Posted on 02/03/2003 12:44:26 PM PST by GailA
In WWII we wanted both. We vanquished our enemies but then helped rebuild them. You are probably right that we won't be loved but our country hasn't traditionally fit in the role of being feared at least not for long periods of time.
It's too late for that sentiment: terrorists will never stop trying to kill us. However it's very encouraging that none have been successful since 9/11. I give a lot of credit to our intelligence for refocussing on the new threats.
Agree. Thanks Sam.
Um, ok, we'll see. Anyway I'm glad you backed away from your earlier implied statement that Saddam isn't truly hated by his people. (That is the implication of what you said.)
Again, I didn't bring up Yugoslavia, the author of the article did.
I'm not sure why you're so convinced that "who brought it up" is the important thing here. To me the important thing is that you've implied quite clearly that it's inconsistent or hypocritical to be against the Yugo war but not an Iraq war, and after repeated attempts to get you to back up your statement, you still have not. I couldn't care less that you "didn't bring it up". You may not have "brought it up" but you piled on, didn't you?
I merely point out that unqualified inconsistency can occur from either viewpoint.
You lost me. Where is the part where you either finally back up your statement, or disavow it? I'm patient, I can wait.
I don't know. Do you?
The funny part now is that if one combines your last two messages you're basically saying (1) no one can possibly plan for every contingency, and (2) you won't support a war unless they plan for every contingency. Say what?
["plan"] Personally, I doubt it.
Wait, so you only "doubt it"? But you seemed so sure this was a "thoughtless war" and a "war without a plan" in your previous post. What happened, you actually realized that you couldn't possibly back up those charges, right? Good for you! :-)
That outcome is just an example, one of hundreds of possible outcomes. There are good possible outcomes also, but that's not all we should be thinking about.
Sure thing, let's think about all the possible outcomes under the sun. Think away. But endless thought only leads to paralysis; at some point we have to actually choose something. I won't stop you from doin' all this thinking as the bombs are dropping, of course.
Boxing Saddam in with sanctions has drawbacks, but it doesn't add wildcards.
Really? And you know this how? If you don't think that Saddam would surrepticiously give bio or chem weapons to agents of terrorist organizations who would use them to attack the US, you are not thinking this through. What better way for him to accomplish his goal of punishing us without directly attacking us.
No the anti-war left was against the Yugoslavian fiasco as was the non-interventist hard-right. I remember the protests. I was in fact at the Ohio State town meeting where Albright and others were jeered during their war tour. However you fail to make the distinction between the democrap leftist politicians in congress backing Clinton for political reasons and the anti-war left. Don't discount that the media largely ignored those anti-war protests. I believe there were more of them against the Yugoslavian invasion than Iraq.
As for me, I've long thought the inspections are a sham: of course Saddam Hussein has WMD (even if they haven't been found). He's had them since the '80s, when we gave them to him to help him in his war against Iran (the enemy du jour of the era).
My reaction to that is: "So what?" He is not a threat to the US, or he certainly would have used them in the last year when President Bush began thumping his war chest. The only time Saddam has used them is in a war, the one with Iran, and some claim, the Kurds. (Actually, the CIA has determined that the chem weapons that hit the Kurds came from Iran, and not Iraq.) I guess we're determined to give him his war and his excuse.
Saddam is not foolish enough to engage the US toe-to-toe in a war; he knows he will lose. But when a fellow has nothing to lose, and is backed into a corner, he will do anything.
So what have we done? We've made it clear that we are going to invade Iraq, no matter what he says he has or doesn't say, or shows what he destroyed (how would one do this? Point to a hole in the ground and say, "There one isn't?") or doesn't show, and no matter what the inspectors find or don't find.
This has been our intent all along: invade Iraq. When the linkages to 11 September were not found, not even circumstantially, we developed this sham of a WMD inspection process. It doesn't matter: we're going to invade.
We've backed him into a corner.
So what is Saddam, the rat backed in the corner with nothing to lose, going to do? He's going to launch his WMD at American troops, maybe at Israel. Why not? I repeat: HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE. Again: HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE.
My concerns are not with the inspections (again, a sham, as anything connected to the UN is bound to be) it is with the fact that American troops are going to get chem- or bio-bombed because we want to beat the crap out of Saddam Hussein. The loss of American troops is apparently of little concern to the neo-Con crowd.
But to close your argument: since we were going to invade all along, why didn't Bush launch an attack 30 seconds after his State of the Union speech last year? That would have been something to see, and would have been doing it right. Giving him a year to prepare himself is asinine.
I'm not sure why you're so convinced that "who brought it up" is the important thing here. To me the important thing is that you've implied quite clearly that it's inconsistent or hypocritical to be against the Yugo war but not an Iraq war, and after repeated attempts to get you to back up your statement, you still have not. I couldn't care less that you "didn't bring it up". You may not have "brought it up" but you piled on, didn't you?
I merely point out that unqualified inconsistency can occur from either viewpoint.
You lost me. Where is the part where you either finally back up your statement, or disavow it? I'm patient, I can wait.
What proof do you want?
The notion that those who categorically support Bush and his efforts--let's call them GOP lemmings, or anti-Dem Party lemmings, if you prefer--(war or otherwise) while categorically castigating Clinton and his are just as hypocritical as those who categorically supported Clinton and his efforts--let's call them Dem Party lemmings, or anti-GOP lemmings, if you prefer--(war or otherwise) while categorically castigating Bush and his stands on its own merit.
Condensed, lemmings for both parties are hypocrites.
If you are having trouble understanding this, then I would kindly suggest you remove your GOP blinders.
Secondly, please explain to the rest of us how it is Bush would have been politically or logistically prepared to launch a war in Iraq last January. I'd like to hear that one. The fact is, he is always going to have advance warning because we have to deploy, deploy, deploy in order to have enough men and material in place for a mass attack halfway around the world.
I would rather have a president like we have who is willing to take risks to do what is right and in our interests than one who is willing (even eager) to sign agreements with despots that aren't worth the paper they're written on just to avoid doing something potentially damagin to his precious legacy.
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.