thats why i was telling you why I favor the war, i wasnt speaking for bush. i will tell you why i favor the war. i dont really care about the reasons given by bush, or the reasons you say bush gave. but to be fair, when i hear bush talk, he says the sme things i say, he often talks about the global spread of democracy, and he has from the start. it is. who do you think is blowing things up every day over there?
and here comes the thing i have explained a zillion times. once the UN and the US makes a demand of someone, even if it was a mistake to make that demand, the demand must be upheld, or they should be killed. if not, the UN should be dismantled and thrown into the east river. if not, nobody listens. rogue states do whatever they want, and that is too dangerous.
You have paid little attention to any of my posts about this subject, my friend. I am not a pacifist and I'm not anti-war. You can't show me a single post where I have advocated "peace". I'm anti STUPID wars. I wholehearted supported Afghanistan and the Gulf War. I was against the the thought of going into Iraq from before the invasion because it was a very poor decision that ended up hurting us politically, economically, and militarily and gained us very little--certainly it had no affect on Al Qaida other than to give them American targets that they could actually get at. If Vietnam taught us anything at all, it is to either go in with everything you've got and get the job done properly or don't involve ground troops at all. Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait were smart wars, won quickly with overwheming airpower and a overwhelming ground invasion followed by a prompt withdrawal of troops. Libya and Kosovo were smart wars involving airpower alone, no ground involvement, and won with tiny casualties. Iraq, like Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia, is an unwise war where we are occupying a country where they hate us and have their own civil war going on. We didn't win any of those wars, nor did we lose them. We just walked away, because it was in our best interests to do so. We never should have been there. Sooner or later we will have to leave Iraq, too. I'm against the Iraqi occupation because it is a political BLUNDER, not because it is a war. Our military is doing what it is told by Washington and doing a fine job under tough circumstances. It is the administration that has let down the troops by being incompetent in diplomacy and in war management and leaving them in such a situation.
The UN has demanded a lot of things, including that Israel give up the West Bank. When the UN is right (Korea, Gulf War) we go with them. When the UN is wrong (countless examples) we don't. But the UN didn't mandate the war, martin. Their own inspectors already knew the WMD threat was a mistake. The US did this unilaterally. You can blame the UN for one thing and then try to use them as an excuse in the next breath.
I'm quite sure you can speak for yourself better than martin, who is only being argumentative. I know you don't like to get involved in discussions, but your position has not been explained. martin did not explain why Saddam was a threat to the United States. Saddam was a two-bit, loud-talking, third-world dictator who couldn't even beat Iran.
i said the UN AND the US. if the un decides something without our blessing it matters alot less if they dont follow through. thats is because the us can make the UN make mandates, but cant make them back them, we have to back them ourselves. again, i said the US AND the UN.
The argument is crap there are dictoators in this world far worse than Saddam ever was. He was the Micky Mouse of dictators. And if we are ridding the world of murderius religious fanatics we should be one country further east. Iraq is the secular country in the middle east.
and if we make threats against them, i hope we follow through as well. well, at least we know that iran realizes that america is not to be trifled with. if bush says "hey iran, be cool or i will take over your country and kill your leaders", then they know he isnt just talkin ****.
