Me: Doesn't it bother you that Iraq flouted 17 UN resolutions. 17! What did the UN do in response to Iraq's intransigence. Absolutely nothing! Talk about a toothless tiger. If the UN didn't perceive Iraq as a potential threat, why bother passing all of those resolutions?
Foe: As I recall the administration criticized the weapons inspectors for not finding any WMD in 100 (105?) days of looking. Well the US has been in control of Iraq longer than that. Even with control of the country they cannot find any WMD. Looking back on the intelligence of the time (not Bush's selective intelligence and deceptive case for war), it was reasonable to delay action.
Recall that I am critical also of the administration's decision to go it alone, to incorrectly estimate the cost (in lives and $$$) for the war, to goad on terrorists, and to squander the sympathy and good will that the world had for our country after 9/11. I am not in the least surprised that Iraq flouted UN resolutions. Given his weakness, it was the only way Saddam had to bother the rest of the world.
Me: The UN thought it important enough to pass 17 resolutions, but not important enough to actually enforce them. What sort of signal does that send to rogue nations?
The French, Germans, and Russians all had commecial interests that were driectly tied to Sadam's regime. Does it surprise you that they didn't come on board? Many nations did by the way.
I guess you look to the French, I country that lets 13,000 of it elderly citizens die of heat stroke and who hires Woody Allen as their spokesperson, for moral authority? Well, I don't. The US an and should react when it's natioanl interests are at stake.
If freeing Iraq and ending the repressive and torturous Sadam regime provides a model for other Arab nations and reduces the risk of terror at home, I think that the money is well spent.
Foe: I believe that what we have "spent" in lives and dollars has INCREASED the risk of terror at home and abroad. It is indeed too high a price to pay. What now, do we invade Korea? Iran? Syria?
There was no doubt in my mind that we were legally justified to invade Iraq due to their violations of UN sanctions. But we were not required to do so. Again, Saddam was a toothless tiger (outside of Iraq). Our nation does not have the legal nor moral responsibility to dethrone despots throughout the world. Was Saddam a bad guy? YES! Am I sorry that he is gone? No! Was it the right thing for our country to have done? Definitely NOT!
Knowing what we know now, do you really think that we should have invaded Iraq?
Me: I don't believe that the action in Iraq has increased the threat of terror. On the contrary, making idle threats like the UN did by passing 17 resolutions and not enforcing them does.
Do we invade other counties that are part of the axis of evil? If they pose a threat to our national security and every other means is exhausted, hell yes.
WWII was expensive too. Do you think that we were wrong for participating in that campaign? By the way, what do you think the cost will be if terrorists cripple our economy?
In retrospect, do I think we should have invaded Iraq. Yes!
Foe: Recall, however, that we entered WWII after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until they declared war on us. Our response in Afganistan to attack Al Qeda was a justifiable response to the 9/11 attacks. Recall that the White House stated recently that there was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Where is the justification? There are many countries in the world with closer ties to Al Qeda (Iran, Saudi Arabia). So you suggest that we should invade them? What about the threat from North Korea? They may have nuclear weapons.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree.
Me: I only brought up WWII because sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of the cost.
Of course, the liberals would like to spend that money on domestic issues, because in their view there's nothing that enough money and enough bureaucrats won't fix.
If a country presents a threat to our national security and all diplomatic efforts have failed, I have no problem with taking any means necessary to thwart them. And, I have no problem with my tax dollars going to that purpose.
My grandfather and my father were liberals in the FDR tradition. I didn't know my grandfather, but I suspect he influenced my father. For me (and my sister), his views never made any sense since most of his positions were based on emotion and party loyalty rather than logic. Likewise, most liberals I listen to are knee jerk reactionaries who want to force their opinions down your throat because they believe you are to stupid to think for yourself.
Okay, I know I'm getting a little off topic with the last line.
Foe: As I recall the administration criticized the weapons inspectors for not finding any WMD in 100 (105?) days of looking. Well the US has been in control of Iraq longer than that. Even with control of the country they cannot find any WMD. Looking back on the intelligence of the time (not Bush's selective intelligence and deceptive case for war), it was reasonable to delay action.
Recall that I am critical also of the administration's decision to go it alone, to incorrectly estimate the cost (in lives and $$$) for the war, to goad on terrorists, and to squander the sympathy and good will that the world had for our country after 9/11. I am not in the least surprised that Iraq flouted UN resolutions. Given his weakness, it was the only way Saddam had to bother the rest of the world.
Me: The UN thought it important enough to pass 17 resolutions, but not important enough to actually enforce them. What sort of signal does that send to rogue nations?
The French, Germans, and Russians all had commecial interests that were driectly tied to Sadam's regime. Does it surprise you that they didn't come on board? Many nations did by the way.
I guess you look to the French, I country that lets 13,000 of it elderly citizens die of heat stroke and who hires Woody Allen as their spokesperson, for moral authority? Well, I don't. The US an and should react when it's natioanl interests are at stake.
If freeing Iraq and ending the repressive and torturous Sadam regime provides a model for other Arab nations and reduces the risk of terror at home, I think that the money is well spent.
Foe: I believe that what we have "spent" in lives and dollars has INCREASED the risk of terror at home and abroad. It is indeed too high a price to pay. What now, do we invade Korea? Iran? Syria?
There was no doubt in my mind that we were legally justified to invade Iraq due to their violations of UN sanctions. But we were not required to do so. Again, Saddam was a toothless tiger (outside of Iraq). Our nation does not have the legal nor moral responsibility to dethrone despots throughout the world. Was Saddam a bad guy? YES! Am I sorry that he is gone? No! Was it the right thing for our country to have done? Definitely NOT!
Knowing what we know now, do you really think that we should have invaded Iraq?
Me: I don't believe that the action in Iraq has increased the threat of terror. On the contrary, making idle threats like the UN did by passing 17 resolutions and not enforcing them does.
Do we invade other counties that are part of the axis of evil? If they pose a threat to our national security and every other means is exhausted, hell yes.
WWII was expensive too. Do you think that we were wrong for participating in that campaign? By the way, what do you think the cost will be if terrorists cripple our economy?
In retrospect, do I think we should have invaded Iraq. Yes!
Foe: Recall, however, that we entered WWII after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until they declared war on us. Our response in Afganistan to attack Al Qeda was a justifiable response to the 9/11 attacks. Recall that the White House stated recently that there was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Where is the justification? There are many countries in the world with closer ties to Al Qeda (Iran, Saudi Arabia). So you suggest that we should invade them? What about the threat from North Korea? They may have nuclear weapons.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree.
Me: I only brought up WWII because sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of the cost.
Of course, the liberals would like to spend that money on domestic issues, because in their view there's nothing that enough money and enough bureaucrats won't fix.
If a country presents a threat to our national security and all diplomatic efforts have failed, I have no problem with taking any means necessary to thwart them. And, I have no problem with my tax dollars going to that purpose.
My grandfather and my father were liberals in the FDR tradition. I didn't know my grandfather, but I suspect he influenced my father. For me (and my sister), his views never made any sense since most of his positions were based on emotion and party loyalty rather than logic. Likewise, most liberals I listen to are knee jerk reactionaries who want to force their opinions down your throat because they believe you are to stupid to think for yourself.
Okay, I know I'm getting a little off topic with the last line.
Facebook
Twitter