RE: Just because we impose our will to displace someone else who is imposing their will does not make it freedom or liberation or protecting their freedom or [...], its just another non-constented-to governing power being installed by armed will. It is qualitatively DIFFERENT, yes, a lot less brutal, yes- but it is still a FORCEFUL imposition of power.

The diference is we will quickly let them choose a democratically elected government. That is liberation. History has certainly judged WW2 to be a liberation of western Europe under similar circumstances. We killed far more Europeans in liberating them than we will Iraqis.

RE:

ME: "Overthrowing a murderous dictator does not equate to overthrowing a freely elected government and it is ridiculous to imply the two are moraly equivalent or that civil rights of Iraqis are being violated in doing so."

DL: Never claimed an equivalence.

Not in so many words, but that is what your logic and moral tone seem to indicate to me.

RE:

ME: "Do you believe they have no right to avoid cruel and unusual punishments? They don't under the current government."

DL: Yes, that is their right, they also have a right not to be killed wholesale by our tanks, bombs and guns. Those soldiers out there are dead if they don't fight and dead if they do.

I did not think you believed that silly statement. It was intended as an example of how silly your comparison of American and Iraqi approaches was. We are not killing Iraqis wholesale. Frank C dealt quite well with that claim.

RE: But taking a country by force against the popular will of the people is NOT liberation.

I do not believe the popular will of the people is against us removing Saddam from power.
As noted in a post below:

1) There were large scale revolts against Saddam after GW1

2) We betrayed the trust of the Iraqi people by failing to support them.

3) Hussein executed many of those showing disloyalty.

4) Saddam is a brutal tyrant whose people live in destitution despite oil sales approved for their support while Saddam builds monuments to himself.

Given these facts it is most likely that a large portion of Iraqis want Saddam gone, but do not trust the US to do it and fear any show of support may have lethal consequences for them.

RE: Please read my posts and comment on what I say, not on what you infer about my position. I try to do the same for you and would appreciate it.

Perhaps I need some routine disclaimer. I frequently state what seem to me to be logical extensions of other posters logic to demonstrate it is faulty. I do not mean to claim those comments were actually made. The statements are often more clearly faulty than what the posters said, but forcing them to follow the flaws in their own logic is precisely the point. You've may have seen how much this pisses off other people on topics you and I probably agree on. I've found most people here have at least one topic they are blind to reason on and get quite irate when it is exposed. All of us will get pissed off at blatant misrepresentations of our stances so I appreciate how my style can be irritating when people feel that is what I am doing. Any suggestions on how to clearly state that I am extrapolating someone's point rather than trying to misquote them?

Regards,
Mark