Posted on 09/20/2007 6:40:58 PM PDT by Petronski
As well as at odds with America's best interests. Particularly her security interests.
I don't know about you, but when somebody flies planes full of Americans into buildings full of Americans, I'm intervening.
And when those people are known to have a friendly relationship with a regime that is not only actively seeking CBW weapons but is already shooting at us, damn right I'm intervening.
The notion that the War on Terror is an "invention of the Bush White House" would be laughable...if it weren't so dangerous.
Then just who would you say came up with the term? Algore?
Perhaps my choice of words was not the best, but someone had to have coined the term "War on Terror."
I was in no way implying that the WOT was imaginary, if that is your complaint. It's real, and unless there's a change in direction, it will eventually engage all of us in a world war against . . who knows which nations?
Non-interventionism, as opposed to isolationism, does not mean withdrawing from the world. It simply means not getting involved in the internal affairs and politics of other sovereign nations and, above all, not launching military attacks against nations except as justifiable retaliation.
The election in Ukraine (2004)is an example of non-military intervention, by both the US and Russia as well as by other countries. Government-sponsored agencies actively promoted and funded candidates, trained activists and did polling. (If a foreign country (Mexico? Venezuela?) attempted such interference in our election, there would be outrage at a minimum and probably people going to jail, don't you think? Not to mention, if the wrong person won the losing side would justifiably call for a re-vote.)
And when those people are known to have a friendly relationship with a regime that is not only actively seeking CBW weapons but is already shooting at us, damn right I'm intervening.
You're behind on your talking points. We went into Iraq to enforce UN resolutions free the Iraqi people from the clutches of a tyrant sow seeds of democracy in the Arab world retaliate for Saddam's letting terrorists live in Iraq show Iran's ayatollahs what will happen to them if they don't shape up.
My mistake. I misinterpreted your meaning.
I appreciate your point on the Ukraine. But such interventions are often driven by the actions of third parties. We knew, for example, that Russia would intervene -- trying to bend the election to their ends. In my view, our intervention simply served as a counter-balance.
And do we have a national interest in keeping Russia from re-absorbing its neighbors and threatening others -- like Poland, who happens to be a firm ally? I would argue that we do.
We are worlds apart on the issue of Iraq. There were 23 separate "whereases" in the Iraq War resolutions. All of them were valid.
But the most valid of all wasn't even mentioned. You can look at a map and instantly determine Iraq's strategic necessity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.