It is worth noting the a majority of the world's industrialized democracies supported us in Iraq.
It's also worthy of noting that most of the _people_ in those nations did not support us in Iraq, including the people of Spain. It's also worthy of noting that some of the countries we used to count as our staunchest allies did not support the war including Germany, Canada and Mexico.
But, clearly you believe that the war in Iraq should not have been pursued without a stronger coalition. Out of curiosity, why then, did you
support the War in Yugoslavia over the objections of the international
community?
1. We had the support of all our NATO allies.
2. It was a limited action not designed to actually take over and occupy a nation.
3. The government attacked was in the opening stages of a genocide.
4. The action could not be construed as benefiting the strategic and economic interests of the U.S. or its allies.
Additionally, let's say there was similar worldwide support for the War in Afghanistan? After all, Al Qaeda was an independent organization, and the Taliban certainly hadn't attacked the United States... Would you still
have supported the War in Afghanistan over the objections of the
International Community?
Yes. They were harboring the heinous criminals that committed the 9/11 atrocities. Our actions against the Taliban was justified. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaida.
Moreover in the future, to which other countries are you willing to assign this "veto power" over US foreign policy? China? Russia? France?
Or are you merely using "strong international coalitions" as a red herring?
I'm using "strong international coalitions" as justification for attacking a country that has not been proven to be a threat to our national security.
This is classic liberal thinking in measuring success by the amount of
money spent on a problem, rather than the results. One of the most
notable news stories of the past few months has been the US's success, with cooperation from the Pakistani government, in turning the Tribal Leaders of Pakistan's Northwest Territories into allies in the War on Terrorism and
the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Given previous assesments of the strategic assessment in Pakistan's Northwest Territories, this is a remarkable turn
of events indeed.
And the war on terrorism should be fought in this manner, not by attacking a country that had little or nothing to do with the world wide terrorist network that was responsible for 9/11 and now 3/11.
And I love the "clasic liberal thinking" line. Is it clasic conservative thinking to underestimate the cost of an action by an order of magnitude and then poo poo the cost with coments like the above.
Instead of low profile actions that strike at the heart of terrorism, we've provided Al Qaeda and other groups a spectacular recruiting tool.
Do you have any evidence that the presence of US troops in Iraq is proving a stronger recruiting tool for Al Qaeda than the presence of US troops in
the Muslim Holy Land in Saudi Arabia?
It's obvious to me John. We were in S.A. at their invitation, and they could have told us to leave at any time. From the viewpoint of those that hate the U.S., it's probably like the difference between house guest's overstaying their welcome and an armed home invasion. The two aren't even in the same league.
Presuming that US troops had to be located in either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, isn't a temporary > deployment in Iraq - eventually leading to handover to the United Nations or a democratic Iraq a better scenario for US in our conflict with Al Qaeda than an
interminable US deployment in the Muslim Holy Land?
A better scenario would be to put relentless pressure on Al Quada through a cooperative world wide anti-terrorist offensive. Iraq was already isolated and weak, and the only terrorist camps were in the Kurdish held territory in the north which we declined to take out! We could have pulled out of S.A. any time - there are several other U.S. bases in the area as you yourself have pointed out.
I'm sorry Doug, but the evidence simply does not support your conclusion that inspections work..... indeed, any US President who supported your conclusions would clearly be guilty of criminal malpractice, based on the track record of intelligence and inspections.
This U.S. president is clearly guilty of malpractice and negligence based on his fighting the wrong war at the wrong time. How many more terrorist victories like the one in Spain will there be because we've directed our resources in the wrong direction toward the wrong people and alienated many of those that could have helped us?
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
