Who thinks Bush (jr.) is a good president?

You realize that to be accurate your scenario has to go like this. You go and steal someone elses house. Then the police chase you back to your house. They don't need a warrent they have probable cause to see if you have any of the other persons stuff. Then they find that you have a huge stock pile of illegal guns only in Saddams case there is a nuclear weapons program that is more advanced than intelligence reports and gases and bio etc. The UN (court in your analogy) sentence you to probabation as long as a social worker can come by and inspect your house for these things. So when she (all the socials I know are female) shows up you don't answer the door or reschedule meeting around days your supposed to open the door for her. I agree that would suck, but eventually you are going to be hauled into court and accused of contempt. So you fail to show up at court so the police come and arrest you, even if they don't find anymore illegal weapons. It's too late the deed is done and this is were your awesome anology breaks apart. In your neighboorhood you may do some time for contempt of court but you may get your house back and all it's stuff. But you would still be held to the orginal resolution to not make anymore illegal stuff.

In Iraq Saddam may get his house back because everyone wants that.

well that whole story doesn't mather much... iraq did comply with weapon inspections

Dewd, first off. . .we quit messin' w/ Suddam in the '90's. Clinton was going to push it later based on some intel but didn't. Your analogy is not real to the situation, you're thinking US laws. We're dealing w/ international laws, which are only laws b/c certain countries agree that they are. If I have my own country, whether I stole it or not, I don't have to agree w/ what you believe in. If you come into my country and bomb the sh*t out of it b/c I didn't agree w/ what you said, your a bully, plain and simple. The Bushster went after Iraq b/c he wanted to finish what his daddy started. He didn't have a reason and made sh*t up as he went so he could do it. He's still making sh*t up. There are no WMDs, the inspections, from the US standpoint, didn't matter. No matter what was found Bush was going to go in w/ his d*ck hard and revolver shootin'. Why the heck do you think the rest of the world said "wait, lets inspect some more and actually find something before we bomb the h3ll outta them"? They said that b/c there wasn't any proof. They said that b/c the US is being lead by a little ***** that wants to get his daddie's investment back out of the oil in Iraq.

RoadClosed: bad analogy. A better one would be if you where punished for stealing and on probation, then a vigalanty decided that you realy where stealing again, and even though your probation officer said that you where not the vigilanti breaks into your house and kills you.

So the US was a vigilante and should have left Kuwait alone?

The only reason the US got involved was because Bush Sr. had sunk a lot of money into securing the oil interests there.

When did he comply? Right before the bombs landed? When they were kicked out in 1998? When they would pick a building and Saddam would claim "No inspection today" I have noticed a lot of literature in liberal sites and newspapers that claim Iraq was in complete compliance with UN resolutions. There is a huge laundry list that goes back almost 10 years and more. The resolution was in place because he had them, cold turkey.

Going out on a tangent here, but I am really forming an opinion that Iraq opposition isn't about Iraq at all. It's about hating republicans as both humans and a party and hating the president because he is not a liberal or democrat. That's a harsh statement but it's starting to sink in to my thought process. I could be wrong but I am wondering.

If it's true then I see why the Electoral College and all the checks and balances were placed on our government design. It's not just there to protect the populace against those who would seize power against democracy. :)

Really, why didn't he comply? And don't just use the last few weeks before the war to form an opinion, he eventually said OK, just like my dog comes off the couch when I am about to lose my temper.

Like I said earlier, I am saying it's just as likely that someone in the government thought Saddam was an immediate threat through intelligence as it is that Bush is part of a multinational conspiracy of world wide rich republicans that want to toss out the constitution and get all the oil for their own private coffers and there is a large syndicate who planned the whole thing for profit. Or maybe some government think tank of CIA and FBI analysts labeled Iraq and immediate threat after 9/11 and our own emergency council acted on it. And at the same time why did Saddam act the way he did in the 90s?

Certainly congress thought something was amiss. The president cannot go to war without their approval. House resolution 114 reports its findings. One could argue that the house is biased toward the republican view point. Fine, elect them out. If the majority of people want republicans in the house or democrats in the house, that¡¦s fine and thats democracy. Those who only support one party and one style of thinking are destroying our founding basis.

So congress authorized the support for the use of military forces. Had anyone even bothered to read it? Not the spin from either side, the actual document? This is from our elected house of representatives! And the senate passed it. As you all know, every state has equal voice in the senate. A lot of Dems voted for it and even a republican voted against it. What was he thinking the bastard! Joke :)

Sorry, got excited. DA Bill

Oh and my earlier post, I only expanded on an original analogy and added more detail.

the USA labeled half the world as a treat after 11 sept... etc. etc. etc. iraq did comply with weapon inspection so that's not an argument, iraq turned out to not have any wmd stuff at all

Your just wrong. You're thinking of things from a US perspective. The world doesn't revolve around the US. It's not about repo v/s demo, it's about truth and fiction, right and wrong, and the side your standing on, IMO is wrong. BTW, he complied w/ everything, why do you think the US was the only country going in w/ guns blazing?

Quote:

---

Going out on a tangent here, but I am really forming an opinion that Iraq opposition isn't about Iraq at all. It's about hating republicans as both humans and a party and hating the president because he is not a liberal or democrat. That's a harsh statement but it's starting to sink in to my thought process. I could be wrong but I am wondering.

---

i agree with you roadclosed. look what happened when he went to visit the troops in iraq. the commander and chief went to visit his troops to convey a nations thanks and boost moral and catchs a whole ration for it. of course it was ALSO political, but what isn't. any other president would have been praised for it and any other people would have praised their leader. not dems!