It's true that Saddam never aspired to ascend the international terror stage like Gaddafi. Saddam though most certainly secured his fate with his well publicized "reward" of $25,000 to the surviving families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Those payments were a crystal clear violation of the 1991 U.N. agreement which forbid him from "supporting" terror outside of Iraq. This war (and it hasn't even begun in earnest yet) is all about the security of Israel.
Have you been ingesting mild hallucinogens while you were away? Your non sequiturs are too numerous to mention. I was referring to the election of your current president - both times. That is what I have been observing. As for your continued support of Bush's decisions regarding Iraq, you are certainly operating from his faith and belief, as you are clearly dismissing the actual evidence. The war on terror is real. Evidently, the invasion of Iraq did not help that cause. The choice is yours: you can either close your eyes and believe, or open them and see.
More like the security of anyone within reach of a nuke from this area. They all want to go nuclear and it's only a matter of time before they want to bomb the crap out of anyone who goes against Allah.
We can speculate all day about what Gore would or would not have done. However, we know full well what Bush actually did and the means by which he went about justifying it, both beforehand and afterwards. No need to hypothesize. A bird in the hand...
How do you know the invasion of Iraq didn't help the war on terror? What makes you think all those nuts wouldn't be here in the US right now blowing off dirty bombs that Saddam helped finance and build? You don't know for sure either way do you? Or maybe you've been smoking something that let's you see into the future?
Are you kidding me?! Did it not squander resources and attention that should have been focused on those directly responsible for the carnage on US soil? Did the invasion not create instability in the region that has created hostility towards the US (unjustified or otherwise), and a black hole for innocent lives lost as well as an inordinate amount of financial resources? Did the decision to invade not rest on cherry picked "intelligence" that even Colin Powell did not really buy into? Did Bush not go ahead even against the recommendations of his own military advisors and experts? In trading parlance, that's one bad setup. Are you kidding me?!
Are you kidding ME? I bet you would rather take the chance that Saddam might of built dirty bombs and blew up 20 cities in the US. You don't care. You live in Canada. The region is already unstable. Always has been. Nothing new there. Arabs already hate the US. And I am sure you already know why. Why in the frick do you think they blew up the WTC? For fun? This whole thing isn't just about Iraq. It goes way deeper than Iraq. Iraq is only the beginning.
Oh please stop it. The choice was W or John Kerry, who would you vote for ? I agree Bush is not a great president but he was definitely less risky than Kerry.
Given that either Gore or Clinton are going to be the Democrat nominee for President I'd be doing a bit more than "speculating" as to their future intentions. But then again I'm an American voter who knows the political history behind each war we've fought. I see little rhetoric from the Democrat's that suggests their opposition to this war is anything more than partisan. One can find many quotes from the leading Dem contenders the past few weeks flexing their muscles toward Iran. A shitload of folks are going to vote Dem on the mistaken notion that they're voting for peace. They're going to be disappointed......
Your margarine example proves EXACTLY why the human caused global warming pundits should be ignored at this point. Their "undisputed scienctific proof" is FAR from the level of being actionable. That is unless one is using it for a feel good political campaign - then it's full speed ahead....