[H8DEMS]

Someone's a Darryl Worley Fan. Put this piece to music and you might have another hit song.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Plain and simple, we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!

Dubya was ready to invace Iraq on September 12, 2001, but unfortunately, Tony Blair talked him into building a "coalition."

Personally, I wish we had gone in the day after the planes crashed.

[vannrox]

Big BUMP for an Excellent Article!

[FryingPan101]

"Plain and simple, we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!"

Good enough for me any day of the week.

[Nonstatist]

we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam

It was more than that. Send the world a message , and then start the process that will change the world; or specifically the MidEastern part of the world. Make it into something we can tolerate.

[stuartcr]

All your reasons are valid, but do not be mistaken...no one spends as much as we did or will, for anything other that that which will generate revenue, ie, natural resources.

[tlrugit]

All part of the demolition of the worldwide terror network.

[TopQuark]

we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!

THat is absolutely correct

And what a great place we have chosen for it: right in the middle of the Middle EAst. Just look at the map. Iran now has American troops on BOTH sides; I don't think they will be speaking of the American Satan too loudly now. Syria has the Sea on one side and American troops on the other; ISrael to the south and Turkey to the north: isolated thus. The Soudis now know that they should be careful too. Pakistan, too, has American troops on one side (Afghanistan, and India on the other.

That was the best place to make a point.

The only people that did not get it was the French: Paris is too far from Baghdad. They will, in time...

[728b]

I was talking with a friend last week. He was frustrated and did not like our saber rattling with Syria.

I reminded him that saber rattling works really well after you have taken the saber out of the sheath and the head of your opponent is rolling around on the floor.

Somehow I feel Bush can saber rattle now, and be effective, as opposed to Clinton's rattling that only enabled and encouraged our enemies.

[ladyinred]

You know what! I hope this is true, because if it is, then my already great respect for President Bush will be elevated even more. He took an oath to defend this country, and defend it he has. God Bless him, I hope he continues in spite of the rhetoric from the left, AND from some on the right! I will not forget 911, and their blood will not be on my hands.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

But, the Bush doctrine has a bottom line -- based on historical precedence.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman wouldn't forgive Pearl Harbor. And George Bush won't forgive 9/11. Osama bin Laden may have succeeded once, but he and his lunatic ilk will do it again -- over George W. Bush's dead body.

Excellent!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Tamzee]

[geedee]

[EaglesUpForever]

I think the author forgets the real justification - that the terms of the end of the Gulf War had not been met by Iraq. 12 years of deception and trickery on Iraq's part, and 12 years of the "international community" being suckered and/or bribed into going along with Saddam.

There are many reasons that the war vs. Iraq was a great thing, but the fundamental pretext to me is that they had obviously not followed the terms under which we ended Gulf War I. We would have been completely justified going after them September 12, 2001 or earlier, though obviously we needed some time to get forces over there. After Clinton's assault on our country and our military it was also helpful to let the slime that he left in Washington to decay a bit...

It's a shame that we tried so hard to go after the brain dead "international community" for the sake of those who suffered under the regime during all the time we were "negotiating," but on the other hand we really gave france, russia, and germany a chance to show their true colors.

[Billthedrill]

This was not a "message." There was nothing subtle about it. I believed beforehand and I believe now that it was a direct assault on a nation whose leadership was deliberately and implacably supporting a myriad of terrorist organizations and would certainly not have stopped at supplying them with whatever weapons he thought would be least traceable, and had active programs to identify and develop those weapons. People throw up "oil" and "WMD" and "9/11" and all sorts of other (and usually derisive) oversimplifications when the reason I mentioned is perfectly simple enough, demonstrably true beforehand and demonstrated a dozen times over by now.

Bush's 9/11 speech was a "message." Afghanistan was a demonstration. This is a campaign. It will end when the threat is considered by command to be manageable by lesser means. That may be now, or it may not. In part it will be up to others to see that a "message" is returned to the President that convinces him that it is manageable by lesser means.

[sarasmom]

Toby Keith = Donald Rumsfeld
Darryl Worley = Colin Powell
We're an American Band" = George Bush
I think we have it covered.
I am not a Bush-bot.There are several serious issues I find myself in the opposition too, under his leadership.
National defense is not one of them.
Why does he not advocate controlling our borders?
Why does he want to curtail my right to self defense?
I need answers to these questions.

[A CA Guy]

I thought the real reason was so Democrats could have access to those torture rooms to see if their tactics were up to date.

[DougF]

Great article.

The funny thing is that it is SO clear that the Arab worlds respond to one thing, and one thing only. Power and will.

Oh, I guess that's two things.

Does anyone remember Libya? The were being REALLY bad, and all the left was SO scared when we bombed them. "Oh no, they are going to be mad -they will hurt us!" And what happened? They dropped off the map for 10 years.

I've also come to realize that the rest of the world has no understanding how Americans think. Even with all the mamby pamby wimpy liberal encroachment, we have ALWAYS responded to clear threats. We are slow to respond - to make up our minds and to come to general consensus - but then we are devastating.

Sometimes the world needs a reminder.

I believe that we are on the beginning of a new era. It is going to be painful and it is going to take a long time and it is going to take resolve. But it is coming, and 9/11 will provide the focus.

It is time to stop asking the world what we shoud do, and instead let them know what we are going to do. And invite the "willing" along for the ride (Goodbye France - hello Eastern Europe!).

[lainde]

bttt

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Personally, I think the reason we attacked Iraq was that Saddam was simply too naked in his support of terrorism. Bush doesn't want another 9/11 on his watch, so he took out the obvious bad guy on the block: this was also done to serve notice to the other countries in the region (particularly Syria and Saudia Arbia) who also support terrorism but compared to Saddam were a little more subtle with their support.

[wayoverontheright]

But, Bashar Assad of Syria and Kim Jong Il of North Korea are genuinely dangerous madmen. And right now, they're scared to death.

I think the more important recipients of the message are the potential terrorist foot soldiers, the suicide variety in particular.

Not only did al-Qaida have to convince the 9-11 hijackers of a hereafter with the virgins, the hijackers had to be convinced that their actions would actually bring the Great Satan down.

Any outcome short of that, (like the one that actually ensued) would eventually bring shame on the martyrs' progeny, and that is precisely what is happening.

The events of 9-11 and prior were precipitated not by an abundance of anger, but by a profound lack of respect. Bush's reaction has not only shocked the Arab world, but has, through its consequences provided the necessary humiliation factor to stifle terrorist recruiting for decades.