Replies

We went to Iraq to free its people so that they became an example for the peoples in the Middle East.

Umm, no.

SOTU 2003

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

The first and foremost reason given for months. Do you not remember poor Colin Powell having to give that ridiculous speech at the UN? Complete with transfer truck labs and suggestions of underground 'garages' of WMDs? Freeing the Iraqi people was a somewhat excuse but nothing gets the peoples riled like threats of WMDs.

As for your nonsensical going to Iraq to 'free its people' I suggest you reread Adams' advice that is still, even more so, true today.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Of course don't let such words and beliefs mislead you from your 'conservative' principles.

I suggest you reread Adams' advice that is still, even more so, true today.

The Founding Fathers would support WOT if they were alive nowadays, just like Thomas Jefferson sent ships to the Mediterranean because of the pirates' blackmail and attacks on American ships. America was attacked then and America responded then.

America was attacked on 9/11 (and it was the worst attack against the USA in history) and America is responding since. If liberating Iraq, the Middle East becomes freer (I mean freedom spreads through that region, that is a fact), the terrorists lose their main harbor and breeding ground.

In short, if President Jefferson responded to the pirates (whose attacks are not comparable to the 9/11 attack), what would he have done now? He would have supported President Bush and the WOT clearly.

Of course don't let such words and beliefs mislead you from your 'conservative' principles.

Thomas Jefferson would be conservative nowadays and stand with President Bush, America and freedom; not with the liberals or the isolationist libertarians.

Adams quote (below) is a nice quote for proof texting (trying to substantiate an argument by simply finding a quote somewhere that you think agrees with your argument) but the test is whether or not the argument holds up, which in the case of Adams' quote (below) does not.

/i/"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."/i/

Though the "independence" of the Iraqi people, in their own democratic political system, is a goal we have in Iraq, it is neither proved nor can it be assumed that that goal places us "beyond the power of extrication"; no matter how slow the progress of the Iraqi people seems, from day to day.

Neither is there any evidence of any national objective of "avarice, envy or ambition" that "usurp the standard of freedom" for either ourselves or the people of Iraq - in fact, quite the opposite. "The fundamental maxim of our policy" has not been a change from "liberty to force", but a judicious use of force in the service of liberty - for us and for the people of Iraq, as has been (not ambition or avarice or envy) our goals.