I like that statement, in fact so much, let’s see it again.

“”as when Iraq had a quarrel with Kuwait.”

So invading and occupying a country would be called a quarrel.

All righty, there Ken.
Aaaannnddddd…. your point is?

Basic Political Philosophy 101. I am not a Libertarian,nor was
Perot. Libertarians ran their own candidates when Perot, then
Buchanan’s Reform Party ran in elections. No one said to
“ignore” militant Islam, only not to give it reason to hate
us by little gestures such as the CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953.
And subsidizing Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. And
intervening in their disputes, encouraging them in the
case of the Iran-Iraq War and taking sides, as when Iraq
had a quarrel with Kuwait.

When we withdraw from the Islamic world, we can also halt Islamic immigration and send back any who remain militant here.
As Buchanan predicts, we will either do it in graceful increments,or be forced out with heavy losses over time.

Please recall that the Monroe Doctrine was enacted almost 200 years ago. It took weeks or months for anyone to come to this hemisphere from Europe. It was feasible for us to be isolationists then. It is not now that transatlantic travel takes hours and missles can take minutes. We can no longer ignore the rest of the world. I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is desirable, but it is just no longer possible. People who think it is are not using their heads.

Perhaps the word envious is the truth but not all the truth. The Islamofascists do not only want us out of ME, they want us out of life itself. If we give in to them and withdraw from Iraq or any other part of the war on terror, we will lose what is called face and they will become more aggressive than they are now because they will perceive us as a weak nation. I do not understand why you and your cohorts do not understand this. You libertarians are trying to get smaller government at a time when it is dangerous to do so. And to be an isolationist is to be far behind the times and are out of step with what most Americans want. As far as I am concerned, you people did enough damage when you voted for Perot and allowed Clinton in the White house. It is time for you and your group to grow and accept the world as it is and not as you want it to be.

You really don’t have a clue, do you?

Just because of why the civil war started had absolutely nothing to do with why the North almost lost it. Strange technique you have of trying to prove an argument by talking about something that had nothing to do with the outcome. But that’s how clueless people usually operate.

For Enforcement-if you are right about the WMDs(about as likely as the 9-11 Truth Committee’s attempts to pin 9-11 on Bush, and as kooky) then your Dear Leader is a secret agent of the Democratic National Committee,as he conceded the WMD issue immediately after the release of the Kay Report, long long long ago.

You Civil War description is also faulty reasoning. If the
North had allowed secession (which even Walter Williams
in his introduction to Thomas DiLorenzo’s blistering
“The Real Lincoln” book asserts was the South’s right,) the
war would have never come North. Just as your “Twin Towers”
scare tactic citation would have never occured without the
CIA initial funding of bin Laden against the Soviets. As al
Qaeda would have never taken over Anbar Province in
Iraq under Saddam.

In three years, the US under the terms of the Geneva Convention,
is responsible for about 150,000 innocent Iraqi lost lives.
Multiply 50,000 by the years length of Saddam Hussein’s term and
you will find what is meant by “pro-rated.” Let us only hope the
occupation doesn’t stay as long as Saddam ruled, for it has
enough blood on its hands.

Barbara, I could not agreement with you more. The most puzzling thing to me is the number of people, particularly in this country, who either disagree with your statement or simply do not comprehend it.

We back the Saudis because with them gone from the picture, radical Islam will rulethere just like in Iran. This country is a hotbed of the Islamfascists. We kept an army in Germany for decades not to contain them but to contain Russia. We backed Saddam because Iran was worse. It’s a tough choice, but one that has to be made. In trying to make Iraq a democracy we hope that the whole ME will come under this umbrella thereby eliminating radical Islam. Hopefully, the quality of life in this part of the world will become better and they will cease being envious of us and let us all live in peace. As far as I am concerned this is a worthy goal.

It bothers me that the evidence is so clear that there were WMD’s, some were actually found there this year and many trails and much evidence that most had been removed just prior to the war.

Regarding the media bias in that story, of course it’s disgusting and infuriating but I am so used to it that I just take it for granted and ignore it now.

I think forcing that guy into the public can maybe bring some more answers to people that want them. The MSM will of course ignore the story as if it doesn’t exist. I’d love to be proven wrong but I’ve worked inside the MSM and know these people far too well.

Carol’s meandering post conveniently omits 8 years between the Bush’s, and I might add, very friendly ones with the Saudis.

For some reason, the MSM ignore the fact that WMD was found, and we all know he had it before the war. Yes, we haven’t found the large stockpiles we expected, but it’s pretty well known that the russians & syrians might know something.

Hey, let’s give it up for the Pope! If only more leaders would talk straight. Confronted with the criticism that their violent jihadism doesn’t exactly mesh with a peaceful God, how do they react? As rioting thugs, underscoring the pope’s point.

Well, that link I provided about 2 comments above had this little quote in it:
” Saddam used chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction against the cities of people he did not like, killing tens of thousands of people without firing a bullet. Read the testimonies of survivors that were there when the old WMDs were used. Springtime in Iraq – 80,000 civilians killed with not even one tank or a single rifle used.”

You might want to bone up to avoid sounding totally ignorant on the subject.

I believe many of them were killed with WMD’s that Saddam “didn’t” have, instead of bullets.

I agree with what you said.

“Iraqi official who told the CIA just prior to invasion that Iraq DID have WMD. He was recently cited in the Senate Intel report at the end as saying Iraq was pursuing nuclear, had a small bio program and had a chemical weapons program and chemical weapons”

And that story you linked to had this sentence:
“But U.S. troops have found no such weapons there. ”

So?
Let me give you a quote:
“If you found out that Saddam was using the still unaccounted for WMDs these “news” sources would have you believe Saddam did not have, then you might also find out just how stupid current Democrat leaders think you are. Democrat National Committee leaders think you are gullible enough to believe Saddam’s Islamo-fascists had no weapons of mass destruction. You have been convinced of that. By Democrat leadership’s press lackeys.

Right now Saddam is being tried, not for suspicion of having WMDs, but for actually using chemical and biological weapons against other nations and even his own minorities. These are the very weapons of mass destruction that left-wing, politically-correct group-thinkers would have you believe Iraq did not have!

Democrat party leaders and cronies in the elite media/press want you to be gullible and un-informed enough to believe that Saddam had no WMDs to give to other Islamo-fascists to use against us. And you soooo believe it. ”
Here’s link to that story:
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_4349786

The information is there, you just are in denial.