Yikes! I think I won't be able to respond to all those questions without writing a thesis. Which would bore the crap out of everyone.
you were in favor of continuing to turn the other cheek so to speak....
So to speak :)I would have equated Saddam with a mosquito not a tiger. Reason for war, to me, means unequivocal aggressive attack on US. Saddam was a pennyante dictator- one among several. We ignored others and went for him, weakened as he was. But most reprehensible, once the decision to do so was made, was the refusal to acknowledge the history and culture of this country that had never truly BEEN a country and had no foundation on which to build something workable, and ignore any oppositional advice. This outcome was predictable, and many people did predict it, even right here on SI. Heck, even I figured it out.
I will pass on the UN, and on Soros. But about the bringing us to our knees. For every scholar declaring the existential threat, so is there one arguing against that particular scenario. To protect our way of life doesn't mean we go in and destroy other ways of life. What we do is preserve our values here and defend us here. And we go after cells, and movements, but not other countries and other peoples.
To me, sending in uw's professional troops to take care of situations in a more targeted and expert manner is less morally offensive than sending 150K of our youth into what we now have. |
