Seattle Post-Intelligencer - U.S. forfeits claim to moral authority

[BaliBabyDoc]

I guess you are now unhappy that Saddam is out of power?

No . . . but if not for support from US administrations from Reagan up to early GHWBush . . . Saddam might have been deposed long ago.

I guess you are now unhappy that a couple Al queda camps in Iraq no longer exist?

No . . . but destroying those camps REQUIRED invading Iraq?

I guess you are now unhappy that a several international terrorist are now in custody?

No . . . but if we put a fence around Pakistan you would have a whole bunch of international terrorists.

I guess you are now unhappy that Iraq is now disarming?

According to the President they are disarmed . . . that's why the sanctions should be dropped. Of course we invaded b/c they were armed.

I guess you are now unhappy that Iraqi citizens have a chance at democracy?

Most people are happy for the opportunity . . . unfortunately it will not be a good opportunity if the US government insists on running the show.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Entering existing conflicts we may have not absolutely had to enter is a far cry from starting a conflict we may not have absolutely had to start.

I guess you are now unhappy that Saddam is out of power?
I guess you are now unhappy that a couple Al queda camps in Iraq no longer exist?
I guess you are now unhappy that a several international terrorist are now in custody?
I guess you are now unhappy that Iraq is now disarming?
I guess you are now unhappy that Iraqi citizens have a chance at democracy?

And I guess you are a troll.

None of these ridiculous slurs is supported by GtB's comment. It's just another example of a zealot launching a personal attack, presumably because he doesn't have anything useful to say.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Entering existing conflicts we may have not absolutely had to enter is a far cry from starting a conflict we may not have absolutely had to start.

I guess you are now unhappy that Saddam is out of power?
I guess you are now unhappy that a couple Al queda camps in Iraq no longer exist?
I guess you are now unhappy that a several international terrorist are now in custody?
I guess you are now unhappy that Iraq is now disarming?
I guess you are now unhappy that Iraqi citizens have a chance at democracy?

And I guess you are a troll.

None of these ridiculous slurs is supported by GtB's comment. It's just another example of a zealot launching a personal attack, presumably because he doesn't have anything useful to say.

That is funny.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war".

Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.

In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.

But I am not a historian. Can anyone shed more light on our involvement in these wars?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war"


Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

Yes if tribute was not paid, you were subject to pirates. All of Europe was content to pay tribute to the pirates. The US sent the Marines to shores of Tripoli and removed the problem.


In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

Yes, but we did not have to. These 2 wars can be considered pre-emptive because if had done anything, we would have had a worse problem to deal with.

WWII could have been completely prevented if action had been taken sooner against Germany and Japan.



In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.



You might call this a pre-emptive war against communism.


In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.


Our actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were done without UN approval. IT was a NATO operation, with the US carrying much of the weight of the opperations. Much like what you saw in Iraq.




But I am not a historian. Can anyone shed more light on our involvement in these wars?

Hope this helps shed some light.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war"


Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

Yes if tribute was not paid, you were subject to pirates. All of Europe was content to pay tribute to the pirates. The US sent the Marines to shores of Tripoli and removed the problem.


In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

Yes, but we did not have to. These 2 wars can be considered pre-emptive because if had done anything, we would have had a worse problem to deal with.

WWII could have been completely prevented if action had been taken sooner against Germany and Japan.



In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.



You might call this a pre-emptive war against communism.


In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.


Our actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were done without UN approval. IT was a NATO operation, with the US carrying much of the weight of the opperations. Much like what you saw in Iraq.




But I am not a historian. Can anyone shed more light on our involvement in these wars?

Hope this helps shed some light.

Yes, thanks. I don't accept the characterization of WWI and WWII as pre-emptive. I do believe that defending allies is a legitimate use of military force. For example, I supported the first Gulf War as an appropriate response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

I already agreed that the justification for Vietnam was on shakey ground, one of the reasons this war was so unpopular here.

I'll take your word for it on Kosovo and Bosnia, but I could swear I remember seeing U.N. flags and U.N. markings on our military vehicles and troops.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war"


Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

Yes if tribute was not paid, you were subject to pirates. All of Europe was content to pay tribute to the pirates. The US sent the Marines to shores of Tripoli and removed the problem.


In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

Yes, but we did not have to. These 2 wars can be considered pre-emptive because if had done anything, we would have had a worse problem to deal with.

WWII could have been completely prevented if action had been taken sooner against Germany and Japan.



In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.



You might call this a pre-emptive war against communism.


In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.


Our actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were done without UN approval. IT was a NATO operation, with the US carrying much of the weight of the opperations. Much like what you saw in Iraq.




But I am not a historian. Can anyone shed more light on our involvement in these wars?

Hope this helps shed some light.

Yes, thanks. I don't accept the characterization of WWI and WWII as pre-emptive. I do believe that defending allies is a legitimate use of military force. For example, I supported the first Gulf War as an appropriate response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

I already agreed that the justification for Vietnam was on shakey ground, one of the reasons this war was so unpopular here.

I'll take your word for it on Kosovo and Bosnia, but I could swear I remember seeing U.N. flags and U.N. markings on our military vehicles and troops.

After the US got done with the dirty work, UN peacekeepers came in. The previous admin did not ask the UN permission for exercise operations in Bosnia or Kosovo.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war"


Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

Yes if tribute was not paid, you were subject to pirates. All of Europe was content to pay tribute to the pirates. The US sent the Marines to shores of Tripoli and removed the problem.


In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

Yes, but we did not have to. These 2 wars can be considered pre-emptive because if had done anything, we would have had a worse problem to deal with.

WWII could have been completely prevented if action had been taken sooner against Germany and Japan.



In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.



You might call this a pre-emptive war against communism.


In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.


Our actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were done without UN approval. IT was a NATO operation, with the US carrying much of the weight of the opperations. Much like what you saw in Iraq.

Are you suggesting that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was a NATO operation...?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'll take your word for it on Kosovo and Bosnia, but I could swear I remember seeing U.N. flags and U.N. markings on our military vehicles and troops.

After the US got done with the dirty work, UN peacekeepers came in. The previous admin did not ask the UN permission for exercise operations in Bosnia or Kosovo.

Interesting, thanks. Not sure what I was doing then, but I obviously wasn't paying much attention.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war"


Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

Yes if tribute was not paid, you were subject to pirates. All of Europe was content to pay tribute to the pirates. The US sent the Marines to shores of Tripoli and removed the problem.


In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

Yes, but we did not have to. These 2 wars can be considered pre-emptive because if had done anything, we would have had a worse problem to deal with.

WWII could have been completely prevented if action had been taken sooner against Germany and Japan.



In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.



You might call this a pre-emptive war against communism.


In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.


Our actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were done without UN approval. IT was a NATO operation, with the US carrying much of the weight of the opperations. Much like what you saw in Iraq.

Are you suggesting that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was a NATO operation...?

I am suggesting NATO played a small part.

 

[LH]

Could you imagine Bush in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis . . . now that's scary!

We might not have even been in Iraq if Kennedy didnt okay the killing of the first Iraqi Dictator(who overthrew the Iraqi Monarchy. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon are who put Saddams party and Saddam in power. Bush is just fixing american fvckups. And hes doing it the right way. Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon didnt help Iraq out other than getting rid of their dictators. Bush 41 fvcked up too. Bush 43 is doing what should have been done long ago.

Lets get real here if supporting and praticipating in coups and assainations of world leaders isnt pre-emptive I dont know what the fvck is.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

Examples? You're probably right, but I'd like something factual to support you.

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

Except for the first example(don't know anything about it), none of those are examples of a non-warring nation being attacked.

All the examples listed above are conflicts we entered into and did not have to. I think it is quite dishonest to call Iraq a non-warring nation.

exactly, last time I checked the history books, it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

This is a really interesting discussion. I would not cite Reagan's support for Saddam a reason to not go to war with him. Do you want to set a time limit on the US realizing its mistakes? I mean really. We've made the mistake of supporting plenty of terrible people in the past, that is not a reason not to realize it and do something about it.

I would argue that there are probably some real despots that we are supporting right now, that GW should take another look at just for the sake of "integrity" and "consistency" if he really wants to convince everybody that he's got a human rights edge with Op. Iraqi Freedom. I think there's some pretty questionable leaders out there that he needs to take a more neutral look at.

Forfeting moral authority? I think that will be for the iraqi people to decide at some point when they hit a population boom because their brothers, husbands, and children, aren't being hauled off, tortured, and murdered by their own government anymore. Moral authority compared to what? Hussein? If the Hussein regime was peacefully cooperating and meeting their international responibilities, I would say they would have had the moral authority. But alas he had plenty of time to cooperate.

If someone is throwing people into moving cars, I don't blame the driver of the car for their death, I blame the person throwing them in front of cars.

 

[Michael]

There was the War of 1812, but it tends to get blocked out of US memory because they can't stand Canadians kicking their ass.

<grin>

Michael

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: charrison
I think it is quite dishonest to call Iraq a non-warring nation.

exactly, last time I checked the history books, it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait.

By that logic, we should invade England since they attacked us once (bunch of other countries too). True, it was 225 years ago, but once a warring nation, always a warring nation. Maybe that's why Blair keeps kissing our butt - he knows they're on thin ice.

Then we should go after Georgia - the one here, not the one in the former USSR. Teach them and the other Confederate states that we never forget.

Who else? Spain. France would be popular choice right now. Canada. The possibilities are endless.

Iraq invaded Kuwait 12+ years ago. We kicked their butts for it, sending their military half way back to the stone age. In spite of what they might have become again someday, they certainly weren't a warring nation in 2003. Move on already.

 

[OneManArmy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here is an interesting op-ed piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the historical precedents for a pre-emptive first strike like the U.S. attack on Iraq. It's a good read if you want to move beyond celebrating our current success in Iraq to think about a bigger, long-term picture. I don't think there's much new that hasn't been hashed through in other threads here, but it's well-done, offers several specific historical references, and puts it all in one place.

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

You have legitimate evidence to back your riduculous asertation?

 

[OneManArmy]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

Like Kennedy, Carter was hardly fond of Communism. Whom do you think initiated US aid to the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan?

Read a history book or three, then come back and make quip partisan remarks that are at least partially informed.

Good grief, some of you guys are cranky.

yes, but at least we are not ignorant.

 

[Michael]

OneManArmy:

James Madison attacked Canada in 1812. He had an "excuse" in that Britain was boarding ships in the high seas (they were enforcing a blockade and they were looking for deserters). He had less provocation than GWB had to go after Iraq. Many historians feel he started the war of 1812 because his polls were low and the economy stunk and he wanted to distract the voters.

William McKinley went to war with Spain over the Battleship Maine incident - still somewhat of a debate over why it blew up, probably along the same level of provocation as Iraq with GWB.

Polk and the Mexican-American war is another good example. Somewhat muddy reasons for the war beginning. Can be argued that this was mainly a war of agression by the USA.

That's 3 examples. There are more.

Michael

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

I won't pretend to be a scholar of history, but I don't see that any of these qualify as a "pre-emptive war"


Re. the Barbary pirates, I imagine they were attacking our shipping and we responded by eliminating the attackers. While we'd probably pay more attention to due process and defendants' legal rights today, military force was a typical response in that era.

Yes if tribute was not paid, you were subject to pirates. All of Europe was content to pay tribute to the pirates. The US sent the Marines to shores of Tripoli and removed the problem.


In WWI and II, we joined the war to defend European allies who were being attacked.

Yes, but we did not have to. These 2 wars can be considered pre-emptive because if had done anything, we would have had a worse problem to deal with.

WWII could have been completely prevented if action had been taken sooner against Germany and Japan.



In Vietnam, at least in theory, we were defending another ally who was being attacked. I agree that this justification was a stretch.



You might call this a pre-emptive war against communism.


In Kosovo and Bosnia, we were there under the auspices of the United Nations. Speaking for myself, the most objectionable part of our attack on Iraq is that it was unilateral, against the objection of the U.N.


Our actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were done without UN approval. IT was a NATO operation, with the US carrying much of the weight of the opperations. Much like what you saw in Iraq.

Are you suggesting that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was a NATO operation...?

I am suggesting NATO played a small part.

First of all we signed a pact with our allies at the end of WW2 pledging mutual help and support, which is why we were right to come to France's aid in their colony Vietnam, we should have left when they did though.

Bosnia was UN approved, the day after the US got both parties to sign the Dayton Accords the UN authorized the use of force to implement the plan. Once again it was a US led efort which resulted in UN approval for force, funny, we are the only nation to have ever done this, there, in 1991 in the Gulf, in Afghanistan as well....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Michael
OneManArmy:

James Madison attacked Canada in 1812. He had an "excuse" in that Britain was boarding ships in the high seas (they were enforcing a blockade and they were looking for deserters). He had less provocation than GWB had to go after Iraq. Many historians feel he started the war of 1812 because his polls were low and the economy stunk and he wanted to distract the voters.

William McKinley went to war with Spain over the Battleship Maine incident - still somewhat of a debate over why it blew up, probably along the same level of provocation as Iraq with GWB.

Polk and the Mexican-American war is another good example. Somewhat muddy reasons for the war beginning. Can be argued that this was mainly a war of agression by the USA.

That's 3 examples. There are more.



Michael

Care for a rematch? lol

 

[LivinOnTheEdge]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Michael
OneManArmy:

James Madison attacked Canada in 1812. He had an "excuse" in that Britain was boarding ships in the high seas (they were enforcing a blockade and they were looking for deserters). He had less provocation than GWB had to go after Iraq. Many historians feel he started the war of 1812 because his polls were low and the economy stunk and he wanted to distract the voters.

William McKinley went to war with Spain over the Battleship Maine incident - still somewhat of a debate over why it blew up, probably along the same level of provocation as Iraq with GWB.

Polk and the Mexican-American war is another good example. Somewhat muddy reasons for the war beginning. Can be argued that this was mainly a war of agression by the USA.

That's 3 examples. There are more.



Michael

Care for a rematch? lol

rematch?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: charrison
I think it is quite dishonest to call Iraq a non-warring nation.

exactly, last time I checked the history books, it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait.

By that logic, we should invade England since they attacked us once (bunch of other countries too). True, it was 225 years ago, but once a warring nation, always a warring nation. Maybe that's why Blair keeps kissing our butt - he knows they're on thin ice.

Then we should go after Georgia - the one here, not the one in the former USSR. Teach them and the other Confederate states that we never forget.

Who else? Spain. France would be popular choice right now. Canada. The possibilities are endless.

Iraq invaded Kuwait 12+ years ago. We kicked their butts for it, sending their military half way back to the stone age. In spite of what they might have become again someday, they certainly weren't a warring nation in 2003. Move on already.

So what is the time limit for a country to no longer be a waring nation? You seem to be the expert.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: OneManArmy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here is an interesting op-ed piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the historical precedents for a pre-emptive first strike like the U.S. attack on Iraq. It's a good read if you want to move beyond celebrating our current success in Iraq to think about a bigger, long-term picture. I don't think there's much new that hasn't been hashed through in other threads here, but it's well-done, offers several specific historical references, and puts it all in one place.

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

You have legitimate evidence to back your riduculous asertation?

Try reading the entire thread, I listed several examples.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: charrison
I think it is quite dishonest to call Iraq a non-warring nation.

exactly, last time I checked the history books, it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait.

By that logic, we should invade England since they attacked us once (bunch of other countries too). True, it was 225 years ago, but once a warring nation, always a warring nation. Maybe that's why Blair keeps kissing our butt - he knows they're on thin ice.

Then we should go after Georgia - the one here, not the one in the former USSR. Teach them and the other Confederate states that we never forget.

Who else? Spain. France would be popular choice right now. Canada. The possibilities are endless.

Iraq invaded Kuwait 12+ years ago. We kicked their butts for it, sending their military half way back to the stone age. In spite of what they might have become again someday, they certainly weren't a warring nation in 2003. Move on already.

So what is the time limit for a country to no longer be a waring nation? You seem to be the expert.

I think I heard somewhere it's 11 1/2 years.