People more readily vote their fears than their hopes. If people didn't vote their fears their would be no such thing as negative campaign ads.
No, terrorists are, IMO, extragovernmental or nongovernmental forces that target civilians in their fight. Nobody can dispute that Saddam's government was brutal, but there have been far more brutal regimes that we did not feel it necessary to take out. Iran has, and had before the Iraq invasion, far more ties to terrorists than Iraq, as did Saudi Arabia and Syria. Iraq was a war that did not have to be fought and has not made us safer in the least. We should have finished the job right in Afghanistan and done everything possible to capture or kill Bin Laden rather than tilting at the windmill of Iraq.
Do you support Iranian nuclear ambitions, or, given your view of their government and its ties to terrorists, military action to prevent iarn becoming a nuclear power?
given your view of Iran and its ties to terrorists compared to Iraq and its ties to terrorists who is a more imminent threat to the US?
There are a lot of brutal regimes in Africa, but you do not see the USA invading poor countries in Africa to "save the people" from their government.
Iraq seemed so out of whack, comparison to other countries seems silly. Iraq was a good starting place because you had someone willing to invade another country for no good reason...Why didn't we see folks carrying signs decrying illegal invasion back then? Iraq didn't give an international grievance before it invaded another country... There wasn't numerous discussions or resolutions...We, the USA played by the rules to get resolution without force, and the fact was the uncooperation was a reality to a large extent...Look at the formula for us being over there: Add 1 tablespoon of We knew Saddam had an expressed desire of and use of mass destructive weapons against citizens or subjects within the country...add 1/2 cup of blatant invasion of another country...add 1 cup of supporting suicide terrorists by financial means...add 1 teaspoon of uncooperation in the face of severe sanctions...add a pinch of obvious religious ties to terrorists...and this equals to the U.S. needing to do something about it...What other country had this dangerous concoction? No one...Not an African country, not even North Korea, or Iran could add up this formula in several ways...(Although they come close)... Those on the left will find fallacy with reason, I'm sure, but the fact is we are there to do something that will counter the formula we had in front of us...The first post was right on the mark. It is sad, but I feel those on the left don't truly honor our brave warriors...and warriors are what they are. It is needed and much appreciated.
Yeah, Basso, so now that you are the fallen Democrat (that's a surprise!) how do you cope with the increased number of Reoublicans that are figuring out that we should just cut our losses in Iraq and withdraw? BTW are you telling us that you voted for Gore and Kerry?
dead heat meaning their both gravely imminent threats or their both not so imminent threats? howbout north korea? unfortunately this administration has chosen to spend $300B and sacrifice 1800 lives more for one for whatever reason..
i'm not goinng to get into the semantics of "imminent", but all three either were or are threats to US security. each requires a different strategy however, so unless you're suggesting we should be entirely consistent in our tactical response to every threat, i'm not sure i see what your point is.
well the point is Bush clearly don't have enough resources to wage wars on all those three countries.. he decided that Iraq should be first which turned out to be a grave mistake which costed $300 billion dollar of american tax-payers money and 1800 american lives.. does he still have enough resources for Iran? or should North Korea go first? I know each one requires a different strategy but the clearly the strategy and timing W architected for Iraq was disastrous.. and his decisions on Iran and NK will probably be similarly disastrous as well..
actually, the strategy for iran- hem them in with democratic us allies, is brilliant, although the execution has left something to be desired. NK is it's own problem. if i had to guess, i'd say some sort of military confrontation with iran is inevitable, nk, i'm not so sure.
