Hey, GUESTS, Doug R is not a "right wing nut", he's just a conservative, okay? I almost always disagree with him on politics, but I like him as a human being...that's life. Let's not get carried away with the name calling here...

LEJ - When I said that the USA is an "outlaw nation", I was thinking of many, many past aggressions against Native Americans, British North America, Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Lybia, and oh, about 20 other countries maybe... I will add that by that definition Russia also fits the label of outlaw nation, as do Great Britain, China, France, Japan, Germany, Argentina, North Korea, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Egypt, Syria, and so on, and so on...

It's really not that unusual.

I was just pointing out that the USA has also violated international law and committed aggression on various occasions (with all kinds of marvelous excuses and justifications, of course)...and it has also defied/ignored rulings by the World Court regarding attacks on Nicarauga.

Therefore, the USA is in no moral position to decide that others are "outlaw nations". It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The USA has been engaged in CIA-sponsored assassinations and covert actions in many parts of the world, and continues to do so. Those are illegal, criminal actions, from the point of anyone on the receiving end.

I agree that Iraq has behaved as an outlaw, no problem...but so has the USA, repeatedly.

There exists no effective international means of doing anything about it, at least in the case of the USA, and that is an even bigger problem than Saddam Hussein, since it has more far-ranging effects on the world than he does.

I realize that you never implied the USA would nuke Iraq...it was other people who got on that subject, I responded to their comments, and it caused some thread drift about the various nuclear weapons issues.

Whether Saddam was involved in 911...we'll probably never know for sure. It's too hard separating facts from disinformation and propaganda.

If I were dealing with Saddam, I would make sure that his neighbours are adequately protected (which I believe they are at this point). I would deny him weapons and technical assistance, but I would not deny his population food, medicine, and the normal benefits of peaceful trade. I would talk with him, rather than threatening him, and see if it led somewhere useful. It well might, because Saddam has far more to gain by talking than by fighting. He can only lose if he fights.

If he is indeed mentally unstable, then that throws a wild card in the mix. I don't know if he is, and I'm in no position to know. I guess if I were the President (God forbid...) then I would possibly have some more info about it...or maybe not. Who knows? We all try and figure out what's going on as best we can, but it ain't easy.

- LH