In other words, alias isn't going to answer the question.
Now there's a shocker!


My gawd man. You really are just a mouth talking with no ears or cognitive capability...
Iraq NEVER ATTACKED US.

I don't see ANYBODY saying we shouldn't go after al Qaeda, except for possibly a couple of idiots who think that we don't need to go after the head of al Qaeda...

Saddam never attacked us, yet we went after him.
bin laden DID attack us, he's still free, from all evidence alive, and in power of al Qaeda which is still active, and you do not care where he is.

Nope, you have not answered my question. You state that if we are attacked again, we should prevent those who attacked up from harming anyone else using methods which may include war. How are you going to do that. Stop dancing around it and be specific. Try again.

Hitler never attacked us. Korea never attacked us. Try again.

Assassination would not likely have these leaders replaced with better leaders. Likely it would just give us equally bad leaders, while destroying our relationship with those nations. This does not sound like a good plan. However, in some cases, staging a coup might be an effective strategy.

In truth, I am not familiar enough with the situations in those nations to give you the correct answer to the problems there. Instead, I am arguing that war protesters should not be criminals, as alias has suggested. This is why I want to know whether he thinks it is possible that the US may wage an unjust war in the future, and what the appropriate actions by soldiers and citizens would be.

I think you answered my question when you said you are not familiary enough with the situation. I think that would apply to the protesters as well. Thanks.

I protested during the recount of Bush and Gore in 2000. I had people yell at me, drive by and give me the finger, and one even tried to block my path as I walked down the sidewalk carrying a sign. I tell you what. If I ever protest again and someone tries to block my path, they are going to get their nose busted.

I don't care if you protest. Protest all you want but do it peacably like it says in the constitution. The minute you prevent someone from going about their daily business or interferring in their daily business, then you are a criminal. I heard of a war protester slugging a cop's horse. That is not protest. That is criminal behavior. Blocking a road or a gate is not protest. That is criminal behavior. Walking down the street and breaking windows is not protest. That is criminal behavior. Anyone who does that should be arrested. Do you see the difference.

Cindy Sheehan can protest all she wants, but what she wants is to disrupt Bush's vacation and cause a commotion. That makes her a criminal.

The reasons we attacked those countries are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from why we attacked Iraq.

So? Every war is different. Germany was a threat to it's neighbors and not us and Iraq was a threat to it's neighbors and not us as you say, although every democrat leader disagrees with you. You've seen all the quotes so don't make me use them again. Every leading democrat before Bush came into office said Saddam was a threat and had to be taken out. Why is it so difficult for you to get it? It's almost like you don't want to get it. Let me try again.

The entire middle east is controlled by dictators who wish to control the region. Saddam was one of them. They may not like each other, but they like Israel and the west even less. They hate Israel and the west. When we were attacked, our entire policy changed. We were no longer going to "contain" or use sanctions. We were going to fight and start regime changes. Afghanistan had to be first because that's where the attack initiated. Saddam was next because he was violating UN resolution after resolution and everyone thought he had WMDs, even the dems. Change the governments to democracies. German and Japan are not attacking anyone and haven't. They were the middle east of their day. We are on the way to changing that entire region. It's gonna take years and a lot of hard work but it has to be done or we keep getting hit and getting hit and getting hit like we have been for the last 30 years. That is what is happening. The area is going to change and it is not going to be run by muslim clerics in the future, but by elected officials who don't have mullahs with guns pointed at the head of some phoney elected leader like in Iran. Abinanutjob was elected, but he has to speak what he is told to speak or the mullahs pull him right out. That is a dictatorship run by religious fanatics. Those days have to come to an end to make the world safer. Iran is next. Do you doubt that? Once Iran is taken care of, you will see a lot of changes quickly. The world will be safer. The head of the snake will be cut off and the snake will wither and die.

Because you know, recounting and making sure who actually democratically won is such a harmful thing.

Provide for me one law that states "protesters preventing someone from going about their daily business" is criminality. Please, I beg of you. Present just one law that says you can voice your opinion, just so long the President's month-long vacation isn't disrupted.

There's one thing that you need to understand Alias. There is a sharp difference between law and order. It is impossible to have a political protest and not "cause a commotion". That's the bloody point of any protest! If you limit free speech like this, you are sacraficing law for order. Under our Constitution, free speech is protected. Free speech that is expected to cause commotion, to disrupt people's lives and tell them an opinion of the masses. Its the point of democracy. If you want complete order, then move to North Korea. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be able to drive down a certain street, and still have my and America's liberties protected. True American patriotism is "Give me liberty or give me death". Not "sacrifice liberty for temporary security".

How about the FACE laws????

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which President Clinton signed into law in 1994. The federal law imposes criminal and civil penalties on anyone who uses "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" to prevent a person from providing or receiving reproductive health services. Every federal appellate court to address the issue has upheld the act, and 15 states and the District of Columbia have also since passed clinic access laws making it a state crime to obstruct access to clinics.

Will that do?????

dmk

No. Unless of coarse the protesting group were intentionally blocking people from entering a clinic. And I haven't heard of that happening before, and it certainly doesn't make it a crime to "cause a commotion" or disrupt the president's vacation.