Democrats & Liberals: Archives

William:

There is a third choice, and that is that it is a war that will prevent a future and greater problem. Saddam Hussein was thought by all to have WMD’s; it is now clear that he had far less, if any, than the world thought he had.

Yet he was still a grave and gathering threat. It is now clear that his intention was to reconstitute his WMD programs, after shedding Iraq of the sanctions. It is now clear that he subverted the intent of the sanctions, both by sacrificing his own people and by bribing willing countries and politicians.

It is also now clear to governments around the world that the United States will not stand idly by to be attacked by terrorists being harbored by “innocent” countries. It is clear that after 12 years of patient negotiation, the US had had enough of Saddam’s gamesmanship. It is clear that the US had had enough of the UN’s utter inability to accomplish anything. What with the UN failures in the Balkans, in Rwanda, in the Congo, in Iraq, and currently in Sudan, the world now knows for certain that the UN was not and is not doing its job.

The choice is now clear. Allow Saddam to continue gathering prestige and with it, strength or stop him in his tracks.

The choice of candidates is clear as well. Bush forged ahead. Kerry has shown that he would have left Saddam in power. Interestingly, Kerry has said its the wrong war, but nonetheless, one that he might have fought. I dont beleive him one bit….John Kerry NEVER would have fought this war. If that makes you vote for him, fine. But lets not kid ourselves otherwise.

Not much to comment about. This vetran who participated in GW1 knew the reason why we were there, and was willing to get the job done as it was the right thing to do. The rest of the world also agreed that it was the right thing to do.

To all of the Republican spin-meisters out there. How did Saddam grow to be such a threat after the first Gulf War? If it is OK to go it alone, why didn’t George Sr. let us finish the job? Anyone remenber the uprising that Bush Sr. had hoped for by the people of Iraq, and how our leaders allowed it to be crushed as we decided against supporting those that took up arms to overthrow Saddam. That made us popular with the locals.

Enter the “Dubya”. With our troops still engaged in Afganistan, why would anyone elect to engage in a second war if they didn’t have to? Saddam was pinned, and by all accounts incapable of posing much of a threat to anyone outside of his borders. Hitler made that mistake with the Soviets in WWII as did Togo in deciding to fight in China, and against the United States in the Western Pacific.

As King George doesn’t read much, nor like to be bothered with details, one can only speculate that we are destined to repeat the history that Bush didn’t learn about.

Hey Joe:

What prestige are you talking about for Saddam? The world had dismissed him as anything of any importance.

Would Saddam need to be delt with in the future, yes. Was the United States properly prepaired for this war from the standpoint of logistics, rebuilding infrastructure, having international support, or even support of the American people? Not by a long shot.

Now because of a rush to war, the world sees the United States as more dangerous than the terrorist we ask them to help defeat. Because of Bush, we have become the Evil Empire now that the Soviet Union has gone.

Kerry was righ on with wrong war, wrong time.

Abandoning the Kurds and Shiites was disgraceful, but if you remember at the time there was no support to go to Baghdad. We were even heavily criticized for the limited damage we did to retreating Iraqi troops on the “road of death”. H W Bush passed the world test that John Kerry demands. The Kurd, Shiites and the world paid the price for getting a passing grade from the UN.

I am convinced (although now historical speculation) that had Bush won reelection he would have dealt with Saddam in his second term at a much lower cost than we had to pay today. The Clinton administration was very hostile to any military action during the first term. He was elected to be a domestic president. Instead of Iraq, he worried about Hillary Care and gays in the military. The Clinton administration never wanted to find anything that might push it into military action. So we lost sight of the goal until the late 1990s and had to clean up again.

I believe the same would happen today. That is my chief reason to vote against John Kerry. I don’t blame him personally, but most of his followers are anti-war. They would be unenthusiastic about the hard work ahead. Even in the best case, it would take them months to get up to speed. We will be asleep at the switch during the critical months of January – May 2005. I don’t want to be right on this, but I am afraid a Kerry victory will make it happen.

“My political philosophy is based on the premise that you can fool some of the people all the time - and I intend to concentrate on those people.” -George W. Bush

From Peter G. Peterson’s (a Republican) book, Running on Empty - How the Democratic and Republican parties are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. Page 147.

The Kurd, Shiites and the world paid the price for getting a passing grade from the UN.

Bush Sr. promised them support. He really screwed ‘em.

I am convinced (although now historical speculation) that had Bush won reelection he would have dealt with Saddam in his second term…

Nice speculation. But totally not based on fact, reality, or even Bush and Scowcroft’s memoirs.

There is a third choice, and that is that it is a war that will prevent a future and greater problem.

Ahh… The Pearl Harbor choice. If a country might somehow become a threat someday, we should take them out now. Didn’t we hang the guys who masterminded the Pearl Harbor attack?

Yea and we still haven’t hung the guys that destroyed the World Trade Center.

American Pundit:

I almost needed a cigarett after your comments, and I don’t smoke.

I clearly hear the echos from the 2000 election ….”We shouldn’t be involed with nation building”…..”The commitment of American troops should always be the last option.”….”I’m a uniter, not a divider.”

If Bush is a compassionate conservative, I’d hate to meet brutal one.

I have been overwhelmed with the hypocrisy of the Republican stance and have decided to share the following information with you in hopes that you will be able to independently verify what I have discovered and report it to your friends, hopefully prior to the election while it can still make a difference, a difference between a clean honest start with a new Administration instead of the politically dangerous game that President Bush’s Administration is playing with our national security and its own vested monetary interests.

Over the past two years, I have been working as a project consultant for my company’s compliance area. In particular, my expertise has been with the USAPATRIOT Act and the related business requirements set forth from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Recently, as we have been researching the legal compliance of the countries in which we have branches or subsidiaries, I was trying to determine if the UN List(s), which are used extensively within most non-US countries, are a subset of the US’s OFAC list. It had been my company presumption that this was the case; however, I researched the lists extensively and found numerous inconsistencies, extremely dangerous inconsistencies that are so flagrant and obvious that they could not be accidental omissions.

My findings can be confirmed by accessing the United Nations sites below for the information I used to compare against the OFAC list. The OFAC site reference is also provided. This is all public information if anyone had been interested enough or knowledgeable enough to investigate.

UN – Taliban asset freeze sanction http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm
UN – Liberia asset freeze sanction http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Liberia3/1532_afl.htm
US – OFAC List http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm

President Bush and his Administration have claimed that the United States is safer because of the USAPATRIOT Act and our alienation from our historical allies. The facts are that the US itself does not comply with UN resolutions—the Bush Administration has made up its own rules on the fly; therefore, how in the world can the US honestly face the world and ask for their support to aid us in a war that cannot be justified? But of course the words “honest” and “Bush Administration” do not fit well together.

The 9/11 attack on the US came from Usama bin Laden who has been aided, and perhaps continues to be aided, through the support of the Taliban in Afghanistan…aided by the same Taliban members that the “liberal, left-wing” UN who failed to back up the US in its invasion of Iran has listed as terrorists whose assets should be frozen And yet someone in the Republican Administration made the conscious decision to not freeze the assets of the terrorists who harbored and assisted Usama bin Laden. We are allowing transfers of funds, if those funds exist, to the Taliban who can continue to further aid and abet other Usama bin Laden endeavors.

Furthermore, in addition to failure to list 142 of the 143 Taliban members (and the sole Taliban organization) on the OFAC list, the Administration also selectively “massaged” the Liberian list as well. Granted that they only missed three persons on whom the assets would have been frozen; however, one of those three, Edwin Snowe, just “happened” to be the Managing Director of the Liberian Petroleum Refining Corporation (LPRC). How blind or stupid does our government believe its citizens to be if we are not to believe the worst …that our current Administration has opted to pursue its personal oil interests and those of their cronies over the interests of…the safety of its own citizens?

The Government’s “no fly” list is another list entirely and one that is not a matter of public information. It is also “supposedly” taken from the UN lists of those persons whose travel restrictions are part of the UN sanctions. Considering what “special interests” are pursued by comparing the OFAC with the UN list, it is only a natural concern that the “no fly” list is questionable at best. Who is the Bush Administration allowing to fly on our airlines? We already know that they allowed many of the bin Laden family to fly directly after the 9/11 attack. To whom else have Bush/Cheney granted “special interest” status? Do we really feel safer now?
The Bush Administration has not misled us…the Bush Administration has lied to us.

Please feel free to independently verify any of the above and then vote as an informed citizen. There is nothing that can be misinterpreted here. It all should be very clear to everyone.

So many are concentrating on the war in Iraq, and while I personally find our “I have it in my hand” reasons for being there to be bogus, we are there, and I don’t give much credence to anyone who suggests that either candidate will somehow, at this hour, find a way to end it quickly. We must and we will finish our job there, because we are America and, well, that is what we do.
I believe that people are not aware of what our system of politics has truly given rise to, a system rife with people whose sole job is to spin any and everything at any cost. Truth is there are still lines dividing the parties.The Republicans, who believe, seemingly at any cost, that if you take care of business, that business will pass that on to the average worker, i.e. trickle down economics. Yes. Business has ethics, such good People Policies, that in fact, we should take care of them.
I believe, while admitting we as a party are flawed, that Democrats like to try and help the people, sadly, far too often at a huge cost.
We are a divided country. However, I remember a new accusation every week during Pres. Clinton’s 2 terms, one could only guess how much time and effort and money that could have paid for….I don’t know, maybe better spies? Now I hear every day from my Republican friends how slanted the news media is, how all they print is everything Pres. Bush does wrong. So, you can get every wild accusation you can think of on the front page every day, none of it proven after millions spent, and then you finally nail the guy on ….that? For shame. Then to impeach him on it? How many from your own side said “Enough” to make that go away. Thank God some people know “right from wrong” instead of “Party Says”.
Nowadays, to criticize Pres. Bush is somehow unpatriotic. You’re either for us or against the good principles America was founded on, sorry, this sounds way too much like McCarthyism, and we have to stop it.
It’s been said, and it’s worth repeating that “Freedom is Not Free. The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance”. This doesn’t mean that those who think different from you are idiots, maybe they have a point. We have an absolutely astounding National Debt, We are exporting JOBS instead of GOODS, and Pres. Bush signs a 370 Billion dollar package that encourages Business to go offshore? We have to get off the Lazyboy and actually see what’s going on, as a citizen of the Greatest Democracy since people learned how to write. My being able to say this, well, it kind of cinches the argument for that, eh?
We could, honestly, let people speak their minds, and when we disagree, no matter how vigorously you feel the impulse to do something rude, we could actually have honest debate with people. Don’t judge anybody that disagrees with you to be inferior, because, folks, history is chock full of that “Holier than Thou” attitude, and at this point we should all be just a little better than that.
I want John Kerry to win, and I feel strongly about it. However if George Bush wins, well, tomorrow, I’ll still be an American. I will support him as holder of the office. Honestly, overall, Presidential policy is but one of three branches, and Congress, if they could stop being such “Prima Donnas”, holds the power. Folks will argue, and lawyers will sue, and maybe someday we’ll be civilized.

So many are concentrating on the war in Iraq, and while I personally find our “I have it in my hand” reasons for being there to be bogus, we are there, and I don’t give much credence to anyone who suggests that either candidate will somehow, at this hour, find a way to end it quickly. We must and we will finish our job there, because we are America and, well, that is what we do.
I believe that people are not aware of what our system of politics has truly given rise to, a system rife with people whose sole job is to spin any and everything at any cost. Truth is there are still lines dividing the parties.The Republicans, who believe, seemingly at any cost, that if you take care of business, that business will pass that on to the average worker, i.e. trickle down economics. Yes. Business has ethics, such good People Policies, that in fact, we should take care of them.
I believe, while admitting we as a party are flawed, that Democrats like to try and help the people, sadly, far too often at a huge cost.
We are a divided country. However, I remember a new accusation every week during Pres. Clinton’s 2 terms, one could only guess how much time and effort and money that could have paid for….I don’t know, maybe better spies? Now I hear every day from my Republican friends how slanted the news media is, how all they print is everything Pres. Bush does wrong. So, you can get every wild accusation you can think of on the front page every day, none of it proven after millions spent, and then you finally nail the guy on ….that? For shame. Then to impeach him on it? How many from your own side said “Enough” to make that go away. Thank God some people know “right from wrong” instead of “Party Says”.
Nowadays, to criticize Pres. Bush is somehow unpatriotic. You’re either for us or against the good principles America was founded on, sorry, this sounds way too much like McCarthyism, and we have to stop it.
It’s been said, and it’s worth repeating that “Freedom is Not Free. The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance”. This doesn’t mean that those who think different from you are idiots, maybe they have a point. We have an absolutely astounding National Debt, We are exporting JOBS instead of GOODS, and Pres. Bush signs a 370 Billion dollar package that encourages Business to go offshore? We have to get off the Lazyboy and actually see what’s going on, as a citizen of the Greatest Democracy since people learned how to write. My being able to say this, well, it kind of cinches the argument for that, eh?
We could, honestly, let people speak their minds, and when we disagree, no matter how vigorously you feel the impulse to do something rude, we could actually have honest debate with people. Don’t judge anybody that disagrees with you to be inferior, because, folks, history is chock full of that “Holier than Thou” attitude, and at this point we should all be just a little better than that.
I want John Kerry to win, and I feel strongly about it. However if George Bush wins, well, tomorrow, I’ll still be an American. I will support him as holder of the office. Honestly, overall, Presidential policy is but one of three branches, and Congress, if they could stop being such “Prima Donnas”, holds the power. Folks will argue, and lawyers will sue, and maybe someday we’ll be civilized.

The best man will win the election. Let’s try to keep the lawyers out of it.

A doctor, an engineer and a lawyer were arguing about who had the oldest profession. The doctor said, of course, a physician removed Adam’s rib to create Eve. The engineer disagreed and said, “An engineer had to have constructed the Garden of Eden.”

“That’s nothing” the lawyer said. “Before Adam and Eve, before the Garden of Eden, before all creation, who do you think created all that chaos?”

I haven’t read anything here about the UN resolutions that required the US to get involved.
Most of the post make it sound like we started this when in fact it was just a resumption of events as required by the UN resolutions.
I blame the media for the miss-information that is floating around.

How come people say that Sadam did not have weapons of mass-destrucion, when they found weapons in Iraq that where banned by NATO, each of these bombs that they found could easily take out a city block, not just 2 towers.

Haha! RJ, the US isn’t required to do anything it doesn’t want to do. I though that would be obvious by now.

But seriously, are you arguing that the UN goaded Bush into invading Iraq? I blame crappy GOP spinmeisters for floating that theory.

Kyle, NATO doesn’t have the power to ban weapons. Certainly not in Iraq.

BTW, a link to something that backs up your opinions would give you a little more credibility - but not much. :)

Should the troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq stand at the gate of the White House and throw thier medals over the fence?

Then thirty years later tell the country what brave military masters they are to win an election

Should they tell the allies that stood by them that they are of no consequence and were of no help

Get A Grip Vote Bush

You get a grip, wenak. If it turns out our goals in Iraq are not achievable, and the President obviously is wasting our American soldiers in effort that won’t be won, then hell yes, they should throw their medals at President Bush, and even run for President as heroes 30 years later.

Kerry served, realized the administration’s were not willing to win the war outright, and decided someone needed to speak up and put a stop to the waste of American lives in that VietNamese civil war without end as long as we remained there. I was in the Army from 72 to 75 and Kerry was speaking for me in calling for an end to that disastrous foreign policy effort.

I voted for Kerry today.

Iraq, Halliburton, huge deficits, trying to amend the Constitution, fear-mongering, rolling back civil liberties, extreme fundamentalism in the White House…etc…etc…etc.

I’ve had enough.

I guess the goals would be unachievable left to the spineless (quote of Kerrys own troops) I to was there 70-71 Never have I heard of anyone recieving 3 purple hearts in 3 months Now you tell me that we should put another administration in place that has no intrest in winning the war what have you got a grip on?

Roy:

What prestige are you talking about for Saddam? The world had dismissed him as anything of any importance.

Saddam was lionized by many in the middle East for not having given in to US demands. Over a 12 year period, Hussein played games with the US and the UN, and to many in the region, Hussein was seen as the victor. Remember that he controlled the media to a great extent, and that he remained in power. To many, his remaining in power despite the US pressure was Hussein’s greatest feat.

This is the prestige I was referring to. It wasnt the entire world, because many in the rest of the world had the ability to see him for what he was. But that was not so in the middle east.

The day we have all been waiting for is here. It might be a good day to give our keyboards a rest.

I’m sure we will all be talking to one another tomorrow about the results.

Best regards to all.

Roy

Joe:

There is a third choice, and that is that it is a war that will prevent a future and greater problem. Saddam Hussein was thought by all to have WMD’s; it is now clear that he had far less, if any, than the world thought he had. Yet he was still a grave and gathering threat.

So it was neither a mistake, nor a war of choice, but a still a matter of absolute necessity? It was a necessity to go to war against a country that had no WMD, no infrastructure for bulding one, that had been effectively contained by sanctions for 12 years, that had relented and allowed UN arms inspectors full access? it was absolutely necessary to go to war in 2002 because the sanctions *might* weaken, Saddam *might* re-start his arms program, sometime in the next five years?

This argument I just don’t buy, Joe. It’s like claiming self-defense when you shoot someone because he might someday purchase a gun and aim it at you.

Yeah. Sorry, jbod, I can’t buy that one either. Saddam wanted to attack us. So what? Lots of countries would like to see the US fall, but if they don’t have the capability to make it happen do we really need to use our flagging economy to finance an invasion?

I suppose it’s all academic now, since we’re all voting now, but it still seems to me that the Reds are having trouble believing their own rhetoric about the war and are simply Protecting the President.

Lets consider ALL of the statements that were made the night President Bush announced military action. There were three main points:
1. Liberate Iraq (done)
2. Remove Saddam and his band of murderers from power (done)
3. Recover WMDs (to date none found)

Why were none found? If you were told that the police are coming to your house to investigate some illegal activity, and you had 9 years of warning, wouldn’t you make sure that everything was in order? The real concern is where did this stuff go.

As far as I am concerned, #1 and #2 were the priority and accomplished, give credit where credit is due. It’s surprising that nobody sems to care about the mass murder that took place in Iraq for years. The man or men responsible for these atrocities are now either dead or in custody.

The world is a better place because President Bush had the courage to make a brutally difficult decision.

Often overlooked is the real reason we went into Iraq. It was a development of the PNAC who wished to Democratize the Mideast to promote Hegemony and a foil for Israel and to have access to a reliable oil resource wh8ich would allow us to pressure Saudia Arabia to clamp down on their fundemental Islamic movement that has become more and more radicalized.

It is pretty much stated in “Rebuilding Americas Defenses” - a tract written by the PNAC and can be read on their website.

William:

Sorry my friend, but you need to do some really basic homework on the IRaq issue.

The reports of Blix, Ritter, El Baradei, Butler, and Duelfer ALL showed Saddam to NOT be allowing UN inspectors free and clear access. If you think that bugging inspectors rooms so that Iraq would know where they planned to inspect is compliance, then we have nothing left to discuss.

Secondly, sanctions were not working as you suggest. During the sanctions, Iraq managed to produce AND weaponize VX gas, which the inspectors found. Simply do a google search on VX gas and you’ll find that Iraq made it, possessed it, and weaponized it during the mid 1990’s. If you consider THAT to be evidence of the sanctions working, we have nothing left to discuss.

We know that Saddam did not comply with UN resolutions—-that much is 100% clear. Why else would the UN need to keep writing new resolutions?
We know that Duelfer has stated that Saddam was working towards reconstituting his WMD programs.

Perhaps you would prefer to wait until the gun is purchased and loaded, and the finger is on the trigger, with the barrel resting gently on your skull. I’ll take the other way——shoot the enemy BEFORE his gun is at my head.

jbod,

Remove the question about whether we needed to take out Saddam. Suppose that an invasion of Iraq was a necessary thing. I think there are still relevant questions.

Did it need to happen when it did? Could it have waited until our intelligence became more clear? Could it have waited until we had won more allies to our side? Was Saddam an imminent threat or just a threat?

Did our current administration handle the war well? Was it planned well? Did we support our troops well? Were they competent in the mechanisms of war?

Did our current administration mislead the American people about the need for the war? Did they mislead the American people about the cost of the war?

I think for a lot of us, it’s much more complicated than just “kill ‘em before they kill you.”

Dan

jbod,

Better yet, we should just shoot everyone indiscriminately because they might potentially someday perhaps have the capability of possibly being a threat or helping someone who could somehow potentially pose a threat.

Americans perfer to live in a dream and ignore the realities fo the cold cruel world. Is the war in Irag wrong… Well lets see…

Is it wrong to over turn a government who tortures , murders and supresses its people?

( Americans have evolved into the Europeans of pre world war II, ignore and placate the dictators and tirants as long as it doesn’t affect my ability to buy cheap gas and get my morning latte. After all if the people of Iraq wanted to be free they would have over thrown the governemtn themselves…just like the Poles in World War II if they didn’t want to be part of Germany whay did’nt they fight harder)

Is it wrong to hold the United Nations and its members accountable for living up to the doctrines they preach?

(Like the League of Nations before it the United Nations cannot be a forum for dealing with the difficutl problems f the world. A great disaster relief organization yes..but the nations gather on the floor of the United Nations have not evolved to the level where one nation is willing to make sacrifices for another. In fact it is an organization whose members are more interested in disrupting true unilateral responsiblity and accountablity. We are still int he what’s in it for me stage of humanities existance.)

Is it wise to allow self absorbed dictators to build capablities to strike out across the world?
(We unfortunately are destined to repeat the past. Europe failed to stand against the terror of Hitler and turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Cambodia. War is just if it is done in the name of removing a despot and bring the potential for justice to all of humanity)

Is it foolish to look at past behavior and draw conclusions about future behavior?

Saddam had thumbed his nose on every occassion at the rest of the world. Played games of cat and mouse with the UN and I still firmly believe funded and supported terroism…but I supose as long as it does’nt directly effect me in my lazy chair in middle America I should also turn a bind eye to the suffering becuse its not my place to save them…they should save themselves)

What an interesting nation we have become.. we belive in freedom for all as long as we don’t have to make a sacrifice, Justice as long as it doesn’t distrupt my life and equiality as long as its easy and doesn’t take too long.. Congratulations to all who beleive the war in Iraq is wrong you enjoy the very things you so quickly deny to others becuase it would be just to hard for you to support this life style for everyone. Pat you selves on the back you play ath erole well of the lazy, self absorbed American who is easily distracted by the soft life we have built.

Andrew:

Thanks for the insightful, intelligent comment . You seem to have forgotten that Saddam broke his own cease fire agreement continually for 12 years, which made him anything but an “indiscriminate” target.

Dan:

You raise good points.

The invasion could have taken place anytime between 1993 and 2003, in my opinion. It was during this period that Saddam continually broke his agreements, and created WMD’s like VX gas, which inspectors found. Yes, the inspectors found that WMD and destroyed it, but its not wise to expect to find everything, especially if the sanctions were removed. So the date could have been anytime in there, and as well, could have been later. Its kind of like fixing the brakes on your car—-do you wait until the first time you sail through a stop light before fixing them, or do you take preemptive action after they’ve been squealing for a while. We waited 12 years for Saddam!!

As far as war planning, I think we’ve done okay. There have certainly been miscalculations and perhaps even outright mistakes. But its important to look at both sides of a decision. For instance, we pulled out of Fallujah in the spring, in hopes of calming the situation down. It might have worked, but doesnt appear to have worked. But…..look at the strategy if we hadnt pulled back. We were being accused of killing civilians and bombing and attacking innocent populations. Its very easy to say a decision is bad, if you dont have to offer a suitable alternative for which you will be held accountable.

Lastly, I’ve been very clear about Bush and his evidence. I dont think he lied, since the whole world thought Saddam had WMD’s. But I’ve always thought he “massaged” the information, taking the worst case scenarios and making them seem like the norm. I also think he wasnt clear on the cost.

I’ve been clear that despite my disagreement with Bush in these two areas, I still support the decision to invade. I supported Clinton’s decision to bomb in 1998, but I then later felt that he didnt continue with the pressure, which allowed Saddam to wriggle off the hook again. Clinton had him on the hook, but didnt keep him there.

I hope that clears up how I arrive at my decisions and what my thought process is. As you can see, its well thought out, though that doesnt mean you have to agree with the conclusions.

jbod —

Even if I agree with all the administration’s reasons and yours for the invasion of Iraq, I still question the timing. There are other people who are directly responsible for attacking the US, but most of our resources are directed at Iraq. Besides that, our economy is struggling no matter how you look at it. Just seems like a bad time for a war on two fronts.

But, as you said, it’s a philosophical difference in the end. I believe people wouldn’t hate us so much if we stopped ****ing with them and you believe they hate us because we’re Americans, so we must kill them before they do anything.

Do you mean like Bosnia, Vietnam, and WWII?

Alejo:

I think you skillfully managed to misstate MY position, while correctly stating yours….:)

We have in the past left terrorists alone, yet over the past decade we have suffered a bombing of the World Trade Center, the USS Cole bombing, the Riyadh Towers, the Kenya Embassy Khobar Towers, the disasters at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, among others. Leaving them alone has not worked….they find a reason to commit acts of terror.

I believe that Iraq is a part of the war on terror. I think it shows terrorists that the US will not be bullied around as we have been in the past. Saddam supported terrorism by supporting terrorists. He broke the terms of his own cease fire agreement, which in my opinion, gave us the rationale to hold him to it, by whatever means necessary. After 12 years of playing his game, we finally had enough.

Its not that we must indiscriminately kill others before they do “anything”. But we certainly must send a message to terrorists that there is a price to pay. And by sending that message also to governments who support terror, we dry up their funding and hiding places.

Saddam had many chances to comply with his own promises. He chose not to.

jbod —

I didn’t intentionally misinterpret you. It gets on my nerves when people do that too.

I was referring to “leaving them alone” in a larger sense. I meant that we interfere in other governments and other cultures to protect our own interests in a lot of small but insidious ways, and in my opinion that has contributed to a lot of anti-American hatred.

On the other hand, if we are aware of terrorists who plan to do us harm it would be the height of foolishness to ignore them. I just think, for the sake of international relations, that we had better be sure we’re right and that we have the right people.

I know this sentiment will sound downright seditious, but I don’t blame Saddam for shooting at our planes or for playing games with the inspectors. I’m sure he saw it as his right and his duty in a country he ruled, and I’d be willing to bet that a lot of Iraqis agreed with his actions. Nobody wants to feel like they’re under someone else’s thumb, especially when it’s gone on for twelve years.

I would also say that if we’re talking about funding terrorism there are worse offenders — ie, the Saudis — that our leaders are still financially and diplomatically in bed with. From everything I see and read Saddam was a small fry in that regard.

I dunno. We’re probably going in circles, but just in case this blog ceases to exist after today, it’s been fun debating you. May the best man win, whoever he may be!

Alejo:

I understand your point about America involving herself in so many issues. Have you ever gotten drawn into an argument between friends in which you tried to play peacemaker, only to end up alienating BOTH sides. Its nearly impossible to please everyone in those situations.

The United States does so much good in the world, by providing financial resources to poorer countries, to providing care in times of disaster, and stability in times of strife. Many around the world hate us for intervening, yet would possibly hate us for not intervening.

Should America have helped stop the genocide in the Balkans, in Rwanda, in East Timor, in Sudan? Some would say that we should because we have the ability to do so while others might say that those are not our battles to fight. By involving ourselves, we risk the alienation of at least one of the two sides, and sometimes both sides.

I dont think the answer is to not involve ourselves in the world or to become isolationist, though the appeal of fixing our own problems and leaving the rest of the world to fix theirs is sometimes appealing.

So what is the answer? How do we stay engaged with the world without imprinting ourselves to deeply on it? If you can wave your magic wand and solve this problem, our world will be a better place. I’m not sure how to do it.