Jeff, Kevin, Dale, Eric,

           I don't know if I'd say the debate has run out of gas but certain aspects of it have us going in circles. I think that to some extent we've got a problem having a real decent debate or discussion about it...in particular when we are just dismissing others views as out of line.

    I think the Iraq thing comes down to do you agree with us being there or don't you. That is a matter of perspective to some extent and why we can't agree on certain aspects of the issue.

We can discuss it here and I think the only thing that becomes useless is when we dismiss each other..."He'll never listen. It's an exorcise in futility."

Actually in this very thread we've begun to have some agreements on it..."It's about the oil." as an example.

Sometimes we do overstate our case a bit...like when Eric says that Saddam is an invention of the Right, that's sort of true but it's overstated in that he's a creation of a certain group of guys from the Right...the guys who are running this administration right now in fact...who've earned the designation neo-con...because they are a new and fairly young animal now roaming our political landscape.

Nixon may have become famous for dirty tricks but these guys are altogether different and operating on a whole new level. So, it's better and more specific to say these guys (Bushco) created Saddam...so as not to tar everybody on the right with their bad behavior. When we visit this idea we're not in KDBland either...nor is it out of line to suggest that this administration is hiding it's motives from the public eye. Kevin even agrees to that idea in his post. I think we all find it agreeable that our country does indeed have a greater interest in getting involved in Iraq than say, Rwanda. It's all about the oil...and we will never in fact police the world to prevent acts of genocide by insane dictators. We'll watch it happen and then debate our interests in getting involved...that's how it works.

I think we should have come to an agreement that to say we attacked Saddam because of human rights violations, in any way, some 16 years after what was supposedly his greatest atrocity...gassing the Kurds (which our CIA said he did not do...there is a report that says he only had mustard gas not the gas that killed the Kurds which Iran did have...someone should debunk this rather important issue) is sort of off the wall isn't it? This little event went down during Bush the 1st's tour of duty...so how do you explain not taking him out back then? If that was our huge concern and we wanted to put an end to that kind of behavior why wait 16 years to do it? I mean you can kill a lot of people in 16 years. Bush the 1st did nothing when Saddam supposedly gassed the Kurds...2 years later we responded to Saddam attacking Kuwait...you can kill a lot of people in two years too...

Sure everybody bombed his country. Clinton participated in that and everybody has commented on knowing he was seeking to build WMD's. We know that because the United States sold him the stuff to do so sure there's been comments about it over the years. Wonder why we never go after the companies that sold Saddam the stuff to build WMD's...aren't they just as guilty if not more so for providing the guy with the stuff to kill people? That's sort of a big issue isn't it? Selling stuff to kill people to a guy we knew all along was a thug.

There's just a great deal of dishonesty all around when you start to discuss this issue and it's so big that when we fight about making it an issue about who's policy is more to blame...the Left or the Right...we're just so far off base we're not even in the right ballpark anymore...that's for the politicians to do...they'll make it about Left and Right...we should discuss it and concern ourselves with the right and wrong of the matter and put the politics aside.

                Just a thought...