I answered it. We can't invade every tyrant in the world, and not doing so doesn't make one pro-tyrant. Reagan didn't invade USSR even after thay shot down KAL 007. But he still beat them in the end. (Reagan was blasted as an appeaser by neocons for not invading more countries, like Lebanon; I'm a Reaganite -- so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people of that mindset call me an appeaser too); ;;; MY OTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS INVASION IS IT'S GIVING BIG-GOV'T ADVOCATES EXCUSE TO CALL FOR MORE SPENDING AND TAXES. WARS ALWAYS DO.
Crap. we had an enemy in the cold war that could have destroyed us in an hour just as we could them. We have an enemy now that the old MAD strategy is not operable. Iraq was a looming problem in the WOT. It was and is just one battle. You tell me, what would be going on in Iraq right now had we just ignored it and what would we be doing any differently in the overall war?
Bush did lose 3000. He made a decision that American policy would be to hunt down terrorists who would do it again and he also made the deicsion to equate those that harbor terrorists with terrorists.
Saddam Hussein was giving sanctuary to terrorists who had killed Americans. Noboys accusing you of being pro Saddam so put a match to that strawman.
I am accusing you of being willing to put your head under the covers while the murderers of Americans enjoy sanctuary in Baghdad, post 9/11, and I must say I find it reprehensible.
And there you have it.
BTW, during his two terms Reagan was supporting Saddam Hussein in fight against Islamists.
I assume you do realize that we fought two wars against the communist and were involved in a few others with that aim in mind. Those who say Reagan won the cold war with firing a shot are ignoring history.
Is that a direct quote from Kerry, or your own variation?