Please visit my new blog at http://tomsplace.iblogger.org
Amen!
It amazes me that so many are so blinded by their hatred for this President, that they mistake actions that undermine the war effort and victory in Iraq as somehow a patriotic duty; and that peace will come when President Bush is removed from office, and we leave Iraq, finished or unfinished business there.
And let's not forget that President Bush had International Law to support the action in Iraq. Multiple UN resolutions, and particularly the one after the Gulf War ended. All of this provides a basis in International Law for our action.
Nothing unilateral about it.
All of this crap on Iraq gives me a headache.
As a former soldier, I firmly believe it is our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of anyone who gets in our way!! 'Nuff said!
Tom, you hit it out of the park. I have a better memory then 90% of the country and fully remember how the whole thing went down and I am not just talking of the twin towers.
I am all for descending views and the debate over the administration of the war. But i do not like the position the left and the media have taken of late. It is very anti-American and extremely dangerous for the boys like my nephew who is in Baghdad. These types are trying to recreate the 60s for nothing more then their own political gain. Its sick and it pains me to see how many uninformed Americans seem to be buying in.
I don't find the reason for going to war as compelling as you, but agree that we have to leave Iraq a functioning government (if possible). My problem is that the "plan" for winning the war does not seem to be getting the job done. We have got to rethink our game plan for winning. If we can't get this thing finished in the next two years, or at the very least have it generally under control, I don't think it will get better until we leave.
"If you remember, Congress voted to go into the war."
This is a deceptive way of looking at things.
1. Congress never voted for Bush to wage war on Iraq.
2. Congress did cut Bush some slack on the invasion after Bush and his people said that if we didn't, Saddam might nuke our country. Congress did so following Bush's suggestion that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
IF either of these are not true or were misrepresented, then there is plenty of reason to investigate war crimes. Surely you would agree with that statement, yes?
"If Iraq dissolves into chaos, anarchy, and civil war, the impact on the region (and the rest of the world) would be enormous."
Which would be a good argument for finding a better way of dealing with rogue regimes than having the hubris to think that we can simply invade misbehaving countries and make things right by force.
Perhaps, if nothing else, our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan will help us realize the limitations of military solutions to difficult problems?
Dan, you are so utterly misinformed that you must be either knowingly posting lies or completely unable to read.
Congress authorized the use of force. Period.
Bush NEVER said anything of the sort and you know it.
The use of force is never the first method of choice for diplomacy, but it most certainly is the only choice when all else has failed. As it had.
Tom, I linked this one. Nice job.
Dan - Military solutions are immediate, short term solutions to problems, perceived or otherwise. The challenge of any country is to find the long term solution that benefits everyone whether or not military action has occurred.
Diplomacy is always the first choice. However, UN resolutions, sanctions, and the like have their limitations, especially if various nations ignore or circumvent them (i.e., the "Oil for Aid" scandal).
Considering the perceived threat of Iran's WMD programs (and the previous use of them) and now apparently verifiable links to al-Quaeda, the actions against Iraq were justified in the grand scope of national security.
If you remember, President Bush stated in an address to Congress shortly after 9/11 that if a country harbored terrorists, gave aid to terrorists, or otherwise supported terrorist activities against the United States, the full power of the United States would fall upon them (I'm paraphrasing here). Congress, to the last person, gave him a standing ovation.
Saddam painted a target on himself and his country because he stated that he supported al-Quaeda, professed the race to nuclear weapons, apparently had WMDs & wasn't afraid to use them, supported terrorist attacks on the US, and so on.
Unfortunately, the US has not been consistent on pursuing rogue nations, at least on the public side of things. Perhaps there are some diplomatic negotiations going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, and that's my hope. The US cannot fight everyone at once, and shouldn't. The UN should step up to the plate to address the terrorist problem, but probably won't since most of the member nations have axes to grind against the US and our various allies.
Let's finish this mess before we "pursue" another rogue nation!
The problem with diplomacy is that it in order to work either both parties must really WANT a just diplomatic solution and are WILLING to accept one, or that the more civilized nation can back up its diplomacy with a credible threat of force.
And the problem with violence-as-solution is that each country will want to reserve the right to have and threaten the use of nukes, that each country will want to reserve the right to kill innocent civilians while denouncing such policies in the other nation's part. It's a might makes right, biggest gun is the most moral-kind of solution.
It's a logically and ethically bankrupt idea.
Well said my friend. Well said.
-APV
Dan's pacifist theology has been responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people in the previous century.
That "peace at any price" thinking prevented those who would have used the threat of minimal violence to oppose aggressors who ultimately scarred the planet forever with their unchecked evil.
George Bush is the real peacemaker in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis that would otherwise been killed by Saddam's butchers are alive today because of Bush.
Personally, I prefer Ronald Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" policy. Not as a bullying tactic or a "Might Makes Right" policy, but as a deterrent to those countries that break their treaties with the US, or those despots who threaten the US and have the means to carry out their threats.
It is far better to negotiate from a position of strength than it is from one of weakness. And that's where our elected leaders must be moral and just people, desiring to do the right thing for the benefit of the United States and its citizens. Ultimately, it should also be for the good of the world.
"Dan's pacifist theology has been responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people in the previous century."
Well, seeing how there have been no pacifist countries in charge of decision making - or at least certainly not in any of the world superpower states - I don't see how you can lay blame for the millions killed in the previous century at any peaceful feet.
In fact, since leaders who have believed in war-as-solution have been in charge, it would seem that if you were trying to blame someone beyond those who actually committed the deeds, you'd have to blame the war-as-solution crowd.
Non-violent resistence as national/global defense has not been tried and failed, it has gone untried.
Non-violent resistence as national/global defense has not been tried and failed, it has gone untried.
Probably for good reason, Dan. The non-violent, pacifist nation would most likely be taken over by another country that would have no reservations about using violence to achieve its means.
Commenting by HaloScan
