royalrunner400

OK, we have not declared war, but we are still fighting them as our enemy.

Anyway, if we were to capture an al-Qaeda associate in America, they would presumably not be wearing any kind of uniform. Technically, that would make him a spy. Spies are not subject to the same rules of war as other combatants. So, couldn't we just use alternative methods of interrogation and then execute them, as that is the customary punishment for spies?

That would eliminate this whole need for a trial now, wouldn't it?

Ever since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam was shooting at US planes patrolling the "no-fly" zones in Iraq.

Saddam ignored and violated 16 UN resolutions for over a decade.

Chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.

Saddam refused to allow WMD scientists to meet with UN weapons inspectors in Cyprus, and refused to allow suprise inspections.

There are satellite images of trucks loading up material and leaving inspection sites minutes before inspectors arrived. There are satellite images of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria, and a former Iraqi general has said the WMDs were sent to Syria.

Iraq is the size of California and mostly sand. We have found entire airfields buried in the sand, why not WMDs?

Iraq did not have 9/11 connections. Does that mean we can't invade. Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, Saddam would knew, and did nothing. Maybe no direct link, but still harboring terrorists. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Why shouldn't we have invaded?

No one is forced to join the military, and everyone in the military knows the risks. In the last presidential election, in the middle of the war, 80% service members voted for Bush over Kerry. Why not defer to their judgement on the war?

I hate seeing military members killed in any way, and I do not feel that their lives are expendable, but freedom is paid for with the blood of patriots.