Yessum massa.

There is no debate, other than by those who thirst for no connection because they are so seething with crap.

I have proven, quite adeptly, the link and how the press intentionally distorted the facts...You, in your blindness, refuse to accept the truth because it hurts sooooooo much.

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!"

Well, do you think the links that there are (whether distorted by the press or not) are enough to justify an invasion of Iraq?

If yes, are there other countries which should have been invaded before Iraq on the "links to Al Qaeda" argument (ie, strong links)?

What is the point of an international resolution if it is not enforced?...In this case there was an international resolution, namely 1441, that was criminally disregarded. This combined with Al Qaeda links and a desire to inflict harm on American people, called for action...This action had an undeniable effect. It stopped a murderous dictator, freed the people of Iraq, dismantled an Al Qaeda refuge, and sent a message to other human rights violators that we may come after them (eg. Libya).

What is the point of an international resolution if it is not enforced?...In this case there was an international resolution, namely 1441, that was criminally disregarded.

And there was a process dealing with enforcement - just because it wasn't fast enough for GWB doesn't legitimise his actions. The UN didn't want a war at that time, and he should have waited. Forget about weasely "1441 was breached so the war is legitimate" - it isn't legitimate from a democratic standpoint.

This combined with Al Qaeda links and a desire to inflict harm on American people, called for action...This action had an undeniable effect. It stopped a murderous dictator, freed the people of Iraq, dismantled an Al Qaeda refuge, and sent a message to other human rights violators that we may come after them (eg. Libya).

Well, yes and no. Extremely weak Al Qaeda links. A toothless desire to inflict harm on the US. The murderous dictator was stopped and the people freed, but at tremendous and ongoing cost ($$$, lives, international relations, possible strengthening of Middle East resolve against West). It was hardly an Al Qaeda refuge - it is more likely that it has become an Al Qaeda hotbed.

And the message to human rights violators? The change in Qaddafi is awesome, but there is plenty of work left to do (for everyone). There are horrific human rights violations going on unchecked by the US in the Sudan, for instance.

True, but it was the USA which disregarded it. You see Syria sits on the permament UN security councile, they were told by the US ambasador and Colin Powell that no military action would be taken against Iraq without another resoultion. Syria agreed to these terms and signed 1441. The USA breeched their agreement with Syria, formerly labled as a terrorist nation themselves.

The latest pissing contest USA/Syria:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/19/syria.us.ap/index.html

Huhhhhhhhh??...We breached an agreement with the terrorist dictatorship of Syria?...How could we?...Well, I'll....Say it aint so Joe...

When you use Syria as the link to righteousness you have a problem kach...But I am sure you think Christianity is dangerous, so there ya go.

Mul: you're trying to have it both ways again.

You can't use the UN as justification for an attack if the UN does not support the attack.

You can't pick and choose which countries on the Security Council to defy. Either you play by the rules or you don't.

Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. Your posts are full of it.

I'd have to agree that his posts are "full of it." I listened to a portion of Clinton's interview this morning on the way to work including his description of appropriate policy regarding the Iraq and ME situation. He described a multi-pronged approach. He did not say "Bomb them to Allah, and peace will be restored when they are intimidated into submission." Instead, he suggested an interesting combination of various typical, tried and true foreign-affairs tactics and strategies. Diplomacy, for example.

That kind of suggestion is going to grate on someone who believes that America's promises to other nations should be broken, when we feel like it. A nation that does not feel obligated to honor its promises will do very poorly at the diplomacy game. But then again, a nation that hopes to scare the world into submission would not come to the negotiating table, and therefore would not need a reputation for integrity.

Have I fairly stated the position of someone who feels our promises need not be kept?

I'm just glad Estonia is on our side. It looks like there are still a couple of developed Western nations that could be added to our coalition. Like ALL of them. Apparently, the coalition is a large, powerful country with support from a fistful of third-world nations. Sort of like a great big elephant with a bunch of little baby duckies in tow. "Coalition" Dubya must just be a lot smarter than everyone else in the world. In fact, with that super-duper high level of intelligence combined with the inability to pronouce words or make grammatically correct sentences, I think it's fair to label Dubya as a "savant." whaddya think?