well, i'm not sure if his opposition to the war had anything to do with the ability of the gov't to capture Saddam Hussein. most of the ppl who opposed the war was mainly on the basis that the premise was pretty flimsy. now if the gov't said "lets go in to depose this crazy mofo who kills his own ppl, oh, and who we happened to support and sell arms to in the 80's, and he also is sitting on some oil." well, that'd be different.
now keep in mind i'm canadian, so my grasp of my OWN politics is pretty flimsy, and of american, well, it's worst than etheral
.
i think the wrongful premise of invading AND the fact it was done unilaterally thereby nulllifying if not putting in dire straits the validity of the UN, was what had many ppl's panties in a knot. but there are many OTHER more dangerous countries that pose serious WMD threats and or terrorist threats, if that was indeed what the current administration is after. North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, are all WMD toting countries with a less than totally supportive position towards the US. Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime that ALSO supports terrorist (a goodly number, that is, vast majority, of the 9/11 bombers were from there). so the number of better targets is pretty vast.
personally i'm pretty confused on the issue. i don't like unilateral moves on anything, but saddam was a badass. but then agani, there are ton of more badasses. hrm.
now better candidates? dunno, all i hear from howard dean is smoe smattering on the net, only because his signal to noise ratio on the net is pretty clear, due to his great managing of that media. i hear there is a general somewhere there. and if the democrats are hoping to capture the red states (the republicans, anything off the coast, basically), that's prolly where they will need to go.
typing too much. respond plse
Topic: Can I Join The Clan? (Read 7935 times)
