Not even close!

You obviously need a hint!

Does the song [i][b]Havah Nagilah[/b][/i] ring a bell?

Eric The(MeinYiddishePapa?)[>]:)]

I know I only get three shots at this thing and I'm already terribly embarrassed but this time I think I've got it.

FRANCE !!

The "Just War Doctrine" as put forth by St. Augustine allows for a nation to strike first if the there is evidence of a clear and present danger.
Proof enough is Saddams not allowing in weapons inspectors and his known fettish for weapons of mass destruction.
It is our govenments responsibility to take the necessary actions to insure the survival and safty of its citizens as a whole, but I think we all would  agree that is still our personal responsibility to protect our families amd ourselves.
IF you want to read more about the "JustWar Doctrine" do a search on Google or your favorite search engine or got to Breakpoint.org and there should be something there.


Lee

Ha!  That Onion piece nailed it perfectly.

I can't believe how bad the propaganda on Iraq is already--the downed pilot story sounds like total disinformation to me.  They're trying to build up hate and build tolerance for another war by villifying Saddam.  I guess the lower half of the graduating class of 2001 and 2002 has its work cut out for it...

Now don't we all seem a little bitter.

Why can't we all just hold hands and sing some good peaceful songs.

Oh yeah, Cause that s*#@bird running things in Iraq wants to kill us. Getting everybody together would just make it easier. Don't worry, we'll get together, and come for a visit sometime. SOON!!!!!!

If the Chinese do try to bring the fight to us, I say we give'em that strip on the west coast, let them get as many little bugs over here as they can fit into that "state", and then just wipe'em back into the ocean. Kinda like an ambush.

That would make little sense.  Why would the administration spread a rumor that the pilot was alive when it was the man who is now VP (Cheney) that came out and declared him dead in the first place?  I guess you haven't thought this through very clearly.



They don't need to...he's self-villifying.



Is that your opinion of our military?

How can it be justified? It can't, unless you consider imperialism and empire to be valid reasons(which I don't.) There is no terrorism connection, despite Stealth's accusation. We haven't been attack by Iraq. Congress hasn't declared war against Iraq(nor do I expect it too).
Now, I am no friend of Saddam, and if the Iraqi people want him out, then by all means, let them. But it isn't any of our business, hell, it isn't even authorized by the Constitution! Does anybody remember that little document? Guess it gets thrown out with war fever. Big surprise there. My sig says it all. Going to war against Iraq would be wrong and immoral.

Ahh the Libertarians, they never seem to get over that they only polled 1% in the last election.

You guys like isolation so much, why don't you go practice it. Lead by example and all...

A libertarian foreign policy?  Why, that would be against their core beliefs.

What’s it to them that somebody, in a far off land, may be plotting our, and their destruction.

Thomas Jefferson left no instructions about weapons of mass destruction, so why should we worry?

Mike

The libs polled 1%?  Hmmm...

Well, libby boy.  Here's one justification...We have to finish off the stocks of Mk 82 bombs left over from Vietnam before they reach their expiration date. [;)]

Here's another reason:   Because everyone who had and has the guts to stand up and take the oath to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic, knows that in this day and age, we can't hide behind our borders and wait for the bad guys to attack us on their terms.  Sometimes you have to step up and smack them down on their home turf and remind them that what goes around, comes around.    

The coming war with Iraq will be justified with and overwhelming and decisive VICTORY.
Period.

There is no need for any further posts to this thread.
I believe I've said it all.

So, liberty, per many of your posts, we should bring all our troops home and wait for them to attack us here rather than going after them somewhere other than here.  You need to get your head out of your derriere.  According to you, if we stayed home, no one would attack us.  Do you read history.  We tried staying out of WWII and it was taken as weakness and led to us being attacked.  The US was very isolationist then.  Japan attacked us because we cut off their supply of resources from us and they also thought we were weak.  Whether you believe it, or like it, or not, we do have the right to decide who we sell war material to.  The Muslim fundamentalists would have attacked us regardless of whether all our troops were home or not.

I suppose we should not have fought WWII either.

ArmdLbrl: First- I'm not a member of the LP, but I am a libertarian(small 'l'!). Second: Does it really matter how many people voted for them? Is that an argument on whether a proposition is right or not? Of course not. That is a fallacy. As far as isolationism, I don't believe that. I believe in non-interventionism. Big difference. And as for leading by example, check out the [url=http://www.freestateproject.com]Free State Project[/url]

flashman: If there is provable evidence that a nation intends to attack us, then we would be justified to attack them. I have yet to see that kind of evidence, and in fact, I doubt I ever will, because it doesn't exist.

DaveG: If they attack us, or we have provable evidence that they will, they we can attack us. Iraq does not fall into either of those categories. You have offered no good justification.

Cincinnatus: That is the ends justify the means argument. A bad justification.

LARRYG: Yes, absolutely: we need to bring our troops home. We don't need to wait for them to attack us, because bringing our troops home is the reason the would, and if that would attempt to move against us, we would have just cause to stop them.

I never said no one would attack us, only that it would be rare. One only need to look at Switzerland. They have been surrounded by hostile nations for centuries, yet have managed to stay out of war. We have two oceans between us.

Do I read history? Yes, extensively.

As for WWII, we should never have gotten involved. In fact, if we stayed out of WWI, there would be no WWII. As for Japan attacking us, FDR provoked them. See my other post.

Not in practice.

Examples? Because there IS a big difference, and that is isolationism means breaking off all contact with other nations and people(eg China in the 19 century) and non-interventionism means free and open trade and contact with other nations and people but choosing not to send troops outside her border to interfere with those nations and people(eg Switzerland for the last 100years or so)

HUGE difference.

While I agree that we should not be the worlds "peacekeepers", when you have a megalomaniac, attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction, who is know to harbor ill will to the US, and primarily the US, it is undoubtedly time to take action, pre-emptively!! As for staying out of WWII, that is purely rhetoric, if we had not intervened, the world would be a completely different and terrible palce indeed. It may have taken Hitler a few more years to get around to us, but after he had all of Europe (Switzerland included) firmly under his control, he would have tried. At that point he may very well have had a machine too powerful to stop. Check into reality for a while, and the drop a line.

CIA Chief tells Congress, Iraqi participation in 9/11 "Cannot be ruled out..."
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020319/ts_nm/attack_cia_dc_1[/url]

Switzerland was able to practice "non-interventionism" because the US and England were around to intervene for her.  In practice, no government that has survived as a political entity has been able to be "non-interventionist" without the protection of other, larger and benevolent nations.

It's painful to watch lib try to make the real world fit into his far-fetched, libertarian, utopian fantasy.

Justified? yeah, Because we did not finish the job in the first place!

First, your part about bringing the troops home makes no sense.  Reread and retype that.  If I understand it, and I am not sure I do, you think that bringing our troops home would stop them from attacking us and then you say if they did, we would have just cause, but that would mean an attack on our soil.  You want that?  It also sounds like you are saying that bringing our troops home would make them attack.  Clarification required.

As for Switzerland, geography and the fact that they kiss everyone's asses is what has kept them out of wars.  Look at their collaboration with the Nazi's during WWII.

How did FDR provoke the Japanese?  By not kissing their asses and not bowing to their demands so they could be empire builders as you suggest we are?  It's okay for everyone else to be empire builders but not us?  Did he provoke them by cutting the resources they needed to make war?  We don't have the right to do that?  And if you don't think that we should have gotten involved in WWII, all I can say is that you are blind.  If you think genocide is none of our business, then you are a shallow, uncaring person.  Not only the Jews, but what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese at the time.  Ever heard of the "Rape of Nanking"?  If those things don't piss you off, you are either a coward, a racist, or a so blinded by your hatred of any form of government that you can see no evil perpetrated by other nations.  You are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist.

You and trickshot are really pathetic.  This is not about imperialism or empire building, it's about self preservation.  You love those phrases, sounds a lot like comrade Joseph and Saddam and others when they talk about the US.  Did you say whether you were a right wing or left wing anarchist?

You are no friend to Saddam?  Certainly doesn't sound like it.

You are always talking about what the Constitution does and does not authorize.  Since when does the Constitution prohibit the military from taking revenge against those who strike us and preemptive strikes against those who are about to or have contributed to these attacks.

POGO your an idiot.

Do we need any justification to kill Sadaam and invade Iraq?  

How about if we give him the chance he would kill every American he could, Sadaam is all about power and the United States is the only thing in his way to killing anybody and everybody to achieve his end. Stop sounding like a damn bleeding heart, its Americans like you that are making this country weak. The time for peace was over after Sept. 11, now is the time for WAR.

We should bring home all troops not need for war, if we declared war.
We would have cause to declare war, and fight back, if either they attacked us on our land, or there was incontrovertible evidence that they are planning to.



Staying out of war is GOOD! War is the health of the state and the bane of liberty. And most of the so-called collaboration has been proven false.


By forcing them to attack Pearl Harbor.

As long as they don't interfere with our trade or harm our citizens.

Like I said before, WWII came about because of WWI. So debating whether or not we should have gotten involved in WWII is moot. And in any case, what another country is doing is no business of ours. It sounds mean, but we shouldn't get directly involved. Helping them out in other ways, through PRIVATE ways is okay though.
And for the umpteenth time, I am a libertarian, not an anarchist.


It is about imperialism and empire building. What we are doing is BY DEFINITION imperialism! What we did in Kosovo and now in Afghanistan IS empire building!
Self Preservation got lost in the emotion.

They only gave lip service to those ideas, but are intent on their own empire building, since they are both tyrants.


There is no such thing as a left wing anarchist. Those so called anarchists hate conservative or libertarian governments, but they worship socialist governments.
As I said before, I am not an anarchist, but a libertarian. Big difference.


You must not be listening then. I fully support the overthrow of Saddam, but NOT by the US.


It doesn't. But it requires a declaration of war first. And I would oppose any declaration of war without near incontrovertible evidence of those scenarios you laid out. Afghanistan might fit that if they truly were harboring those who helped carried out the 9/11 attacks, but I haven't seen any good evidence. Iraq CERTAINLY does not fit those scenarios.

Absolutely!


I haven't seen any evidence of that. Of course, he wouldn't even care about the US if it wasn't for the Gulf War.

Just because you are too pig headed, or live in too much of an ivory tower and ignore the proof doesn't mean it isn't out there.  Little things like the people who did attack us meeting with Iraqi agents or they did attempt to assassinate Bush the elder, would be considered acts of war.



you need to either up your meds or lay off the crack.



Don't worry we won't be asking the likes of you to do the fighting.  You can just sit back, change out the tin foil in your hat and debate theory, while those that are better than you do the actual heavy lifting to ensure those lesser men can theorize about a perfect world.  And yes I think you are a typical college student that needs to grow up.

Is simple...  just lie to the American people.
Business as usual boys [:D]
W