Replies

I can't make the case either.. Further, I won't even try.

We shouldn't attack IRAQ for the reasons stated, period.

Now we should make the moral argument for attack.

It is as follows:

1) Saddam made a deal to end the Gulf war and then he broke it. Thus, by any logical standard the war should resume..

2) The second he launched SCUD's at the Jews (who were non-combatants) and torched the Kuait oil fields during his (quick) retreat, he became a war criminal. At that point, imo.. all bets (with regard to the "power given us" under the UN resolution to remove him) were off.

I don't want to be the New Roman Empire and I don't want to base foreign policy on sketchy, arbitrary notions of "preemption"

But this guy has it coming regardless, for the reasons stated above.

It's a just war and we should see it through, but not necessarily for the reasons we have been given.

Completely agree with your post disputing the need for a democratic history, as well as the points made by finnman69 and You Dirty Rats. No need to repeat those.

I will offer one more point concerning the physical presence of a post-Saddam regime with a significant American military force in the heart of the Middle East bordering Iran and Saudi Arabia.

At best, this is an effective presence to influence other countries and protect pro-American regimes (following the model in Europe and Asia). At worst, this presents the Islamic authoritarian/militant/terrorists with fighting on two fronts (Isreal and Afghanistan/Iraq) and moving the threat to them closer to home with a greater ability to interdict operations against the homefront.

As a member of the armed forces, I would rather be an armed target in the Middle East for our enemies, than allowing those I am sworn to defend remain targets unopposed in the US.

I have a real simple argument, and I could care less about the "principled stance" on this.

Islamic extremists took out over three thousand innocent lives ON OUR SOIL one fine September morn, we all watched.

The enemy is both very vague, and very clearly in sight.

Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan...

I don't care what order we do it in, but take them out.

The Muslim extremists hate us for who we are, and even if we just sat here and did not involve ourselves in the world, these extremists would hate us anyway.

Take out those governments that would support them...good riddance...and make damned sure that if they will not respect us, they will fear us.

Then, look to the House of Saud and make it damned clear to them that if they do not take out the Wahabbis, we will go in and do it ourselves.

I don't want to be the New Roman Empire

Hmmm.... I think this could have advantages.

Better invade and destroy our enemies than create a Police State.

If the price of my freedom, is the creation of Pax Americana and destruction of hostile regiemes, I won't lose much sleep. As long as the provinces pay for support of Empire, and our citizenry is relieved of taxation and socialism - increased freedom for us - and increased freedom for the newly conquered.

Win/Win.