Thanks FBD,
I'm glad to see that some people are able to argue their points instead of just slinging personal attacks.
I have mixed thoughts on the war in Iraq myself. I supported the invasion, but not for the reasons the Bush Administration gave the American public. I just didn't see a strong enough case made for it.
Second, The war was poorly planned. Once again our soldiers were sent to fight a war that has been managed by politically correct politicians instead of Generals.
Where's the exit strategy?
I wouldn't be so quick to call it a Democracy, either. The Administration itself has admitted to having lesser expectations on that one and they've yet to agree on a constitution yet.
Personally, I would have waged a war on illegal immigration before I sent our soldiers into Iraq. Saddam wasn't an immediate threat to the US, yet we have Mexican soldiers firing on our border patrol officers, let alone the fact that the Mexican government supports illegal border crossing by providing how-to-do booklets to its citizens. Are these not acts of war?
That being said, I do believe that Saddam had to be dealt with. Unfortunately the entire world somehow thinks the responsibility of bringing peace to the Middle-East should fall on the shoulders of the United States and in order for that to happen Saddam had to be removed. He was a major source of the instability in the region by providing rewards to the families of homicide bombers in Israel and as long as that continued there would never be peace. Now that he is gone the homicide bombings have stopped, cease-fires have taken the place of tit-for-tat attacks, the West Bank is being handed over to the Palestinians and headway is being made for peace.
I don't believe any of that would have been possible if Saddam were still in power.
.
That has always been an extremely poor argument to me. As a vet, and I think I can speak for a few other vets, no so-called "exit strategy" needs to be discussed until the entire mission is completed. It took how long after WWII before we exited Germany, for example?
Win first. The exit strategy comes later.
Yes he was by way of his oil and his proclivity to fund suicide bombings in Israel. At $25grand a pop, the Palestinians were more than willing to sell their kids for suicide bombers. The only way that Israel could break the Baghdad/Hammas connection was to "nuke" Baghdad. The US is fighting a conventional war in the Middle East to try and keep the nuclear genie in its brittle bottle. Even if its Israels
President Bush is as Conservative as Reagan was; if not more so. I suggest that you take a look at the President Bush accomplishment list that is often posted to FR.
Reagan raised taxes, after he lowered them, he did less than NOTHING about abortion, he pulled out of Lebanon, instead of staying to finish the fight and gave a BLANKET PARDON/AMNESTY to every single ILLEGAL alien who was here and did NOTHING about the borders.