Me: I don't think we went into Iraq at the right time in the right way.
ACG: Hi G, what would you consider the right time and right way?
-------
Short answer: I don't think we should invade a country in the name of the U.N. based on a U.N. resolution when the U.N. has made it clear they do not support us or feel they have authorized us to act in their name. In a case like that we should either do it our own, based on American principles or not do it at all.
Long answer: I'm not going into the long answer because I don't want to detract focus from supporting the President and the troops until the job is done. When the war is over we can Monday morning quarterback.
And that is a perfect example of how I get called a Bushbot from both the left and the right even though I'm not doing anything robot-like.
I am not mindlessly following the President. I am making a conscience decision to support our commander in chief, in spite of differences, because its the right thing to do.
We didn't invade a country in the name of the UN, that is ridiculous.
Saddam tried to execute a President and was known to be funding terrorism outside of Iraq against an ally we are under treaty to defend. It was in our interest to removed the man as part of an ongoing WOT and all here on FR would say the UN was a hindrance more than anything in everything surrounding Saddam.
We try to follow the UN stuff to some extent so we don't end up coming off like a nation of loose canons to the rest of the world officially.
By the way, can you name any successful UN resolutions that have formed a peace anywhere? I can't right off the top of my head.
What is your definition of going on the RIGHT WAY? If you were the big general, what would you do when considering the world wide implications of actions?
PS, I don't think you or anyone here would be putting down an effort or troops by expressing opinions, I think we can handle frank and honest discussions... :-)