Ahhh, someone spoiling for a fight without the time to address their beefs to the proper threads. Bringing North Korea and treaties and leaky borders and isolationist ideas and a simmering attitude to a thread about Iraq. Topics which, by the way, I too have doubts about but you seem to have made the assumption I didn't. Oh well, here we go.
Okay, billbears, what would you suggest we do? You say we should get out of every treaty we've entangled ourselves in. Okay, fine. Then what? The topic of this thread was . . . Can Iraq Hit America? If we get out of every treaty, regardless of whether they affect the Iraq situation or not, will "potential" Iraqi terrorists leave us alone then?
That's all I addressed in my post and I don't want to waste time debating issues with you that we probably agree on. So . . . what problems do you have with my take on the Iraq issue?
I'm sorry, perhaps you could point me to a thread where those who sometimes think for themselves are relegated. I didn't realize that specific wars had threads (other than the War of Northern Aggression threads). The fact is that these two issues are tied together. On one hand you have a nation with missiles that fire 110 miles, the other currently has nuclear weapons and is developing long range deployment for those weapons. You tell me which issue under the opinion of the Founders would be more important then. I always thought protecting against attacks on our borders was utmost. Silly me.
Can Iraq Hit America? If we get out of every treaty, regardless of whether they affect the Iraq situation or not, will "potential" Iraqi terrorists leave us alone then?
The question was asked 'Can Iraq Hit America'. Since I assume you're talking about these United States instead of anywhere on either American continent, I would argue they could hit within the borders of these United States. But I would also argue that there are terrorists located and receiving funds from mid east 'allies'. What? When this nation of states finishes with Iraq, are we going after the known terrorists in Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Jordan? Iran? Because they're in those nations as well and they are (if intelligence reports are to be believed) receiving comfort and aid from the governments of some of those nations as well. And if history repeats itself, once you cut off one head, ten more are created. I agree, best involve ourselves in a war that could go on and on with no end in sight, rather than take care of a nation that represents a clear and present danger currently
That's not to say I don't think Hussein needs to go. Without a doubt he does. But take care of issues that are closer to a Constitutional definition of war (North Korea) instead of first involving ourselves in another war on something. We'll have thousands upon thousands of troops stationed throughout the Middle East for decades. Yep, that follows the Constitution too < /sarcasm>(more of those foreign entanglements) If history also repeats itself from our national government's perspective, it will be a war without an end, one we'll be expected to support with our tax dollars for time immemorial