[Clinging Bitterly]

> Iraq should hide it's weapons

Well yeah, after it's own interest, it should be expected.
But after the gulf war, Iraq did agree to cooperate with the UN for what was described in the media as "weapons inspections". And if you want to agree with what the infamous William S. Ritter said in the earlier days of the program, Iraq reneged on the agreement (and by appearance, that allegation is true, Ritter's more recent statements notwithstanding).

> Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

A nation does not posess rights as an individual would, it's people do. It's people can empower it's government to protect national interests, but in Hussein's totalitarian government, it isn't exactly playing out that way, is it?

Even if it were, Iraq and all the other involved sovereign nation parties agreed to a contract knowing full well that the possibility existed that we would be right where we are today.

I'm no fan of the UN. I hate much, if not most of, of the things this organization stands for and proposes, and I would just as soon see the US out of it and it's headquarters removed from our soil, but to me it just doesn't violate libertarian principles that we and other sovereign nations have cooperated as we have in this matter, to find Hussein's actions and statements to date to be a danger to our own interests on many levels.

Mideast stability and it's effect on the oil economy is an entirely legitimate interest, if you want to boil it down to that.

Dave in Eugene

[exodus]

Iraq should hide it's weapons. Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

To: exodus
"...after the gulf war, Iraq did agree to cooperate with the UN for what was described in the media as "weapons inspections..."

"...A nation does not posess rights as an individual would, it's people do. It's people can empower it's government to protect national interests, but in Hussein's totalitarian government, it isn't exactly playing out that way, is it?..."
# 123 by Dave in Eugene of all places

*************************

After the Gulf War, Iraq was FORCED to agree to disarmament. An agreement compelled under threat of force is not a valid agreement.

Without citizens, a nation doesn't exist. A nation IS its citizens. Thus, any nation has rights by virtue of it's citizens possession of rights. A nation's rights are the collective rights of it's people.

A nation's military is nothing less than the collective right of men to protect themselves. A disarmed nation is defenseless, unable to protect it's interests.

In the case of Saddam Hussain, WE left him in power. We left him in power knowing that he was a dictator. A dictator is sovereign in his nation, just as a king is. Either governmental system, Dictatorship or Monarchy, is just as valid a government as our Republican system.

If Hussain's subjects want to overthrow him, it's their right. It's none of our business, and most of them would shoot us if we tried to interfere in their lives.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"...Mideast stability and it's effect on the oil economy is an entirely legitimate interest, if you want to boil it down to that."
# 123 by Dave in Eugene of all places

*************************

I agree, the governmental lie that we need Mideast oil is more than enough reason to go to war.

If they drank green tea and we took offense at the drinking of green tea, THAT would be a legitimate reason to go to war.

I fully support a war of conquest in the Middle East, but I demand a LEGAL war.

Our Constitution says that Congress has the war power. Let them exercise it.

Declare war.