What are you sighing about, those were the reasons the United States made it our official policy that Saddam could not remain in power. The policy which was originated and submitted to Congress by President Clinton. Those are the reasons stated. Here from our current Secretary of State in 2003 when the Congress in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, authorized the use of military force to achieve that goal of Saddam's removal. You can skip to 1:50 where she begins speaking. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g"]Hillary Clinton talks about her vote to go to war, Saddam, and WMDs - YouTube[/ame] A highly respected news journal, your inability to refute the facts is noted. The fact is Saddam was ready willing a able to supply terrorist groups not only with capital to pursue attacks against western states, but also the WMD he was ready willing an able to produce once the sanctions were lifted.
Well, he's right. There is no protection for birth control in the Constitution. Hence it's up to the states. That said, do you think that any state would ban birth control? It's a non-issue.
In a free country I believe you are right. But as the two party system continues to inform us, we are not a free country. Especially if the federal government doesn't have to abide by the constitution or a state can dictate these types of personal choices.
Good example, no they should not, unless they are laced with arsenic or some other life threatening substances like ground glass, feces, chemicals, etc... but they should be allowed to require the company provide you with other health risks or damaging long term effects to your health. Other than that it's your body, or those under your supervision in this case, and the government should not be able to dictate what you decide to put in it.   Warnings on cigs and alcohol are OK and all recreational drugs should also be treated as #1 and #2 cigs and alcohol.
But they can apparently as Bloomberg is doing in New York along with transfats and sugared drinks and salt.
They can do just about anything they want when the people allow it and assume they (the government) are the one's in charge. If the government doesn't work for the people the country is lost, if the government passes legislation that directly contradicts freedom, as in as long as it doesn't directly hurt others or damage the personal property of others, then freedom is lost as well.
I'm not sure of the law. I think states CAN ban antibiotics but the Fed can overrule in most situations. It's kinda like California and its marijuana laws. Californians still have to answer to the Fed.
And true conservatives still vote for these charlatans??? It is truly amazing how social hatred can sway a person ideology until it is almost unrecognizable. And no that is not an endorsement for the other corporate owned party, with the initials democrat.
Ever since 9/11 our country has been split like this. It really is time for most to grow up and learn to govern rather than play the blame game.
Not that I would support it but how would banning birth control make government bigger? Why would that require a bigger government?