Saddam was enough of a friend that Rumsfeld and co. were happy to sell him all sorts of nasty weapons.

So if that's true, then i guess we should have let him stay then. If he's such a good friend of the Bush administration, why do the liberals like him so much?

You confuse the disagreement of Bush and his policies with liking Saddam. The two are not the same. Jeez, even Bush's father was against this war -- do you consider him a liberal?

Have you seen any of the material about the effects of all that depleted uranium the US has vapourized all over Iraq and Afghanistan?

No, elaborate some.

Very well. Look here first. Make sure to scroll all the way to the bottom. That's mostly for shock value. For a little late night reading, there's a plethora of articles at the Depleted Uranium Education Project, and an extremely good feature series on the effects of DU here. Search on google for "depleted uranium", and spend several days reading.

Actually, no, I wouldn't kill them. I'd be pissed off at them, and if they were caught, I'd certainly press charges, but I wouldn't kill them. What are you... the mafia?

Ok, good. let's press charges against Osama Bin Laden. GWB will call 911 and in no time the global police will have a warrant for Osama's arrest and have him in cuffs. Good idea.

Your sarcasm is silly. Let's try a quick reply:

Ok, good. Let's go to war against Osama Bin Laden. GWB will bomb the hell out of two countries, and in no time, Osama will be dead. Good idea.

Does wiping out a couple nations bring back the victims from the dead?

It prevents it from happenning in the future.

How can you honestly believe that? Let's see... a bunch of terrorists blew up part of the US. To get revenge, the US blew up a country looking for the culprits, and blew a country that had nothing to do with it. So to get revenge, the country that had nothing to do with it... does what? Oh, that's right... fosters terrorism to get back at an otherwise invincible country. Do you have any idea why violence is a cycle? Why does Isreal bomb Palestine? Because Palestinians bomb Israel. Why do Palestinians bomb Israel? Because Israel bombs Palestine.

And how was going to war with Iraq "justice", when not a single one of the perps was from, or was supported by Iraq? Shouldn't we have been going to war with Saudi Arabia?

That's typical liberal logic.

What's typical liberal logic? To want to go after the guys that did it? Is that not the justice that you want? I honestly can't comprehend why you suggest it's a bad thing to want to get the guys responsible.

All the liberals would still be whining their asses off if we went to war with Saudi Arabia instead.

I suspect that the people whining then would be those that oppose any war. There are a whole lot of people that don't support this Iraq war because it was based on lies by the US administration.

Right now you'd be saying, "Look at Iraq, there is evidence that they are actually trying to build a nuke, they killed thousands of innocent people with toxic gas, and they openly support terrorism. Shouldn't we be invading Iraq instead?"

Again, no, I wouldn't. Consider the situation we're in with Iraq and North Korea. North Korea is actually trying to build a nuke, have killed thousands of innocent people, and openly support terrorism. Yet I don't know a single person who would say we should have invaded them, instead of Iraq (I know of lots of people who would say we should invade both Iraq and them, though).

Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cooperating with the effort to find terrorists.

Are you kidding? Saudi Arabia helped fund the terrorists. And Bush and co., by sheltering their Saudi connections, are, for all intents and purposes, aiding and abetting them.

Ah, yes. What would Ghandi and Martin Luther King have been able to do if they didn't have their weapons at hand?

You're right, guns are bad and evil. Murder wasn't even a word before the gun was invented.

Umm... hold on, I never said a thing about guns being bad or evil. Heck, I like guns, and I like shooting them. I learned how to shoot guns in church camp. Your intimation was that people would be unable to bring about change without the use of weapons. You said:

Once we become disarmed, we are utterly defenseless and powerless.

That is a ridiculous notion, easily disproven by the two examples I gave. For a counter-example to the corollary, that to be armed is to be have power and defense, how well did the armed Kurds do against Saddam? Not very. They were armed, yet still defenseless and powerless. How about the Waco thing? Whoops. That didn't work out so well, either.

Oh, and allow me to disabuse you of the notion that I'm a liberal; I'm not. I think for myself, and do my best to form my opinions after looking at a variety of viewpoints.