ctembreull

Sure. right here, in Sixate's own words. Unfounded? Hardly.

And yet according to all accounts, Baghdad and surrounds was mostly whole in 1991 before the missiles started falling. See, the fighting against Iran was held mostly on Iraq's eastern border. Which means the vast majority of the existing destruction happened as a direct result of the actions of the United States.

You're entirely missing the point. If Iraq is as "free" as you claim it to be, then why have we suppressed a particular political party? Let me be clear: if the Iraqis don't like Baathists, they can bloody well vote them out. Instead, we're ruling by fiat and suppressing who we wish because we wish. That is not freedom.

Wrong. Very wrong. As you can see here. That's twice now, by the way, that you with all pomp and bombast have claimed things aren't so when they so clearly and obviously are just so. I encourage you to check your facts more closely.

Listen much to The Who? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... after all, we kill Iraqis as well or better than he did. We ban political thought that we don't like, just as he did. We make free with Iraq's mineral wealth, just like he did. Wow, what saviors we are!

Sure, let's push the smoke back into the bottle with a baseball bat. My point is that we never should have been there in the first place. We can't unkill 10,000 Iraqis. We can't un-destroy infrastructure. We can't undo the crimes against international law that we have committed.

And yet they still can't affiliate with certain political parties if they wish. Freedom indeed.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. You don't care enough to try to do something about it, obviously. I do; I plan on executing regime change the legal way: by voting.

As far as evil dictators, did you ever figure out when we're gonna go "liberate" those other countries? Guess not. Looks like liberation only comes for those who have oil, eh?

And that's why the inspectors were there - to verify that there were no more WMDs. The inspectors found none, but we kicked them out before the job was done. Hans Blix himself said that his inspectors had enjoyed "unprecedented" access. But they found no WMDs. And neither have we. That looks suspiciously like evidence; evidence that has not been superseded.

That's it. I have arrived at the unfortunate yet inescapable and plainly obvious conclusion that you possess no understanding of the meaning of the word "sovereignty", nor of international law, nor of the rights of nations to self-determination. You quite clearly do not get it. So, I'm going to flush the rest of your post, and leave you with this:

sovereign, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.

That's *self-governing*, not subject to the whims of other nations without due process under international law. No nation has any right whatsoever in any circumstances to force the leader of another nation to step down, lacking casus belli. We found no WMDs, we had no casus belli, and if you don't think that's the way it should be, then tough. That's the law. The United States is not above the law. And nor are you.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!