The QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Daniel Perry said:
More than 2500 people were killed in a terrorist act against the US. We know the specific Afghani who is responsible. Two years later, there's almost no talk about Osama bin Laden and we're occupying Iraq...? What, what what? If that's the kind of leadership you get with an "experienced" Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I think I'll look elsewhere.

All this means is that you think that there is only one threat at a time in the world, and that the U. S. can't handle more than one problem simultaneously. A Commander-in-Chief has to have a wider view than that.

We are, after all, fighting in Afghanistan, too.

By the way, bin Laden is a Saudi. Not knowing that calls into question the rest of your criticism.

As to "occupying" Iraq: are you aware of the fact that, having deposed the previous government, we are under the obligation of "international law" to stabilize the country and help emplace a sound government? And that is to say nothing of having a *moral* obligation to do so.

All McCain will do, with all of his supposed qualified experience, is continue the policies of a president who has one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

As an illustration that this is meaningless, consider the fact that the Democratically-controlled Congress has an even *lower* approval rating, yet I'll bet you think *more* Democrats should be elected to Congress.

It's very difficult to get a high approval rating, especially in a time when numerous controversial decisions have to be made. Nearly everyone can find *some* reason to disapprove of what you're doing. (Heck, there are people who don't approve of *me* ...)

You have to keep in mind that for every policy you disagree with, for every decision you think is incorrect, there is someone out there who is at least as intelligent and at least as knowledgeable who believes that your judgment of the situation is wrong. There are few if any absolutes here.

Regarding Abraham Lincoln: one can hope for an excellent outcome like that, but there's no *guarantee* that it will happen. There are inexperienced Presidents who've *sucked*, too.

What, what what?

If you don't know *why* we are in Iraq, take the trouble to *find out*. Then you can either agree or disagree with that decision. Bear in mind that most folks agreed with the decision when it was taken; some decided later that they'd been "lied to" when the intelligence assessment of WMDs in Iraq turned out to be wrong (though there's no denying that Saddam *had* WMDs and *used* them in the past, and was actively engaged in a campaign to make it look as though he still did). But simply not knowing why is an insufficiently-informed reason to "look elsewhere".

Terry (astrotrf)

Oh, and I shouldn't fail to point out that the ultimate outcome in Iraq appears to be hugely positive. An unintended consequence of the war is that we've dealt a HUGE blow to al Qaeda, and that, after all, is what the post-9/11 conflict is all about. We failed to anticipate it and failed to react to it correctly for a while, but in the end, we crippled a sworn enemy.

And that's a Good Thing.

Terry (astrotrf)

Terry Friedrichsen said:
Oh, and I shouldn't fail to point out that the ultimate outcome in Iraq appears to be hugely positive.

Then why has Bush only now started to attack al Qaeda
and the talibans in Pakistan?
Maybe because he heard that from the Obama's speeches?
Or is it because it took him 7 years to figure that out?

Luca Grella said:
Then why has Bush only now started to attack al Qaeda
and the talibans in Pakistan?
Maybe because he heard that from the Obama's speeches?
Or is it because it took him 7 years to figure that out?

Or maybe because Pakistan's government has been, in the main, cooperative, and we wanted to give them every chance to succeed before deciding that we had to begin taking matters into our own hands? Especially when the new Pakistani government started signing "peace deals" with the Taliban (which hasn't worked out so well for the government) that effectively provided the terrorists safe haven?

Or maybe because we made a promise to Musharraf, way back when the Afghan war began, not to operate in his country so long as he was president?

I don't know the reasons, but it's easy enough to imagine some compelling ones; see above. So not knowing the reasons is a long remove from assuming there aren't any.

Sometimes situations are more complicated than we'd really wish they were.

Terry (astrotrf)

Did you just pull your head out of the sand or what? We've been on the offensive for many years against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But you can't just waltz into a SOVEREIGN nation and start firing! Plus there are treaties and agreements made to NOT interfere with the many religious sects and territories of Pakistan. To follow Obama's idiotic "I'd bomb Pakistan" is immoral and wreckless. Hell, you people (yes, I said that) are so hell-fired up against going into Iraq (which was sanctioned by the U.N.), yet you all want to INVADE Pakistan?? Would you want a foreign Military coming into the U.S chasing their enemies? THINK about it before opening your mouth instead of blindly REPEATING what you hear.


[/quote]
Then why has Bush only now started to attack al Qaeda
and the talibans in Pakistan?
Maybe because he heard that from the Obama's speeches?
Or is it because it took him 7 years to figure that out?



[/QUOTE]

You do know that Palin just said she'd go into Pakistan too if important terrorist targets were known to be there, don't you? It was on Charles Gibson's interview.

Gee, now I'm blindly repeating what I hear too!

You'd better hope she never becomes president so she can pursue this immoral, reckless, idiotic policy.

Your capital-letter emphasis on "sovereign" seems a little peculiar. Iraq was sort of sovereign too, even if it was bottled up and helpless, wasn't it? But oh yeah, we didn't like them, so that made it okay.

By the way, I'm not eager to invade Pakistan, or to "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" either (classy, John, classy).

Jeffrey Counsil said:

Did you just pull your head out of the sand or what? Hell, you people (yes, I said that) are so hell-fired up against going into Iraq (which was sanctioned by the U.N.), yet you all want to INVADE Pakistan??

Jeffrey ,
my question was retorical.
Of course , nobody wants to bomb Pakistan.
And of course Obama did not call for a Pakistan invasion.
To go directly after al Qaeda and the talibans with the help of the allies (i.e. Pakistan), should have been done long ago;

The problem with the Iraq war is :whatever outcome you will get now
it will still be too costly in terms of human lifes.
Too many troops died and too many people died too, and most of them had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.


Whoever will come after Bush (McCain or Obama) has already aknowledged
that the so called neo-con foreign policy has been a failure.
Nobody of the previous Bush administration has been , to the best of my knowledge, at the republican convention; this politically explains a lot.
I hope, for the best of the country, that the new foreign political course will have more wisdom than utopia.


my best regards

I think more Democrats should be elected to Congress too. One excellent reason for their failure to accomplish much of anything is that they lack the votes to defeat Republican filibusters. That, plus their usual spinelessness and the ease with which they are cowed by the Right. I remember when the Democrats showed some real panache and were not easily pushed around. It's sad.

International law: of course the USA heeds it only when it suits our purposes. But your comment is interesting. Are you saying there's some codified international law which says that if you invade a foreign country and overthrow its government, you are required to set up a nicer one in its place?

Are you appealing to the UN for justification? You're aware that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the war was illegal back in 2004? That there should have been a UN resolution specifically authorizing the war? Or are you referring to the earlier resolutions demanding that Saddam give up his WMDs? How could he have complied with that, given that he didn't have any at the time?

I'm curious about your assertion that we've crippled al Qaeda. What's your basis for saying this? We've killed a bunch of their guys and about a dozen of their #2 men. Bad news for them, I'm sure, but crippled? I'm under the impression there are always more where they came from, and that they sort of expect to die. Does that mean we can ramp down the security circus at airports now?

Joe Bergeron said:
... plus their usual spinelessness ...

I'll spare you a drive through *that* opening!

International law: of course the USA heeds it only when it suits our purposes.

Yeah, the big, bad, old, awful USA. Never does anything for anybody but themselves. What a horrible country.

Are you saying there's some codified international law which says that if you invade a foreign country and overthrow its government, you are required to set up a nicer one in its place?

Well, I never said "nicer". But, while I'm no expert on international law, I've heard it mentioned several times that there are international legal obligations which, assuming the nasty rotten no-good US government follows them, obligate us to help put the country back on its feet.

(Note to the sarcasm-impaired: WARNING. The previous few paragraphs contain actual easily-recognizable sarcasm. If you can't spot it, you should take a self-help class or something, but do NOT write me to complain.)

Are you appealing to the UN for justification?

Only to make it clear that we weren't the *only* country that was disgusted with Saddam Hussein.

Or are you referring to the earlier resolutions demanding that Saddam give up his WMDs? How could he have complied with that, given that he didn't have any at the time?

The resolutions aren't nearly as simplistic or naive as you suppose. The resolutions ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html ) are detailed and specific on a number of points, including full and complete cooperation with weapons inspectors.

Instead, Saddam hindered the weapons inspectors and actively engaged in programs to deceive them.

I'm curious about your assertion that we've crippled al Qaeda. What's your basis for saying this?

al Qaeda moved into Iraq in a big way, and tried hard to destabilize the country and provoke a civil war. They operated pretty much unopposed in a large part of the country, yet now they've been soundly beaten, as you yourself note, and have been denied yet another country they intended to use as a base of operations. A number of their highest-ranking leaders have been killed, the tribes have turned against them, and they're even having a great deal of trouble recruiting suicide bombers these days.

That's "crippled" in my book. Your mileage may vary.

Does that mean we can ramp down the security circus at airports now?

Unfortunately, no -- all it takes is *one* individual. You've probably heard the security folks say this yourself, and more than once: the good guys have to be right *every* time; the bad guys only have to be right once.

Terry (astrotrf)

___
People didn't "decide" they were lied to about the status of Iraq and WMDs. They WERE lied to.
___

Clinton and Gore I assume. Or did you forget how they criticized Bush for NOT believing Saddam had WMDs? Heck, pretty much all the Dems were "up in arms" that Bush didn't rush right in and "do something"

Bill Clinton ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs&feature=related

Al Gore ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related

And the good one ... Clintons, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Dean etc. ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

___
are we to assume that you believe invading Iraq was absolutely the only way to deal with al-Qaeda? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
___

I guess that's because you want it to sound that way. I didn't get that out of what Terry said. You seem to be mixing the U.N. sanctions with Pakistan..

___
I'm very aware. That doesn't justify our presence in the first place though.
___

Have you read the U.N. resolutions??? As being a member, the U.S. was obligated to help uphold those sanctions. Something Saddam absolutely defied. Had he conformed and not boot the U.N. inspectors out, he'd still be the "leader" of Iraq, and his sons would still be torturing and raping innocent civilians.. And the President of the U.N. would still be getting rich from the Oil for Food Program.. Yeah, there was no "justification"..
___
Was it also our "moral obligation" to invade the country in the first place? If the answer to that is "yes", then we should be invading MANY other countries right now as we speak.
___

Such is the way of extremists. If it's not one thing, then it must be extreme to the opposite? Why can't there be middle ground? Why can't there be moderate thinking and reasoning? Why do extremists always ignore the obvious and try to tear everything down that isn't in full agreement with them? I don't mean just the "left", I mean the extreme "right" as well!

___
But cherry picking that one comment
___

Is what happens all the time. Are you to say YOU are not to be "cherry picked" but everyone else can? That's what it sounds like you are saying.. (sound familiar?)

___
As for the rest of what you said, there's no need to assume I'm ignorant or that you're more educated about certain things
___

I get told that I "need to be educated" all the time just because I disagree with many things. So many hipocrytes, so little tolerance..