Heh-heh.
The fact that you can't see the difference in that effort and the "nation building" debacle going on in Iraq is just another reason why I shouldn't be "dialoging" with you.
Funny...why is it that every time I challenge one of you pro-appeasement conservatives with a few questions, one of the following things happens:
1. I'm accused of being ignorant (or, occasionally, out of line, etc.) and the appeaser refuses to talk any more because I'm too stupid.
2. I'm accused of dishonoring our troops--yeah, that's why I froze my tuchis off every Saturday this winter at troop support rallies, because I think servicemembers are chumps-- and the appeaser refuses to talk any more because I'm too unpatriotic.
3. The appeasement conservative sends an insult my way and then apparently get distracted by some shiny object.
This is odd, because y'all should be able to easily answer these questions by drawing from the vast font of your foreign policy wisdom. Watch, even an ignoramus like me can answer a question:
How many were shot down?
None that I'm aware of. Still, the last time I checked, firing on another nation's troops was still an act of war, and those troops were flying those missions because Hussein signed a surrender treaty. I don't think we have to wait for a kid to come home in a box for a (by necessity) closed-casket funeral before we consider this a problem. BTW, if those 17 sailors on the Cole had survived, would that have been an act of war? Would you have volunteered to be the guy to tell the mom of the first F-16 driver to get shot down, "Well ma'am, we didn't think the Iraqis were really meaning any harm!"
See, I did it, so you can too! So, let's try it again--secure any shiny objects in your immediate vicinity (just in case) and read on. Here are a few questions that have made you guys (especially Austin Willard Wright) run for the hills in the past. Are you tough enough?
The Big Five Questions of Ultimate Iraqi Wisdom!
Finish one or more of the following sentences and show us the boffo supra-genius reasoning that lead you to it:
1. Iraq was not a terrorist state, and my case for this assertion is...
2. Even though Iraq harbored, trained and funded terroists, it was not a legitimate target because...
3. We should not be fighting the War on Terror at all because...
4. Fewer than 800 total casualties in a world war that started with the slaughter of 3,000 noncombatants on our home soil is a huge problem because...
5. If we leave terrorist states up and running, I foresee the next major terrorist attack will be prevented by...
Let me throw a couple more in here...
If deposing a regime that harbors, trains and funds terrorists is not a way to fight terrorism, what do you suggest?
If Saddam was too toothless to bother with, could you please cite the vast military power that justified the Afghan war?
Are you sure we're not doing any nation-building in Afghanistan?
Why exactly did our total inability to respond to terrorism scare Khaddaffi so much that he gave up any future chance of nuclear blackmail?
Go on, answer 'em. You can do it...
It seems to me you my have your own, and quite different, agenda. I won't go there (and I dare say you won't either).