Let's go to the tape...


I see FOUR people with unraised hands...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Thats not fair. He's an alien. Thats like saying Ted Nugent is the poster boy for the right.

I see the present war in Iraq as a "continuation" of the first war..Desert Shield.Saddam refused to honor his own agreements by continually violating the no-fly zone and hindering inspections.These violations could not remain unchallenged.There was no real need to emphasize Iraq's possession of WMD,we had reason enough to pursue enforcement of the agreements already made during Desert Shield.There were other "options" on the table short of another invasion but that was yesterday and yesterday is gone! Saddam gambled and lost,when a nation refuses to honor it's own agreements to ensure the peace they do so at their own peril.There was no need to offer additional reasons to take Saddam out,he provided ample reasons by his own arrogance and betrayal of his word.To not hold him accountable and leave his aggression unchecked,would be committing the greater sin against humanity.

I don't have to disagree with you about Saddam. It was a matter of dealing with whats on your plate before you start another action. Many countries were threats then are threats now. This always comes down to if you believe the intel was hyped. I do. You know I think the Iraq operation had nothing to do with Saddams actions. They were a convenient excuse for something the administration "WANTED" to do.
If this was about Saddam we could have taken Saddam out. You and I both know it. We may never know what the administrations real thinking was but it wasn't the fear of Saddam.

The Great Seal holds a bundle of 13 arrows in its left talon, (referring to the 13 original states), and an olive branch, in its right talon, both of which symbolize that the United States of America has "a strong desire for peace, but will always be ready for war." When the terrorist strike,they have made a choice and they shall suffer the consequences of their actions.They who support terror be it by direct action or be it by supporting the actins of the terorists must also suffer the concequences.I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam had to be stopped. He violated his own agreements by continually violating the no-fly zone and refusing the inspections he agreed to.Our intel was not perfect but I have little doubt that had he aquired WMD,he would have used them.Was an all out "invasion" necessary? No..there were other options but there would have been far more civilian caualties.On the other hand...inaction or appeasement could have had more far reaching consequences.

That said..I am "troubled" by preemptive warfare and full invasions that are based on "speculation".I believe we failed to exercise other options that were available to us.Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. That fear is not based on cowardice,it should be based on the overall effect of preemptive warfare and setting a "precedent" that may one day come back to haunt us.Most of our founding fathers would have vehemently opposed it.As you know,I have been reading about the life of John Adams,he had the uncanny ability to see the BIG PICURE. He was not only a great patriot,he was a multi dimmensional thinker.He was vilified by Hamilton and many others for not pursuing war with France.At the time..most Americans had war fever but he knew what that would have entailed and he believed invading France to be folly.There are times when situations dictate action but those actions must be predicated on assessing the big picture and in my view,the big picture should have remained "focused" on Afghanistan.

I read this closely and couldn't find anything wrong. In fact your getting around to speaking for me.