Shady

Yes, I do mean the daily coalition bombings on Iraqi military targets, especially anit-aircraft targets that fired upon coalition aircraft on a daily basis. The same coalition aircraft protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Those are facts. Deal with them however you like, but please stop providing excuses for Saddam and his regime. Not so, either is thier sheltering of those who participated in the bombing. USATodayStop making excuses for Saddam and his regime. My comment on the attempted assassination of the former President was in responsee to theloniusfleabag. However, that cruise missle attack accomplished about as much as the cruise missile attacks against Bin Laden in Afghansitan. In other words, nothing. No, the no-fly zones permitted under Security Council Resolution 688. The no-fly zones which protected the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Yes, until then, I'm glad we agree.

Excellent observation! Oh please. It's just a little taste of your own medicine. The left loves to throw around the term fascist when describing conservatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Again Argus, great observation!

Yes of course, slight progress. Saddam plays people like you like puppets. It's the same cat and mouse game that went on through the 90's. As for the pressing need for regime change, it was 9/11. Such threats that were tolerated before, were deemed unacceptable after. Yes indeed. Saddam's bluff was called, and we only know this because he's been removed. What's ironic, is the only lies that led to the war were being perpetuated by Saddam and Iraq. I'm glad that you people can finally admit it. Actually, by much of the world, including Canada. However, this is another non-sequitur argument. Yes, sometimes there's no nonsense quite like the truth.

Have you forgotten the first WTC bombing? Or how about the assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush? Or how about the daily attacks on U.N. (mostly American, but some British and French) pilots patrolling the no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shites in the south? Ever heard of Abu Nidal? CNNThis terrorist leader used Iraq as a safe-haven, where he lived very comfortably under Saddam Hussein's watch, and with Saddam Hussien's money. And let's not forget about Saddam's interest in the financing of suicide bombers, remember? And where was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the war started? Baghdad. Lies. Pure lies. CNN Exactly. So why do you people think you know everything that pertain's to Iraq as a threat, Iraq's WMD capability and possession, as well as it's links to terrorism?

Thank you. I'm sorry about your knuckles, however, the constant lies, disinformaiton, and revision of history by those on the left really bothers me. From the memo: Link Hmm, that's odd, don't you think? Contemplating a situation in which you apparently know won't happen because you apparently know that Iraq doesn't possess such illegal weapons in a memo in which nobody else is suppose to see. There was a genuine fear of Iraq. There was a fear of WMD, and a fear of terrorism. This fear was deemed unacceptable after 9/11. It's accurate to state that Iraq was under severe sanctions and inspections. However, sanctions were at a point of breaking down, and inspectors hadn't been inspecting for a period of 4 years. And history indicates that Iraq did an execptional job of working around such sanctions and inspections. This is evident in 1996 when UNSCOM was about to declare Iraq free of illegal weapons untill Iraqi defectors uncovered chemical, biological and nuclear programs to inspectors. It is NOT an acceptable method after 9/11 to hope for defectors in order to insure one's safety. It is NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite inspections, and it is definitely NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite sanctions which only work to starve and deprive millions of Iraqi's from even the basic necessities of life. That's my opinion. And then there's stories like these, in which some people continue to ignore: Washington Post

Some may argue whether killing babies is a right.

How is that strange? Intelligence indicated that Iraq possessed WMD. Intelligence from America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, and even The United Nations. If you actually read the Downing Street memo, America and Britian were genuinely concerned about their forces facing WMD in the event of an invasion. They do. Although I'm sure that Russia, China and Japan possess very compentent fighting forces and intelligence networks aswell. However, this is a classic non-sequiter argument. Two facts: George Tenet is a Clinton appointee. George Tenet HAS lost his job. LOL, yep, one big giant lie, America and Britian in collaboration with the intelligence agencies of France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, and The United Nations and its Security Council.

Actually, if you read the memo, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the war was based on everything but lies. The memo clearly indicates that the British are genuinely fearful of WMD by Iraq during an invasion.

I'm sorry, but these types of statements don't invite honest intelligent discourse.

I couldn't agree more. It really puts you inside the heads of these insane type people and reflects their true logic and beliefs. He may not be the same raving religious nut of a suicide bomber, but he's friends witht them, and invites them to official government meetings. Link That's your pal Ken Livingstone. So you may hold what he says in great regard, however, the majority of Brits think otherwise. That would make sense if the terrorist attacks weren't being planned while Bill Clinton was President. Not to mention several terrorist attacks occuring during his Presidency. You totally fail to address the real root causes of terrorism.

It's not just because it might be an Arab website, it's also the fact that it's called Jihad Unspun. That should be a dead give-away that it's nothing close to an impartial source. I still stand by iraqbodycount.net. Now, I know for some of you Bush haters, you'll be disappointed. I know that for your "cause" the more dead Iraqi's the better, but your numbers just aren't accurate. So please stop inflating the number of casualties for poltical purposes. It's shameful and disgusting.

This is his source ladies and gentlemen: Jihad Unspun You must be joking.

Your arguments are so juvenile, they're not worth responding to. Try dicussing things like grown-ups. Please.

I know, I know, conservative judges are hacks, blah, blah, blah. Actually, this has been the second longest wait between the time a vacancy on the Supreme Court has occured and a President has announced a choice to fill it. Of course they'll enjoy the timing, because it gives the press a real issue to cover instead of some non-criminal witch hunt they've been pursuing for the last week or so. Please don't hold your breath on Rove's day of "reckoning", I'm afraid you'll be very, very, disappointed. Especially since no crime has been committed.

Fighting back against an invader is one thing. Purposely killing innocent civilians is another. I assume you agree with me, that packing a truck full of explosives and driving it into a school, or hospital is nothing close to fighting back against an invader/occupying force.

It's not old news, and Martin was the Finance Minister at the time. I give him credit that he's been able to convince the mainstream media to shift attention away from it, but it's gonna rear its ugly head come the next election. And no, I cannot imagine another majority liberal government. How much more destruction can they bring to our country before being properly dealt with? This country isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship, headed by Chretien/Martin. Martin is just continuing Chretien's legacy, or lack thereof. But we shall see.

Because they're not, that's why. It's the terrorists who target innocent women and children. It's the terrorist who blow up schools, and hospitals, and the Red Cross. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this? If another country had attacked and was occupying Canada, I sure as hell wouldn't be killing thousand of innocent Canadians. No Canadian would. The Jihadists realize that if Iraq succeeds, then they fail. And killing innocents is their perverse way of derailing progress. Put the blame where it belongs. On the suicidal jihadists who kill innocent people in the name of Allah.

I'm still trying to figure out why the focus by the media has been on Stephen Harper instead of the corruptor-in-chief Paul Martin? There's Nixonian type conduct going on in Ottawa, and has been for several years, yet the discussion seems to be centered on whether Stephen Harper is good for the Conservative Party. Give me a break.

Bush to announce court choice WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has decided whom to nominate to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court and was poised to announce his pick in a prime-time Tuesday night address. CNN I'm hoping it's Janice Rogers Brown. *fingers crossed*

I could agree more. Obviously post-war Iraq is much more violent then post-war Germany. However, I was simply responding to this particular statement: Which is incredibily inaccurate. There were kidnappings and murders, there was a resistance movement and they did attempt and succeeded in destroying public utilities, etc. These are historical facts. Again, the most significant comparison between post-war German and post-war Iraq is the doom and gloom headlines which are being recycled on almost a word for word basis. To say there are absolutely no comparisons is just plain wrong.

Wrong. According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) the maximum number of Iraqi civilians killed is 25881. And I would bet that the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq are by "insurgents" "helping" the Iraqi people from under the "oppressive" "occupation" of America. Please don't inflate casualty numbers for poltical purposes.

Thanks, I'll try. Although there hatred of all things Bush is usually very hard to overcome, even with facts. Wrong. The main comparison is the defeatist attitude of the press during the post-war Germany occupation and now the post-war Iraq occupation. The exact same doom and gloom headlines of the 1940's are now being recycled today, almost word for word. You're also wrong about no resistance movements. There were resisitance movements, that in some cases lasted several years. Example: The History Channel Link

See, it's this type of arrogance and disregard for people's personal political feelings that really bothers me. Apparently, if you don't vote for Jack Layton, you're an ignorant fool. Well, I feel the exact opposite. Anyone who wastes a vote for Jack Layton, but specifically the NDP is as ignorant as one can be. It's not suprising that so little voters support a party that's borderline communist.

Germans Declare Americans Hatred U.S. Investigators Discover Mounting Bitterness Over Our Occupational Practices By Kathleen McLaughlin, The New York Times December 3, 1945 Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared By John H. Crider, The New York Times November 18, 1945 Germans Reveal Hatred of Americans By Drew Middleton, The New York Times October 31, 1945 American's Clashes With Germans Grow October 10, 1946 Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism By Drew Middleton October 22, 1945 I found these past articles fascinating, as well as the parallels between post-war Germany and post-war Iraq.

I agree. There's nothing new to this story, except for the hyperbole throw around in this thread. Wrong. President Bush did have the approval of Congress. Unfortunately they handed over their Constitutional right by giving the authority to the President regarding the decision to declare war.