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?

Don't fret. It's coming. Just not under buddies Bush/Cheney.

That's typical liberal logic. All the liberals would still be whining their asses off if we went to war with Saudi Arabia instead. (unless of course Gore was president, then it would be the right thing to do.)

I'm both a liberal and a wuss, and I'll be cheering loudest when the war with House o' Saud starts.

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.

Gotta be better then wasting billions to drop bombs and wage war only to still not have him in custody.... Funny how people bash the liberals... Yet Republicans spend millions on proving a guy got a blowjob, yet turn a blind eye when their boy flushes billions down the toilet on finding weapons of mass destruction that don't exsist.

I'll admit I supported the war and bought the propaganda surrounding it all, but it's blatantly clear to me now that it's all about the oil. It sickens me that our fearless leader continues to use the threat of terror to fuel this war when it's really all about obtaining control of the resources in that area.

Paul -- first of all, thank you for not descending into your sometimes troll-like behavior with your answer to my post. Some of your points are nicely put, even if I don't agree with them.

Saddam was our enemy, our allys' enemy, and an enemy of the Iraqi people. Getting rid of him is one step closer to a peaceful world.

I don't disagree with you for a minute that Saddam Hussein is/was not a very nice guy. But I don't care if you have indisputable proof that he fornicates with animals and eats babies for breakfast -- he was nonetheless the legitimate head of a sovereign nation, and until he initiates hostilities against us (or against an ally who then requests our support) we have no legal nor moral right to attack him.

like someone hitting your Ferrari with a golfclub ...[snip]...you're gonna kill the son of a bitch that did this

If you are really serious, you would kill someone for putting a dent in your car, then you have at the very least a serious anger management problem. I'm hoping you are speaking hyperbolically -- exaggerating for the sake of effect -- and would take action more appropriate to the severity of the offense. Saddam Hussein said bad things about us; I don't feel that justifies blowing up his whole damn country.

And try telling that to the survivors of the WTC that 3000 of our people being murdered is no big deal.

As I said earlier, on an individual, personal level it is indeed a tragedy. On a national level, as far as damage to the country as a whole (excepting the collateral damage imposed by Aschcroft and crew) it's not even a pinprick.

Maybe that's missing the point you were trying to make, but this IS a big deal, and we have to seek justice.


And your idea of justice is to blow up some country that had nothing to do with the attack?

there is one law that is the most important. And that is the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights

You are referring to this:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

First of all, it is not a law -- it is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution..

Second of all, it never ceases to amaze me that people who quote the second amendment nearly always conveniently leave out the first 13 words. I have no problem with a "well regulated militia" being allowed to keep and bear whatever arms they desire. But I don't need wackos armed with AK-47's shooting up the neighborhood because somebody put a dent in their car!

No administration can enforce their laws on an angry mob of 100 million armed americans

You're living in a dream world if you believe that. There will be no "mob of 100 million armed americans", and even if you could get together a mob of, say, 10,000, the first F-16 dropping a pair of Hellfire bombs would be the end of that.

So I'm not afraid of the day the FBI starts arresting innocent people and the CIA starts suppressing free speech, because the rest of us will rise up

No, you won't. What "rest of us" are you talking about? A few nuts hiding in their bomb shelters up in the hills, armed to the teeth because "...the governments coming to take our guns away?" If it ever came to the point where an armed uprising of the general populace was the only solution, it would be too late. That's why the rest of us (i.e., the wusses) are working now to see that it never does come to that point.

tanstaafl.

But I don't need wackos armed with AK-47's shooting up the neighborhood because somebody put a dent in their car!

The problem being, of course, that "armed wackos" comprise today's "well-regulated militia." That's the tricky part.

That's why the rest of us (i.e., the wusses) are working now to see that it never does come to that point.

Well-put and here-here, from this wuss. (I love that word!)

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.