as is yours neo

I suspect Pete would be on the other side. His home boys would strap a bomb to him, that’s why he doesn’t go.

I don’t think we need a debate about Iraq. At least not with certain people. Not everyone has something to contribute to the debate, the two party system after all.

People should also quake in their boots that iran will get their comeuppance. Well, at Stephen does, because he obviously believes America is ruthless and powerful enough to be hardnosed about Iran. If he isn’t, that is another story entire.

You’re just a troll.

That can’t be true, you know. If stephen is quaking in his boots at America’s power, he can’t be just a troll.

Iran, by using terrorists to wage war against the US and its allies. Syria – the same. The day is coming when these folks will pay the price of using terrorists to wage war by proxy.
 

How exactly are Syria and Iran meddling in ‘your’ business?

I wouldn’t call “self-determination” a “right.” It’s a ‘condition’ that exists if the correct factors are present, such as a viable government, a strong defense system and a healthy respect for other nations. For instance: No “self-determination” should be extended to terror-sponsoring nations like Syria and Iran.

I also agree that … attacking another country unprovoked is wrong …” but of course Saddam was provocative in the extreme so THAT maxim is not applicable in the case of Iraq. It’s already inapplicable to Syria and Iran, since both those nations are meddling in our business and have been doing so for quite awhile. The leaders of both of those nations should look at Afghanistan and Iraq for an insight into their future.

I DON’T agree that “ … killing people to further a political agenda is wrong …” because the phrase could taken for a definition of war and I certainly want any nation of mine to be ready, willing and able to wage war – for one thing it’s a very good way to lure terrorists to areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan so they can be killed.

I also agree “ … that lying to further and justify war crimes is wrong.” That’s why I’m glad that Saddam is on trial. May he receive the justice he deserves.
 

“possessed WMDs”

“conventional wisdom”

PIMF. Sheesh.

We’ll spell it out for you in simple words, so that you might understand, if you’d only take the time to think reasonably:

1. You stated “attacking another country unprovoked is wrong”.

Iraq had been firing on British and American planes covering the “no-fly” zone in Iraq for at least 8 years following Gulf War I. This was in direct contravention of UN resolutions (you believe in UN resolutions, right?). These were acts of WAR. I would hardly call that “unprovoked”. In addition, Saddam was offering $25,000 to families of suicide bombers, to encourage continuation of the practice. Another “provocation.”

2. You stated: “lying to further and justify war crimes is wrong”

Let me refresh your memory as to the definition of a lie:

lie: “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”

I believe you’re referring to the fact that ONE (just one of many, by the way, including the “profocations” mentioned above) of the reasons the US attacked Iraq was a belief that Saddam possess WMDs. Since as yet we have not found huge stockpiles of WMDs, the convention wisdom on the left is that President Bush “lied” to mislead us into war. However, virtually EVERY intelligence agency on earth believed that Saddam had WMDs prior to the invasion. These are FACTS, and are incontrovertible. The belief that Saddam had WMDs was reasonable; there was no “intent to deceive” in the President’s decision.

3. You state: “killing people to further a political agenda is wrong”.

Then, Stephen, EVERY war is wrong, including the one that rid the world of Nazism and stopped the holocaust. Saddam was killing Iraqis daily, to “further” his “political agenda”. If that was indeed wrong, we performed a public service by toppling Saddam’s murderous government.

But you don’t really care about logic, facts or “rightess” or “wrongness”. You’re just a troll.

I suppose I’m incorrectly drawing an assumption that all of us agree on – that sovereign nations have a right to self-determination, that attacking another country unprovoked is wrong, killing people to further a political agenda is wrong, and that lying to further and justify war crimes is wrong.

But then all of us would agree that if a nation did this to us we would say that is wrong.

So logically this is an ideal.

And yet we can all agree that in principle these things are wrong.

We can differ in other areas but I’d say that is a value system that we all share…

If that is an ‘ideal’ than we are all in a whole lot of trouble.

How is that not an ideal (actually several of them)? Self-determination of sovereign nations (the one I’d assumed you held, although your reply is ambiguous as to whether my assumption is correct), following a code of conduct in battle, submitting to the will of the rest of the world over one’s own will, to do as one expects others to do; these are all ideals.

My point was merely that your logic was flawed. I was not making an argument against any cited facts, or attempting to cite facts of my own.