Posted on 03/03/2003 8:30:01 AM PST by bigaln2
Common Sense Counterpoints:
A Constitutional Response to a Common Conservative
By J.J. Johnson
Published 03. 3. 03 at 2:03 Sierra Time
It seems that the Bush Administration has finally found a case for war. The case: ”we really don’t need a case”. To that end, common sense reasons for supporting or not supporting a war have gotten lost in the rhetoric between the left and the right. For this reason, I’ve decided here to take on a well-respected conservative, Tom Adkins. His well written article, “SNAPPY ANSWERS TO STUPID LIBERAL SOUNDBYTES: Defeating the Anti-War idiots” deserves a response from a Anti-War columnist that doesn’t accept the label “idiot”. Here goes…
Tom Adkins 3/1/03
Adkins: Tired of those Stupid Liberal Soundbytes about the impending war against Iraq? Here are some handy snappy answers! Use them often!
From The Left: The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq!
Adkins: So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.
Common Sense: We’d like to know exactly how many of these 90 countries will be using their planes, ships, bombs, and troops to prosecute this war? And a key point I will make through this entire presentation: Why is a coalition needed for what is labeled as a “war of self-defense”?
From The Left: We are in a rush to war.
Adkins: An 11-year rush?
Common Sense: The above response would only have merit by admitting that the United States did not actually win the war back in 1991. Fact is, there’s no ‘rush’ to war, but there darn sure is a commitment – regardless that every demand by Washington is being answered (at least on the surface) by Baghdad. Face it, we’re going to war, and we really don’t need a good reason.
From The Left: Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq.
Adkins:11 years of inspections have done wonders so far.
Common Sense: Newsflash: What if invading doesn’t disarm him, either? There haven’t been 11 years of serious inspections. And I’m not one of those “inspection” fans, anyway. Since anyone can make chemical weapons from items in a supermarket, and bio-weapons from medical waste, it’s kind of a moot point. There hasn’t been a shred of evidence that any of that ‘gawd awful’ arsenal left Iraqi borders. We can’t say the same for North Korea, Russia, China, Israel, The United States, France, Germany… heck – a host of other countries – that all signed that “Nuclear Proliferation Treaty”. Oh check that – Israel and Pakistan didn’t sign it. North Korea just opted out, but I'm only using common sense - so what do I know?
From The Left: We should let the inspectors finish their job.
Adkins: We did. They didn't. We will.
Common Sense: Can someone define what finishing their job is? And by the way, Americans make up the majority of those inspectors. If the United States “knows” where all those weapons of mass destruction are located, why not just tell those inspecting to go look there? Yes, I know, silly notion – that’s why I call it “common sense”.
From the Left: Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.
Adkins: But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.
Common Sense: More dangerous to whom? No one has shown that Iraq has any ability to deliver those weapons here. And before you say “it can be a small as a test tube”, that only proves that invading Iraq won’t do a damn thing to stop it”. And this is another point I’d like to burn into the heads of my fellow conservatives: “When a country is invaded by a foreign power, do not stand in shock and horror when any and every weapon at their disposal is used to defend themselves. You see, it’s called “self-defense” – a natural tendency of any living animal. To say, “we have the right to invade, and they don’t have the right to defend” is not only arrogant, it’s pretty stupid.
From the Left: There's no proof of weapons.
Adkins: We know they have 'em, we know they hide 'em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?
Common Sense: I really don’t care if there are weapons there. If they are used (or threatened to be used) against the United States, I’d lead the charge for preemptive action. Which reminds me: Could someone tell me why we conservatives preached that “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) policy was a good thing for 40 years, but now it’s out the window when dealing with smaller, weaker nations?
From The Left: If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.
Adkins: I thought you said Iraq didn't have them?
Common Sense: Remember what I said above about attacking a foreign power? Let’s go over this for conservatives: You have a gun in your house. Let’s say it’s one of those ‘banned assault weapons’. They come in your house to ‘disarm’ you, illegally of course. The only question I’ve have for the pro-second amendment conservative is: “Which ‘banned assault weapon’ will you be using to defend your home?”
Any of this making sense yet? Let’s continue…
From The Left: But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.
Adkins: Oh. so if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?
Common Sense: So here’s an alternative: Let’s go get the terrorists! (what a concept). You see, dear conservatives, there isn’t too much disunity around the world on that point – it’s going after nations because “it’s Tuesday”. That’s the problem people have with this, and so do I.. And if “they” are all wrong, it’s moot. Fact is, they are on the other side in this one – something this administration can’t seem to come to grips with. Again, gimme a link between Iraq and Team Jihad or what happened on September 11, 2001, and we’ll dance – right to Baghdad, and stick flagpole waving the Stars and Stripes on Saddam’s gonads when we’re done. But until then, we’re looking like the other side of the Berlin Wall to the eyes of everyone else.
From The Left: We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution.
Adkins: ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?
Common Sense: Okay, fellow conservatives – you’ve ridden this Clinton/Bosnia horse as far as it can go. This author stood against that action as well. And if I recall, so did many a conservative. But if this is a matter of “self-defense” (you know, September 11 and all that), then why even deal with the U.N? Reality Check: Gulf War – we went to war because a nation (unprovoked) illegally invaded another. So, if it’s okay for the United States to do the same EXACT thing, what was the justification for ‘liberating’ Kuwait?
(speaking of which, when did Kuwait start having elections?)
From The Left: We don't have a real declaration for war.
Adkins: It's called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114."
Common Sense: Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Oct. 14, 2002:
”…Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration….”
Here’s more:
”…I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors…”
In short, that JCR doesn’t mention the word “war”. Sorry, it’s just the ‘Constitutionalist’ in me. Or maybe I'm just an 'idiot'.
From The Left: We are giving 20 billion to Turkey. We could use that money at home.
Adkins: OK, we'll use that money to strengthen our Iraqi border with Wyoming.
Common Sense: I’ll be nice here considering Turkey’s parliament gave the United States the middle finger after Adkins wrote this. To put it nicely, the Adkins statement lacks clarity. But I believe it safe to say that one couldn’t be called ‘unpatriotic’ (or an idiot) for saying $20 billion to say – protect our own borders, or drilling for our own oil (telling the greenies to take a hike) would be $20 billion better spent. Turkey happens to be on the border with Iraq. If Saddam is that much of a threat, Turkey should be paying US $20 billion to protect them – not the other way around. Common Sense, ain't it?
From The Left: If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?
Adkins: Uh. Hello. Isn't that the point?
Common Sense: Yes, the exact point. We have a cantankerous country threatening a first strike against the United States (capable of reaching U.S. soil) if mere U.N. sanctions are applied. So we send blood money to this blatantly communist country (hence, giving them ‘aid and comfort’). And before I hear the Rush Limbaugh nuclear weapon principle applied (“only nations that don’t admit having nuclear weapons have evil plans to use them”), Israel has nuclear weapons. Have they admitted that yet? We admit having nuclear weapons, and have all but authorized their use. Common Sense says, “it don’t make sense”.
(The next response comes after Adkin’s next four statements)
From The Left: European leaders are against the war.
Adkins: The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Place wasn't attacked. The Kremlin wasn't attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn't attacked. America was attacked. And besides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren't willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is with America.
From The Left: The French don't support the war.
Adkins: Oh. Did they surrender already?
From The Left: Germany objects to this war.
Adkins: Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.
From The Left: Belgians are against the war.
Adkins: I can live without Waffles and ice cream.
Common Sense: Cute, but if this is really a war that is necessary for our own survival, then those opposing us would be irrelevant, and we shouldn’t be asking for their approval. But remember: Our “friends” were given more details than even the American public, yet they still stand against us. This tells me there is a bigger problem than just Iraq, and we don’t seem to be addressing it.
From The Left: USSR doesn't support the war.
Adkins: They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.
Common Sense: Now let’s discuss a country who’s arsenal has consistently fallen into the hands of terrorists. Okay, I won’t go there. But despite U.S. propaganda, if Russia felt threatened, they could still pack a military punch if backed into a corner. And something else: Russia recently dumped that old income tax, and their economy’s booming; so much that even W gave them credit and suggested we try the same thing here. Any takers?
From the Left: Polls show Europeans are against this war.
Adkins: Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brie.
Common Sense: Again, not worthy of debate. Next response after the next three about the U.N.
From the Left: We should build a coalition with our friends.
Adkins: With friends like these, who needs enemies?
From the Left: What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?
Adkins: Who cares?
From the Left: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body.
Adkins: Not as respected as the US military.
Common Sense: To put it mildly, were we completely justified going into Afghanistan? And did we seek U.N. approval? We were and we didn’t, respectively. So again, why even make the U.N the issue? In fact, if they all packed up and went home, Common Sense folks like us wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
From The Left: America has always waited until enemies attacked.
Adkins: Now that oceans can't hold back enemies, preemptive war is forever a necessity.
Common Sense: Preemptive wars, forever huh? Now, don’t get offended here, but the last national leader who talked like that ended up with a ‘unilateral coalition’ poised against him. At least he had Italy and Japan on his side. On this subject, we’ve had numerous e-mails from citizens overseas asking if ‘they’re next?’ Should we tell them, “maybe – just depends on how we feel tomorrow, or depends on if you’re on our side or not.”? Yeah, that’ll build a whole lotta new friends – and terrorists. Oh, and about "always waited until enemies attacked": In most cases, we just put that stuff in history books to make us look good.
From the Left: War will cost billions!
Adkins: So, how much is YOUR city worth?
Common Sense: Perhaps “we” should be asking North Korea that questions. But let’s call it a day and use this excuse to start carpet bombing Russia, China, Pakistan, India, France, Israel, Brazil….
From the Left: President Bush says he's willing to violate the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders.
Adkins: As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right.
Common Sense: And so when we start the next “preemptive action”, at least we’ll have a reason to explain to our children and grandchildren why some fool decided to blow Air Force One out of the sky. Tread lightly here, folks. There was a reason this executive order was written. What’s good for the goose….
From The Left: Many Senators don't support Bush
Adkins: Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?
Common Sense: Agreed.
From The Left: Tom Daschle says George Bush has a "credibility gap"
Adkins: When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???
Common Sense: Ditto.
From The Left: These problems didn't happen under Clinton.
Adkins: Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.
From The Left: But Clinton didn't start a war.
Adkins: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress.
Common Sense: This mess has manifested itself under several administrations. In this author’s opinion, Carter should have merely leveled Tehran on day 10 of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Just think of how many fewer headaches we’d have today. See, told you I’m not a pacifist.
From The Left: Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91.
Adkins: That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?
Common Sense: Actually, I’ve heard few on the left really say this, but here we go giving the UN credibility again. Inconsistency in a debate usually means the whole argument is flawed.
From The Left: Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war.
Adkins: Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.
Common Sense: Warning: the next counterpoint will infuriate a few conservatives out there. If there are those millions of Iraqi’s waiting for this war to start to get rid of Hussein, he’d be dead already. You see, Saddam recently authorized his own citizens to arm themselves against the oncoming American invasion. Newspapers even report that citizens in Iraq are creating their own ‘citizen militias’. Heaven forbid we try that here. No, we’ll just run credit card and criminal background checks on all air passengers, remove “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, then have some wacky court say the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply to citizens. Excuse my preaching, I digress.
Again: You’ve got a gun, and the person(s) outside don’t want you to have it. They invade your own home. Aren’t we glad we conservatives are pro-gun?
From The Left: Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured.
Adkins: That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now. (Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed.)
Common Sense: We worry about the "thousands of innocents" that could be killed or injured here, since apparently Afghan and Turkish border security is more important than ours.
From The Left: Young Americans will die in battle.
Adkins: Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?
Common Sense: As long as we don’t lose tens of thousands more to the Gulf War Syndrome (you know, that unexplained bug our guys got last time - that killed thousands). Hey, at least they “might” get medical benefits if they get shot (which we hope the don’t of course).
From The Left: Protesters have genuine objections to war.
Adkins: Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?
Common Sense: Yes, just like we did in Somalia and Bosnia. And I'm not on the left by any means.
From The Left: People are coming from all over the world to act as "human shields".
Adkins: Quick, hurry, before the bombs start dropping.
Common Sense: Agreed. After all, standing up against tyranny didn’t save the folks at Waco, either.
From The Left: This is about American Imperialism.
Adkins: So which country do we own? What nation sends us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?
Common Sense: No one will stand in our way, until the whole planet feels threatened by American arrogance. Then, I fear we will hear from them. And this is America - where no one sends us tax dollars. We just sieze assets.
From The Left: This is Blood for Oil
Adkins: The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons - all financed with Iraqi oil.
Common Sense: The correct phrase is “The free flow of oil at market prices”. That’s the government line we peddled during the last Gulf War (the one we won, remember?). And if we worked under that MAD policy discussed earlier, if he even tried to use one nuclear warhead (that no one has admitted that he has), we’d end the misery of those millions in a few milliseconds.
From The Left: This is a racist war.
Adkins: America happily endorses a multicultural attitude towards anyone who dares to take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.
Common Sense: Agreed, but I’m still waiting for evidence that Iraq is trying to take away our freedom, or had anything to do with attacking this nation on September 11, 2001. Why to I keep bringing up that date? Because it’s the reason many conservatives are using to justify this action. Call me crazy, but I’m just using ‘common sense’.
From The Left: A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.
Adkins: Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.
Common Sense: Patriot Act II, background checks to fly commercial aircraft, secret wiretaps, secret trials, holding U.S. citizens without charge and no legal counsel, preemptive wars forever, ‘oppressive misery’ …tell me when I get off track here.
From The Left: An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.
Adkins: Destabilize the region? The sooner we topple these oppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.
Common Sense: Agreed. I can see the crowds gathering in the streets of Mecca already. Yep, they’re ready for a revolution, alright.
From The Left: Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?
Adkins: Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.
Common Sense: The short answer is 'no, we're not'. But we Americans have become quite accustomed to saddling our posterity with endless debt. Why stop now?
From The Left: Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al Qaeda than from Iraq.
Adkins: It's not a war against Al Qaeda. It's not a war against Iraq. It's a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.
Common Sense: Eh, why bother going over it again?
From The Left: American opinion is against the war.
Adkins: No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.
Common Sense: Yeah, they want to fight Jihad Freaks, not nations we’ve been bombing for ten years, and controlling 2/3s of their airspace, and probably won’t even to be able to declare a clear victory after this mess is over.
From The Left: According to a recent poll...
Adkins: You know what? Screw those polls. We're in a war against terrorism. If you don't want to fight the bastards, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. Forever. But this time, don't call us when the heathens are at the gates.
Common Sense: Okay, I’m calling. The heathens are yes, at the gates – right now. Just look to our southern border. So there are at least some of us using common sense saying, how about not sending our troops 5000 miles away? How about not creating a regime that becomes a tyranny of the ages? How about killing the known threat, and not pissing off the planet in the process?
We’re tired of alerts, threats, heavy handed security, being hated (and targeted) in most of the world and the closest thing to a police state we’ve ever seen while preparing to attack a country that has no known connection to any of it. And when I see our government promote new laws that would make Hitler drool, and willing to compromise our southern border security just to get another 'yes' vote at a UN security council to have a damn war, then either it ain't about national security, or pass the crack pipe, please.
Sorry, fellow conservatives. I’ll support our troops, but my own conservative principles prevent me from waving the flag in support of this one. It’s been the inconsistency of the justification for war that has a lot of people on the right side of the aisle scratching their heads. My opinion: Bush should take up Saddam on that debate. Just a few counterpoints from a conservative, hawkish, anti-war idiot.
P.S. to Tom Adkins: This wasn't written by some half-baked, left-wing, liberal, anti-Bush freak. It was written by one of those who went to the mat to get George W. Bush into office, and was prepared to take it to the streets, if necessary. We're not all idiots, thank you. And it's not about party, it's about principle.
Nope we can't have armed citizens having a militia here to protect us against invasion.
WE just call 911. :)
I like JJ Johnson.
Adkins: So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.
Common Sense: We’d like to know exactly how many of these 90 countries will be using their planes, ships, bombs, and troops to prosecute this war? And a key point I will make through this entire presentation: Why is a coalition needed for what is labeled as a “war of self-defense”?
That is bait-and-switch. From the Left states that we shouldn't act unilaterally. Adkins answers that we aren't, only to have "Common Sense" switch to "Why is a colation needed?"
I haven't read much more of it. But if that bait-and-swich is a "key point," will it be worth my time to do go on?
If they are used, it isn't preemptive any more. Oy.
Yeah, well Saddam "authorized" the destruction of all the WMDs too, but you don't see that happening. You also don't see any ammunition in those guns the "volunteer" (yeah right) "citizen militias" are handed for the photo ops, either. Lots of Iraqies have been trying to kill Saddam for longer than those 11 years, and with good reason, but they haven't yet succeeded. Not so surprising when you consider that a plot involving some on the German General Staff, and General Rommel, didn't manage to off Hitler, who didn't even employ doubles or have more than a couple of "palaces" to be moved around to at random intervals.
Oh, I get it now. Sorta like when we had the National Guard in the airports in camo, with empty rifles?
Oh, now I understand.
LOL!!!! That's grand!
You were eactly the type of person his replies were meant for, but I can see you have no desire to let truth, facts and common sense disrupt your little fantasy world.
This threat of "war" has turned the average conservative into the same "kool aid" drinker they accuse leftists as being.
Do you mean, "the hypocrisy of calling for multilateral action in a war our President is trying to sell as a 'war of self-defense'?" If that's the case, my response is there is a question in what we have the right to do and what politics say we should do.
Yes, I think this is a war of self-defense and, even if we had no one willing to help, we should do it ourselves. However, it is politic to at least explain ourselves and, if possible, seek approval from other nations. It will make things easier in the long-run.
That said, I think Bush and Co. have gone past the point of being politic to the point of starting to grovel. After Powell gave his report in early Feb., the administration should have said, "We've made our case and with or without UN approval we're going in shortly. You better get the inspectors home." Now, we're starting to spiral into begging.
Because the Soviets were intelligent and rational, just like we were. They knew that no mere political or ideological matter was worth a nuclear holocaust. These "smaller, weaker nations", on the other hand, are run by delusional tyrants who don't care about mass death and destruction, as long as they can get out alive themselves. Oh, and also because of the simple fact that they have so few nukes that the only Assured Destruction would be theirs. They might be able to take out one American city, but if they did their *entire nation* would be glass within hours. That's a nuclear war we can, could and would win.
Common Sense: .... but if this is really a war that is necessary for our own survival, then those opposing us would be irrelevant, and we shouldn’t be asking for their approval. But remember: Our “friends” were given more details than even the American public, yet they still stand against us. This tells me there is a bigger problem than just Iraq, and we don’t seem to be addressing it.
Two things here.... 1. I disagree. Even for a necessary war, we should seek approval as a matter of courtesy. We shouldn't, however, depend on it, as a matter of policy. 2. The case has been made that this isn't just defense of the U.S., but that Iraq threatens other nations as well. Indeed, Blair's rationale for getting involved is that the U.K. is also threatened.
But remember: Our “friends” were given more details than even the American public, yet they still stand against us. This tells me there is a bigger problem than just Iraq, and we don’t seem to be addressing it.
Or, it could be, that they have their own interests. France has economic interests (and Chirac, personal interests) that will likely be disrupted by U.S. actions. Germany has its internal politics that its leaders must play to. Russia doesn't want the U.S. to get too far ahead as a world power.
For that matter, this argument can easily be reversed. The U.S. government surely knows even more details than they are revealing to foreign governments; perhaps it's something that they cannot show that is the proof that convinces them. For that matter, someone in, say France, who supports the U.S. could say, "The U.K. government knows more than us French citizens and they're getting involved with the U.S. This tells me that Iraq is a bigger problem than our government claims."
Besides not all our friends (as well as "friends") stand against us. The U.K. Spain, Italy, and much of Eastern Europe stand with us.
But again, this is the bait-and-switch. It boils down to, "We shouldn't ask for approval.... But, oh, yeah, we shouldn't act, because we're not getting enough approval."
Our government is trying to make the case that Saddam is a threat to them, and obviously, many aren't buying it.
Or, it could be, that they have their own interests.
Well of course they do. They do not see Saddam as a threat to them, so why should they support our attack? Why get the world pissed off at them? If Bush and Americans keep up this fake facade of "you are either with us or against us", most of the rest of the world is eventually going to get sick of the nonsense and give America the finger.
The U.S. government surely knows even more details than they are revealing to foreign governments;
If true, that would be a very dumb move. If Saddam is such a threat, then show the proof. If Bush is trying to convince other countries that Saddam is a threat, why hold back on the most damning info? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument.
But again, this is the bait-and-switch. It boils down to, "We shouldn't ask for approval.... But, oh, yeah, we shouldn't act, because we're not getting enough approval."
Agin, I think you miss the entire point.
Here, another part you admitantly didn't read:
Common Sense: To put it mildly, were we completely justified into going into Afganistan? And did we seek U.N. approval? We were, and we didn't, respectively. So again, why even make the UN the issue? In fact, if they all packed up and went home, Common Sense folks like us wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over it.
See, we were justified in going in to Afganistan to try to get Bin Laden. Why? Because we believed he was behind 9/11 and was hiding in Afganistan with the Taliban. Since we were attacked, we didn't give a damn what other countries thought, and most supported us. Now, the issue is Iraq. They didn't attack us and our government knows we are not justified in attacking Iraq for these long-standing violations of arm's deals. We are just trying to convince the rest of the world to "feel better" about it. If the rest of the world is supporting us, doesn't it kind of make those here in our own country who are agaist the war look silly?
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.