Ed, despite your emotional personal attack, I will attempt to give you a reasoned response. But first, let me deal with the tone of your post.
1. You don't *know* me.
2. You don't *know* whether I have family or friends in Iraq.
So spare me the *you're a coward* BS.
I roger the fact that you don't believe in the cause we're fighting for. The only problem is, your point of view was in the minority when we decided as a nation to engage Hussein's forces in Iraq. It was in the minority when both houses of congress voted to engage Saddam's forces in Iraq, and it was in the minority when the President made his decision as Commander in Chief to engage Saddam's forces in Iraq. That decision was also re-enforced recently with the re-election of the Commander in Chief, after a thorough airing during a Presidential campaign. They voted to stay the course, and finish the job.
I realize that was a bitter pill for you to swallow and you wish it weren't true. However, it's a straightforward fact. We live in a democracy, and we decide things as a society based on that premise.
It appears you don't support that methodology. Fine, perhaps you could describe a better, more humane model a society should utilize when making the decisions of whether to go to war? I've asked that simple question a few times on this thread, and all I've received is obfuscation and emotional name calling in response.
While describing your "better model", perhaps you will keep in mind we didn't begin this war. Radical Islamic fascist terrorists began it when they attacked us on numerous occasions, including of course 9/11. No one rolled over in bed one day and said, "hey, let's end the Hussein regime and put our military forces at risk in a war zone and replace the government with something more humane and democratic". The decision was taken after careful analysis, debate, and with consideration of what would happen if we did nothing, or some other course of action. I happen to agree with the premise we could only expect more of the same in the future, unless we dealt with the underlying root cause of terrorism. That being, lack of democracy, freedom and prosperity. While helping to build this foundation, in the interim we have to capture or kill as many terrorists as possible, before they inflict another damaging assault on our society and free societies around the world.
The probability that Hussein would still be in power today, assisting terrorist organizations, butchering thousands, and killing and raping the innocent had our forces not engaged and taken him out of power, is a certain as the sun rising somewhere in the world. And it's sheer folly and wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
So the question you should ask yourself is how would peace, justice and stability exist in Iraq and the free nations of the world, with Hussein rolling in billions from back-door U.N. deals and funneling the money to terrorist organizations? You should also ask yourself, why you appear to care so little for the thousands of women and children who were being tortured and killed for years in Iraq? Or the many who died at the hands of terrorists and suicide bombers around the world? Oh, and please spare me the "Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 nonsense". Because, whether he was a directly involved in 9/11 was not the issue, Hussein was a grand supporter of terrorism, was directly linked to the first trade center bombing, attempted to murder one of America's former President's, and was one of only a handful of dictators in history willing to use chemical weapons against the innocent. I could go on....
The piece which prompted you to post this attack was written to put some historical context in place as the emotion drivel media focus on 2000 casualties alone.
In that context, it drove the point home rather clearly. |
