Saddam was a sociopath, no doubt about it, but in terms of sheer evil how about Pinochet? Col Pol Pot? Milosovic?
How about them? I think all three could have been dealt with sooner and better.
Now, we are dealing with Sadaam and his supporters. We can muse over whether or not Sadaam or Osama are dead, but terrorism doesn't start or stop with them, per se. It is a continuing battle. All that 9-11 did was finally wake up the American people to the nature of terrorism, and showed us that it doesn't just happen on the west bank. It can, and has, happened right here.
Where was I? Ah.
Were are supposed to be a country of tolerance and respect for others.
I have to call this a red herring. To what are you referring? Is the fulfillment of the requirement of the peace agreement of the Gulf War not in alignment with American values? In other words, if you are taken to court, ordered to pay a judgement, and you fail to do so, can you not expect the judicial system to act to bring all legal remedies to bear on you for your failure to pay?
This is precisely what has hapened in Iraq. They violated the cease fire agreement, and made it impossible to accurately determine the true nature of their previously verified WMD program. UN sanctions did not bring compliance. WE had to make certain, as the party who had been intimately involved in the Gulf War, that total compliance was made a reality.
Anti- American sentimism is rising because we have a president that basically told the world the U.S can do whatever it pleases without having to justify it beforehand.
I challenge this characterization of our actions. We spent several YEARS trying it "the UN way". Rather than send a message to the world that we can "do whatever (we) please", the message should be read as this: if you make an agreement as an element of a peace treaty, then you must honor it, or we will make cetain that you do so. If you harbor terrorists, as there is ample evidence that Iraq has done, you are at risk for our dedicated anti-terrorist actions.
American sovereignty will always trump UN authority. When that ceases to be true, there will no longer be a United States of America. We will join the cadre of second tier nations, embrace socialism and anti-capitalist doctrine, and become another formerly great nation.
Last time I checked, violence only produced more violence.
Check WWII. We ended that violence by superior force and dedication. If we inspire others to violence, we must also inspire ourselves to be victorious over this evil. Plain and simple, if we are in the right, and I think the evidence is ample that we are, then we must strive to overcome our adversaries.
Singing "Kum bay ya" isn't going to produce the desired result. These radical Muslims have dedicated themselves to our destruction. They are not interested in peace, so we must give them more of what they ARE interested in than they can give to us.
You think the Guy who lost his house and entire family because of a bombing raid in Iraq isn't going to want revenge?
I hope so. When he signs up for that 101 class, we will have a GPS guided bomb for him, hopefully with the name of one of the 9-11 victims writen right on the front end. Special delivery.
I'm not saying we should have baked Sadaam a cake or passed out friedship bracelets, but Bush should have waited for U.n approval. He took matters into his own hands.
When did being a member of the UN, a
founding member, no less, become a situation of being beholden to the UN for "permission" to carry out US foreign policy? Did that pass congress, or did I just miss that? No, we don't have to wait for approval from anyone. We haven't given up all rights yet, not when I last looked.
And he didn't "take matters into his own hands". Congress approved the use of force.
Part of the world actually sided with Sadaam.
That's a good thing. Now we know where that
part stands, and we can watch them a little closer. Just think about what "siding with Sadaam" might mean, then tell me that doesn't sound just a little bit cockeyed.
We are still the good guys, or have you not noticed that?
The demise of a great nation!
We will see our demise when we give up or sovereignty, refuse to fight terror, and pander to the second rate nations that have never been our equal.
Truthfully: you sound as though you are not a supporter of this country. You don't see the reason for keeping our own council for our national interests, you prefer that the UN make our security decisions, and you fail to see the rationale for our actions.
I have to tell you, that makes my jaw drop a little, that you can not see the value in what we are doing.
The government should be concerned about protecting us from the real threats this country has.
Let me get this straight. Because you aren't receiving a daily briefing, you are sure that chasing illegals with mops at Wal Mart is all that our government is doing to protect us?
Are you really saying that????
We are now armed with deficits, unemployment, world instability and I just can't imagine what another four more years of this will bring.
I am tempted to explain our economic condition to you, but I am certain by now that you are filtering your information so that an additional explanation may do no good to further this discussion.
I will tell you that terrorists no longer plan and act with the same impunity that they once did. The economy is impoving despite the gloom and doom crowd. And I am very thankful that we have a president who is willing to make the difficult choices, and rise to the occaision when history calls.
Thank you for giving me the oportunity to address your concerns.
We are in good hands.
Keep smoking that crack if you truly think that he will get re-elected. Any other intellectually stimulating points that you would like to add "bart".??
