Posted on 12/08/2003 5:17:21 AM PST by DeuceTraveler
Clarify the question please. Does this ask which of our wars I would not have supported in advance?
BS!
Not sure how to respond to that except that it's my answer. I've found that not everyone agrees with my answers, regardless of their ideological predilection.
How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs.
I think the counter-argument to calls for proof of WMD stocks and programs before the war (and before going to war) was that we weren't being allowed the access, as you point out. Other than that, I interpret your complaint as now having that access, we have not in a matter of months found all, or more, of those answers. That's a fair, if not ambitious, complaint. I think I've heard the same complaint from within the ranks of the GOP, be they 'conservative' or not.
On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?
I don't get FoxNews, so I'm not in a position to answer what they are or are not discussing now, or anymore. Perhaps you could ask FoxNews?
If it would be easier to provide example(s) of the wars you would have supported, please do. The question is probing your anti-war motivation. Anti-war motivations are sometimes based on strict constitutional complaince to form, pacifism, ideological enmity, etc. In cases other than pacifism, sometimes I find it helps me to understand a person's opposition by asking the counter question of which wars meet approval and why.
I am in favor of any war which defends our country or the rights of it's citizens. I am opposed to any war which has any other purpose. And I am well aware that people in favor of nation building and adventurism will aways attempt to paint their favorite wars as doing those two things. Some are tricked, I am not.
Therefore, I support WWII and the War against Afghanistan. Off the top of my head I can't think of any others.
From what I can tell, no nation in that region is unaffected by our current operations.
Do I think we should have simultaneously gone to war on all the nations in the Middle East and North Africa that support(ed) terrorism? No, I think the "why not" of such a decision is self-evident.
Do I think a decision not to go to war with all those nations simultaneously excludes going to war with the two we have to effect a strategic change regionally? No, picking our battlefields, both in location and timing, makes sense to me.
Are 'we' planning to go after them next? I am not privy to the future 'plans'. I would imagine 'next' and the when of 'next' has to do with who puts themselves in the line of fire at this point and how much the American people will accept. I think we're pretty max'd out right now barring another attack within our borders.
Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason.
You may certainly discount that reason, and it has historically been one emphasized after the fact. However, if it makes the masses feel happy, if not better or more committed, to a war - it often is a reason not easily discarded.
LOL - or the Druid, or the guy who fled to Canada...
I think there are interesting contrasts and analogies that can be made between those two.
For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese and the attack on the WTC/Pentagon by Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan governed by the Taliban.
Hitler's declaration of war on the US after the Japanese attack and our status of a "hot" cease fire with Saddam's Iraq (including Saddam's provocations after the cease fire was put in place), and Saddam's reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attack.
Our adventurism in Africa and Europe as part of the WWII alliance, and our adventurism in the Middle East as part of (and leader of) a NATO alliance in Afghanistan and a (rouge, from world government's view) coalition in Iraq.
I think there are analogies and contrasts with the wars I imagine were intentionally left off the list:
Our intergenerational commitments in Europe and Asia in national building as victors in WWII combat, our intergenerational commitment to South Korea, Bosnia/Kosovo, and our predictable intergenerational committment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Another interesting contrast might be our intergenerational commitment to what might be called anti-nation building toward Vietnam and Cuba.
So much to consider...so little time to debate....
Yep... I made the mistake of sending him a link to an article here- foolishly thinking that the information would be at least appreciated, and got a thoroughly nasty "don't you EVER send me anything from Free Republic!" reply.
Needless to say, he made an enemy with that. He did not have to be rude and crude.
It is clear at this point that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue in the foreseeable future. Only finding banned weapons will bring us together - you to our position - because regardless of any discovery, this war, IMO, was completely justified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.