If you meant to quote me, then you're proving your lack of intelligence. What if our troops got attacked with checmical weapons or the entire country revolted against us? Nothing is for certain. Instead of days, it may have taken weeks or months.

 

Bah ... I just mistyped the thread, but you know what I meant.

My lack of intelligence? If our troops got attacked with chemical weapons ... you think we'd still loose a war against Iraq? Moron.

 

Do you think Bush's approval rating would still go up with thousands of American soldiers dead or drying, regardless of the outcome of the war? It's called common sense, give it a shot.

 

THIS IS FROM WHAT I SEE in Tampa, where everyone is a mindless patriotic sheep. They know not a god damn thing except what CNN tells them and they figure as long as they fly their flags and yellow ribbons, they're doing their part and ANYONE that disapproves with what the president is doing should be shot for treason or something. What the hell is with that? Those people are morons, and I BET that even if we lost a lot of troops, they'd still be celebrating the fact we "won" the war and yes, Bush's approval rating would be thru the roof. It's called inevitable.

 

You need to start reading newspapers and looking at opinion polls.

 

I wasn't aware that I didnt read the paper. Wow. I guess I'll have to pay attention more often. Or better yet, perhaps I should subscribe to what you're reading?

 

bah, it posted twice.

 

So anyway back to the topic...
So I guess now we should just change the name of the country to "The United Empire of America," because the United States of America does not strike first.
We invaded Iraq. Last time I checked, Iraq wasn't spelled 'al Qaeda.'
We "have our eye" on plenty of countries. Iraq has been on the proverbial radar sceen since well before 1988, in fact we supplied Saddam in his war against Iran because at the time we considered him the lesser threat.

That still has nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq though, because Iraq didn't attack us before we attacked them.
Are any of these things a military strike? No.

 

Which treaties would those be?

And if you want to talk about breaking treaties and international law, let's talk about what's happening in Guantanamo Bay and how that relates to the Geneva Convention.

 

Animals do not apply to the Geneva Convention..... they aren't POWs, they do not apply. Now, I'd be pretty sure they are getting much better treatment than they deserve, anyway, considering there are no reports of rusty nails driven into their eyeballs. Why do you care so much about AlQueda's well being? On the other hand, Saddam has a long history of breaking the Geneva Convention (chemical weapons against the Kurds), his cease fire agreement from Desert Storm (total and complete surrender of all information of chem-bio programs), and he gave the world the bird. Now, let's say we never get him (I still don't understand why you people have a problem with what we did). What's to say that in the future he doesn't fire a nuke or let off a chem-bio attack? Mabe he never bothers anyone again. Mabe he just says "I'm tired of playing games with the U.S. and the U.N. I'll just call it a day and retire". You can't live in a world of mabe's, hopes, and dreams. Saddam was just as mad as Osama. Just as mad as Hitler. Also, take this into consideration.... FDR was closer to going to war without Pearl Harbor than everyone thinks. In retrospect it was inevidable. Even if we had never been attacked, there was growing concern that Hitler had to be stopped and we were the only ones who could do it. So tell me, who here would criticise FDR for invading Germany or Japan without provocation?