that principle is not limited to the ME as you are well aware...) and expect sympathy.You're right. Next time someone comes crying for our money or help ... or anything, we'll avoid it because how unfair of us to expect something in return. quote: The problem is that your country CANNOT live without enemies in order to satisfy the needs of your military industry and its related lobbying.You were doing WAY better when you stuck to the facts versus the traditional liberal "Corporation Conspiracy" crap. You wanna know why no American seriously buys into that garbage? Because the beauty of corporate America is that most Americans own a share. And love it. When the poorest of us has running water and color TVs you're gonna have a hard time convincing us that there's a problem. I mean, I know you'd rather bring us all down in order to bring some of the worst up, but we'd rather see the world adopt our ideas and bring EVERYONE up. At least I imagine $ilk agrees with me on this (I think). quote: Lemme see... Europeans interact with the ME on a daily basis already centuries before your own country was even discovered. We had our colonial past. Point a single example where any european power ever armed and trained any islamic radicals.Point to me a situation where it would be politically relevent to do so and they didn't. Umm, the world has shrunk. Just so you know. quote: Sidelines ? Step once out of your country, and check if my position is "sideline". And FYI, for me, "others" represent the 6 billion humans on the planet, not only 300 million US citizen...You're clearly on the sidelines. Just because you say something is "bad" doesn't mean you're involved. I thought I was pretty clear in that I was looking to hear what your solution was. I see you have none. It's easy to complain. It's easier to justify it. It's hard to solve things. quote: In my book, cowardice is advocating from your armchair policies which make matters worse while waisting human life and resources. I'm one of those rare europeans whose first war experience in the ME began during infancy. A child which got for the first time a gun in his hand when he was 7 years old when fighting suddenly brook out around our compound, and who had to take the dog out during curfew because snipers weren't having night vision hardware at that time. And it lasted years.That's tragic, but there's a larger world than YOU out there, and those who are faced with such tragedy. The world is better off with a United States. Period. And yes, it is still cowardice not to offer up a solution. quote: That's all the difference with people who can't enter in a war zone without a full array of logistics and support, and aren't afraid to call in a F16-bomb run to reduce a single sniper: now that's bravery coupled with an impressive efficiency ratio on results vs. ressourcesBeing brave doesn't mean one has to be stupid. I thought you valued human life. quote: So my tendency to consider resort to armed conflicts only as last option has something to do with knowing the situation civilians are exposed....and I believe that it is much better that they are exposed to small arms fire and IEDs then a nuclear warhead or biological/chemical agent. Look, when you got to carry a gun at such a young age, how tragic it was. But at least you got to fight back. I know others that didn't have that option. quote: And I can tell you a very simple thing: the day foreigners come into my country, supposedly " for my own good" without asking me anything, and by misfortune my wife, parents or children get killed as "collateral effect" from these foreigner's actions, I won't rest until I make them pay, and pay dearly. That's what you are exposing your country for every theater you unduly intervene.So long as you do your part to assure that your nation doesn't fall under despotic rule, you have no problem. I mean, despite the long history of the US invading democratic nations and all (hah). Isn't it ironic to think that if you were in a nation that we would invade you would have no freedoms to even write what you do on here? But even more amazing is how you ignore the fact that its not really a lot of Iraqis attacking Americans - its far more Iraqis attacking Iraqis. That in-and-of-itself should illustrate SOMETHING to you.

quote: My point being is that I have spent my life believing in the just war theory - the belief that a nation should only go to war when attacked. Iraq has never attacked the United States. Iraq never threatened to attack the United States. Iraq did not have the capability to attack the United States.This is where you and I differ. Who was it that said, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."? There are times when a moral obligation to wage conflict exists, and to not do so destroys a sovereign nation's ability to make just demands and expect concessions from those who are unjust. What you're saying is that a despotic leader could commit genocide and ignore our pleas to stop without consequences. Dialogue is useless unless it has a benefit. Sometimes that benefit is to prevent a war. If you take away that consequence (often the only one that people fear) then there are often times in which dialogue is useless. I think you should re-examine your position on that. quote: Pre-Emptive war is a scary policy and an un-Constitutional policy when carried out without a declaration of war by the United States Congress. As Ron Paul stated - "Only a tyrant can take a nation to war without the consent of its people."Yeah. That's why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. He obviously forgot that we went to war WITH the consent of the people. Heh. quote: I believe we should look at what we've caused in Iraq as just another in a long-list of lessons about our foreign policy that has and will come back to bite us in the butt.What a liberal defeatist statement! Funny how this "long list of lessons" that "come back to bite us in the butt" has made us the most prosperous and powerful nation on the planet - one where even the poorest of us has color television and running water. I find that statement absurd and unpatriotically motivated by politics. quote: As far as quotes go - I found a good one: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower He was wrong.

Nomad, please read my posts and take them for what they actually say. I (unlike you) don't imply things as I find it quite simple to say exactly what I mean. quote: LMAO !!! Frankly, do you really believe what you just said ? Are you aware that if the principles expressed in your post were to be objectively applied, it's Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, NK and Iran which the USA should have invaded, instead of destroying a secular regime which acted as buffer between Bush's oil buddies and Iran ?That rant is nothing more than liberal nonsensical garbage. The fact remains that Iraq WAS a terrorism hotspot. That it was so as long as it fit Saddam Hussein's ends is irrelevent. Sure, other countries are breeding grounds for terrorism as well, but we had other reasons to invade Iraq. Just because we chose Iraq and not other suspects to invade does NOT render unjustified. It merely says that we haven't attacked the other problems yet. Man walks in with a broken arm and broken leg. Doctor decides to work on arm first. But the leg is still broken. Doesn't mean that arm wasn't broken in first place. quote: You seem to be as realistic as a painting of Dali. Ever lived in the ME ? I mean lived, socialized and interacted with locals as a friend, not confined in a base just to get out in mission praying not to get a bullet... Do you speak arabic ? Or at least french ? It would help you understand the content of original documents and speeches instead of having to resort to what a third party deemed interesting enough (under which set of values ?) to translate (have you the capability to assess if said translations are faithful ?).Total irrelevent garbage. Stick to the facts. quote: Lemme see: The iraqi government is not even able to be cohesive at a time you have 150K soldiers in the country and providing financial support. What makes you even remotely think that said cohesion will improve when you leave ?Did I SAY any of that? Nope. Do me a favor and stick to the actual topic and STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. quote: There's an axiom that seems to escape your mind. Put in simpler terms of physics, you master energy, but the enemy masters time and space. You won't be able to beat them by physical means as long their rethoric and recruitment is so successful on ALL continents....and I haven't contradicted that point either. Are you that desperate for debate here that you MAKE UP arguments from others? Try blogging. quote: You are afraid of WMD proliferation ? Then go after Khan. After all, he's the guy who sold out knowhow and technology to a whole array of so-called "rogue" states. Ahhh... But no, since he's buddy with your pal Musharraf. Musharraf where you are comitting the same error you did with the Shah. Ever been in Pakistan either ? How long do you think Musharraf would hold power without the support of the army ? Hell, the guy only controls major cities of the country. You don't even need to go in Waziristan to feel how the whole nation is soaking of radical islamism, starting with those who will ultimately replace Musharraf when time and context suits them: the ISI, which still gets a nice share of all the help you are providing to Pakistan. Wow, so you're an advocate of solving EVERY problem in the world or solving ABSOLUTELY NONE of them. See, if you have 5 problems and can only realistically solve 2 of them, to me it makes sense to tackle those 2 problems. Now I know that in the liberal world we should keep *****ing about how the solutions to those 2 problems don't matter because there are still 3 more but in the real world we are still better for it. quote: What a paradox: Part of your taxpayer money still actually lands in the pockets of the very people which impulsed (jointly with the saudis) the establishment of madrass schools, trained and armed the talibans, talibans who DIRECTLY helped Al-Qaida, and you have the irresponsability to make statements like the quote mentioned above ?The quote mentioned above (stating that the War in Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror) stands. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Instead you rant and rave about how wrong it must be while your logic is merely that there are other hotbeads of terror. Liberal: Gee, Syria has a lot of terrorists but we're attacking Iraq. Realist: Yes but Iraq has terrorists too. Liberal: How can you say that if there are terrorists in Syria? quote: You must get really desperate to think that the situation is unfolding the right way.I never said that. quote: Heh.

quote: The guy who quoted the CIA and the 9/11 Commission reportFrom what I recall, the 9/11 Commission report was just under 600 pages long. And he managed to "quote" it in under, what, 30 seconds? More like he quoted a snippet FROM the report. The 585 page report. That would be simplifying. *Passes Kool Aid* quote: P.S. - I agree with Ron Paul on the War in Iraq - which should never be misconstrued as being part of the war on terror as opposed to a war of choice.And I disagree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul (I also have a natural distrust for anyone with two first names, but alas...). The War in Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror, partly due to that, from the beginning, we've been fighting the same cultural elements that have allowed terror to cultivate in the first place. Also we've been fighting the mechanisms of terror itself. The ONLY difference between Saddam Hussein and your average terrorist is that Saddam has done more of it. PS: By the way, I think we should be gearing up to leave Iraq soon as the purpose of the war has been fulfilled.

quote: The United State's chief negotiator was Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher.Ah, clarification. The *US* chief negotiator. He had, what, a YEAR to negotiate a release and it didn't happen until AFTER Reagan was elected. My point on this one stands. quote: It is even listed on his bio that he is credited with negotiating the release of the hostages....but in most historical accounts he's a mere footnote (if that). quote: Who has converted to liberalism anyway? Isn't it the G.O.P. touting the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, crossdressing New York liberal Republican as the front-runner? Not sure what GOP you're referring to here, but CNN and the NY Times don't qualify. It's kinda like a year and a half prior to the 2000 elections when they touted McCain and Bush was the odd man out. Most conservatives seem to be jumping on the Fred Thompson bandwagon these days (myself included). quote: Ron Paul all the way.Have fun with that, Skippy. Even IF you agree with what the guy says regarding the war on terror, it doesn't mean he's qualified to run the country. Hell, he should be GREAT at foreign relations - he only managed to piss off more than half the country in his first debate (some because what he said was assinine and ill-informed and some because he over simplified it).