"And what the hell else would the U.N. do under the best possible conditions? Invade Iran? Impose sanctions, that have been shown to be utterly ineffective at changing the policies of totalitarian countries? What's YOUR plan?"

Where, oh where, did I mention the UN in my original message? Its called a Red Herring Tom- and I'm not going to entertain it.

"As always, you have no alternatives. Last time you retreated to "It's not my job to come up with a better plan. Bush should have." Guess what: Kerry doesn't have any better ideas either, and America has eight months to find that out. "

Tom- you are rhetoric without substance. I even predicted the tone and manner of your reply in my preceeding post- and you went right ahead and did it. Is that a wind-up key sticking out of your back, or are you just happy to see me?

Again: the point is Saddam was not a threat. Iraq was not a threat. If you accept those two premises then war was not necessary. If you accept that war was not necesary, then then the answer to "what we should have done differently" is obvious- at the very least we should not have gone to war. What else abpve and beyond that is (as per before) not my field of expertise, and (as per before) is something I expect the leader of the free world to figure out. Its the job he applied for and was hired for, yes?

My next predicition is that you'll lapse into a tirade about how 'BadBadbad Saddam is, mommy!' and further try to claim that those who don't support the war are saying that saddam is good. Maybe you will also employ the metphor that saddam is next door raping boys- that seems to be your favorite.

"Am I to assume that if our troops never entered the Middle East at all, and Saddam was still sitting there leading U.N. inspectors on the Great Snipe Hunt,"

Hmmm, seems those inspectors were several orders of magnitude more correct i all of their assertions regarding Iraqs capability than we were. Since you find the UN Inspections so comical, what does that imply about Bush?

"that somehow Iran would not be building nuclear weapons? With their great friend Saddam the Psycho sitting right next door?"

As ypou probably already know (and refuse to admit because you lack any shred of integrity in debate), that was not my explicit or implicit point. We WOULD have the capability to attack Iran, however, and the credibile military force to threaten it- and that WOULD count for something, 'specially if we could muster international support. As it stands now we have no hope of international support and no credible military force to threaten with.

"Hell, say we never even invaded Afghanistan"
As evidence for your lack of integrity, point out where I said that we should never have invaded Afghanistan, or that it was a pointless military endeavor or any statement against the invasion. unny that- you can't can you? BlusterBlusterBluster, and nothing to show for it? How cute.

"So, in your ideal world, how is Iran behaving differently? Why? "
As stated: We would be able to place Iran under credible threat.

"Kerry doesn't have any better ideas either, and America has eight months to find that out. "

Hahahaha! As I predicted, you would drag how BadBadBadBad Kerrry is into this- even though I never mentioned it, never brought it up, and it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Iyts called a red herring.

All bluster, no subsance. Its why its pointless here- thanks for reminding me why I stay away from CE most days.

Davin L.