[Arkinsaw]

The opposition to this war was not because they did not believe us or because we did not give the right reasons. The opposition to this war is because we are the United States of America.

[optimistically_conservative]

No.

But that's too easy to answer since a review of the Clinton's effort in 1998 already provides that answer.

[SamAdams76]

Nope.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate to Free Republic, and Save Larry The Lobster!!!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Restorer]

NO.

Most of the world's elites are justifiably terrified of giving the US power to unilaterally decide which nation we're going to overthrow this week.

Actually, we already have the power.

[CharacterCounts]

Would the world have supported this war?

France would have opposed the war even if it was to liberate France.

The Germans would have opposed the war just because France did.

The Russians really didn't oppose they war - they were just hoping for a lot more American dead.

[Dog Gone]

They would have if Bush were a Democrat.

[stylin19a]

They didn't do anything to help us, and they couldn't do anything to stop us.
I'm guessing the same thing would have applied without the WMD.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"What if he did not mention WMD or terrorism or threats to neighboring countries? Would the world have supported this war?"

Since when did the world support the war? Did I miss something?

[Naspino]

Hmm -- I bet they would have said:

What suffering -- what torture. Saddam won 100% of the vote. The people love him. Then we'd have seen article after article and news special after news special of interviews with Iraqis sitting in cafes inside of Baghdad saying "We do not want America here -- we will kill the Americans -- we love Saddam..."

Actually -- I got the last part from reality because PBS and NBC showed a nearly identical interview before the war.

[Physicist]

Would the world have supported this war?

I don't know, but I probably wouldn't have. We are not the world's policeman. We went to war because our vital interests were at stake (unlike in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc.). That's the only reason America should ever go to war.

[snooker]

No, the world, especially the UN world, likes murdering dictators. The UN has proved it time after time. We just look the other way, unless they blow up NY, then we get real mad and flatten those that do the deed or their enablers.

Freeing the Iraqis was a bonus. Peventing Chicago from being blown up was the real reason. I don't like Chicago's football team so I picked that city as an example. VBG.

[marktwain]

No.

The opposition to this war was not about the reasons for the war. The opposition to the war was against America. The people who were against this war hate America, and want to do everything they can to pull it down. They could see that this war was in America's best interest, thus, even though it was in the people of Iraq's best interest, and in the best interest of the world, they opposed it.

[Maigrey]

The left leaning people would have still wrung their hands over this, saying that the UN should dictate, blah, blah, blah....

[Billthedrill]

The answer to your question reverberates in the news still. "There is no proof." We'll be digging bodies up for decades, uncovering prisons, torture chambers, records of death squads, pictures of victims, and still we will be hearing "there is no proof."

There is one kind of moral judgement that considers another's actions against abstract ideals and absolutes, and another one that must be made by someone confronting the choice between evils. "War is never right" says the one, and when the other replies "not even to end this?" the only way out for the one not having to make the hard choice is "there is no proof." It is not an answer, it is an evasion.

[RLK]

This entire series of military actions has grown like topsy. It started out with airplanes being flown into buildings on 9/11 followed by the speech ending in "let's roll" in presumable retaliation. Hussein is a nasty character, as are numerous other people in the world. There are leaders in Africa, for instance, that Hussein look like a choir boy. It is not clear that Hussein had anything directly to do with what happened. A case was created against Hussein, and acted upon.

Don't get me wrong. I hope Hussein got his head busted by one of those bunker bombs. But the continuity of logic to all that has happened in terms of American military action is a bit tenuous.

Should the U. S. clean house in a number of places in the world. If we don't we are not going to survive. If we do clean house, many countries are not going to like it. I am waiting to see a coherent pattern and policy come out of this. If there is one, it will be the work of Donald Rumsfeld.

[bluecollarman]

No and we shouldn't have. People have to throw out their own dictactors for the most part. If we fought wars only to take care of repressive dictators we would be at war constantly. Where would it end?

There is one benny though, no dictator could receive any comfort from this war.

[TheLion]

We wouldn't have bothered if there wasn't WMD and this regime wasn't such a threat. I think Bush could have pulled it off if he could show direct involvement of an attack against the US, as per Afghanistan and 9/11.

Without the direct attack or proof of a serious threat, we couldn't have launched this war.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

If that was our only goal, I wouldn't have supported it.

[capitan_refugio]

I suppose then, it would have been a "crusade."