One comment—use of capital and boldface does nothing to confer credibility to your statements.
“Kerry would’ve only allowed 9/11 to happen all over again.”
>>We’ve no way to know that, have we?
“It’s people like you who are so quick to preach WORLD PEACE, but then think turning your back on problems is the solution to fixing them and making them go away.”
>>What in the world makes you think I’m preaching world peace? And why do you presume I’d advocate ignoring problems rather than addressing them?
“When Bill Clinton was presented with the opportunity to take sole possession of Osama Bin Laden, he turned Syria down.
>>This claim has been thoroughly refuted, most recently in the Bush administration’s own 9/11 Commission’s published report (the relevant section can be found at <link>). (BTW< not only are you repeating a false statement your getting that false statement wrong—it was Sudan, not Syria, rumored to have offered a deal.)
“Were you mad when the US went into Germany to stop Hitler, set up a Democracy, and saved the Jews from extinction, rebuilding their country in the process?”
>>I wasn’t alive at that time actually. I note you’re guilty of a Godwin’s law violation (it was only a matter of time, I suppose.)
Were you mad when Sadaam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill millions of his own people and leaving their corpses scattered in grave sites to be discovered by us?”
>>On several levels: Sadam for deploying the weapons, and at our nation for having supplied him with the necessary materials and technological aid to produce them.
“And you actually have the NERVE making the argument that we should NEVER have gone in when Sadaam violated every sanction set against him by the UN?”
>>No, we shouldn’t have. It was the responsibility, both ethically and as a matter of international law, of the UN to act when their sanctions were being violated, not that of the United States. I’ll note again, however, that Bush et al didn’t cite his violation of UN sanctions as the reason we invaded: their claim was that they had positive evidence that he possessed an active WMD program and stockpiles of combat-ready WMD munitions which posed an immediate threat to our nation.
“What’s the point of setting laws if we’re going to allow him to break them? Again, I hope this isn’t your parenting style…”
>>If we’re going to use parenting style as an analogy, an analogy for our intervention in Iraq might be “Upset that a neighbor’s kid disobeyed his parents and stayed up past the bedtime they had set, rather than allow them to discipline him as they felt appropriate we broke into their house and beat him.”
“Were you mad when 9/11 happened?”
>>Yes, of course.
“And when Bush said that we’re going to bring these people to justice, and any country harboring terrorism will be dealt with too?”
>>I agree that this is an appropriate and necessary policy. I am mad that Bush hasn’t actually enacted it—he made a good start at bringing the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice (invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power) but abandoned that job undone to engage in his little nation-building exercise in Iraq.)
“Were you mad when we discovered mobile weapons labs, chemistry labs with nuclear residue, unloaded chemical war heads, terrorist training camps, Sadaam’s own scientists confessing to us that they were working on nuclear and chemical weapons, and in-depth ledgers on income statements about paying terrorist as suicide bombers?”
>>Not mad, and not surprised. We knew that we’d find labs that had prior to the Kuwait invasion had been part of Iraq’s weapons programs. The terrorist training camps also were no surprise, but they weren’t associated with the Baathist government (the camps were found in the northern of Iraq in regions that are controlled by Khurds, where the Iraqi military could not operate because of UN no-fly sanctions.
“WHAT DO YOU THINK SADAAM WAS DOING? The facts are there that Sadaam was supporting terrorism, so please stop ignoring them…”
>>Trying to retain power and political control, of course, as do other nations. If Sadam was supporting terrorism he was doing so on a very small scale (far smaller than the support provided terrorists by Saudi Arabia, for example) and he wasn’t supporting the terrorists that were responsible for the 9/11 attacks (That was Saudi Arabia again…)
In any case the offered justification for the invasion of Iraq wasn’t Sadam’s support of terrorism, or use fo chemical weapons against Iraqi’s years previously, but that Iraq posed a threat to US national security so immediate that waiting an additional 30 days to complete another round of inspections meant disaster. That justification was false.
“Are you mad that Bush FREED Iraq and stopped the tyranny and killing of innocent women and children?”
>>I’m unaware that Bush has freed Iraq. Isn’t it now in the hands of a foreign military force—ours? I’m also unaware that innocent Iraqi’s are no longer being killed there (don’t you pay attention to the news?)
“Certainly you can see the good of what we’ve accomplished there…”
>>No, quite frankly, compared to the ill we’ve accomplished there (destabilizing the region, destroying Iraq’s infrastructure, killing thousands of Iraqi’s, expendung American lives and resources, inspiring new recruits to anti-American terrorist organizations, providing those organizations a convenient training ground and a ready source of targets, ushering in a low-grade sectarian civil war, etc. The list of negative consequences far exceeds anything you might offer to balance the scales, but I am curious what you’d identify as a concrete good we’ve realized. We deposed Sadam—so what? He wasn’t a threat to our national security before the invasion, he possessed no WMD capacity before the invasion, the UN sanctions were effectively preventing him from reaquiring WMD capability, so what have we gained by removing him and replacing the previous status quo with the current disaster?
“See, so many people are so quick to preach “WORLD PEACE” and don’t have the slightest clue about how to achieve it.”
>>Perhaps that’s true, but I don’t see the relevance. There’s certainly no evidence that the deposing the Baathist regime by military force has contributed anything toward achieving world peace. Quite the opposite, in fact: it’s destabilized the middle east, engendered an active insurgency, swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations, etc.
“Turning our back on Sadaam meant the killing of innocent people.”
>>You’re offering a false dichotomy: our only choices weren’t either ‘turn our back’ or ‘Invade Iraq’. Other options existed (such as continuing to impose the UN sanctions which were effectively containing Sadam as a threat.)
“Turning our back on Osama meant the worst attack in US History.”
>>What exactly do you mean by ‘turning our back on Osama’?
“Turning our back on Hitler would’ve meant more killing of innocent people.”
>>Godwin’s law violation again.
“Turning our back on Kosovo would’ve meant the killing of more defenseless innocent people… DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE TREND YET?”
>>Yes—you think an impassioned recitation of neo-con talking points, meaningless arguments by association, etc., will substitute for rational argument, and you’re proceeding from an entirely speculative premise that Kerry would not have acted to oppose international terrorism following the 9/11 attacks.
“Had we turned our back on Iraq in 1990 and in 1997 allowing him do whatever he wanted in the Middle East, Sadaam would own Kuwait right now and then he would go after Saudi Arabia.”
>>We didn’t, however. Did you have a point?
“Then Iran would probably be next… ONE IMPORTANT THING you have to remember, They called us begging for help, we never volunteered…”
>>You mean Kuwait called us for help? I agree. If you mean Iraq called us for help, I’d agree if by ‘called us for help’ you mean ‘Iraqi ex-patriots played the US like a cheap drum’.
“Do you see where I’m getting at? You’re line of thinking would create WORLD SLAUGHTER, not WORLD PEACE… FREE THINKING can make you VERY SHORT-SIGHTED and a SELFISH person. Please don’t be so proud to claim this…”
>>What line of thinking do you believe I have? You’re assigning me a position I don’t embrace, and which in fact is entirely irrelevant to my original post.
For the record: I believe the US needs to take action to eliminate international terrorism. I think that invading Iraq has done nothing to achieve that goal—in fact, it’s acted counter to that interest.
“A lot of people have the nerve to criticize Corporations, or “THE RICH GUY” for NOT donating more money to help out the less fortunate people of our country… Well, in this world, the US is the “RICH GUY” and the US and the UN are donating our services to stop the world killing and create world peace...”
>>Acting to achieve world peace is a laudable goal. Suggesting that the invasion of Iraq has done anything toward that goal is lunacy.
“Since this is not a video game, it will involve permanent casualties along the way. My prayers go out to everyone who has fought for our freedoms.”
>>As do mine. The casualties we’re suffering at the moment, however, are casualties we shouldn’t be suffering: their sacrifice isn’t advancing us toward any achievable or realistic goal.
“I would love to discuss your ideas about how to create world peace. The first step is neutralizing the violent regions and getting them to adopt the same vision of the UN.”
>>Actually, I’d say the first step is identifying and addressing the underlying causes—economic, religious, ideologic, etc.—of sectarian violence.
“So far, it’s happened with Japan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany, Russia, etc. Iraq will be a huge turning point and could set the stage for a better tomorrow.”
>>Iraq is a disaster. It will never be a democratic republic (because that’s not what the Iraqi people wish it to be.)
“Terrorists CANNOT win this war forcefully, but they can win this war politically…”
>>You seem to suggesting that “War in Iraq equals war on terrorism”—why?
