If Kerry Becomes President.....

Did you read my post? I did not say we could not or should not ever use force. In the case of an imminent threat, of course we should respond with whatever it takes to defend ourselves.

In the case of fighting terrorism, it HELPS us to work with allies to locate and destroy terrorist threats. Locate AND DESTROY. I, like Kerry, would not hesitate to use force WHEN WE HAVE TO.

The obvious issue here is that George Bush chose to use force BECAUSE HE WANTED TO, NOT BECAUSE HE HAD TO. And against a country that was not an imminent threat to our security.

Get the difference?

Absolutely.............At the time, the people in charge believed that Saddam WAS an imminent threat. He was thumbing his nose at the UN sanctions, and there was reason to believe that he had WMDs. Now everyone can be a Monday morning quarterback.

I still think that from the time we started our sabre rattling, until we actually invaded Iraq, Saddam had plenty of time to stash the nasty stuff in places that we could not find. (Like Syria)


BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000.

"At the time, the people in charge believed that Saddam WAS an imminent threat. "

I disagree.

I believe they had Iraq on their agenda WAY before 911, and used 911 to try to make a Saddam/terrorist connection to justify their oil/revenge driven invasion.

WE KNOW North Korea has WMDs right now. That makes them a clear threat, though I'm not sure I would call it an imminent threat. Why no pre-emptive invasion there?

Saddam was contained, at least for the moment. Bush could have waited for the inspectors' report before invading, unless, of course, he knew what their report would say and that he would then not be able to make the 911/ Saddam connection he needed to justify a pre-emptive invasion.

He waited and heard a couple of reports.

Saddam is hiding stuff from inspectors....Saddam is bugging inspectors....Saddam's goons disappeared an Iraqi scientist, while the UN stood by and did nothing...

Angie-'Cause there is no oil in North Korea!

Could you imagine what would happen to our economy if the oil fields were controlled by the extremists? It would come to a screeching halt.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35875

Dang. I agreed with Phoenix' previous post, but not this one.

NK is not Iraq.

We had a war with Iraq, and they were already on a track of resolutions with the UN---they were thumbing their noses at the inspection process... War was the next step with them.

NK hasn't been on that track yet. We just found out about NK. Iraq was on notice for 12 years!!!

Damn. Its like your twin sons are standing in front of you--one is holding the family cat he just strangled--and the other one is just smiling.

You beat the crap out of both of them?

(OK, that was a creepy analogy...)

The behavior of NK and Iraq are not identical. How can you justify identical treatment?

Lash- I am in complete agreement with what you said.......I just think that there are additional contingencies that enter into the mix.

I know. We're close. I just can't buy the oil reason.

I know oil is an important consideration in a lot of our foreign policy--I just don't believe it entered into the rationale for war--but I realize a lot of people do think so.

Lash- It might not have been the main reason, but I really believe that it was a consideration.

I sincerely hope it wasn't.

You are right to talk before acting but how long do you talk for is the question. There are people who would do nothing but talk and in the end we would end up the losers.



Here is where we differ. I think the only way these "moderate" Muslims would want the US to cater their way of life and not agree an anything. You have to remember that in the world of Islam, there is nothing for the weak and Islam doesn't recognize the weak. If we were to try and talk all the time then we would only appear weak to the ME and would not be perceived, as a nation with a strong will. When in the ME has anything ever been solved by talking? The ME is a totally different place with different values then that of the west, while talking would work with our "allies" in the EU it wouldn't work in the ME with any nation because of their values.



Did talking with Hitler solve anything? No it just got more people killed when the then leader of the UK made an "agreement" with Hitler. Please tell me when talking solved anything and I will retract my statement. If you refer to India and Gandhi, then that is an isolated incident. It hasn't worked anywhere else it has been tried.



Yes and people have been getting killed in Iraq for the last 30 years and talking didn't work then either.



You are right. Can you find a moderate terrorist that we can talk with? If so then please do.



You are wrong there. It is a realist who knows that force must be used and be prepared for it.

Not trying to pick on you, but this is where YOU said it.

I was going on a assuption that if he gets reelected.

I know, that's what I liked so much.

phoenix wrote:"'Cause there is no oil in North Korea!"

Uh, ok.

First of all, it's THEIR oil. Just because we need it, doesn't give us the right to invade them to get it.

Second, Saddam was a secularist. He was perfectly content to sell us all the oil we needed, at a price-gauging cost of course. Kind of like our current relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Third, we haven't done a damn thing, or been asked to do a damn thing, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Could it be that some Americans actually profit from that dependence?

Fourth, North Korea is still a threat to our security, if not to our dependence on oil. They have a lunatic in charge of their government. They have nukes. We didn't invade them, and I completely agree with your stated reason: no oil. Of course, we were never told that the invasion of Iraq was for oil, we were told it was Saddam had WMDs and posed an imminent threat to our national security, as well as that he was responsible for 911. Would Americans have supported this war if they had been told the truth?



Baldimo: I have to think you are deliberately refusing to understand my comments re diplomacy. Of course we cannot talk with or reason with extremist terrorists. Which is why we need to build alliances with non-terrorists to work together against actual terrorists. And I'm thinking that "talking" would be a way to build those alliances?

We are safer as a strong, respected leader than we will ever be as an arrogant bully.

We didn't invade Iraq for oil, if we did then how come I'm paying $1.30 per gallon?



I don't see where this comes from when Bush has put more money forward into the R&D of other sources of powering our vehicles. I don't now about you but the last time I checked there were other ways of powering a vehicle. You can go and have your car or truck converted to run on natural gas and even have the govt pay for it depending on where you live. There several companies out there with hybrid vehicles and you even get a tax break for buying one. Did the govt hold a gun to your head and force you to buy a pure gas vehicle. We as a people have to take it upon ourselves to purchase the vehicle of our choice that doesn't consume as much gas. I for one will be buying a hybrid when I purchase my first new car. I think it is the best choice, and I love technology.



If you care so much for the lives of soldiers why would you want to throw them at a country that would in every likely hood use nukes? People like you would approve of any action of Clinton when it came to military actions but nothing of Bush and you know it. Don't try and sound like there were better places to go. With sanctions against Iraq it was the only place we could go.

By the way did you thank Clinton for giving North Korea the ability to create nukes?

Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11? He has said Saddam was a support of terrorism and that is true. There were ties to Al Queda, while they weren't strong ties they had more of a mafia like connection.



We tried talking with France and they wanted nothing to do with us. They stated before there was even a vote on the issue that they were going to veto anything we did. It wasn't for a lack of trying on the part of Bush it was France wanting to continue buddy buddy relations with Iraq. Oil for Food will prove this. France is doomed in the world of politics. You do know that it was France that gave Iraq their nuclear reactors don't you? Read history, Frances president was know as Jacques Iraq and also called him a personal friend. Is it any wonder France didn't want the US to invade Iraq. We were picking on Jacques friend!



It's sad that you describe a man who is willing to confront a tyrant and remove him, as a bully. Isn't Saddam the bully for the way he treated his own people? Kerry would only pander to world opinion. He has already said as much in the debates. He wouldn't do anything that is against what the world wants, remember "global test". Also don't forget that Kerry also voted against the first Iraq war. This man isn't willing to take any action in the face of danger.

Your paying $1.30/gallon for gasoline?

The oil in the Middle East is a legitimate concern when factoring in U.S. national interest as a valid reason for both diplomatic and military operations in this region. Disruption of ME oil flow is tantamount to, say, the Soviet Union of the past setting up a navel blockade of the continental U.S. Both would not only disrupt our way of life but severely threaten our security. Wringing our hands about how much more oil we use in comparison to the rest of the world and whether it is ignoble to buy and use a big SUVs is pointless, unless we resolve to regress back to the "good old days" of horses, bicycles, and mathematical calculations using only paper and pencil. It is not shameful to want a better life for our family. We pay for the oil we use and those we buy it from do so freely of their own volition.

But there is more. We are not the only nation that enjoys the lifestyle that petroleum products afford us. In addition China has upped the anti when we envision the loss of even a single day's oil production. Simply put: Loss of the oil supplied by the ME would trigger a global recession, at best. More likely a depression would result and, like hungry half starved wolves, nations would compete fiercely for the remaining product. Like it or not actions of the UN and nations like France and Germany since 9/11 gives us a peek of who is able and willing to sustain world peace by countering threatening actions by terrorist and nations.

A later example is instructive. Not to long ago the UK (God Bless them), France, Germany and, I believe, Russia thought they made a deal with Iran to curb their nuclear aspirations, a kind of "No Nukes in our time!" thing. A few months later Iran rejected the plan because it didn't work towards their national interest. Neville Chamberlain and Hitler all over again only the result of this failure may be more than just a rump Czechoslovakia.

Bush is not one for nuance so he should have stayed the course for the reason for invading Iraq and not drifted into other reasons such as: we got rid of a bad dictator type. This argument quickly becomes untenable given all the other bad guys out there. Even if we wanted to rid the world of "evil" people we might have to raise taxes just a bit. The reason is two-fold:

Saddam not only demonstrated he had WMD and the capability to deliver them; he actually used them against not only his enemy (Iran) in time of war, but his own countryman (Kurds) in time of peace. Further, he refused to demonstrate that he had destroyed them. The ball was then in the UN's court who then, with help from you know who, promptly signaled for a time out. Given the nature of the situation Bush perceived Saddam's time outs used up and that Saddam would continue to advance towards his destructive goal. The result was a judgment call and any "would of, could of, should of" discussions fall under the heading of Monday morning quarter backing.

Secondly Saddam supported terrorism by supplying large sums of money to compensate the families of suicide bombers. Are we to believe that in the future and forever Saddam would throw up his hands in frustration and say "Well, I've done everything possible to help these Islamic extremists so now I must refrain from further assistance!"?

Proper criticism of the Bush administration by the Kerry/Edwards campaign should target the aftermath of the expected Military victory (actually the other team decided not to show until later in the game) and its refusal to put a dog collar on the Rumsfeld doctrine of "more with less" (not to be confused with Letterman's "More with Les" shtick) and yank it. Further administration refusal to even consider calls from Senators McCain and Biden to increase the number and change the types of troops to those trained to counter any insurgency before it started is also fair game. This includes when things started to go south immediately (looting) and later (Sadr and the gang). They could throw in Gen. Shinseki's professional judgment, closely aligned with the Powell doctrine*, before the fact for good measure.

In answer to Bi-Polar Bear's original question I will continue to support our Commander in Chief. Phoenix32890's family analogy is apt. The name is not as important as the fact that the individual so elected embodies the choice of the American people. The office deserves this respect. However, this does not shield the individual holding the office from criticism. Some fault Kerry for his objection to the war and call him unpatriotic and even a traitor. But if we cannot allow those who have fought with valor and been officially recognized as war heroes to speak against the very thing that afforded them such recognition just who can be afforded this luxury guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? It is those who don't speak out against wrongs that are unpatriotic. Indeed, those that wish to prevent Americans from speaking their minds tread a well worn but dangerous path.

JM

* The Powell doctrine is essentially that when using military intervention the goals must be clearly defined while the forces used are overwhelming, multilateral (as far as possible) and lead up to a well defined exit strategy. The first Gulf War is a text book example of this doctrine.

If this war was all about oil then I would be!

The family analogy is, indeed, apt.

Especially when you note that some people see their nation as their family and some see humanity on the whole as their family you will better understand the differences between their positions.