secure the safety of Americans? You are doing quite the opposite. Hussein has not been agressive for ... somewhat over ten years. Leaving him alone would not lead to agression against Americans. Attacking Hussein on the other hand, will most likely lead to retaliation from scattered groups. Thus, attacking Iraq, has nothing to do with protecting Americans.

I guess we disagree. Very many Americans really believe that Hussein poses a direct threat to the United States by virtue of his repeated attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Many of us also believe that leaving Hussein alone has indeed led to aggression against us and our allies. I guess we just disagree about that. But it's always surprising to me to hear people who love the idea of leaving Hussein alone, as if the world is a better place with him as leader in Iraq.

Save the poor, oppressed people of Iraq can be no reason. If it were, the USA would have to remove a GREAT number of bad leaders around the world. And I am not claiming that the people of Iraq are not opressed compared to the USA.

Again, I guess we disagree. Saving the people of Iraq *is* a good reason to invade Iraq. It's not sufficient, meaning it can't be the only reason. But it's still a reason, and not a "pretend" reason at all. Again, it amazes me to hear people claim that the world is a better place with Iraqis continuing to live under Hussein's brutal regime.

There are not many real reasons for attacking Iraq, but there are very many pretend reasons. The only real reason I can see is oil.

We haven't stopped disagreeing, apparently.

I get the impression taht the US congress will agree to just about anything in order to not seem "unamerican", and because none of them want the blame in case something were to happen if you did not attack Iraq.

You can believe that, but like I said earlier, it destroys your argument that this whole crisis is somehow Bush's personal cowboy vendetta-crusade. It's simply not.


I did not mean that they were high in any party, though, but that they were ... how to explain it... following the politics of the party in their rulings.{/QUOTE)

See my reply to Keith below. Supreme Court Justices are notoriously private about their political leanings. We can frequently guess as to what they are by following their rulings. But with a few exceptions (Bush v. Gore is the most notorious recently), most observers don't think that their rulings are "political"--they just happen to reflect the fact that five Justices are generally "conservative" and four are generally "liberal."

{QUOTE}What are you talking about? The comments in aero's link claimed that the only way to get rid of Bush was to assasinate him or make some sort of coup. I merely pointed out that not voting for him next time would also get rid of him. Why did you attack me over that?

Misunderstanding, I suppose. My apologies.