pinko

And I am simply stating my views and it is obvious we don't see things in the same light. "I see Saddam no longer being in power as a good thing, and hope for the best regarding Iraq's emerging democracy." It probably is but as has been previously noted the jury is still out.

At this link you will see Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddan Hussien. http://www.fantompowa.org/cia_coups_iraq.htm

"I don't support "interfering in sovereign nations' internal politics," so what you're asking/your point isn't clear to me in light of my views." It should be obvious. Although you seem to be sucking and blowing you condone your government orchestrating the downfall of Saddam Hussien. Here is another link for you http://www.iraqwararchive.org/data/apr20/canada/star002.pdf

"Since Saddam's regime was brutal, there's nothing "morally wrong" with removing it from power just because there are "worse" out there. That's like saying it's morally wrong to give to any poor/disadvantaged people who aren't the poorest of the poor because that's where our resources should have gone." I am not sure morality should enter into these discussions. However if it does there are many examples of immoral conduct by the American military industrial complex and its active support of repressive regimes. There are many examples in Central and South America. Again you appear to ignore the involvement of the CIA and its role in helping Saddam in his rise to power in the 1950s. Here is one of a number of links http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

Apart from the rather dubious premise for the invasion of Iraq in the first place the question remains are the people of Iraq, on balance, better off now than they were before the occupation of their country? The infrastructure has been destroyed and thousands have been killed and wounded. That people are still questioning what the future will hold is, in itself, an admission of failure. The cost of that war to the American treasury is estimated in the trillions of dollars not to mention troop deaths and casualties. While the USA was satisfying George W. Bush's desire to kill and capture Saddam Hussien the effort in Afghanistan floundered and opponents there regrouped. As it currently stands Iran has gained influence at the expense of the west both in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. If the American goal was to bring peace and stability to the region they have failed. With all the military might available there is still no end in sight. The USA should take heed with what happened to the British and the Russians when they attempted to occupy countries in that region.

"What I said is Iraq suffered, and continues to suffer, from internal problems outside of U.S. et al involvement" In what respect is Iraq suffering in your view? It seems to me Iraq has a functioning democracy with a parliament and a representative form of government. What are these problems you refer to?

"So you support keeping a brutal dictator in power? For the sake of ... what? A sense of stability? In spite of what too many are being subjected to? Because I'm reading it as if you're supporting or defending Saddam being left in power.'" With all due respect you are misreading what I am saying. History shows your nation has supported many despotic regimes. Do you not recognize the damage that has been inflicted upon Iraq by the duplicitous conduct of your government?

"I'm having a difficult time understanding how you would conclude that I feel the U.S. is allowed to interfere with the sovereign affairs of another nation." I don't want to speculate on your feelings. What I do know is that the USA has a history of gun boat diplomacy to protect strategic interests. I am sure you will agree that the oil resources in the Middle East is what attracted the Americans to the region in the first place.

The Canadian Prime Minister can't seem to make up his mind. It really is too bad that those choosing to occupy Afghanistan didn't bother to study the history of that region. Had they done so they would have known what was in store for them.

Good point. I am wondering when the Americans will leave the narcostate of Afghanistan.

Individuals should prepare a living will in consultation with family members and medical practitioners. Just because we have the technology to extend life doesn't mean we should utilize precious healthcare resources keeping someone breathing indefinitely.

If there is a need for a prime minister then maybe the person should be elected by a majority of parliamentarians or alternatively by giving the voters the choice at election time.

Perhaps those enthralled by this Ford character should wait and see whether he really accomplishes anything during his term of office.

America has more than its share of people in poverty. Secondly the poor are migrating to many of the Europeans states where they take jobs and are often exploited by locals. Tent cities or shantytowns exist throughout the world.