[Republican Wildcat]

Now, now, don't go trying to change the context of the discussion.

I'll ask more directly: Do you agree with Browne's premise that Saddam Hussein should have remained in power?

[Gunslingr3]

Now, now, don't go trying to change the context of the discussion.

Military adventurism is the context of the discussion. We're in this war now because American troops were sent to the other side of the globe to re-install a King to his throne.

I'll ask more directly: Do you agree with Browne's premise that Saddam Hussein should have remained in power?

Browne's premise isn't that Saddam should remain in power, but that the expense and unintended consequences of America removing him aren't worth it to Americans. With that I concur. I couldn't really care less about Saddam Hussien.

[Capitalism2003]

There are many oppressive dictators that shouldn't be in power...but taking the pre-emptive "liberation" argument to its natural conclusion, you folks here should be DEMANDING Bush continue with his liberation attempts...continue to attack dictators...crush the regimes of Syria, Iran, Lybia, etc...Do this ASAP. Strike while the iron is hot...While we're at it, lets finish of Castro while we're at it...and the other commie dictators that have committed mass murder in vietnam, North Korea, and CHINA. Hell, the people there deserve freedom too don't they?

Question is: Is liberating these countries worth the BLOOD of your sons? How many of our boys must die for this cause? Should the US really try to 'liberate' the world?