Everyone has a reason--and they're all bad. Why the closed minds on Iraq?

chiller | 2/6/03 | chiller

[chiller]

Now, with so many solid reasons for regime change in Iraq, why is there any opposition at all? Opponents simply invent reasons to oppose out of thin air. For what reason?

N.O.W. should support regime change for the way women are treated, but they're lack of support shows them as frauds. Liberal New Yorkers should support elimination of Saddam/alQaeda, after all it was their city that was attacked, and it's the big eastern shore cities that remain most vulnerable to further attacks.

Human rights activists lilke Jimmy Carter should support our efforts for obvious reasons. Democrats have recently claimed they must be more supportive on national defense, yet many criticize. Middle East countries should look forward to the removal of the whacko-bully in the neighborhood.

We could go on with those who oppose, but the question is why? Is it that hatred of anything 'Bush/conservative' is automatically bad, and reason enough to fight it? Likewise, international opposition must be borne in hopes that US influence can be diminished.

Do they believe that 'W' is not sincere, and void of character? They should know better, but are blind. Why?

Is their personal position in life, in politics, in international affairs, in the U.N., more important than the facts? More important than truth?

I could give a rats ass what others think of us, but what drives me crazy is the affect the opposition's blindness is having on the state of U.S. and world affairs.

I don't understand the resistance to face facts. Any ideas?

[libertylady]

I am a Constitutional Conservative, and I am against the war. I know many conservatives who are also against the war. I believe in having a strong military for defending our country when we are attacked. I believe that preemptive strikes are unConstitutional.
I beieve that our military is being used to be the world's police. Other countries such as China and North Korea have nuclear weapons and we are not going after them. We trade with China for Pete's sake. We have handed over military technology to them. (Both Clinton and Bushes by the way)
We are out to control the world's oil and build an empire. This is about control, power, and money, not about defending freedom. If the power structure in this country was about freedom we would avoid entangling alliances. This war in Iraq is also about precedence. If we start pre-emptive strikes on one country we will have precedent to do it on another.
I also believe that we will have more terrorist attacks in our nation as a result of this invasion.
Our troops are being used by the UN to enforce it's resolutions until the UN has sufficient army to enforce its will on all countries including ours.
Unfortunately both the Democrats and Republicans have been hijacked by forces that are against the good of our Country. The democrats are being used to socialize the country with big socialist programs, while the Republicans are being used to turn our country into a police state (Homeland Security, Patriot Act) and make war to build up animosity against us by other countries.
Sadly after much study, I have come to this conclusion. The sooner you realize this the better. You are being decieved my friend.

[VeritatisSplendor]

You are not cynical enough. Imagine the worst motives you can think of.

Don't forget they are impervious to logic -- although they have high verbal skills which are employed to rationalize their feelings.

Ultimately you would also have to explain the source of their disordered feelings to understand such people, which will touch on psychological and spiritual issues -- but it's not worth it, it is better to simply ignore them or defeat them. Eventually they will learn the hard way, and a small minority of them might even have the grace to apologize.

[Monti Cello]

Certain people are so tied up in their fantasies that they refuse to accept reality. Evil dictators do not compute for them unless they have an 'R' after their name or stars and stripes behind them. There is not much point left in arguing with these sorts of people.

You can show them the arguments of Clinton and the leading Democrats in 1998, practically verbatim to the statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell. You can demonstrate Iraqi-al qaeda connections. You can present them audio and video tape of foreign armies conniving against them. You can remind them of the attack on their own people. You can explain that 'containment' and 'inspections' have failed

Yet, somehow you still get, 'Bush wants to satisfy daddy and steal oil'. The idiots are damned not so much by their opposition, but by the inanity of their arguments. They show themselves to have the comprehension and seriousness of petulant 5-year olds. The American majority will treat them accordingly.

I am frequently tempted to debate these folks. It's like picking low-hanging fruit off a tree. But it always seems the fruit just sticks to the tree, and you just end up with rotten stink all over your hands.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Re my previous post -- I am not criticizing people who oppose the war seriously and reasonably, like libertylady, I am criticizing the immature and illogical liberals you are referring to in your original post.

[JimRed]

I believe that preemptive strikes are unConstitutional.

In the cases of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, the price of not striking preemptively will likely be 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000 more dead Americans. I don't see the constitutional argument but even if I did, when forced to choose between two evils, take the least.

[SerpentDove]

>>Our troops are being used by the UN to enforce it's resolutions <<

I don't know what cave you've been hiding in, but the U.N. is dragging its feet to KEEP from enforcing its own resolutions.

Hint: Pay more attention to current events. It makes for a more educated, and less hysterical-sounding, arguments.

[Monti Cello]

I believe that preemptive strikes are unConstitutional.

Where do you get that idea?

We are out to control the world's oil and build an empire.

Ludicrous. If we wanted to build an empire and control oil, we'd build and empire and control the oil. We will do neither.

Our troops are being used by the UN to enforce it's resolutions

You've got to be kidding. The UN is doing everything under its power to stop us from enforcing its resolutions. Bush is the one using our troops and he has already undercut the UN more than once.

I don't challenge your conservative credentials, but your line of reasoning sounds like those who are bent on fitting a very understandable set of circumstances into some tighly clutched conspiracy theory that defies the obvious facts and common sense.

[Lee Enfield]

To the left the primary enemy is the American right. They don't care who or what they have to defend or ally with to defeat the conservatives. WE are their enemy no matter how many civilians are killed by terrorists. It's just how they think.

[JimRed]

We are out to control the world's oil and build an empire.

*Posted by JimRed to robowombat On News/Activism 02/05/2003 5:37 PM EST #19 of 34 (same reply seems appropriate, LL)

The United States, an empire? If we'd wanted that we'd have kept all the places that we kicked a$$ to liberate! We (with a little help from some friends) won France, Belgium and the Netherlands fair and square from the Germans, and half of Germany as well. We won Japan. We won Kuwait and a third of Iraq. And little Grenada, too.

If we wanted them, we could have had Canada and Mexico in about a day and a half.

So what do we do when we're done? We give back our winnings, feed their folks and set them on the path to a better life.

What a way to run an empire!

[JimRed]

We (with a little help from some friends) won France, Belgium and the Netherlands fair and square from the Germans, and half of Germany as well. We won Japan. We won Kuwait and a third of Iraq. And little Grenada, too.

OOPS! Sorry, I forgot Italy!

[dennisw]

Go sell you car and ride your bicycle if that's how you think. With your ideas we'll get cut off from cheap MidEast oil within a decade.

China is behind the machinations of NKorea and has grander plans for the Middle East. Once we exit the MidEast and China arrives the game plan will be to sell us oil but only at a $30 premium. That anyone who tries to defy this will be sold no oil. China will play the nuclear enforcer. You think you can exist on a cloud with your mistaken references to our Constitution but you cannot.

[libertylady]

Yah! And Bush is supposed to be a conservative who is cutting social programs. Excuse me, but how many things have been cut. I have only seen him spend more money on them and strengthen them.
Did you listen to all the socialist programs he will be giving more money to that he talked about during the state of the Union speech? Prescription drugs for seniors. And what about him strenthening the Department of Education. Aren't conservatives supposed to be against big government?
Bush does want the UN to have more power and authority. He even said so himself. He said that he wants the UN to be more than people talking. He wants to enforce the legitimacy of the UN. There was a post on this just the other day. The whole reason he says we are doing this is to enforce the UN Resolutions that Iraq have been breaking.
Believe me I am very informed about this. If you read some of Bush's speeches at the UN you will see that he wants a very strong UN.
Just because he tries to convey another view to the America people doesn't mean he really believes that. What about all of the AIDs money he has pledged to the UN? Our country finances the UN. What planet are you from?
His own father was the one who first mentioned "New World Order under the United Nations. Look at some of Bush senior's speeches just before the first Gulf War.
Even the reasons for getting us into the first Gulf war were contrived by the first Bush Administration. They said there were satellite pictures of Iraq troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. That turned out to be false. The babies left on the floor torn away from their incubators in Kuwait turned out to be a public relations ploy, and never really happened. A Bush hired Public Relations company did the whole thing. There is always deception to get people to go to war. This time is no exception.
Daddy Bush legitimized the UN when he was president. Now his son is doing it even more. Watch what they do, not what they say to the American people.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The US is an empire?

Then why is Cuba independent -- let alone allowed to continue to have a government hostile to ours?

Why did we ever grant the Phillipines their independence? When they asked us to withdraw from Subic Bay, why did we comply?

Why did we give the people in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Ocean their choice of independence or commonwealth status? Why do we periodically give Puerto Ricans the choice of independence, commonwealth status, or statehood?

Why did we ever end our occupation of Germany and Japan?

Why did we ever withdraw from Vietnam?

Why did we not permanently annex and occupy Grenada?

Why did we agree to relinquish sovereignty and control of the Canal Zone?

Why did we not permanently occupy southern Iraq after Gulf War I?

If the US is serious about being an empire, why do we continue to tolerate a separate nation containing (mostly) people speaking our own language, right next door? Why don't we annex them, like the Nazis annexed the Austrians?

For the same reason, why do we continue to allow all of those English-speaking nations in the Caribbean to be independent. Wouldn't this be the logical place to begin to build our "empire"?

If the US were serious about being an empire, then why do we give other nations money? Empire is all about getting "tribute", isn't it.

Or maybe a better question to ask: Why is it that so many people, even some so-called "conservatives", find themselves compelled to continually SLANDER what has been the most unprecedentedly kind, generous, and non-imperialistic great nation to ever exist on the face of this earth?

[Billthedrill]

A lot of very sincere people have fallen into the trap of attempting to turn an abstract principle into a moral absolute, that is, being "against War" (note capital letter) meaning to them that anything that might recommend that as a policy is "in favor of War" and hence impermissible, or at least dismissable. One sees another manifestation of this in those Buddhist monks who, taking "do not kill" as a moral absolute, spend their lives with gauze wrapped around their mouths in an attempt to spare airborne microorganisms from a premature demise. Were this proscription to be extended to the vegetable kingdom these guys would starve to death.

But moral codes are more complex than laying down moral absolutes, they function to assist a follower in choosing between alternate courses of action, all of which have negative moral aspects - a choice between evils, which happens quite often in real life. A code that takes "do not kill" as a moral absolute must disallow it in the case of self-defense and defense of others as well, so too with the organized killing called war. Moreover, moral absolutes tend to lead to irresolvable moral conflicts - obeying a speed limit is generally not taken as a moral absolute when you are headed to the hospital with a bleeding child in your car...unless you're a fool.

[chiller]

I'm not buying this empire building crap The empire already exists in the U.S. And it happened naturally. It happened because of the beauty of freedom and democracy. And the role of enforcer for the world can be handled by no one else. We didn't ask for the role, and would be damn glad to be rid of it.

I've been thinking that those in opposition to this war are indeed not secure in their beliefs, not sure that the U.S. behaves admirably, they therefore listen to any criticism of the U.S. and take it as gospel. It's a form of political correctness...."we can't impose our beliefs" type of thing.

God knows, the U.S. is not perfect and never will be. U.S. doubters don't know what they think, don't know what they believe. They simply don't have the courage of their convictions to admit that we in the U.S.-in this administration at least--are doing the right thing.

Many of the younger objecters have been taught in our screwed up socialist school system not to be judgmental. As a result they don't know right from wrong. What about those boomers, who -by and large-escaped govt. school indoctrination before the libs took control? What's their excuse? Are they in love with the peace movement of the late 60's? As executed, Vietnam was wrong, but it is over. We learned from it.

[libertylady]

"We have before us the oportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders."
President George Bush 1991

[VRWC_minion]

We are out to control the world's oil and build an empire.

If this were about oil, we wouild simply end the embargo and send our companies in with big contracts for Saddam. Your opinions are based on flawed reasoning.

[BlackbirdSST]

Look, you're arguing with bushbot's. If you think bringing an intelligent argument to a fight like this is going to gain you any ground then you're sadly mistaken. On another thread, I asked clearly for some explanation as to why no coverage has been given to Congressman Ron Paul's appearance on CSPAN this morning. The Congressman, arguably the most Conservative person in the House if not the entire feral goobermint, is adamently oppossed to this undeclared war on Iraq. He is planning on submitting legislation to withdraw the War Power's from our King, I mean President, and placing it back in the Constitutionally required place of the House of Representative's. Congressman Ron Paul is continuously held up here at FR, as the absolute Conservative, but the bot's will attempt to twist his, your's, and my words into something resembling hate of our country, (they're doing it to you now, are they not?), when in fact, these very people are about to justify going to sleep everynight with blood on their hand's, because King George wishes to make up for daddy's shortcoming's. Thousand's more of us are going to die over this, right here on our soil and not one of these bot's will step up and take responsibility after the fact. Anyone pushing this that doesn't intend on going to Iraq themselve's is a coward, pure and simple. It's easy to harp about war, when you don't have to put your own ass on the line!

Don't leave your principled stand in the face of the neocon flaming, go into this expecting it, and daring them to turn up the heat. When the light's come on, the roaches scatter. Blackbird.

[libertylady]

"No country, perhaps, was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizen, whether in our out of office."
--Thomas Jefferson

"We love and value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities. Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped that our distance and our dispositions would have left us free in the example and indulgence of peace with all the world...We confide in our strength without boasting of it; we respect that of others without fearing it."

"I would try anything, and bear anything that can be borne with safety to our just liberties, rather than engage in a war with such near relations, unless compelled to it by dire necessity in our own defense."
Benjamin Franklin

"I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principle. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect."

"If nations go to war for every degree of injury, there would never be peace on earth."
Thomas Jefferson

"In my opinion, there never was a good war or a bad peace."
Benjamin Franklin

"The power of declaring war being with the Congress, the executive should do nothing necessarily committing them to decide for war."
Thomas Jefferson

[100%FEDUP]

Wrong, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the true enemy of the left.

Haven't you noticed how easily the left is willing to overlook how women and children are treated in islamic countries. When was the last time you heard a liberal accuse ANYONE of anti-semitism?
Labeling Christians as anti-semites was almost a daily ritual for liberals, but since 9/11 they've found another weapon against Christianity, islam.

Liberals have basically sold out every one of their beliefs, as well as their support of Judaism, in order to defend the acts of islamic extremists in the hopes that they can weaken Christianity!

[chiller]

Thousand's more of us are going to die over this, right here on our soil and not one of these bot's will step up and take responsibility after the fact.

Thousands already have died in this country, and George 43 is attempting to stop an encore. And I'm really tired of the 'daddy's war' crap. Or oil for W's buddies. Oil is a part of it because Saddam wants it all to use as blackmail. I suppose you'd feel more comfortable if Iraq was a superpower, and Saddam the kingpin. You'd like Nancy Pelosi, David Bonior, James McDermott, et all to be deciding on war and foreign policy? Congress can stop war if they don't like it.

[American Blood]

You've been propagandized, that much is clear. Your post is one of the most ignorant and uninformed I've ever seen on FreeRepublic. The only point that I even remotely agree with you on is that our forces are stretched too thin across the globe.

Other countries such as China and North Korea have nuclear weapons and we are not going after them. We trade with China for Pete's sake. We have handed over military technology to them. (Both Clinton and Bushes by the way)

Neither China nor North Korea have violated 17 UN resolutions, although NK has violted the non-proliferation treaty that they agreed upon in 1994. And rest assured, if they re-start their reactor, which it appears they have, we will respond to that. You also assert that "Bushes" have handed over military technology to China. Can you back that up with a source?

We are out to control the world's oil and build an empire.

Ludicrous. If we wanted to control the worlds oil, do you not think that we could have already achieved that goal years ago? International law will decide who controls the oil fields until the new Iraqi government is stabalized enough to handle it themselves. Did you get your talking points on this issue from the DNC, the BBC, or Aljeezera? This statement in and of itself proves your ignorance on the subject. After making a statement such as this, you lose all credibility and reveal yourself for what you truly are.

If we start pre-emptive strikes on one country we will have precedent to do it on another

Do you remember Sept. 11 2001? Apparently not. We no longer wait to be struck first before we strike back. Only a fool would adopt that policy in wake of 9/11. Also, the precedent has already been set, many times over by many former Presidents.

I also believe that we will have more terrorist attacks in our nation as a result of this invasion.

Perhaps you should hole up in a bomb shelter and wait it out. What a chickensh*t comment. "Lets not act because the terrorists might get pissed at us". You actually think that these terrorist scum are waiting for us to attack Iraq before they attack us? If they have the capability to attack us within our borders, they would have already done it. Maybe the Homeland security and Patriot acts are working after all huh?

Our troops are being used by the UN to enforce it's resolutions until the UN has sufficient army to enforce its will on all countries including ours.

Now this is a hoot. You actually believe that the UN wants us to attack Iraq? Now I've heard it all. Please try to keep up with current events. The UN is doing everything within its power to keep us from attacking.

In closing, you are entitled to believe what you will. But you make yourself look like a left-wing lackey by making such ill-informed statements. Please do some homework and get back to us when you've seen the light.

[libertylady]

Thanks for your support!
And the poster who called me uniformed; I find that very interesting since I read the paper everyday, listen to talk radio, surf many websites, read the founding fathers words, and read the founding documents of our country.
I used to be one of those who justified someone's actions just because they had an R by their name. In the past three years my eyes have been opened after reading 20-30 books, surfing many websites, listening to local talk radio, and reading free Republic (before it became a shill for ruling Republicans.) I hope to see it live up to its name again as a website supporting our beloved Constitution.

[Monti Cello]

You're tripping over your own arguments.

First, it's all about Bush's power, then it's all about the UN's power.

Then you tell me not to discount what Bush says, but you continue to cite speeches of both Bushes as evidence of their evil machinations. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

And then you say you don't want the US to be a policeman, but complain when when we try to spread out the reponsibility for dealing with aggressive maniacs.

When Bush lauds the UN, you don't suppose he's actually blowing smoke at them?

The UN is a de facto foreign policy tool of the US. It there to make the little guys feel better. Sometimes it's useful to us, sometimes its a hindrance. On balance it has served some diplomatic purpose, but those days are numbered. Don't get me wrong -- I think the UN is a bad joke, I'm all for getting us the hell out

With your long tirade on social programs, you are giving yourself away, and making the original poster's (and my own) point perfectly. Many of the remaining war critics would rather throw the kitchen sink at GW Bush than consider we may actually have a real problem to deal with. You'd rather spout nonsense like suggesting that Iraq did not invade Kuwait, and vent your general frustrations with Bush than debate the war on its own merits.

So, do you predict that we will not go into Iraq without UN backing (coercion?). Are the French just part of Bush's act, or does he have the power to make them come along with the New World Order's oil grab? Just trying to get it all straight.

[American Blood]

I find that very interesting since I read the paper everyday, listen to talk radio, surf many websites

paper=NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle

talk radio=NPR

websites= Democratic underground, The Nation, Salon

[flyer182]

Your using Benjamin Franklins quotes about going to war with the British which he made during his attempt to get them to listen to the colonies. They would not, he supported war just fine when it was in his new countries self intrest.

[ohioman]

Go back to your cave and re-read everything you've read.

[caltrop]

Iraq isn't our biggest foreign policy problem by a long shot and allegations about Iraq's involvement in 9-11 are pretty thin in spite of strenuous efforts to find a link. Iraq has had biological and chemical weapons since at least the mid-80s. You may not want to believe it but biological weapons are a much more serious problem than nuclear weapons. Iraq is a regional power (if that) in a region full of unsavory characters. IMHO, the whole region, absent oil, isn't worth an American sprained ankle. Since they can't obtain the food they need unless they sell their oil the issue of who runs the region is, IMHO, a moot point.

I'm not interested in going to war unless I know the reasons why. President Bush hasn't made the case. If and when he does, Congress should make the decision to declare war - not the President.

[libertylady]

I don't have time to answer all of your questions, but there are things all over the internet about the Clinton administration and previous Bush administration and present Bush administration standing by while companies were allowed to give technology to China.
One is www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/3/21002.shtm
I am sure with a little research you can come up with the answers yourself.
As far as propoganda you could not be farther from the truth. The official version you are getting from the establishment is the propaganda my friend. It always has been and it always will be.

[libertylady]

You are wrong on all counts. Sorry. Try this: local newspaper, US Constitution, World Net daily, newsmax, local Constitutional conservative talk radio, free republic, Eagle forum, the New American, writings of our Founding Fathers, freedom.org, proliberty observer, infowars.com, the Making of America, The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen,
The Naked Capitalist by Cleon Skousen, www.jeolskousen.com,
"None Dare Call it Education", "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" the list goes on and on.

[borkrules]

I'm not interested in going to war...

The terror groups that Saddam will sell his nasty little toys to, however, are very interested in going to war with YOU.

[libertylady]

I am perfectly fine with us going to war with a nation to defend our country from attack. We are the ones attacking in this instance.

[ThinkDifferent]

Prescription drugs for seniors. And what about him strenthening the Department of Education. Aren't conservatives supposed to be against big government?

Agreed 100% here.

Bush does want the UN to have more power and authority. He even said so himself.

But does he mean it? What he appears to be doing is forcing the UN's positions into alignment with ours. The UN wants nothing to do with Iraq, they've been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. Bush has essentially told them "deal with Iraq the way we want to, or demonstrate your own irrelevance". Either way is a plus.

[okie01]

"Is their personal position in life, in politics, in international affairs, in the U.N., more important than the facts? More important than truth?"

Yes.

[okie01]

"I believe in having a strong military for defending our country when we are attacked. I believe that preemptive strikes are unConstitutional."

Out of curiosity, where do you think the anthrax came from?

[flyer182]

We have attacked many times in our history in order to define what is in our nationalist intrest. Almost always for economic reasons. This is for security. If you don't see it that way looks like it is beside the point at this conjecture.

[BlackbirdSST]

You'd like Nancy Pelosi, David Bonior, James McDermott, et all to be deciding on war and foreign policy? Pretty weak attempt at a comeback, when you can't argue the fact's, ridicule eh? The lefties favorite tactic comes to bare. You can hardly point to a difference between those folk's you listed and the one's you support, in any other policy besides this one. So all in all, I guess most here including yourself support the left in every other way! You clown's that try to lump us Conservative's that will not tow a party line in with the lefties are screwing yourself both in the short term and the long term, so by all mean's, keep it up. You and your's are sealing your own fate. I'll not be a party shill and sit around licking their boots while they shred everything I put my life on the line to protect more than once. Get on the bandwagon and call Congressman Ron Paul, and explain to him why he's a lefty. PUKE! Blackbird.

[BlackbirdSST]

Thousands already have died in this country, and George 43 is attempting to stop an encore. With open border's, got anything more to shovel 'cause this one is stinking up the room. Blackbird.

[KantianBurke]

If there's one think I'd like to personally thank Pat Buchannan for is ensuring that John Bircher nuts and isolationist Jew hating crazies left the GOP. As you said, they should go back to their caves

[Adder]

I believe we will be dealing with North Korea shortly.

[Adder]

And Afghanistan...

[libertylady]

Because the American people (right thinking people) would have protested against doing that!

[libertylady]

US labs

[caltrop]

If he begins to do that then he'll be in the same category as North Korea. At that point, I'd be far more inclined to support a declaration of war. Iraq's had bioweapons for almost 20 years that I know of - we were briefed on it at the Army War College in the mid-80s. Bioweapons have proliferated since then but I'm unaware that Iraq has the same attitude towards them as North Korea, which has a far more complete arsenal and which happily sells to anyone with the price. You may recall that Spanish and US warships intercepted Scuds from North Korea headed for Sudan a few months ago.

[Honcho]

I am a Constitutional Conservative, and I am against the war. I know many conservatives who are also against the war. I believe in having a strong military for defending our country when we are attacked. I believe that preemptive strikes are unConstitutional.

Really? Which passage says that preemptive strikes are prohibited by the Constitution? I question your logic if you believe that the founders would have so restricted the President and Congress in such matters as War and defense against outside forces.

I beieve that our military is being used to be the world's police.


While that has been true in some instances, that's clearly not the case here. In my view this new military action against Iraq is part of the original Gulf War, with just a very long cease fire in between.


Other countries such as China and North Korea have nuclear weapons and we are not going after them. We trade with China for Pete's sake. We have handed over military technology to them. (Both Clinton and Bushes by the way)

Your logic on this matter is upside down. Your suggesting we replace 2 bad policies and 1 good policy with 3 bad policies. Seems to me it's our relationship with China and North Korea that's done for political purposes, not the Iraq policy.


We are out to control the world's oil and build an empire. This is about control, power, and money, not about defending freedom. If the power structure in this country was about freedom we would avoid entangling alliances. This war in Iraq is also about precedence. If we start pre-emptive strikes on one country we will have precedent to do it on another. I also believe that we will have more terrorist attacks in our nation as a result of this invasion.


OK at this point, I'm half expecting you to morph into Hillary or Ted Kennedy because you sound just like them.


Our troops are being used by the UN to enforce it's resolutions until the UN has sufficient army to enforce its will on all countries including ours. Unfortunately both the Democrats and Republicans have been hijacked by forces that are against the good of our Country.


Well you'll get no arguement from me here. Again, your logic is not sound. Last time I checked we are leading the UN to war, not the other way around. It's your possition that the UN seems to be takeing at this moment.


The democrats are being used to socialize the country with big socialist programs, while the Republicans are being used to turn our country into a police state (Homeland Security, Patriot Act) and make war to build up animosity against us by other countries. Sadly after much study, I have come to this conclusion. The sooner you realize this the better. You are being decieved my friend.


Tinfoil had alert! Tinfoil had alert!

[CWOJackson]

I loved your founding father quotes. They were very remarkable men. Unfortunately, none of them knew how to work a microwave. They couldn't program a VCR. If they received a cell phone call they would have a bowel movement. And e-mail...forget it.

The world's has changed a tad since this nation was founded. I have no desire to leave our national defense in the hands of folks who fly kites in storms and can't work an ATM.

[bassmaner]

When all this Iraq business started, I had the same thoughts that you're expressing. My first question was "Why now after all these years "? My second question was "Why should we believe Bush & Co. about this, when they're lying about 'illegal' drugs such as marijuana to advance the WOD agenda"?

But then I realized -- 9/11 changed everything. Despite the obvious policy differences that I (as a libertarian) have with him, I realized that Bush showed the same moral clarity by declaring an "Axis of Evil" that Ronald Reagan did in 1983 when he declared the Soviet Union to be an "Evil Empire".

We cannot afford to ignore the threats that Iraq poses to our nation and the world that Colin Powell outlined in detail yesterday. My fondest wish is that we can bring all our troops home and avoid the foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against, but before we can do that, we have to ensure our national survival. We may force Saddam into exile, or maybe we'll have to turn Iraq into a radioactive parking lot, but we have to show anyone in the world that tries to repeat a 9/11 on our soil that they (and whoever sponsors them) will suffer Saddam's fate.

I realize that liberty is essential to our nation and our birthright, but protecting it by ensuring our national survival is the most important mission that our elected leaders have. I may oppose Bush on the expansion of the federal government, the insane War on Drugs, and other libertarian issues, but I am an American first who puts the survival of our country above any other political issue. Everything else can wait.

[bassmaner]

With open border's, got anything more to shovel 'cause this one is stinking up the room. Blackbird.

Totally agree - the feds are dropping the ball on this. We should be securing our borders as well as taking on the "Axis of Evil" if we're really serious about "Homeland Security".

Let in the weed; keep out the wetbacks!!!

[Quix]

There don't appear to be a LOT of possibilities that make much sense.

(1) that does is that the Commies know there's a Global Government Tyranny coming and THEY INSIST ON BEING FIRST IN LINE FOR THE POWER HANDOUTS REGARDLESS OF THE COST TO THE USA or anything and anyone else.

(2) They are simply total idiots (with little forsight about anything) whining over temporary loss of power and determine to throw rocks and obstructionism in the path of anyone else in power but them.

(3) The can only see a few seconds into the future and any hint of ANY AUTHORITY throwing a wet blanket over ANY evil is too close for comfort and to be opposed at all costs lest it end up raining on their arrogant hedonistic parade.

(4) They are conscious or unconscious satanists and determined that evil triumph in all places in all ways at all costs even if it means the death & destruction of all they hold dear.