The President is speaking in a bit (WATCH IT!)

We're talking about present day Iraq, not America 200 plus years ago. If you've got a better idea in how to help these people I'm all ears.

The primary point the president made regarding Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to stability in the Middle East and, because Iraq harbored terrorists and funded terrorists, was a threat to the rest of the world. 9/11 was the wake up call. We are no longer protected by oceans. We can sit and dig in and wait to be hit again and then retaliate, or we can take the fight to terrorists of the world.

The United States waited for a long time looking the other way while Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews. We finally waded in and, along with others, put a stop to it. Though on a much smaller scale, the atrocities in Iraq were just as horrendous and the comparison of going to war against the Nazis is a much better comparison than trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

It's just this time that the terrorists took the fight to us first. And the president put the terrorist-harboring countries on notice at the very beginning - if you fund terrorists, if you harbor terrorists, if you commit terrorism, you are a terrorist.

This I think should be the debate. Is it better to take the fight to them? Or wait until they bring it to us before we act?

This I think was the thesis of the president's speech tonight.

So if not by force, how would you spread freedom ?

The primary point the president made regarding Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to stability in the Middle East and, because Iraq harbored terrorists

and funded terrorists,

was a threat to the rest of the world.

9/11 was the wake up call. We are no longer protected by oceans. We can sit and dig in and wait to be hit again and then retaliate, or we can take the fight to terrorists of the world.

The United States waited for a long time looking the other way while Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews. We finally waded in and, along with others, put a stop to it.

Though on a much smaller scale, the atrocities in Iraq were just as horrendous and the comparison of going to war against the Nazis is a much better comparison than trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

It's just this time that the terrorists took the fight to us first. And the president put the terrorist-harboring countries on notice at the very beginning - if you fund terrorists, if you harbor terrorists, if you commit terrorism, you are a terrorist.

This I think should be the debate. Is it better to take the fight to them? Or wait until they bring it to us before we act?

This I think was the thesis of the president's speech tonight.

CerealKiller wrote:

We're talking about present day Iraq, not America 200 plus years ago. If you've got a better idea in how to help these people I'm all ears.

How about:

Turn the country over to the Iraqis? Why, we could even sponsor elections of candiddates not pre-approved by the US!

Hmmm..there's a novel concept, eh?

hobitbob wrote:

CerealKiller wrote:

We're talking about present day Iraq, not America 200 plus years ago. If you've got a better idea in how to help these people I'm all ears.

How about:

Turn the country over to the Iraqis? Why, we could even sponsor elections of candiddates not pre-approved by the US!

Hmmm..there's a novel concept, eh?

You could be president.

That's exactly what Bush said. The plan is to turn the country over to them by June 30th and have free elections by January. Our role then would be to help them maintain peace.

Quote:

So if not by force, how would you spread freedom ?

I trust you can recall back to the previous post.

So if not by force, how would you spread freedom ?

So, America gained freedom because someone else sent a big army in and whupped em?

CerealKiller wrote:

hobitbob wrote:

CerealKiller wrote:

We're talking about present day Iraq, not America 200 plus years ago. If you've got a better idea in how to help these people I'm all ears.

How about:

Turn the country over to the Iraqis? Why, we could even sponsor elections of candiddates not pre-approved by the US!

Hmmm..there's a novel concept, eh?

You could be president.

That's exactly what Bush said. The plan is to turn the country over to them by June 30th and have free elections by January. Our role then would be to help them maintain peace.

Turn the country over to whom? Chalabi? Are you aware of the difference between a free nation and a dictatorship run by a US puppet?

I'm asking you to present a better idea than Bush concerning Iraq. I have no interest in playing 20 questions with you. If you can I would like to hear it as I'm sure others would also.

Blatham,

You answered a question with a question. I was looking for a better solution than that, or even a worse solution, but a solution. I don't see how America gaining its indepedndence from England relates to present day Iraq.

CerealKiller wrote:

Blatham,

You answered a question with a question. I was looking for a better solution than that, or even a worse solution, but a solution. I don't see how America gaining its indepedndence from England relates to present day Iraq.

You probably don't, do you? That is rather sad.
Lets put it this way. Can you think of any successful democracy that was imposed by force upon a population that had only experienced totalitarian government in the past? Neither can I.