Originally Posted by danielpalos

Even given that understanding of Iraq's political situation, it still doesn't explain why oil prices have risen more, after our invasion, than before our invasion when we had greater stability in global markets. You seem to be implying that a common Offense would not result in increased oil consumption, that would otherwise have been consumed by the civilian sector of the global market. Without our engagement, oil prices should have stayed at the level they were prior to the invasion since consumption would have remained constant.

Dude, your position is your position and you may cling to it all you wish, but it's not one based upon factual information. The fact is that oil prices are where they are because of supply and demand. The biggest increases in demand have and are coming from China, India, and those other Eastern nations with growing economies. The war in Iraq is just a drop in the bucket in the demand that it places on oil consumption.

I would agree with your position more, if Congress had formally declared such a condition to exist. They have not, and there are other Constitutional mechanisms available for foreign policy that do not involve the extensive use of our exorbitantly expensive superpower.

What condition are you talking about? We are a sovereign nation, we are not beholden ed to the UN for that sovereignty, but the UN is beholden ed to the US for its existence, without US support that organization would fold in a New York minute. We have our constitution and it is all we need as our governing principals. It is the greatest government ever established upon the earth and you would hand that over to a bunch of imbeciles at the UN?


I disagree with your contention about Saddam's election not being democratic since people voted in an election. He didn't have to have an election, at all.

We call that being willingly ignorant, because it completely ignores the facts. Saddam wanted the appearance of legitimacy, so he holds rigged elections? Check whether or not your precious UN recognized those elections? And I am sure all those mass graves were for Saddam's supporters?

How does your point of view account for our level of interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state? From one perspective, it can be considered hypocritical to complain when a sovereign state interferes in our internal affairs. Would we have our current concerns over terrorism, if the UN had been more involved in helping red states become more productive members in our global economy?

By your mindset then we should never have gotten involved in the war in Europe during WWII. We should just have let Hitler take the whole of Europe and then waited for him to invade the US. Evil not matter where it's found must be confronted. Hitler's regime was a evil regime, Islamic fundamentalism is an evil that must be confronted, Saddam was an evil dictator that should have been disposed of during Desert Storm, but wasn't, so it had to be done later at an ever greater cost.

In other words, even if their is a duly constituted authority, you are claiming that adherence to the rule of law, is a purely situational consideration for you. How do you account for that point of view when anyone else in the world can claim the same thing about the rule of law, and the US.