>> I still fail to see how taking your neighbor's land protects you. I'd rather tend to think that this is exactly a finger into the neighbors' eyes and something that would definitely get them _urinated_ off and give them a reason to say "see what we meant?".
>
>For starters, it provides somewhat of a buffer between the people who continually try to wipe you off the face of the map, and your citizens.

So you push more of your citizens into this buffer area.

>Second, when your neighbor trys to invade your home, and you take over some of his property, he thinks twice about invading your home again. As far as them getting _urinated_ off, weren't they already like that when they decided to invade your home?

...which (home) was carved off the land which was theirs for the last fourteen centuries. So this becomes a story of "who started this", which may extend to unrecorded history.

>>And the current resolutions are the result of the single-superpower situation. Does that mean that all the old resolutions are invalid now? Do you revoke laws when the senators who passed them lose power or be forgotten? Or are these still having legal power?
>
>The difference here is that our Senators are democratically elected. Leaders of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries the USSR controlled were not. Nor are the countries in the Middle East. These are the countries that passed those UN resolutions against Israel.

Oh, so we have valid and invalid votes in the UN. Didn't know that.

>>The dictators are best thrown over from within.
>
>Like Hitler?

I said "best". Can't have that each time.

>>I'm spending too much time working and on UT, and I may be a little slack tracking the news, so I probably missed the big event. So fill me in - which country did Saddam occupy this time?
>
>How many more do you want him to attack before you realize he might be a threat? Isn't 2 enough for you?

Which was the first time? Iran? Wasn't he an ally of (and backed by) the US at the time?

The question is isn't two times enough for him? Hasn't he been severely slapped last time? And keep in mind that Iraq is a secular state, unlikely to assume a jihad as the main line of the state politics. Unless sufficiently provoked, of course.

I specially like the idea that a country under an open threat of war should begin preparing its defenses by disarming.

Not that I like Saddam - back in '96/97, when we were rallying against Milosevic, the chant of the day was "Slobo, Sadame" (Sloba, you Saddam"). It's just that I think this war has no good reason.