Please explain this to me. How can a country based on democracy and freedom invade another country, which did not attack nor declare war upon the invading country, then try, convict, and execute that country's leader.

military commission act
Haliburton
KBR
waterboard
no bid
katrina
loss

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people".

selective application of international law

Thank you.

Maybe we can use this to take over the next country, but I think we would have to ask permission from our mortgage company, "CHINA", before we take on any more real estate.

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people".

Didn't the Iraqis conduct the trial?
Anyway, what country is based on democracy and freedom? This one is based on furthering it's own self interests. Those are up for debate though I suppose.

With troops in Iraq and Afganistan, "allies" in the War on Terror(c)TM, in Pakistan and bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, we should be set to annex Iran and gain some Liebenstraum...except that it is unlikely Sec. Rumsfeld will get leeway to liberate Iran with the dozen or two troops that his plan undoubtedly calls for.

LOL!
The US empire doesn't annex turf though, just sees every human being as a potential consumer who needs to be "free" to shop at Walmart.

I'm not sure what the gap is between the current situation and a full on civil war, though I suspect that this result will bridge the gap.

Because we can and ain't nobody can stop us

So we should have ... what? Let Saddam stay in place? Turned a blind eye to the rape rooms?

I'm by no means a fan of George Bush, and think the war's execution was horribly botched, not to mention the fact that the rationale for the war was totally false. But even the most liberal of liberals has to admit that we're still way better than Saddam ever was. And the key word in your above question is "try". As in, Saddam was tried before a court of law, provided a lawyer, given a chance to present his side, and still there was enough evidence convicting him of the most awful of crimes.

I still believe today that if we could take a time machine and go back to 2003, and still invade Iraq but this time do it right, planning ahead for the reconstruction, getting more international cooperation, and training troops to avoid foulups like Abu Ghraib, Iraq would be a much better place today than it is either now or under Addam.

Sure, but why is this our responsibility? Why do we have to sacrifice the lives or our troops? Why did we have to exhaust our military wherewithall that now is so decimated we are in bad shape if we have to deal with actual threats? Why do we have to sacrifice billions and billions of dollars when our own children can't even get heat in their classrooms?

I could go on and on and on, but it's simply a matter of priorities, and the Bush administration has a horrible sense of what issues should take priority for America.

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=26493

All you people who talk about bringing peace to the middle east and the great country of Iraq are a joke. You have no idea the history of that "great" country and are so brainwashed. Your own children are growing up into a world where many of their opportunities have been stripped from them in the name of lining the pockets of the top one percentile of our nations wealth.