» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/13/04 at 12:05 pm

I found this on the web today, and find it interesting that it is not being reported more widely:

Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war – we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."

ABC’s Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test.
Koppel’s findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller’s suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.


Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.

"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'

"Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle."


Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.


The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq.


As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts:


"Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."


But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it’s exactly what I would do again."

Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.

But John Kerry’s position on Iraq has vacillated – and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.

Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.

But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.

Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war – the way the president went to war was wrong."

At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."

But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.

Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way went to war was a mistake."

But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.

Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry’s equivocating.

In a speech Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."

"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."


Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Don Carlos on 07/13/04 at 4:21 pm

As I have said before, intelligence allows for change.  Changing one's views on a topic is not "flip-flopping" if the change is based on new information or convincing arguments.  For example, I have changed my views on the Second Amendment as a result of arguments some of my students made.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/14/04 at 8:14 am

You are quoting from Newsmax.com.  I repudiate any information garnered from that site.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: GWBush2004 on 07/14/04 at 9:29 am


For example, I have changed my views on the Second Amendment as a result of arguments some of my students made.




So are you for or against (though I think I know.)

Democrats:  We love the constitution and the bill of rights, except that second one.....

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/14/04 at 11:20 am


You are quoting from Newsmax.com.  I repudiate any information garnered from that site.


Are you implying they would lie about a source like ABC?

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/14/04 at 11:25 am


As I have said before, intelligence allows for change.  Changing one's views on a topic is not "flip-flopping" if the change is based on new information or convincing arguments.  For example, I have changed my views on the Second Amendment as a result of arguments some of my students made.


I agree.  I myself have flipped many times in my life.

I used to support legalization, until I saw how drugs affected some of my friends and society, and saw how much it was NOT a problem in the military, with a "Zero Tolerance" policy.  Once I got out, I realized how good I had it living in a clean and sober environment for so long.

I used to support "Pro-Abortion" stance.  I am still in favor of keeping it legalized, but feel more time and money should be spent on adoption and education.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/14/04 at 5:51 pm




Are you implying they would lie about a source like ABC?


Are you kidding?  NewsMax--I'm sorry--NewsMax is not journalism in any sense.  They simply reprint press releases from right-wing sources such as the Scaife Foundations, JudicialWatch, Heritage, and even Bill O'Reilly's talking points.  They're an outlet for right-wing loudmouths such as Ann Coulter, Christopher Ruddy, Michelle Malkin, Paul Weyrich, Tammy Bruce,* and similar yammering.  They hawk right-wing books, they hawk right-wing novelty merchandice,** and so on. 

If Peter Jennings got on the air and said, "So-and-so said so-and-so said Hillary Clinton called D-i-c-k Morris a 'Jew M*th*rf*ck*r' in 1982," then you might be able to compare ABC and NewsMax. 

*Big Tammy likes to say she's a liberal and a feminist, but that means nothing the sole reason for her media visibility is her work on behalf of the far Right.
**Like a deck of "Hillary" cards.

GWBush wrote:
Democrats:  We love the constitution and the bill of rights, except that second one.....
Well, if we're talking on that level...
Republicans:  Who cares about the rest of the Bill of Rights?, as long as I got my gun, I can get them other thangs!

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Don Carlos on 07/14/04 at 6:02 pm





So are you for or against (though I think I know.)

Democrats:  We love the constitution and the bill of rights, except that second one.....


I was always FOR the 2nd amendment.  I use to rely on the phrase "a well regulated militia..." as modifying the right to "keep and bear arms".  My students convinced me that like all  the rest of the fiest 10 applies to individuals.  But, as you yourself have pointed out, no right is unconditional, so the regulation of the type of arms individuals are allowed to own certainly can be regulated, as in assualt weopons that easilly outclass what cops carry.  I'd like to own a tank and munitions for its cannon  and machine gun, but should I?

And please stop calling me a democrat.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Don Carlos on 07/14/04 at 6:14 pm




I agree.  I myself have flipped many times in my life.

I used to support legalization, until I saw how drugs affected some of my friends and society, and saw how much it was NOT a problem in the military, with a "Zero Tolerance" policy.  Once I got out, I realized how good I had it living in a clean and sober environment for so long.

I used to support "Pro-Abortion" stance.  I am still in favor of keeping it legalized, but feel more time and money should be spent on adoption and education.


Who hasn't (except fanatical ideologues like some on this board)?  We, most of us, grow, learn, and change.

There are drugs and drugs.  Just heard about a guy from Penn. who told his MD that he drinks a 6 pack every day, and had his drivers licence revoked.  The MD reported it to the DMV because of a state law.  What is worse, drinking a 6 pack or tooking a joint?  Now hard drugs are another thing.

I was never in the military, but both m,y dad (WWII) and my wife (82-89) and both talk about LOTS of drinking, and Vietnam was notorious for tookers.

I agree with your position on abortion, but find it strange that pro-lifers tend to oppose birth control education other that abstinance (I am not implying that this is your view).

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/14/04 at 8:04 pm




Who hasn't (except fanatical ideologues like some on this board)?  We, most of us, grow, learn, and change.

There are drugs and drugs.  Just heard about a guy from Penn. who told his MD that he drinks a 6 pack every day, and had his drivers licence revoked.  The MD reported it to the DMV because of a state law.  What is worse, drinking a 6 pack or tooking a joint?  Now hard drugs are another thing.

What kind of a stupidass state law is that?  Am I missing something?  You tell your doctor you drink a sixpack a day, the doctor can report you to the DMV, and the DMV can summarily revoke your license?  Nah, it can't be!  Although...we're getting to the point in this country where I wouldn't rule it out.
I agree with the Libertarians on one thing, GOVERNMENTS ABUSE THEIR POWER IF CITIZENS GO SOFT!

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Powerslave on 07/14/04 at 9:03 pm



What kind of a stupidass state law is that?  Am I missing something?  You tell your doctor you drink a sixpack a day, the doctor can report you to the DMV, and the DMV can summarily revoke your license?  Nah, it can't be!  Although...we're getting to the point in this country where I wouldn't rule it out.
I agree with the Libertarians on one thing, GOVERNMENTS ABUSE THEIR POWER IF CITIZENS GO SOFT!




You're right. That's alarming. I hate to think what the quack would have done if the guy had admitted he used cocaine.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/14/04 at 11:27 pm


I was always FOR the 2nd amendment.  I use to rely on the phrase "a well regulated militia..." as modifying the right to "keep and bear arms".


I agree, that the Government has the right to REGULATE what kinds of arms are legal.  They have the right to say automatic rifles and explosives are illegal for common citizens.  This falls under "protection of the public" in my opinion.

As for the term "militia", that is more vague.  Prior to the post Civil War era, the US really did not have a national military.  It had a small cadre, and relied on the ability to call up state militias.  These militias were very informal, often exchanging land grants for service.  At any time the person wanted out, they simply left.  These were the "citizen soldiers" of the Revolution and War of 1812.  They would enlist at the time of strife, then leave when it was over.  They almost always fought in units sponsored by their home state.

After the Civil War, it was obvious this was not practicle, because of Reconstruction.  That saw the first use of true "Federal Troops".  A trend which continues to this day.

I look to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, one of the writers of the Constitution.  It was his belief that an armed citizen would be less likely to submit to tyrany.  THat part of the reason for private ownership was to keep the Government in check.  And in keeping with the writings of Thomas Paine, they had the right to remove any government which became oppressive.  By force of arms if nessicary.

I agree in setting REASONABLE limits on firearms possession.  I also agree in keeping them away from children without adult supervision (and holding adults responsible if that is not done), in keeping them from the mentally ill, felons, and restricting the types of weapons owned.

But some of our laws are quite silly.  I had a rifle stollen in 1990.  When it was finally recovered, I went to the police to try and get it back.  Basically, I was told that I had illegally brought an "Assault Rifle" into the state, and either I would walk away and let them keep it, or they would charge me with illegal possession of an "assault rifle".

What I owned was a Ruger 10/22.  It is a .22 caliber rifle, which I used for target practice and shooting squirrels.  During my ownership I added a flash suppressor (to keep the dirt kicked up by shooting down when I was in the prone position), a adjustable stock (to make it easier for my wife to fire), and a pistol grip (to make more similar to the M-16 - a weapon I used for a living as a Marine).

Because I made those 3 COSMETIC changes, it was deemed illegal in California!  It did not shoot any faster, and more accurately, or any more bullets.  The bullets did no more damage then an unmodified 10/22.  But according to that law, it was an "Assault Rifle".

California a few years ago enacted a law, declairing any pistol that sells new for under $250 to be illegal.  All this did was prevent people with a limited income from buying a gun.  As if a criminal would go to a gun shop, buy a registered gun, and wait 21 days so they could get one for a crime.

The sad part, is that 2 companies which MADE low price guns are both made in California.  Lorcin makes some decent low-cost firearms, but you can't own one in California.  So instead of buying a US owned California made gun, they now buy imported guns.  Insanity.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/15/04 at 10:02 am




California a few years ago enacted a law, declairing any pistol that sells new for under $250 to be illegal.  All this did was prevent people with a limited income from buying a gun.  As if a criminal would go to a gun shop, buy a registered gun, and wait 21 days so they could get one for a crime.


I gathered they wanted the waiting periods to prevent crimes of passion.  You catch the old lady cheating, so you go buy a gun, come back 15 minutes later and blow everybody away.  However, calculating criminals want nothing to do with buying a gun legally.  That leaves a paper trail.  As far as abolishing pistols costing under $250.00, that does seem like a blow against low-income citizens.  Even IF a dope dealer was going to buy a gun legally, what's $250.00 to him?  He makes more than that in an hour!

The NRA types also have a good point about gun crimes.  There are already tons of restrictions on the books.  However, if a liberal judge chooses to sentence lightly for crimes committed with guns, what's the point in passing MORE gun laws?  The NRA guys always advocate the harshest sentences for armed robbery and such crimes. 

I'm not a big fan of guns myself, and in a lot of areas, the NRA is full of bull, but everytime some punk holds up a 7-11, it hurts their cause.  I don't have a gun and I don't want one, but I do believe the Second Amendment affirms my right to have one.  What was appropriate in 1790 might not be appropriate in 2004.  Maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd, but there's no way that's gonna fly in America!

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Don Carlos on 07/15/04 at 5:16 pm




I agree, that the Government has the right to REGULATE what kinds of arms are legal.  They have the right to say automatic rifles and explosives are illegal for common citizens.  This falls under "protection of the public" in my opinion.


I look to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, one of the writers of the Constitution.  It was his belief that an armed citizen would be less likely to submit to tyrany.  THat part of the reason for private ownership was to keep the Government in check.  And in keeping with the writings of Thomas Paine, they had the right to remove any government which became oppressive.  By force of arms if nessicary.

I agree in setting REASONABLE limits on firearms possession.  I also agree in keeping them away from children without adult supervision (and holding adults responsible if that is not done), in keeping them from the mentally ill, felons, and restricting the types of weapons owned.

But some of our laws are quite silly.  I had a rifle stollen in 1990.  When it was finally recovered, I went to the police to try and get it back.  Basically, I was told that I had illegally brought an "Assault Rifle" into the state, and either I would walk away and let them keep it, or they would charge me with illegal possession of an "assault rifle".

.



I agree wityh much of what you say here, but I must point out (call me a knit picker) that Old Tom as in Paris when the Constituution was drafted, so he was  not "one of the writers except by long distance,  He had 2 objections:  that there was no statement of the rights of citizens and that there was no "sunset".  He believed that any constitution should only bev in force for 15-20 years and then be rewritten.  He also thought that Sheys' rebellion was a sign of health and not to be feared.  He said that a little rebellion cleared the political air as a storm clears the natural air, and both were a good thing.  "the tree of liberty must, occasionally, be watered by the blood of its patriots".  This has been true since the beginning - there are lots of examples through our history of (mostly) working people dying to promote the extension of democracy.

That said, hopefully, we common folk will learn to fight in the courts, the legislatures, and a the voting booths instead of at places like Haymarket, Ludlow, Lawrence, and Patterson, to name a few.

Yes, some laws aeem to be stupid, unproductive, absurde, rediculous: the result of show-boating?

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/20/04 at 9:52 pm


I agree wityh much of what you say here, but I must point out (call me a knit picker) that Old Tom as in Paris when the Constituution was drafted, so he was  not "one of the writers except by long distance,  He had 2 objections:  that there was no statement of the rights of citizens and that there was no "sunset".  He believed that any constitution should only bev in force for 15-20 years and then be rewritten.  He also thought that Sheys' rebellion was a sign of health and not to be feared.  He said that a little rebellion cleared the political air as a storm clears the natural air, and both were a good thing.  "the tree of liberty must, occasionally, be watered by the blood of its patriots".  This has been true since the beginning - there are lots of examples through our history of (mostly) working people dying to promote the extension of democracy.


That is true.  But his views on gun ownership are well known.  He believed that armed citizens would keep the Government "in check" from it's own excesses.  But he did have a lot of direct input into the Constitution.

One thing old Tom was most of his life was a revolutionary.  He believed that the COnstitution should be yet another transition government, just as the Articles of Confederation were.  He believed in regular "internal revolutions" were largely killed during the French Revolution.  It made him realize how lucky the US was to have a largely "civil" revolution.  Once we got what we wanted, we did not have any large-scale executions of Tory citizens, did not exclude them from the Government, and did not need a soldier like Napolean to step in and stop the constant fights between "revolutionary groups".

Looking at the 5 major revolutions in the last 228 years, we had what is undoubtedly the most peaceful.  The revolutions in France, Russia, and China all boiled down to groups attacking the Government, then each other once the repressive Government fell.  And often they also were followed by mass executions of the former politicians, ministers, and aristocrats in the former regieme.  Ours was largely without such a "purge", and I think that says a lot for "Providence", take that however you may.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/20/04 at 10:03 pm




That is true.  But his views on gun ownership are well known.  He believed that armed citizens would keep the Government "in check" from it's own excesses.  But he did have a lot of direct input into the Constitution.


Arms in the 1790 were a far cry from arms today.  The idea that the citizens can protect themselves from the government with the arms they're allowed, versus the arms the government is allowed, strikes me as a mite absurd!
::)

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/27/04 at 5:07 pm


Arms in the 1790 were a far cry from arms today.  The idea that the citizens can protect themselves from the government with the arms they're allowed, versus the arms the government is allowed, strikes me as a mite absurd!
::)


Not nessicarily.

Don't forget, most of the colonists during the latter part of the Revolution were armed with the "revolutionary" weapon known as a "Rifle".  The Brittish largely used smooth-bore muskets.  However, the Brittish also had the "revolutionary" weapon known as a Bayonette.

Weapons have always gone through periods of long stagnation in development, then rapid bursts.  Before the civil war, the only major change was the transition to percussion caps.  Then in short order they went to cartridge munitions, then smokeless powder.  Then things largely stayed the same till WWI, when automatic weapons became predominant.

Cannons and Mortars also went through similar evolutions, as well as other things like land mines, rockets, grenades, and then tanks.  But the need for private ownership of firearms has not changed.

A large number of people in this country STILL hunt for food.  Most people tend to forget that, living in urban areas.  Plus in rural areas, there is a need for weapons to protect yourself from wild animals.  Before my mom died, she carried a pistol fairly often.  As a real estate broker in a remote rural area, it was not unusual to be checking a property, and find bears, cougars, wolves, coyotes, or rattlesnakes.  Plus there was the self-defense aspect.  Being alone in a remote area, it would have been easy to take her with nobody knowing for quite a while.

Of course, I can take a totally different angle in how this is viewed.

When the founders wrote "Freedom Of The Press", they were talking about PRINT media.  Nobody back then thought of Radio, Television, or the Internet.  Therefore, none of those media are protected by the Constitution.

Does that help show how dangerous it is to parse the Constution and make it fit how you THINK it should be interpreted today, insted of how it was intended originally written

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/27/04 at 5:25 pm




A large number of people in this country STILL hunt for food.  Most people tend to forget that, living in urban areas.  Plus in rural areas, there is a need for weapons to protect yourself from wild animals.  Before my mom died, she carried a pistol fairly often.  As a real estate broker in a remote rural area, it was not unusual to be checking a property, and find bears, cougars, wolves, coyotes, or rattlesnakes.  Plus there was the self-defense aspect.  Being alone in a remote area, it would have been easy to take her with nobody knowing for quite a while.

I may be wrong, but I believe the number of Americans who hunt as a basic staple of their sustenance is miniscule. 
I never suggested we should prohibit people from bearing arms to hunt or to protect themselves.  Nor did I mean to imply the Framers would have prohibited the bearing of arms if they could have seen 200 years into the future.
I do think the Framers would have been more specific about bearing arms if the could have seen today's handguns and automatic weapons.
As you point out, there are still practical reasons for citizens to bear arms, but the overthrowing of the federal government isn't one of them.
BTW, I don't know much about guns, but if I was confronted by an angry bear, I'd rather have a gun than a stick.  However, I'd want something more substantial than a .22 pistol, which might just make the bear mad, and I would make darn sure I knew how to operate the weapon accurately under pressure.
A lot of the people carrying guns out there, I fear, would be more dangerous to themselves than their assailant if they lost their cool.

Of course, I can take a totally different angle in how this is viewed.

When the founders wrote "Freedom Of The Press", they were talking about PRINT media.  Nobody back then thought of Radio, Television, or the Internet.  Therefore, none of those media are protected by the Constitution.

Does that help show how dangerous it is to parse the Constution and make it fit how you THINK it should be interpreted today, insted of how it was intended originally written

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Don Carlos on 07/27/04 at 5:34 pm



When the founders wrote "Freedom Of The Press", they were talking about PRINT media.  Nobody back then thought of Radio, Television, or the Internet.  Therefore, none of those media are protected by the Constitution.

Does that help show how dangerous it is to parse the Constution and make it fit how you THINK it should be interpreted today, insted of how it was intended originally written


Yes, weoponry has evolved over the years, but even if the masses were armed with assault rifles, how many masses would it take to stop a tank?

There aree lots of laws and regulations that recognize electronic media as  part of "the press".

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: Mushroom on 07/28/04 at 9:21 am


Yes, weoponry has evolved over the years, but even if the masses were armed with assault rifles, how many masses would it take to stop a tank?

There aree lots of laws and regulations that recognize electronic media as  part of "the press".


Yes, and *I* recognize it as such also.

But you can see by the example what I mean by trying to "change" the constitution to meet newer changes.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: LyricBoy on 07/28/04 at 1:43 pm

Rather than second guess the Democrats "would they or wouldn't they", lets look at all of this talk (from both sides of the aisle) about how we "Took down a ruthless dictator" and are "establishing democracy in Iraq".

Those arguments are silly.  If we decided to invade every country that either was not a democracy or that had a ruthless dictator, we would be invading DOZENS of countries at any given time.

I do not see us calling for an invasion of Red China, Turkmenistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, none of which are democracies and some of which are ruled by dictators.  We are not calling for a reinvasion of Vietnam, or North Korea.

If our nation goes to war, it should be in our national self interest, whether it be to eliminate WMD's allegedly that may be used against us, to eliminate terror safe houses, get access to oil, or other such issues that directly threaten our national Security.  I am not advocating an invasion for these purposes, but they have some arguable value.  At least "there is something in it" for us, however big or small.

So...

This is why you will see us do nothing in the Sudan.  We have little national security interest in what happens in Darfur.  Just as we had no National Security interests in Rwanda.

At the time of the Rwanda genocide, I was studying International Politics with a prominent presidential advisor.  He said that the rule of thumb in these situations is to ask yourself "Who Cares?".  When you answer that question, you will then learn who will intervene.  In the opening days of Rwanda, he concluded that the answer to "Who cares?" was "Nobody", since Rwanda was of no strategic or economic value to anybody (except Rwandans) and that the genocide would play itself out until one of the neighboring countries was overwhelmed with refugees, which is basically how it played out.

I think we will see the same in the Sudan / Darfur.

Subject: Re: Democrats are against the war - or are they?

Written By: philbo on 07/29/04 at 11:47 am


If our nation goes to war, it should be in our national self interest, whether it be to eliminate WMD's allegedly that may be used against us, to eliminate terror safe houses, get access to oil, or other such issues that directly threaten our national Security.  I am not advocating an invasion for these purposes, but they have some arguable value.  At least "there is something in it" for us, however big or small.

That's pretty much the reason Saddam went into Kuwait, with the exception of WMDs.  Though for "terror safe houses", substitute "exiled opposition leaders".

Check for new replies or respond here...