Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: hismajesty on May 18, 2004, 08:44 PM
I doubt Bush will lose, most elections have been won by the man that could raise the most amount of money. This election has had the highest amount of money than all the ones prior to it, and Bush has a lot more money than Kerry at the moment. Kerry lost out by having to pay for primaries and not getting free media coverage like Bush, since he's an incumbent and he has been stockpiling for 4 years.

Kerry's wife is a billionairess.  If money is needed, and if Kerry wants to win bad enough, the money will become available.

It still wouldn't top what Bush has raised/contributed to the campaign. I forget the figures however so I can't post them, but I know it's substantially more we were reading about it in Government class about month back.

All about money eh? Such a stupid scheme, where it should really be about proper testing of candidates....

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
I'm kidding noone. Why should I be? You seem to think you're kidding me, but you're not. Saddam wasn't arm-less, but he wasn't using wmd on the kurds now. Can you point at any news that says that wmd were seized in iraq, and specifies what? All I've seen is news saying that nothing but traces of weapons have been found still. Various buried remains, similar to the remains of world war weaponry you find at sea here. They've found plans, equipment that may be used to produce weapons or similars, but no actual wmd. No immediate threat. Nothing that inspections couldn't have kept in check.

Vials of anthrax and other materials suited to growing various types of germs. I already mentioned that. The immediate threat wasn't the point. The point was that he was a thorn in the side of the world that was beginning to nag more and more. He was removed, and that was a good thing. There were inspections. Inspections have been going on for years. Eventually, the inspectors weren't satisfied with being forbidden from certain areas that they deemed of interest to themselves, and that is where this began. Saddam did use germs and gas on Kurds and scores of Iraqi citizens. Sure he wasn't the last month or so before he was removed.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Days ago? All gone now? Strange how all the wmd just magically disappear....

They didn't dissapear. Plenty of WMDs have already been found. They just weren't nuclear weapons, but as I mentioned already, other weapons were already found.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

Or, perhaps he assumed that since he was doing what he was told, he'd be ok? What would he have done to not be attacked? Produce some wmd that he could then publicly dismantle, to satisfy the USA?

He wasn't doing what he was told. What he COULD'VE done was give inspectors free access to wherever they wanted to go. Those were provisions he agreed upon earlier.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
The UN's word was to not attack Iraq. Saddam didn't like to allow American inspectors, a perfectly understandable opinion.

The UN vote was not in overwhelming defeat of Bush's plans. They voted  to ask the US to use restraint until more inspectors could be sent. The inspectors were sent. They were defiant. Therefore, Bush's administration okayed the removal of Saddam. The final team of inspectors was not American; in fact, they were predominately European. He didn't like American inspectors? Tough. He signed the provisions; he was obligated to comply with them.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
It did help distract from local politics for a while. Now that Americans are getting their heads sawed off, ratings are likely to not rise so quickly. Wars that aren't being quickly and smoothly won tend to have that effect. Maybe that means Bush will be pulling out soon. Hopefully not, as that'd just leave a big mess that he's created.

The distraction the war provided was miniscule; issues like the waining economy occupied plenty enough room. Perhaps you weren't watching the news? The very proposition of the war already marked a fall in his ratings, and as the compaign progressed, they didn't rise very much. Bringing up the tragedy of the decapitation is tasteless. And you hope the US doesn't pull out soon? So that means you'd rather see more people suffer just so you can see Bush's image get hurt? It's amuzing how hypocritical some people are; you're against the war, but you're rather see it continue because you hate Bush.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Ah, the difference is then that USA sends its agents under the UN flag? I don't think Saddam saw that difference. And I think the USA would've taken any chance they could to sneak in spies among the inspectors.

Once again; it didn't matter what Saddam thought. He was obligated to follow provisions he agreed to. We can go on and on debating the intentions of US military intelligence.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Yes, the US attacked Iraq twice. Once it was sanctioned by the UN. The other time it was just a regular illegal assault war on a small country. Both were definitely attacks. I don't think Saddam liked either one of them?

What Saddam liked or disliked was irrelevant. His actions brought his circumstances upon him.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
I think that knowledge of troop locations, strengths, weapons systems, etc could help further the war. Typically summarized as "Intelligence". You're saying that USA didn't take advantage of any Intelligence gather by the weapons inspectors, during the war?

No, what I was saying was the little military "intelligence" that was gathered by the inspectors provided a disregardable direct advantage to the military campaign.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

Many countries don't follow the UN. One example of such a country could be the USA, attacking random small helpless countries such as Iraq. Is what you're saying that such countries deserve anything they get?

That's true, many don't follow the UN. However, few of them in doing so are breaking accords that their active leaders have signed. The attack was not in Iraq, but on its ruling government. Saddam got what he deserved.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Yes, I mean the government. It has wmd. It has a history of supporting regimes that support the US no matter what (i.e. coups, torture, dictatorships) instead of supporting legitimate regimes. And no, the US tortures mostly other people, and acts solely for its own good, sometimes at the expense of the world. I'm not sure what you mean about "national level".

Accusing the US of hypocrisy is a broken record. If you wanted to point out all the hypocrisy perpetrated by the governments of the world, your fingers would be sore for a while.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

The biggest claimed reason was the immediate threat from Saddam's wmd. You know, that non-existant threat. It might have been oil, in which case it wasn't very successful. It could even have been removal of his regime, whic isn't a legitimate reason for an attack - intervening in the internal affairs of another state.

It was not the biggest claim; it was one of them. However, the threat from Saddam's arsenal was always there, and required interjection from the national community. The removal of his oppressive and malevolent regime was a legitimate reason for attack. The actions of his government were hardly an "internal affair". The world community has been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations for decades, recently being with the removal of Slobodan Milosevic's murderous regime in Serbia. Just because this time it was Bush initiating such actions doesn't make them illegitimate.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

Ah, of course. The US has never supported underground movements or revolutionists? The US doesn't supply anti-Palestinian forces with weapons, such as rockets killing dozens of innocent palestinians? I don't think this line is anything you should be pursuing, because the US has done more than enough of supporting illegal activities.

The US's support of revolutionaries tended to be exclusive to entities who fought mostly oppressive regimes almost exclusively in their own states. Iraq supplied terrorist organizations with weapons that were used to strike countries abroad, with the attacks being aimed almost exclusively at innocent civilians instead of militias and government vanguards. The rockets the US supplied Israel with arrived years ago, designed to aid them with their military conflicts with aggressive neighboring states, as well as anti-ballistic missile systems intended to protect innocent civilians from ICBMs launched by people like Saddam. The missile that sadly have been killing innocent civilians tend to be of domestic Israeli manufacture. However, the money and equipment Saddam consistently provided terrorist organizations (whose missions tend to be specifically to kill innocent civilians instead of military entities) are still being used today to kill innocent Israelies. Most major nations today are guilty of aiding rogue political bodies and organizations, but the details of such endeavours cannot all be brushed under the same rug.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

I can't say whether bin Laden is a true believer or not. He claims to be. Saddam claims not to be. For that reason, seeing them in an alliance makes no sense. Saddam cared for his riches and his power in his country. bin Laden wants to destroy America for ideological reasons. They're not the same at all.

An alliance between the two is technically improbable, however their desire to strike at a common foe, in this case America, provides more than enough reasonable cause for assuming they did, or intended to, proceed in atleast some joint venture.

Raven, wow.  Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?

Quote from: Grok on May 20, 2004, 09:17 PM
Raven, wow.  Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?

Perhaps you should actually read what I write first.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 09:21 PM

Quote from: Grok on May 20, 2004, 09:17 PM
Raven, wow.  Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?

Perhaps you should actually read what I write first.

I read it very carefully.  Maybe more carefully than you did before you posted it?

Quote from: Grok on May 20, 2004, 09:17 PM
Raven, wow.  Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?

I thought Raven's argument was a very good one. Then again my opinions are very different than yours. I guess my logic must be way out there...

Quote from: Grok on May 20, 2004, 11:50 PM

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 09:21 PM

Quote from: Grok on May 20, 2004, 09:17 PM
Raven, wow.  Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?

Perhaps you should actually read what I write first.

I read it very carefully.  Maybe more carefully than you did before you posted it?

So my opinions are illogical simply because you disagree with them. How logical of you.

I'm having fun watching this argument. Seems like Raven has facts, and those quotes of Adron were mainly opinion. This is fun to read.

Raven is quoting some facts, and a lot of old (now untrue) facts, and some things purported as facts that are just completely untrue. It seems that no one has addressed the points I made in my previous post yet.

No evidence has ever been put forward that Iraq supported terrorists. No WMD have been found in Iraq since the end of the war. Aluminium tubes, you say? Could be used for any number of things. Vials for anthrax (which Saddam never made or possesed, by the way)? Is that surprising? He *had* lots of WMD, before UNSCOM inspectors verifyably destroyed them - a fact documented by the UN and not disputed by the US - is it really shocking that a couple of vials could be left over? The simple fact is that the manufacture of WMD requires industrialisation, which requires money, parts, and large installations. The acquisition of all of those is readily detectable.

The only real source of 'evidence' is what Bush says is true. And he says a lot of strange things, as we all know.

As an afterthought - You mention the UN. How badly someone looses a vote is not a measure of how acceptable it is to flout the result of that vote in favour of your own self-interest. I do not claim to be armed with all the facts - none of us can be. I do claim, however, that most (if not all) of the states on the security council of the UN were armed with the facts at the time of the vote on whether to invade. The fact that the US lost that vote - and the fact that most of the 'old europe' countries voted against the war - is very damning in my eyes. Here you have a massive body of countries with foreign relations experience extending back hundreds of years. This is compared to the US, which has only been around for a little over 200 years, 150 of those spent in virtual isolation from the rest of the world.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 22, 2004, 04:03 AM
Raven is quoting some facts, and a lot of old (now untrue) facts, and some things purported as facts that are just completely untrue. It seems that no one has addressed the points I made in my previous post yet.

No evidence has ever been put forward that Iraq supported terrorists. No WMD have been found in Iraq since the end of the war. Aluminium tubes, you say? Could be used for any number of things. Vials for anthrax (which Saddam never made or possesed, by the way)? Is that surprising? He *had* lots of WMD, before UNSCOM inspectors verifyably destroyed them - a fact documented by the UN and not disputed by the US - is it really shocking that a couple of vials could be left over? The simple fact is that the manufacture of WMD requires industrialisation, which requires money, parts, and large installations. The acquisition of all of those is readily detectable.

The only real source of 'evidence' is what Bush says is true. And he says a lot of strange things, as we all know.

As an afterthought - You mention the UN. How badly someone looses a vote is not a measure of how acceptable it is to flout the result of that vote in favour of your own self-interest. I do not claim to be armed with all the facts - none of us can be. I do claim, however, that most (if not all) of the states on the security council of the UN were armed with the facts at the time of the vote on whether to invade. The fact that the US lost that vote - and the fact that most of the 'old europe' countries voted against the war - is very damning in my eyes. Here you have a massive body of countries with foreign relations experience extending back hundreds of years. This is compared to the US, which has only been around for a little over 200 years, 150 of those spent in virtual isolation from the rest of the world.

That's because you didn't make any real points that Adron hadn't previously touched upon.

There's no proof that Hussein didn't support terrorism? Are you mad? Saddam donated thousands of dollars to terrorists and their families to "repay" them for their efforts (I believe I mentioned this already), he knowingly harbored and resupplied terrorist factions and cells within his borders, convoys and shipments of weapons were intercepted by Israeli authorities that were headed for Hamas' militant wings and other terrorist organizations, and Saddam himself continually flaunted his pro-terrorist policies and dared the world to do something about it. To claim that there's no "proof" that Saddam aided terrorism is laughable at best.

You say that Europe's larger states have more experience than the US as though it has been the same people holding office for hundreds of years. Political idealogies have changed countless times; since the founding of America, about 5 different forms of government were noted, as well as plenty of scandals and revolutions. I'll put the political expertise of most living American policymakers against just about any living European's any day. You cannot assume a certain politician knows best based on the age of the nation he or she represents. We can only hope the decisions they make will deliver the best possible outcome.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
I'm kidding noone. Why should I be? You seem to think you're kidding me, but you're not. Saddam wasn't arm-less, but he wasn't using wmd on the kurds now. Can you point at any news that says that wmd were seized in iraq, and specifies what? All I've seen is news saying that nothing but traces of weapons have been found still. Various buried remains, similar to the remains of world war weaponry you find at sea here. They've found plans, equipment that may be used to produce weapons or similars, but no actual wmd. No immediate threat. Nothing that inspections couldn't have kept in check.

Vials of anthrax and other materials suited to growing various types of germs. I already mentioned that. The immediate threat wasn't the point. The point was that he was a thorn in the side of the world that was beginning to nag more and more. He was removed, and that was a good thing. There were inspections. Inspections have been going on for years. Eventually, the inspectors weren't satisfied with being forbidden from certain areas that they deemed of interest to themselves, and that is where this began. Saddam did use germs and gas on Kurds and scores of Iraqi citizens. Sure he wasn't the last month or so before he was removed.

A few vials of anthrax found hidden in a scientist's home or office? That is Saddam's fearful WMD arsenal? THAT is what required a full-scale war?

Saddam may have been a thorn, but the world voted to give him time. Saddam was not an immediate threat, and there was no valid reason to attack him. Besides, Israel is a much bigger thorn in the world's side than Saddam.

Saddam did use gas, long ago. Irrelevant to this conversation. Unless you want to nuke America because they're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation?

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Days ago? All gone now? Strange how all the wmd just magically disappear....

They didn't dissapear. Plenty of WMDs have already been found. They just weren't nuclear weapons, but as I mentioned already, other weapons were already found.

What I've found in the articles I've read are a lot of maybes. Stuff that could be used to make weapons, drawings for weapons, but not actual weapons.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

Or, perhaps he assumed that since he was doing what he was told, he'd be ok? What would he have done to not be attacked? Produce some wmd that he could then publicly dismantle, to satisfy the USA?

He wasn't doing what he was told. What he COULD'VE done was give inspectors free access to wherever they wanted to go. Those were provisions he agreed upon earlier.

That's not a reason to go to war. If you really believe that minor disputes over agreements are a reason for war, I'll bring up Israel and perhaps other countries who agree to a plan, then change their mind or procrastinate. You can't expect him to lie on his back, like a beaten dog all the time. That's not the way people work.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
The UN's word was to not attack Iraq. Saddam didn't like to allow American inspectors, a perfectly understandable opinion.

The UN vote was not in overwhelming defeat of Bush's plans. They voted  to ask the US to use restraint until more inspectors could be sent. The inspectors were sent. They were defiant. Therefore, Bush's administration okayed the removal of Saddam. The final team of inspectors was not American; in fact, they were predominately European. He didn't like American inspectors? Tough. He signed the provisions; he was obligated to comply with them.

Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
It did help distract from local politics for a while. Now that Americans are getting their heads sawed off, ratings are likely to not rise so quickly. Wars that aren't being quickly and smoothly won tend to have that effect. Maybe that means Bush will be pulling out soon. Hopefully not, as that'd just leave a big mess that he's created.

The distraction the war provided was miniscule; issues like the waining economy occupied plenty enough room. Perhaps you weren't watching the news? The very proposition of the war already marked a fall in his ratings, and as the compaign progressed, they didn't rise very much. Bringing up the tragedy of the decapitation is tasteless. And you hope the US doesn't pull out soon? So that means you'd rather see more people suffer just so you can see Bush's image get hurt? It's amuzing how hypocritical some people are; you're against the war, but you're rather see it continue because you hate Bush.

I was against starting the war. Once you have started it, you have to see it through, because right now it's all a mess. What I'm saying is that since you made the mess, now you get to fix it. It's easier to destroy than to rebuild.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Yes, the US attacked Iraq twice. Once it was sanctioned by the UN. The other time it was just a regular illegal assault war on a small country. Both were definitely attacks. I don't think Saddam liked either one of them?

What Saddam liked or disliked was irrelevant. His actions brought his circumstances upon him.

It's relevant for understanding his position. You have to try to understand him.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
I think that knowledge of troop locations, strengths, weapons systems, etc could help further the war. Typically summarized as "Intelligence". You're saying that USA didn't take advantage of any Intelligence gather by the weapons inspectors, during the war?

No, what I was saying was the little military "intelligence" that was gathered by the inspectors provided a disregardable direct advantage to the military campaign.

Belief or fact? Perhaps the reason they didn't provide a huge advantage (assuming they didn't) was that Saddam didn't allow the American spies everywhere?

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
Many countries don't follow the UN. One example of such a country could be the USA, attacking random small helpless countries such as Iraq. Is what you're saying that such countries deserve anything they get?

That's true, many don't follow the UN. However, few of them in doing so are breaking accords that their active leaders have signed. The attack was not in Iraq, but on its ruling government. Saddam got what he deserved.

Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM
Accusing the US of hypocrisy is a broken record. If you wanted to point out all the hypocrisy perpetrated by the governments of the world, your fingers would be sore for a while.

It works for showing that the decision to attack Iraq was arbitrary in some regards. There must've been other reasons to do it.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM
The biggest claimed reason was the immediate threat from Saddam's wmd. You know, that non-existant threat. It might have been oil, in which case it wasn't very successful. It could even have been removal of his regime, whic isn't a legitimate reason for an attack - intervening in the internal affairs of another state.

It was not the biggest claim; it was one of them. However, the threat from Saddam's arsenal was always there, and required interjection from the national community. The removal of his oppressive and malevolent regime was a legitimate reason for attack.

It was not a legitimate reason; the UN said no.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM
The actions of his government were hardly an "internal affair". The world community has been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations for decades, recently being with the removal of Slobodan Milosevic's murderous regime in Serbia. Just because this time it was Bush initiating such actions doesn't make them illegitimate.

It does. The UN can do things that the US cannot, legitimately.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

Ah, of course. The US has never supported underground movements or revolutionists? The US doesn't supply anti-Palestinian forces with weapons, such as rockets killing dozens of innocent palestinians? I don't think this line is anything you should be pursuing, because the US has done more than enough of supporting illegal activities.

The US's support of revolutionaries tended to be exclusive to entities who fought mostly oppressive regimes almost exclusively in their own states. Iraq supplied terrorist organizations with weapons that were used to strike countries abroad, with the attacks being aimed almost exclusively at innocent civilians instead of militias and government vanguards. The rockets the US supplied Israel with arrived years ago, designed to aid them with their military conflicts with aggressive neighboring states, as well as anti-ballistic missile systems intended to protect innocent civilians from ICBMs launched by people like Saddam. The missile that sadly have been killing innocent civilians tend to be of domestic Israeli manufacture. However, the money and equipment Saddam consistently provided terrorist organizations (whose missions tend to be specifically to kill innocent civilians instead of military entities) are still being used today to kill innocent Israelies. Most major nations today are guilty of aiding rogue political bodies and organizations, but the details of such endeavours cannot all be brushed under the same rug.

The US has supported regimes which have tortured and executed civilians. The US has more resources to offer. If Saddam had equivalent resources to offer to the nations he supported, the "war" would be fought differently. They have to make do with what they get - if they can destroy tanks and kill soldiers, they will, and they sometimes do too. If they don't have weapons that lets them attack soldiers, I fully well understand their attacking the "civilians" (i.e. armed occupants) living in settlements on their soil.

Also, supporting families left behind after dead warriors can't be such a bad thing to do.

Quote from: Raven on May 20, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

I can't say whether bin Laden is a true believer or not. He claims to be. Saddam claims not to be. For that reason, seeing them in an alliance makes no sense. Saddam cared for his riches and his power in his country. bin Laden wants to destroy America for ideological reasons. They're not the same at all.

An alliance between the two is technically improbable, however their desire to strike at a common foe, in this case America, provides more than enough reasonable cause for assuming they did, or intended to, proceed in atleast some joint venture.

Innocent until proven guilty, are we?

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 22, 2004, 04:03 AMThe fact that the US lost that vote - and the fact that most of the 'old europe' countries voted against the war - is very damning in my eyes. Here you have a massive body of countries with foreign relations experience extending back hundreds of years. This is compared to the US, which has only been around for a little over 200 years, 150 of those spent in virtual isolation from the rest of the world.

Arta, that argument does not fly.  You only have to look at WWI to see that all those old European countries had no clue how to handle foreign relations.  If any of those hundreds of years of experience prior were useful in 1914, it would not have taken only two months from an assassination in July 1914, until September 1914, for 33 countries to be at war.  That is not the kind of foreign relations experience on which the world should depend.

So, at best, you can hope they all learned from it and can only count their foreign relations experience since that time.  But attempting to do that is not possible either.  England, the imperialist of all imperialists, has been in more trouble worldwide than even the United States.  Spain has been through countless revolutions and government changes, rending all their experience null.  France, well they only have one foreign policy -- run.  Germany is suffering from massive cultural guilt, albeit forced by culture and law.  Russia is a non-union of fragmented states, most just trying to survive the next crop season, and will do anything in their own best interests, foreign relations be damned.

But here in the United States, we have blinders on, even to our own experiences of the past.  Two days ago, I heard an impassioned but eloquent speech by Senator Earnest Hollings (Demcrat from South Carolina), on the subject of Iraq.  In part of it he denounced the White House administrations seeking of democracy in Iraq, saying that democracy must come from within.  People must want it and fight for it.  He proceeded to list off over two dozen countries around the world where the USA had meddled and attempted to "install" democracy, each failing because the people never wanted it.  He said if we really want to find out if the Iraqis want democracy, do the vote in September 2004, not in September 2005.  Give the people a vote NOW.  If they don't want democracy, they won't vote, and we can leave.  If they do want democracy, then stay and help the new government rebuild, at their own discretion on what they need from us.

Quote from: Adron on May 23, 2004, 01:07 PMWhich still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.

To my understanding, which may be wrong, the United States is not a U.N. territory, and is not subject to any ruling by the U.N.  The U.N. rulings are merely suggestions, as far as U.S. law is concerned.  Citizens of the USA will never give up our sovereignty.  I don't really understand how the U.N. can exist without rule of law.  But nonetheless, it's invalid to say the USA needs any approvals from the UN.

Quote from: Adron on May 18, 2004, 05:18 PMYes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.

I somewhat agree.  Honestly, but without proof, I believe the real issue here is that puppet Saddam, who the USA financed to help fight Iran (when we hated THEM), got out of the USA's control.  He became a liability, and since we were responsible for giving him all those WMD abilities, and the supplies, and the knowledge, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) then it became time for us to "erase" him.