The Right War, the Right Place, the Right Time Think twice.

Now that John Kerry has decided (well, for the moment), that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," it's worth revisiting the underlying rationale for the war — in a slightly unorthodox way. Rather than taking at face value what George W. Bush has said about his decision-making, let's premise here that there are certain realities an American president must tacitly acknowledge but cannot fully articulate since the articulation itself would further jeopardize national security. The underlying rationale for the war in Iraq — apart from whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, apart from whether he was collaborating with al Qaeda — is likely one such reality.

I remember moving into a new neighborhood when I was seven years old. I made friends quickly, especially with those my age, but the second or third week an older boy on the block wanted to let me know that this was his turf. He was your typical insecure bully about twelve years old with his entourage of kids all my age, "his gang", who he had probably already "beat up" once or twice to show them who was boss. Anyway, this particular day he pushed me down. Instead of running, crying or doing nothing, as his "gang" laughed, I got back up and took a swing at him that landed on his chin. He was more stunned than hurt by it. In seconds he had me pinned and my nose bloodied. He never bothered me again but, more important no one in his "gang" ever messed with me, I think because they knew, unlike them I was going to fight back.

THE REASON WE WENT INTO IRAQ IS IN THIS ARTICLE. IF WE HAD NOT RETALIATED AS WE DID, AS SURE AS THE SUN RISES, MORE ATTACKS FROM LESSER FOES WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED.

America has showed their resolve. The two bit punks in the world whether they be North Korea, Iran or even China are sure of one thing. Our country under the presidency of George Bush will fight back if we're provoked. It has nothing to do with WMD. I think all we have to do is send a quiet message, (has anyone else ever thought that maybe we let Kaddafi pick up a quiet message from us that "he was going to be next on the list?")

Seems like Syria is making some movement to leave Lebanon, could it be that they know, come November 3, the US has something in store for them if they continue to harbor terrorists?

Mark these words. Once we settle this with Iraq, make our intentions clear with Iran and N. Korea, if they choose to threaten us, there will be a period of peace in this world.

John Kerry knew and condoned the ad that show a US soldier surrendering. America has never surrendered and never will. The word "Victory" is not even in Kerry's vocabulary, but I can guarantee you the word "Surender" is.

nick

I've been arguing this point since the beginning, usually to no avail (not here, I mean with the nitwits I deal with on a daily basis). There are other upsides here as well:

Flypaper for terrorists. You wanna meet your god? Fine, splatter yourself on a Bradley instead of a schoolbus. Take potshots at the guys with M-16's and airstrike support. See where that gets you.

Introduction of non-autocratic rule in the ME. Sure, it might fail. But it's a start. And Iran is next - the people there actually WANT it.

The key word in your post is "retaliated". Indeed, America AND Britain have had much to retalite FOR in the past 14 years. After Saddam signed that cease fire agreement, only the Americans and Brits stood between the Kurds in the north and various other ancient, non-Arab tribes in the Asouth and total genocide. Only the Americans. Only the Brits. Getting shot at all the time, while preventing Saddam from more wholesale slaughter.

All the time our troops were saving lives and putting their own at risk, the pansies of the UN were colluding WITH Saddam in the blood money for oil scam so Saddam could afford to fund and build training camps for terrorists. Mostly with American money, because we and Britain are the primary funders of that drug, death and slave trading organization called the UN.

It HAD to stop.

It went on for 8 years too long, and it HAD to end. No more blood for oil vouchers.

Great post. Shortly after 9/11 and up to the Iraq invasion I discussed and debated with co-workers why it was necessary to respond to 9/11 with excessive force. Afghanistan was not enough to deter future attacks. Iraq may not be enough to deter future attacks.

The majority of the islamic world in poll after poll admire and support Bin Ladin. Middle Eastern press distort truth to incite hatred against us. No matter what we do, we will be hated.

Low enemy casualty regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by valiant attempts to rebuild and seed democracy may give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but may not be enough.

Imho we have to use very forceful diplomacy to compel Iran, North Korea and other rogue nations to immediately cease developing WMD and stop supporting proxy terrorist groups. It is possible to peaceably resolve this. Unfortunately the UN and our Nato allies are not being helpful. Our civilization is seriously at risk.

The will to do what is necessary is lacking. Maybe after one morning when we discover a few hundred thousand Americans incinerated in our cities we will be forced to permanently solve the problem.

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.