[-V-]

Saddham might be in power but contained through continuing UN inspections and pressure, and tens of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians would still be alive and unwounded, the world wouldn't hate us, and we would have saved several hundred billion dollars which could be used far more productively than re-building the foreign cities and lives that we destroyed.

[-V-]

wasn't effecting Saddam Hussein in the slightest

The lead inspector said they were making excellent progress and asked for more time. Inspections, sanctions, and pressure worked well enough so that Saddham had no weapons of mass destruction, not even chemical weapons to defend against the U.S. invasion.

I could care less if the Arafat loving French government liked us or hate us.

I don't think anyone cares whether you could care less about the French.

[Jane of Arc]

[QUOTE]You are kidding right? UN pressure? 12 years of "UN pressure" was not enough to make Saddam do anything. The simple fact is, is that the United States actually enforced the UN's own resolutions. Why don't you read them then come back.

What legal authority does the United States have to enforce UN resolutions?



Iraqi civilians who were being tortured, killed, and raped by Saddam. Sure some have been killed, which is a tragedy, but the way I look at it, if Saddam was in power for more years, there would be many more dead. And with his sons, who were crazier and more brutal than him, the country would have become worse than it is now.

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. (John Hopkins University)

As Bill O'Reilly would say.

Wise up, sir.[/

Anyone who proudly quotes Bill O'Reilly needs to turn off their TV and use the time to read.

[-V-]

But the people of Iraq or afghanistan are not good enough to protect?

That's not why we went there and you and the President know it. All the people of every country are good enough to protect, including the civilians in Iran, North Korea, China, etc., etc. Should we send you or your children to each of these countries or do you think the U.N. could be the key in the future?

You are okay with rape and torture?

Our's or their's. I'm not OK with either one. Are you?

The UN is impotent
The U.S. is a key reason the U.N. is impotent. Did you catch the President's most recent Veto relating to the Middle East conflict?

Bill O'Reilly has 10 times the audience of any left winger. That should say something about who the country believes shouldn't it?

Jerry springer kills in his time slot too. But I don't think it says that this country endorses adultery, incest, and adults with a diaper fetish

[Wafflepudding]

First post!
Not that I waste any love on republicans but, "democrat" and "democratic" are hardly the same thing, and loaded terms are always a negative sign in my book. "Democratic" sounds like "pro-life", a weasel term, implying that the opponents are "anti-democratic" or "anti-life". I'm all for the term "Republicrat" though. As much as I disagree with the way the Iraq war was handled, and how it was justified (on lies and forged evidence) I do agree Saddam had to go, and the containment strategy implied sacrificing the people inside Iraq in the name of peace, that's as unacceptable as sacrificing people now in the name of freedom. Saddam was America's (Reagan's if you prefer) boy, it is only right that America solves the problem it created in the 80's.

[-V-]

welcome wafflepudding, we can use more input from libertarians.

When you say, "Saddham had to go" I'd like to point out that most of the world believes Bush has to go, but there is a distinct line between sentiment and an invasion by a foreign country taking it upon themselves to kill and destroy to enact regime change. As a libertarian I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[Wafflepudding]

Correct, most of the world believes that, would you say they are wrong?
Of course, invading another country to change its regime is wrong, so is propping up a dictator and arming him to promote your country's interests. As a libertarian I also believe the government has no business manipulating the government of other countries, Saddam should never have been backed in the first place. But making that huge mess and then trying to "contain it" is just irresponsible, and sanctions, blockades and condemnations won't bring down a totalitarian regime, ask Kim Jong-Il or Fidel Castro, they only served (as someone else on this board confirmed) to stir up hatred against the west and kill thousands of civilians from starvation and lack of medical suppkies, power, etc. The difference is, we didn't prop up Kim or Fidel, that's not our mess to clean up.