Noble aspirations and the kind of thing we have done with other defeated nations. But don't you think they owe it to us to cooperate with us as Germany and Japan did? Instead they kill our soldiers, bleed our treasury, blow up and shoot each other and I don't think they even know what they want. These are the wrong rags and this is the wrong place to try to remake into a western democracy, I think. It's nowhere close to a stable democracy with our army in place, how in the world is it ever going to be one with their own? We can't stay there forever and we don't need to. Iraq is not a threat to us. The resurgent Taliban/Al Qaida in Afghnaistan and Pakistan is still the most dangerous enemy. I think fledgeling democracy is a forlorn hope in the middle east. There isn't a single democracy anywhere in the Arab world, not even our allies the Saudis and the Egyptians. We can't force it to happen, they have to want it.
A point that is overlooked by many on the far right is that there has never been a Democracy founded through outside force. The successful ones are always founded through internal revoloution.
Are you just cutting and pasting in old posts of yours now? I mean, how many times do we have to go back and forth on this. This is not what the original couple of posts were even about. But since you said it, I'll give you my view again: To me and to millions of others, this is the battle or war of our time. If you think by going over there and fighting Red's smart war and killing every Taliban a-hole, that everything would be the 1950's again here in America, then I respectfully disagree. We can debate Iraq all day but I believe we have one of 2 options: 1.) we can continue to take down regimes that threaten us, tyrannical regimes building nukes, nations that harbor and support terrorist organizations.........we have to act. Or option #2......wait and attempt to negotiate with these regimes through the UN or hope sanctions will make them turn from their evil ways and one day, they'll love our people. Sit back, wait, hope the strength of the UN will hold them back, make treaties and hope they keep their word......or act. I'll take my chances with acting. If you don't want to act.....then fine. Vote for Hillary or whomever and get your political view enacted. For us to debate whether or not Bush did the right thing.....or Iraq policy, or Iranian policy......blah, blah, blah. It's like a broken record. So basically it comes down to acting or holding hands and hoping people keep their word and the UN comes through. Yeah, there's gray area in there sure......but for the most part, I think that's where the sides are separated. Monday morning QB'ing is easy. Actually having the information, sitting in the Oval Office and making a decision is hard. Maybe we need a guy like Clinton from now on........talk a bunch and do nothing. Seems like that's what the media and half the country wants. And man, I'm ready for the AU game.
Iraq was not a threat to us. The Hussein dictatorship was harmless and wht we have done is destabelized the entire region and allowed Iran to become the regional power. Iraq did not have WMD's and the inspectors repeatedly said they were years away from producing anything that could hurt the US. Iran and North Korea, on the other hand, who are much bigger threats are getting a pass. What about option 3. Use special forces and airpower to destroy terrorist camps and weapons facilities and not get involved in stupid nation building. Nation building has never worked. Big bombs and elite soldiers destrying stuff works really well. If you think war and indefinite occupation and being absolutely French ar ethe only options then you have bought the Bush doctrine and cannot be helped. We have infinite options, and since nation building doesn't work maybe we should start exploring some of the others.
the problem is making threats and not enforcing them. if we (the UN, the world, everybody) make demands of murderous rogue dictators, and dont enforce them, they get the idea they can do whatever. we cant have that. if noboidy will step up and enforce the UN resolutions on iraq, we had to, or lose credibility. you say this as if you would ever favor any action against these countries. and if you pass some sort of resolution against them, they would know damn well they wouldnt have to pay attention to us, if we didnt follow through with iraq. rogue countries MUST know we are not joking if we tell them to chill out. what do you favor doing to iran and north korea? showing them we dont have the guts to finish what we started?
A hellava lot of more people in Washington thought Iraq and Hussein were threats than Bush friend. Why else would countless UN sanctions be rbought against a harmless nation? All of Congress had seen the same intelligence and all said the same thing. Because, they were a threat. Like Bush said, if waiting on the Iraq to comply or to give some material to a nameless terrorist group or attacking them and ridding them of their leader are the choices......then that's no choice at all. What is a special force and airpower strikes on a nation like Iran but not war? Is that not war friend? So you think we can just do a Clinton fly-by and launch a couple cruise missiles at Iran with no consequences to that? Man, you need to stop knee jerking and think things through. If you think Iran, and past Iraq, S. Korea and this liberal Congress aren't threats to our country then you've bought into moveon.org spin and cannot be helped. If waiting on the UN to fix our problems is French, then what is what we're doing with Iran currently and S. Korea in the past? You can call it acting French but that's what we have been doing for too long and that's what you want to do now. You either want to do use diplomatic measures or use special forces to go into these countries which is called war friend.
The government has said the Republican Guard disbanded themselves. What, our troops went in there and said "All Republican Guard troops must disband immediately"? No the dudes just abandoned the fight once they got stomped and went home.
