Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?

[BHS]

Hearing this conversation makes me look forward to watching Amerikkka go down. And I've always LOVED our country, and I fear for my two small children, but we have become a country of fat, brainwashed, selfish, short-sighted, TV lobotomized, morons. We deserve to reap what we've sown.

Speak for yourself. Oh, you just did.

 

[BHS]

That's because they repelled him during a civil war. You don't see Abraham Lincoln being thought of as a killer even though he DID kill the confederate soldiers. It's not because he's a bad man, it's because they wanted freedom from rule the same freedom that the kurds wanted.

(P.S: The weapons/chemicals he used were the ones we gave him.)

Under Saddam's 30 year rule there were roughly 200,000 iraqis killed.

Under Bush's 3 year war so far there were about 60,000 civilians killed.

Comparing Saddam to Lincoln is laughable, in a blinkered, sad sort of way. Using the comparison to conclude that Saddam wasn't a "bad man" is nothing short of astonishing.

Where do you get the 60,000 figure from? How is it tabulated? I'm keen to peruse your sources, if you have the time. (Just so you know, I'm guessing that it's a very rough estimate of an all-inclusive death toll for every civilian in Iraq who's died since January 2003, and that it was arrived at by picking a median number between impossibly small and ridiculously huge.)

 

[Neildo]

Hearing this conversation makes me look forward to watching Amerikkka go down. And I've always LOVED our country, and I fear for my two small children, but we have become a country of fat, brainwashed, selfish, short-sighted, TV lobotomized, morons. We deserve to reap what we've sown.

Same here. We only learn the hard way. Something needs to be done to humble ourselves and unfortunately, only something drastic would cause that. Now unless some kind of miracle happens, then sure, I'm all for that instead, but I'm a realist.

- N

 

[BHS]

Same here. We only learn the hard way. Something needs to be done to humble ourselves and unfortunately, only something drastic would cause that. Now unless some kind of miracle happens, then sure, I'm all for that instead, but I'm a realist.

- N

What a sad place the world must be for you. Let me ask:

How would you have the US behave differently toward other nations?

Which nation, or group of nations, would you prefer to have dominance in global politics?

Should the US be removed from the UN Security Council and other powerful positions in international politics?

What does your perfect dream for America's place in the world entail?

 

[Gravity]

Yeah, a miracle would be nice. I'm afraid to change to be sure. And again -- I'm terrified for my two little kids. And there are so many things America is and has done that I admire and love, and so many people in this country who are amazing.

BUT . . . in the big picture, we've lost our way and the whole world is paying for it. I am going to keep working hard, being active, raising my kids right -- and try to help row this boat as hard as I can. I'm not abandoning ship. But burying my head in the sand and pretending their is no problem? Easy for the TV Lobotomized perhaps, and I envy them the simplicity of that! And from a larger worldwide historical perspective, the human race (and other species) might benefit from us going away. And perhaps the pages of history can teach future nations/groups how to better steer their ship (though history doesn't seem to teach US very much!).

 

[BHS]

Another question:

Do you consider yourself patriotic?

 

[Gravity]

What a sad place the world must be for you. Let me ask:

Not for me. You can be a realist, learn from history, see obvious trends . . . and still embrace and love life. At least, *I* can!

How would you have the US behave differently toward other nations?

Having lived in Europe for years, I've seen that you can be a happy and healthy nation who is just a *member* of the world, and not feel you must be the self-rightous *ruler* of same world.

Which nation, or group of nations, would you prefer to have dominance in global politics?

There has to be ONE nation, or group, which dominates world politics? Hmmm. Seems like a penile insecurity thing to me.

Should the US be removed from the UN Security Council and other powerful positions in international politics?

I think you've got that reversed, we are working to get rid of the UN - or at least use that little charmer Bolton to help strip what little power the UN has.

What does your perfect dream for America's place in the world entail?

Exactly that, a place ''IN" not a place ON the world. A member of it.

 

[Gravity]

Another question:

Do you consider yourself patriotic?

"Consider"? I KNOW I'm patriotic. I'm certain I love America at least as much as you do. I've lived in 12+ of its states, and in other countries -- which gave some perspective on what is so great about our country. And let me fall in love with many different aspects of this nation.

Do you think that anybody who is really involved in politics on the right or left *isn't* patriotic?! Politics are a pain in the ass, I'm in local politics - its incredible stress and work. I only do it because I love my community and country. If you think folks who don't believe what you believe are therefore less patriotic . . . thats a scary damn attitude.

 

[BHS]

"Consider"? I KNOW I'm patriotic. I'm certain I love America at least as much as you do. I've lived in 12+ of its states, and in other countries -- which gave some perspective on what is so great about our country. And let me fall in love with many different aspects of this nation.

Do you think that anybody who is really involved in politics on the right or left *isn't* patriotic?! Politics are a pain in the ass, I'm in local politics - its incredible stress and work. I only do it because I love my community and country. If you think folks who don't believe what you believe are therefore less patriotic . . . thats a scary damn attitude.

That's funny. I'm Canadian. I have a great deal of admiration for America and the American people, but I'm not an American patriot.

In part, I believe the things I believe because the arguments I've heard against my beliefs don't add up. This doesn't make my ideas correct. They're simply the best arguments I can make.

It seems to me that patriotism is not only love of country, but a desire for your country and countrymen to do well too. When you admit that you'd like to see your country suffer a military defeat, or financial ruin, or some other catastrophe to "teach it a lesson", it kind of runs against the whole notion of patriotism.

There's a difference between dissent and being unpatriotic. Calling for the president's impeachment is dissent. Asserting that the whole government is corrupt and they should all be hung is dissent. (Actually trying to carry this out is treason, but that's a whole different matter.) Hoping for a disaster to ruin the country isn't dissent. If you disagree, then I posit that dissenting against your country in such a general way is not patriotic.

No?

 

[Voodoo Child]

Let's go over that again, because it doesn't add up. You say there was no proof of weapons stockpiles. Then you go on to say there was no proof that the unproven stockpiles had been destroyed. Huh? Looking for proof of the unproven sounds a little wonky, chum.

No, that would be logically consistent. There was no evidence Saddam still possessed the weapons he had in '91. Neither was the destruction of all weapons verified. The logical fallacy would be Bush using the absence of contradictory evidence to suggest that they still existed. The logical fallacy might be thinking they still exist because the Iraq Survey Group can't prove a negative.

No troops were actually stationed on Iraqi soil, but they were stationed in Iraqi water

I'm not sure that the Persian Gulf qualifies as Iraqi water.

and the were defending countries bordering with Iraq, in order to contain Saddam's regime.

Under the most agreeable of circumstances. I don't believe the US lost a single person.

While Saddam thumbed his nose at every attempt to force him into compliance with the cease fire agreement he'd signed.

He didn't actually. Saddam allowed weapons inspections and let massive amounts of weapons be destroyed.

Suspicions aren't hard evidence. But hard evidence of Saddam having nukes would be something along the lines of Saddam dropping a nuke on Tel Aviv.

Thank-you Condi, but that is wrong. Nuclear bombs aren't made with chemistry sets. You need facilities, infrastructure, enrichment programs and qualified people. There is a paper trail and opportunities for surveilance. You need equipment which you have to purchase from foreign countries. eg. aluminium tubes.

But you're right again: Saddam didn't build any multi-billion dollar terrorist training camps out in plain sight, so I guess that's unequivocal proof that he didn't support terrorism.

It is not my job to disprove your assertions, it is your job to substantiate them. Feel free to start at any time. I fully acknowledge that Saddam could have supported terrorists, but there isn't an iota of evidence to actually suggest this. I also acknowledge that the Canadian government could be supporting terrorism and that they probably are since you can't positively disprove it.

So the choice comes down to going with an educated guess that vs. waiting for a nightmare scenario to play itself out.

1) The guess is not educated by anything resembling fact, logic or commonsense. Educated guesses are circumstantial, but have a coherent reasoning and some limited form of evidence to back them. This demonstratably did not.
2) This is the usual Bush false dichotomy. If you're not invading, you're not doing anything(Probably true, since Bush is so ineffectual at anything other than phoning the pentagon). In reality there are few dozen intermediate options:
- limited military strikes
- increased sanctions
- let the weapons inspections run.

Here's a thought: the next 911 isn't going to be carried out by the same people next time around.

So, lets attack people who could become enemies of the US in the future. Ignoring that this is breathtakingly paranoid, Saddam is not a good example of an american enemy. He has never undertaken any half-way significant action against america, he has no ideological problem with America and he has little in common with those who dislike america. In the past he has shown himself to be quite willing to ally himself with America and for a good while the countries enjoyed normal relations.

If you're going to treat a regime with kid gloves just because it wasn't tied to 911, you might as well give up trying to prevent terrorism altogether.

I'm not suggesting he should have been treated with kid gloves. I'm suggesting that 911 gave no tangible reason to attack Saddam and was not "an urgent warning to the administration that the Iraq situation needed to be solved quickly.". That you shouldn't treat Saddam with kid gloves does not automatically imply Iraq should be invaded, and thus you're still lacking a tangible reason for invading Iraq.

Perhaps not. But sitting on your hands when Sudan tries to hand you Bin Laden because your lawyers think it's too hard to build a court case against him doesn't help either.

Therefore, the only course of action is a military invasion. Why not steer an intermediate course?

D'oh! There's those non-existant weapons stockpiles again!

I refer to conventional weapons. The kind an insurgent can find a home for.

the benefits of the updated US presence means the US is already ahead of the game for the next go-round, meaning it won't be as protracted and painful as it was this time.

No, they're waaay behind.
- they can't commit to any significant action because of they are so overextended.
- there is absolutely no international support.
- the US public won't have a bar of it.
- they can't afford it.
This little debacle has immeasurably reduced US power and influence in the region(and everywhere else).

FYI, check my member profile. I'm posting from Canada. I guess arguing in favour of American foreign policy, and the defense of The West in general, makes you automatically American to some people. I'll take it as a compliment.

Defence of the west? Ye-gods.

 

[Okeydoke]

I wonder if the thousands of people who ended up in mass graves during Saddam's reign would agree with you.

I know there isn't a professional soldier in the world who doesn't arrange his affairs before going to war, because there's always the chance that they're going to die. They do so willingly, because they believe the army is a good career, and ultimately they believe in the rightness of the causes they are fighting for.

And if you're basing your Iraqi civilian body count on numerical mumbo-jumbo trumped up by peacenik statisticians, you can take that question back, because I'm not justifying it with a response.

If you're trying to defend the U.S. President Bush for bombing & invading Iraq over his version of WMD??? (What a joke that was), then you're going to be pretty dissappointed after the 2006 elections. The 2006 elections will serve as a 'springboard' with some newly elected democratic senators to finally impeach Bush. The american people will ultimately prevail and justifiably so to finally remove this incompetent 'misling' president and his staff of crazies from office.

Okeydoke

 

[Gravity]

That's funny. I'm Canadian.

That is funny! And I'm a bit jelous!

Hoping for a disaster to ruin the country isn't dissent. If you disagree, then I posit that dissenting against your country in such a general way is not patriotic.

In my case it was really called ''being grumpy''. But isn't it wonderful that a ''good'' Kkkristian can wish for the end of the world (''rapture'') and thats considered ok. But they can't wish for the end of any *specific* part of the world!

 

[BHS]

No, that would be logically consistent. There was no evidence Saddam still possessed the weapons he had in '91. Neither was the destruction of all weapons verified. The logical fallacy would be Bush using the absence of contradictory evidence to suggest that they still existed. The logical fallacy might be thinking they still exist because the Iraq Survey Group can't prove a negative.

The operative word here being "still". Like Saddam, you have no plausible explanation for where the weapons might have gone. So, weapons were proven to exist, and no evidence that they were destroyed (or otherwise disposed of) was forthcoming*. I think it's logical to conclude that they *might* still be there, and that a responsibility existed for the UN to go in and find either the weapons or evidence of their destruction. The weapons have not been found. (Neither has evidence of weapons destruction. Weapons destruction leaves an evidence trail. This is not the same as trying to prove a negative.) So congratulations about being right about the weapons. But don't say it like you knew all the answers ahead of time.

*I note below that you're of the opinion "massive amounts" of Saddam's weapons were destroyed during inspection. Fine. I posit that many more, and perhaps most, were not.

I'm not sure that the Persian Gulf qualifies as Iraqi water.

Let me rephrase that then. Their water and the water immediately adjoining their water. Sheesh. What a nit picker.

Under the most agreeable of circumstances. I don't believe the US lost a single person.

The agreeability of the circumstances is debatable. I fail to see how this bolsters your argument in any case.

He didn't actually. Saddam allowed weapons inspections and let massive amounts of weapons be destroyed.

Perhaps my use of "every" was excessive. You are correct. Saddam allowed weapons inspections when it suited him to do so, under "observation" from his security services. You can argue that it's reasonable for a government to keep watch over foreign agents and perhaps to prevent them from entering religiously sensitive or dangerous areas. Except that Saddam had signed agreements ahead of time allowing unfettered access to international inspectors. Here's what Clinton had to say about the situation.

Thank-you Condi, but that is wrong. Nuclear bombs aren't made with chemistry sets. You need facilities, infrastructure, enrichment programs and qualified people. There is a paper trail and opportunities for surveilance. You need equipment which you have to purchase from foreign countries. eg. aluminium tubes.

The sort of stuff the leader of an entire country might have at his disposal. I've already admitted that the weapons search has turned up no evidence of WMD, but I argue that this lack the evidence couldn't exist without the fact of the invasion.

It is not my job to disprove your assertions, it is your job to substantiate them. Feel free to start at any time. I fully acknowledge that Saddam could have supported terrorists, but there isn't an iota of evidence to actually suggest this. I also acknowledge that the Canadian government could be supporting terrorism and that they probably are since you can't positively disprove it.

First of all, it was your assertion that I was agreeing with, not the upside-down and backwards. Secondly, I was geing sarcastic. Thirdly, by arguing that my government may also be a state sponsor of terrorism you only prove the point I was making earlier. I'm not the one saying you can't prove Saddam had ties to terrorism.

1) The guess is not educated by anything resembling fact, logic or commonsense. Educated guesses are circumstantial, but have a coherent reasoning and some limited form of evidence to back them. This demonstratably did not.

Your conclusion is based on your "proof" that Saddam had no weapons or ties to terrorism, against which I've stated my case. I obviously disagree with point 1.

2) This is the usual Bush false dichotomy. If you're not invading, you're not doing anything(Probably true, since Bush is so ineffectual at anything other than phoning the pentagon). In reality there are few dozen intermediate options:
- limited military strikes
- increased sanctions
- let the weapons inspections run.

All of which had been tried for over a decade, without success. But a decade's not long enough for the anti-Bush crowd. Eternity is the only solution. (Hey, that's pretty catchy. Maybe I should write a book about the Dems and call it "Eternity Is The Only Solution".)

Rather than prattle on about point 2 and my quixotic quest for literary fame, let me go off on a tangent and ask you, as someone who baselessly denegrates Bush's capacity for leadership, to point out one Democratic president or nominee since JFK who has shown better judgement (or potential judgement, in the case of the nominees) than Bush. Keeping in mind that JFK took America into Viet Nam, and came very close to starting WWIII.

So, lets attack people who could become enemies of the US in the future. Ignoring that this is breathtakingly paranoid,

You say that as if the war was fought on a whim, and the US was the only country involved, and the preceeding decade hadn't happened.

Saddam is not a good example of an american enemy. He has never undertaken any half-way significant action against america, he has no ideological problem with America and he has little in common with those who dislike america. In the past he has shown himself to be quite willing to ally himself with America and for a good while the countries enjoyed normal relations.

All of these points are debatable, but I'm keen for your response to the rest of this post, so I'll hold off for now.

I'm not suggesting he should have been treated with kid gloves. I'm suggesting that 911 gave no tangible reason to attack Saddam and was not "an urgent warning to the administration that the Iraq situation needed to be solved quickly.". That you shouldn't treat Saddam with kid gloves does not automatically imply Iraq should be invaded, and thus you're still lacking a tangible reason for invading Iraq.

Let me clarify: I think the thrust of your argument is that nations that weren't directly involved in 911 should be exempted from the war on terror, and I disagree. If I've got it all wrong please clue me in.

Therefore, the only course of action is a military invasion. Why not steer an intermediate course?

As I said above, been there, done that. Nothing was resolved by playing by the rules while allowing Saddam to freely flaunt them.

I refer to conventional weapons. The kind an insurgent can find a home for.

Okay then.

No, they're waaay behind.
- they can't commit to any significant action because of they are so overextended.
- there is absolutely no international support.
- the US public won't have a bar of it.
- they can't afford it.
This little debacle has immeasurably reduced US power and influence in the region(and everywhere else).

-A temporary condition. And I think you seriously underestimate the US Armed Forces' ability to acquire resources when the need is pressing.
-They didn't need an airport this time. Besides, what's to say they won't have one up and running within the year?
-True, if you presume the Bushites are going to mount another war. Bush is a lame duck president. There isn't going to be another war in the next three years, unless the terrorists mount another successful attack. In which case, the American public WILL have a bar of it. Several bars, maybe.
-Same as the first point. They CAN afford it. Indefinitely. For historical references, look into the Berlin Airlift, and the subsequent Cold War.

Defence of the west? Ye-gods.

Yeah, I get rhetorical. It's a personality flaw I'm trying to exacerbate by excessive posting. Thanks for your help.

 

[Gravity]

We know that Saddam DID have some chemical weapons at least . . . because we have the receipts. You've seen the photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him some years back (and we DID know he was a butcher then). We go where the money and oil flows, or where we want it to. Same old same ole. But its always convienient to be able to at least claim that GAWD is on your side and you have the moral high ground!

 

[mikasa11]

Where do you get the 60,000 figure from? How is it tabulated? I'm keen to peruse your sources, if you have the time. (Just so you know, I'm guessing that it's a very rough estimate of an all-inclusive death toll for every civilian in Iraq who's died since January 2003, and that it was arrived at by picking a median number between impossibly small and ridiculously huge.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

This is the most concrete evidence that will ever be found on this subject because of the fact that Bush, Rumsfeld and co, don't ever want the truth to be released.

Comparing Saddam to Lincoln is laughable, in a blinkered, sad sort of way. Using the comparison to conclude that Saddam wasn't a "bad man" is nothing short of astonishing.

Saddam is a terrible man who has murdred thousands of innocent people. HOWEVER, the majority of the men he killed were not innocent, they were fighting against him. I'm sure that there are at least 5 other countries that have killed more innocent citizens than him. More than likely around 10.

 

[BHS]

If you're trying to defend the U.S. President Bush for bombing & invading Iraq over his version of WMD??? (What a joke that was), then you're going to be pretty dissappointed after the 2006 elections. The 2006 elections will serve as a 'springboard' with some newly elected democratic senators to finally impeach Bush. The american people will ultimately prevail and justifiably so to finally remove this incompetent 'misling' president and his staff of crazies from office.

Okeydoke

As a great man once said, "Bring. It. On."

 

[Gravity]

It. Will. Bring. Itself. On.

Just.Wait.Stud

 

[BHS]

That is funny! And I'm a bit jelous!



In my case it was really called ''being grumpy''. But isn't it wonderful that a ''good'' Kkkristian can wish for the end of the world (''rapture'') and thats considered ok. But they can't wish for the end of any *specific* part of the world!

Ha! People that yearn to see me burn in hell are funny. I don't know if their beliefs are "okay", but I'm amused by the thought of calling them unpatriotic for wanting the whole world, USA included, to be destroyed. I think I will, from now on. Ought to provide some entertaining conversations. Thanks for the tip.

 

[BHS]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

This is the most concrete evidence that will ever be found on this subject because of the fact that Bush, Rumsfeld and co, don't ever want the truth to be released.



Saddam is a terrible man who has murdred thousands of innocent people. HOWEVER, the majority of the men he killed were not innocent, they were fighting against him. I'm sure that there are at least 5 other countries that have killed more innocent citizens than him. More than likely around 10.

Bloody typical. You make criticisms using a bullshit statistic, I call bullshit, you link to the source of the bullshit that confirms my call, and then excuse yourself by theorizing that nothing more conclusive than bullshit can be shown because of a conspiracy perpetrated by the people you're criticising. You run around in a circle, but somehow I'm the brain-washed chump.

 

[Voodoo Child]

"Like Saddam, you have no plausible explanation for where the weapons might have gone"

My and Saddam's explanation is that he destroyed them.

"So, weapons were proven to exist, and no evidence that they were destroyed (or otherwise disposed of) was forthcoming"

There was quite a lot evidence that he destroyed them. Iraq submitted about 12,000 pages of it. Most of the weapons don't have a shelf-life that would of allowed them to exist more than 6 months.

"I note below that you're of the opinion "massive amounts" of Saddam's weapons were destroyed during inspection. Fine. I posit that many more, and perhaps most, were not"

That is not opinion, but fact.

Former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, claims Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

"I think it's logical to conclude that they *might* still be there"

Pre-emptive wars should not be justified on "might". This pre-emptive war was not justified on "might".

"But don't say it like you knew all the answers ahead of time."

I did. It's a gift.

Let me rephrase that then. Their water and the water immediately adjoining their water. Sheesh. What a nit picker.

You said US troops were stationed in Iraq and Iraqi water. I have the responsibility to point out what crapola that is.

The agreeability of the circumstances is debatable. I fail to see how this bolsters your argument in any case.

This bolsters my case because you said Iraq was a thorn in the side. Relative to the current state of affairs it wasn't. Saddam was contained with minimal expense, minimal political blowback and no loss of life.

Except that Saddam had signed agreements ahead of time allowing unfettered access to international inspectors. Here's what Clinton had to say about the situation.

That security personel had access to them doesn't render them useless. That is a pretty weak argument. So what if Hussein had the inspectors monitored? How does it impede their ability to verify disarmanent? What Clinton(who you've just been criticizing) fails to mention is that Iraqi counterintelligence caught the CIA posing as WI. http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/unsc2.htm

The sort of stuff the leader of an entire country might have at his disposal.

1) Except that he didn't. He had to buy fraudulent aluminium tubes and non-existent uranium from outside. The trade of such goods is monitorable.
2) The sort of stuff that leaves a big footprint.

I argue that this lack the evidence couldn't exist without the fact of the invasion.

Infrastructure is inspectable without an invasion, both by satelite and human inspectors. You can keep tabs on and interview qualified scientists and you can monitor purchasing and importation. You can ascertain with a reasonable level of probability that he had no nuclear program.

First of all, it was your assertion that I was agreeing with, not the upside-down and backwards.

You were suggesting that Saddam couldn't be expected to build billion dollar bases in plain sight. This is a straw-man of my argument that Saddam had no demonstratable links with terrorism. BTW, you can't agree with me AND be sarcastic. The sarcasm would move your statement into disagreement with mine.

Thirdly, by arguing that my government may also be a state sponsor of terrorism you only prove the point I was making earlier. I'm not the one saying you can't prove Saddam had ties to terrorism.

I bring up Canada to show that your criteria for justifying invasion are ludicrously broad. You can apply the same argument to practically any country, so reductio ad absurdum, it doesn't mean anything.

I'm not the one saying you can't prove Saddam had ties to terrorism.

No, you're the one who can't prove it. (Or lend any level of support to this assertion)

Your conclusion is based on your "proof" that Saddam had no weapons or ties to terrorism, against which I've stated my case.

No, my conclusion is based on the fact you have no evidence. You don't have a case, since you have nothing to show Saddam had ties with any terrorists(bar palestinians) or had any unconventional weapons.

All of which had been tried for over a decade, without success.

You neglect the fact these resulted in the verifiable destruction of ~90-95% Saddam's stockpile and discouraged Saddam from international aggression. You neglect the fact that the sanctions, according to the Kay Report, made weapons development impossible.
You also neglect to mention that for much of the last decade there was little political will to resolve the situation. However, once Bush started getting riled up Saddam became very, very cooperative. It would of been far more prudent to let the inspections run for a time, demonstrating either a lack of weapons or Saddam's unwillingness to cooperate. There are not merely the options of inaction and action, there are many graduations between the two.

You say that as if the war was fought on a whim, and the US was the only country involved, and the preceeding decade hadn't happened.

No I don't.

I think the thrust of your argument is that nations that weren't directly involved in 911 should be exempted from the war on terror, and I disagree.

The thrust of my argument is exactly as I have written. You suggest 911 was an urgent warning that the Iraqi situation need be resolved. Given they are utterly and entirely unrelated, I'd have to ask, why? 911 does not give Saddam a pass, but it does not condemn as you would have it.

As I said above, been there, done that. Nothing was resolved by playing by the rules while allowing Saddam to freely flaunt them.

It was not pursued with any conviction, though. There was no political will, nor a need for any resolve to be developed. What pressure was actually applied? Clinton really didn't care and pre-911 Dubya was even worse. The US got results when it started squeezing Saddam's balls. When the US started amassing troops in the region Saddam became helpful. Under those conditions my proposed course of action would have been fruitful.

-A temporary condition. And I think you seriously underestimate the US Armed Forces' ability to acquire resources when the need is pressing.

Yeah, it isn't like terrorists would strike when America isn't ready.

True, if you presume the Bushites are going to mount another war. Bush is a lame duck president. There isn't going to be another war in the next three years, unless the terrorists mount another successful attack. In which case, the American public WILL have a bar of it. Several bars, maybe.

Will they? They were wrong about Iraq and not any safer because of it. The point isn't about an attack necesarily, but about deterrence. Iran was being relatively compliant because the US was belligerent and powerful, now they are weary and far weaker...

Same as the first point. They CAN afford it. Indefinitely. For historical references, look into the Berlin Airlift, and the subsequent Cold War.

I'm not so sure. Even if it is affordable, it will be too expensive to comtemplate.