Not one bullet has been fired yet. Support the troops. The war's over; move on. In other words, there is never a good time to question your government's motives as it pertains to war.
Excellent point...There were minor variations...early on we heard: *" They're not going to do anything unless they know for 100% sure...these guys aren't idiots." * " We're talking nukes here...you can argue all you want, but I'd rather not be standing in a pile of ash debating it." * " It's a done deal...we're going. Argument's over...you lost." * " We won the war! How can you say you were against it!?!?!?" ...but you covered the essential thrust. Excellent, excellent point.
No, By all means question it. Just quit whining when the majority supports it. If you don't get your way, quit beating a dead horse. DD
Pure crap. By that logic blacks would still be slaves, women wouldn't have the right to vote, etc. Never mind any of that, we'd still be under British rule. This kind of specious, flag waving (il-)logic is the most embarassing thing about your average American. No idea at all about the price of freedom or what it means to be an American. Plus this "by all means question it" stuff is the most hilarious revisionist history on this board in the last year. Your side's been telling us it wasn't appropriate to question ANYTHING since 9/11. Don't get cute about it now. It doesn't become you.
Make sure when you say 'majority' you inlcude the word American, else you just might be confused with a stereotypically self -important geo-centric American who confuses American opinion with the only one that matters. Unless you discount the fact that those who believe it are very much in the global minority...and DO actually think that the only opinion which matters is American.
MacBeth, Since it is OUR army, and OUR government we are debating, then YES, I am talking about the American public, more poinently, the American VOTING public. The rest of the world has ZERO say in matters of our security. DD
Batman, You are certainly generalizing quite a bit now aren't you? Have you followed my threads on this, at all? I am the one who had the thread, why is this the USA's fight and not the UNs. Please before you go off your medication again and decide to insult everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do, that you research a bit first. As for melodrama, you get the prize...AGAIN !!! DD
Unless, God help them, those in power decide that they are some how negatively connected to our security... DD..I don't see how you're missing this. All the elements...that it is OUR military in another country...that we did do it alone...that it is our government who gave the justifications that pretty much we alone bought and continue to buy...these ARE the elements contributing to the argument against our government's actions...to try and use them as a means to discount the perception of the rest of the world is a continuation of the problem, not an address of it.
MacBeth, I am not missing anything. How can you justify France, Russia and Germany's opinion when they all had illegal ties to Iraq and Saddam? They were voting with their pocketbook. The USA has a right to protect itself, and believe you this was as much about the message being sent to the rest of the world that we will not stand idly by and let governments support terrorism. Saddam had to go, and the rest of the governments that support terrorism need to become part of the civilized world as well. The time for p***y footing around and giving a crap what some piss ant country with a neo fascist ruler says is over. You are with us or against us......and this time US means the civilized world. DD
You have done a good job morphing reality to fit your perspective. Congratulations!!! The people of France and Germany were overwhelmingly against the war. Their democratic governments can not be faulted for following the lead of their constituency. This is how democracies work. Now if you to argue that the people of France and Germany always vote for what is best for their domestic companies, go ahead. I could use a good laugh.
No worries, I do agree that their people were against the war, and as such the governments could not support the war effort. However, there is a big difference between a "no" vote and abstention. If the people of those countries knew that they were the number ONE target of terrorists from that region, perhaps they would think differently. I don't presume to understand why they did not support the war, though I can fathom to guess that they have had more then their share of wars, and would be overwhelmingly against any war, at least that is what my friends from Germany tell me. They voiced their opinions, and we voiced ours. Personally, I am happy that our government had enough sack to stand up to Saddam and let the rest of the world know that we are not going to stand for state sponsored terrorism any longer. DD
NW addressed the flaw in your Everyone else was corrupt, only we and those who followed us were right argument... Allow me to address another: So this was about how we no longer stand for governments that support terrorism, was it? Hmmm... Well, let's consider...we have, in the past, contributed more economic, political, and military aide to repressive regimes ( ie those who gain and hold power through might and violence and the willingness to use both) than anyone on the planet...We have sponsored terrorists ( Contras, ex.) and nations which support them ( Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.)...have, in fact, supplied them when we called them 'freedom fighters' rather than terrorists. Of course, when, say, the Mujha Haddin used the exact same tactics they had used against the USSR for occupying their land, and turned them on us, for occupying their land...we 1) Stopped funding them....2) called them a different name...and 3) Decalred war on....Iraq? Let's say for argument that we have turned over a new leaf...let's assume that all of the actions of Israel, Saudi Arabia etc. which we have in the past implicitlt condoned now meet with our dissaproval... Ok, why Iraq? The sole means in which Iraq stands out in the Middle East was, prior to our forcing them together, the mutual antipathy with which Hussein and Al Queada felt for one another. If you threw a dart at random at a map of the Middle East you would be hard pressed to come up with a nation less substantially connected to 9-11, or any significant level of anti-American terrorism than Iraq. It's domestic policy is harldy ideal, but that isn't the argument you're making here...you're saying it's about terrorism, as inspired by 9-11... The equivalent would be like saying we're starting a war on drugs, and those that supply them, and invading Australia, while continuing standard diplomatic relations with Columbia, Afhanistan, etc...Yes, there are probably drugs made in Australia, but it is hardly a reasonable excuse for invading them. The fact that they had oil, a pre-exisating emnity with the US in general, and Bush in particular, and were an easy target are much more understandable excuses for why Iraq...
There are two separate arguments here, that have become entangled. The first is: Was the US justified in invading Iraq, independently of the international community? The second is: To what extent should the US defer its old collective judgment to that of the international community? While the two arguments are related in this context, they have to be discussed separately, because they have nothing in common logically (although there is probably a sliding scale relationship, in that the greater certainty we had of Saddam's threat, the less we should listen to anybody else).
More info out today CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Tuesday June 10, 2003 The Guardian The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely. As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,974138,00.html
"The interrogation reports of two senior al-Qaida members, both in US custody, showed that the CIA had reason to doubt the allegations of a connection between Saddam's regime and the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. " Is what Al Qaeda says really that valuable? Come on.
oh gee. I'm sorry! I forgot! I wasn't towing the party line. "Don't ask questions" "keep your mouth shut" and "do what you're told".
