[Damn True]

"You can never go wrong if you are doing the right thing."

I will grant the following:
The current administration has not excecuted as well as it could have in this mission.

However, the following facts remain:
In the wake of 9/11 Bin Laden pledged to continue the attacks against US soil. There has not been a sucessful attack since.
A-Q has been severely comprimised.
The Talliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has a govt. elected by its people.
The Iraq link to 9/11 supposition turned out to be false, however there does seem to be links between the Iraqi Govt. and A-Q.
Questions still remain as to the veracity of the WMD claims. However, if there were no weapons why did Hussein take such drastic measures to inturrupt inspectors. If he had nothing to hide why not open his doors and prove it?
The corruption within the UN and Iraq in regard to oil/food has been exposed.
The Iraqi populace is no longer living under a murderous, corrupt regime.
The Iraqi populace today took its first major step toward an elected govt. (1)

All of the above has been costly. All of the above has been messy. Not all of the above has gone as well as we would have liked. All of the above will someday be worth the sacrifice.

IMO the above is representative of that which defines America. Doing what is difficult and what may not be popular because it is the right thing to do.
It wasn't popular to integrate schools, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It wasn't popular to allow women to vote, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It wasn't popular to enter into WWI, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It isn't popular to say that gay people should have the same rights as straights, and it will be difficult, but it will be worth it.

See where I'm going here......the right road to travel is often rocky, and difficult to pass, the journey is tough....the destination is worth it.

(1)
You may or may not know that the election in Iraq today was to form an interim congress that will draft a constitution, outline election law, and nominate candidates for the actual governmental elections. They have a strict timeline for these tasks and the actual governmental elections are to take place some time in December.

 

[Skookum]

fair points.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Allah be Praised!! ...someone has made legitimate points in defending the actions of the Bush administration, rather than the usual "you must be unamerican" N8-esque bullcrap. Damn True, you put it nicely, and although I disagree that in this situation the US acted correctly I think your viewpoint is legitimate and you analogies are not completely misplaced. Of course the counter issues also need to be weighed...

The US was the aggressor in a war for the first time ever (debatebly), not a good precendent to set and not helping our standing in world opinion.

Regardless of how the Iraq situation turns out, there is no denying that the US people were scared into accepting this war on false pretenses of a massive threat from Iraq. More importantly, the Bush administation used the fear of the post 9/11 era to accomplish it's agenda.

Hussein's Regime in Iraq was bad, but we killed alot of people in our attempt to "liberate" them. Dead people have a hard time enjoying freedom, lets just hope that the benefits end up outweighing the costs.

As far us doing something that is unpopular becasue it is right, I agree completely that the actions of the government (or of any person or group for that matter) should not be guidely solely by what is popular. If we all listened to popular music, we would all be listening to s&*%, instead of just most of us. I think this issue exposes Bush's greatest failing, which is a complete inability to present ideas in a logical and intelligent manner, and to debate without being inflamatory. If you feel something is right, by all means defend it, but for god's sake listen to what the other side is saying and then do what you can to reconcile your viewpoint to those people. Bush makes no attempt to understand the viewpoints of his opponents. Instead he makes narrow minded, crossfire style arguments that accomplish nothing and further divide opinion rather than reaching a comprimise. Almost every time I get inot a debate with someone defending conservatism and GW, their argumanet boils down to the same basic theme... If you disagree you must be unpatriotic, unamerican, a dirty communist, ect. In the political debates with Kerry, GW relied on essentially the same tactic. Kerry makes a point, bush replies with an accusation. Unfortunately, most of America is stupid and they fall for it. So anyway, thanks for making a point.

 

[Silver]

The US was the aggressor in a war for the first time ever (debatebly), not a good precendent to set and not helping our standing in world opinion.

No, this isn't a first time thing, and it won't be the last either.

Vietnam. Grenada. Panama. A bunch of nasty stuff in South and Central America.

edit: Probably should throw Cuba in there too.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Not to mention the american revolution and the spanish american war... both debatable. I forgot about Vietnam, what can I say, I'm a youngun. My vietnam history is very poor, Im afraid it's very poorly covered in high school history classes. Wasnt there agression between the north vietnamese and the french colonists before we showed up? In Iraq we came into an entirely peaceful area and started an all out war, no police actions, no secret black operations, a real war approved by our congress and with the full knowledge of the US people. So maybe not really a first time thing, but certainly a new benchmark.

 

[Damn True]

Not to mention the american revolution and the spanish american war... both debatable. I forgot about Vietnam, what can I say, I'm a youngun. My vietnam history is very poor, Im afraid it's very poorly covered in high school history classes. Wasnt there agression between the north vietnamese and the french colonists before we showed up? In Iraq we came into an entirely peaceful area and started an all out war, no police actions, no secret black operations, a real war approved by our congress and with the full knowledge of the US people. So maybe not really a first time thing, but certainly a new benchmark.

Well if you have been told that Iraq was peaceful prior to the war you have been listening to your teachers too much.
Iraq attacked Kuait in 91, we drove them back. They then proceded to ignore or disobey 20-someodd UN resolutions, continued to murder shias and kurds, continued to corrupt the UN oil/food program, and harboured A-Q members.

Not exactly Switzerland.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

All true, but you yourself just admitted that there had not been any combat action there since the Gulf War. Human rights violations-yes, murder-yes, terrorist actions- maybe, war- no. Regardless, my point is that our presence there was not an intervention or an escalation, it was an invasion.

BTW- Im not in high school, I just havent taken history classes since except for 1000 level pre-civil war american history my freshman year. Just clarifying

 

[fluff]

However, the following facts remain:
In the wake of 9/11 Bin Laden pledged to continue the attacks against US soil. There has not been a sucessful attack since.
A-Q has been severely comprimised.
The Talliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has a govt. elected by its people.
The Iraq link to 9/11 supposition turned out to be false, however there does seem to be links between the Iraqi Govt. and A-Q.
Questions still remain as to the veracity of the WMD claims. However, if there were no weapons why did Hussein take such drastic measures to inturrupt inspectors. If he had nothing to hide why not open his doors and prove it?
The corruption within the UN and Iraq in regard to oil/food has been exposed.
The Iraqi populace is no longer living under a murderous, corrupt regime.
The Iraqi populace today took its first major step toward an elected govt.

It is an ill wind that blows no good and to risk raining on your parade the following should be borne in mind:

How long has it been previously between terrorist attacks by Islamic militants on US soil? Celebrations may be premature.

Al-qaeda has arguably been strengthened as it is a much misunderstood threat.

Links between Al-qaeda and the Iraqi government are nonsense, there is more linking the Saudi & Pakistani regimes than any other.

Regarding WMD, the US demands the same conditions that Saddam requested and the US has a terrible record on allowing weapons inspections itself (I have posted a link here at least twice).

All UN oil-for-food contracts were scrutinized and approved by both the US and UK governments.

So, in summary not all bad but not necessarily as rosy as you'd like to believe.

 

[$tinkle]

fluff: kobar towers, embassies in kenya & tanzania; these all happened on us soil, but not within our borders (maybe that was your point?)

howcome noone mentioned dresden? (35k+ women/children targeted & killed by us/uk forces 13/14 feb '45)

 

[-BB-]

It wasn't popular to integrate schools, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It wasn't popular to allow women to vote, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It wasn't popular to enter into WWI, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It isn't popular to say that gay people should have the same rights as straights, and it will be difficult, but it will be worth it.

There is a BIG difference bvetween what most people refer to as "liberal" causes and STARTING a war. Even the WWI thing was us entering a war that was ongoing and threatened our allies.

 

[fluff]

fluff: kobar towers, embassies in kenya & tanzania; these all happened on us soil, but not within our borders (maybe that was your point?)

You are correct, that is what I meant. Part of the reason for fewer attacks on such places has to be due to the number of US targets currently in Iraq in an area where it is currently very easy for terrorists to operate.

 

[Silver]

It wasn't popular to integrate schools, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It wasn't popular to allow women to vote, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It wasn't popular to enter into WWI, and it was difficult, but it is worth it.
It isn't popular to say that gay people should have the same rights as straights, and it will be difficult, but it will be worth it.

With the exception of WWI (and I'm making the exception because I don't know enough about the political parties of that time) all those things were pretty strongly opposed by conservatives.

One of them still is.

 

[$tinkle]

what i take from that is this:
"liberals need to learn to change their ways if they want to continue to be a political contender"

 

[dan-o]

what i take from that is this:
"liberals need to learn to change their ways if they want to continue to be a political contender"

Losing by 1% to an incumbant "war" president pretty much means they've gotten stronger since the 2000 election if you think about it. And there lies the rub...

 

[$tinkle]

upon thinking about it, as you advised, does that also translate to the senate, house, & gubanatorial races?

 

[dan-o]

upon thinking about it, as you advised, does that also translate to the senate, house, & gubanatorial races?

Bush's legacy will eradicate those gains soon enough.

 

[N8 v2.0]

And now the Iraqi's want to erect a statue of W in downtown Baghdad because he is the "symbol of freedom' to these people.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

And now the Iraqi's want to erect a statue of W in downtown Baghdad because he is the "symbol of freedom' to these people.

I belive that would be "Iraqi"... that's singular, not plural. Jesus N8 at least read the crap you cut and paste.

 

[Changleen]

And now the Iraqi's want to erect a statue of W in downtown Baghdad because he is the "symbol of freedom' to these people.

Correction:
And now one Iraqi wants to erect a statue of W in downtown Baghdad because he's getting him a brand new $150,000 armoured SUV with run-flats.