Someone must be getting fired. How did this piece get through?
There are some very interesting stats in this article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
13 comments:
And any day now we'll find the weapons of mass destruction that are pointed in our direction.
You can let go of the WMD's now.
Yeah, Republicans (and apparantly Libertarians) would love everyone to forget that.
Never forget - just stop using it as a reason we should not be there. There is a bigger principle to this fight that we need to all be aware of.
Which is all fine, except that Bush never mentioned that purpose when we started the war, so it's a fine reason to defend the war but worthless for defending the administration. that's who the WMD comments are attacking anyway.
Bush did mention democracy but of course he did sell it with the headling of WMD's. But democracy was mentioned.
Just because John Stewart failed to mention the other reason doesn't mean there was no other reason.
Establishing a democarcy in Iraq was always a stated reason, its just not the one MSM or the bush adminstration focused on. This was more a function of trying to get support from the UN. The focus there was on trying to get the UN to make good on any one of the 13 resolutions Saddam had violated. The vast majority of the violations having to deal with weapons of mass destruction.
Personally i support a policy of invading a counry for the explicit purpose of setting up democarcy but people on the left and in Europe get very upset when you try and stop a tryant from killing millions of his own people. We should respect that culture.
"Personally i support a policy of invading a counry for the explicit purpose of setting up democarcy but people on the left and in Europe get very upset when you try and stop a tryant from killing millions of his own people. We should respect that culture."
I can understand how people want to overthrow tyrants but didn't Bush himself say that there is a "war on terror" going on now? As far as I know, there was no evidence that Iraq was linked to Al Qaida or Bin Laden.
Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Shifting focus to Iraq (because they had an evil man in power) when the job was clearly not done in Afghanistan (a form of cut and run to use Bush's own rhetoric) was not the right thing to do.
Iraq can now probably be rightfully called the "central front" on the war on terror (congrats Bush, you got that one right) only because we're there.
What about the real threats to the U.S. and our allies (Iran and North Korea who both have proven that they are actively engaged in making nuclear weapons).
And what about Bin Laden? Maybe sooner or later we'll find him in a spider hole north of Baghdad too.
Nuclear - did you miss the part where Disabusive said that he is comfortable going into Iraq becuase there was a tryant who was killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of his own people. Hence we are comfortable going in there and knocking that crap off.
ANd yes when we are done with Iraq we are comfortable going into Iran and the North Korea. Not as imperialism - we dont want those countries. We want democracies.
"Not as imperialism - we dont want those countries. We want democracies."
we call it "missionarism"...
Liberals don't want to use the military for humanitarian goals? Are you high? Didn't Clinton launch like a dozen humanitarian military ventures during his tenure? Isn't that like the classic example of exactly what liberals want to do with the military?
I can’t tell if your comment is directed at me since I accused the left of being unwilling to invade a country to replace a despot with a democracy and not being unwilling to use some kind military intervention.
US Policy up until Bush (Republican and Democratic) has been limited military intervention. On the whole this policy has failed which is why I support full scale invasion. The principle that shows why limited intervention fails was first illustrated to my by a board game called Axis and Allies. I remember the first time I bombed the hell out of a country and wanted to take its resources but was informed I couldn’t because you can’t control a country with bombers. The ability to control territory was reserved for infantry. This basic principle informs me as to why limited military intervention normally fails and why the drastic option of invasion must be done if you are serious about change in a country.
Post a Comment