Mink - I don't think the problem is the guns - by either the police or the criminals. Take a look at the stabbings in the UK - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5023872.stm - The problem is lack of respect for human lives. The moment people stop seeing other people has having the same rights as they do, and don't understand what dying is, they start using lethal force. Banish guns and they'll use knives. Make blades illegal and they'll use crowbars.

And in the words of Cypress Hill -
"Didn't have to blast him but I did anyway
That young punk had to pay
So I just killed a man

Here is something you cant understand
How I could just kill a man"

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cypress-Hill-How-I-Could-Just-Kill-a-Man

Funny. The music in the background is a remix of the crowd in one of the Maccabi Tel-Aviv's basketball games - Maccabi Tel Aviv is one of the strongest Euroleague basketball teams.

Ant - the majority opinion is that sunk ships are good for marine life - see a good overview with differing points of view in this article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061230/ai_n17088761

well, that's cause the html editing removed my smiley, which killed the joke.
Sorry, choggie.

I have no idea if this vid is true or staged, but it deserves a voice.

Mink,

You're thinking of the George Washington Farewell address: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it."
Or maybe about the Non-intercourse act.

That attitude held for a long while. It's the reason the US didn't intervene in WWII until Pearl Harbor. That's when the US "realized" that even if they don't act, the foreigners will still react, and the only defense is to be active abroad.

As for an alternative motive for Iraq - here's one - you have three problematic countries fomenting unrest - Iran with it's "export of the revolution" as a cornerstone of it's policy, Iraq which was working very hard to convince everybody they have WMD (kicking out the UN observers and similar games) and Saudi Arabia, where Bin Laden came from. Since Iran is democratic, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, while Iraq is a brutal dictatorship, what better way to get some stability to the area then topple Saddam? The grateful population, freed from their dictator will form a democracy and then the US will have a local ally, right between the two opposing Shi'ite and Suny countries. Of course, that's assuming you can accomplish everything before those two countries wise up and start meddling.

Ok, I'll debunk -
This is a very one sided view. It starts by providing a correct case of historical oil-reasoned involvement from the 50's, then continues by assuming that all involvements afterwards are the result of the same reason. Not to mention that it totally discounts any motive that is not US. "Oh, Saddam invaded Kuwait? That must be because he was angry with the US, not because he wanted access to the sea."
Yes, the US did not oppose Saddam's rise to power. He was never a US puppet - the CIA were at the time involved with any insurgent in countries the were considered unfriendly. Why would they oppose when he took over from an unfriendly regime? Then, when he attacked another unfriendly regime, why would they interfere?
Actively demonizing Saddam? Indeed, he's just another enlightened ruler that did no harm to anybody.

Claiming that because the US once interfered with middle east politics because of oil then any following interference is oil-related is not a valid logical statement.

And I'm not even going to debunk the weird "oil is important because the army needs it".