Les Jones

Well, we do have enemies in the world, Les. And you know, one guy with a suitcase dirtybomb/nuke could do more damage to us than all of Saddam's loyalists could do, angry in the desert. Fighting an out in the open, made for tv war as we have is not the way to fight terrorists. Terrorists are not swing voters. They've mostly made up their minds and the war has only polarized them.

True we've freed the Iraqi people (since they wanted this so badly, i'm not sure why they weren't able to do more on their own to free themselves...) But it's been at the cost of the truth. Going to war should be the LAST thing we do, only used to protect us from acute harm. But that's not what happened. Bush lied to us flatout at worst, or was very irresponsible at best. Couple this with the administrations war on gay marriage, stem cell research and the environment and their record is unforgivable.

There IS middle ground, I know it. So when can we be friendly again? When can we reach across both sides of the isle, on all sides of the issues and start to really talk? Get something good going. The world is small, but we can accomplish much more by joining forces than choking each other...

"True we've freed the Iraqi people (since they wanted this so badly, i'm not sure why they weren't able to do more on their own to free themselves...)"

That's a talking point that really bugs me. Because they couldn't do it on their own - what? they don't deserve freedom? Some Iraqis tried to revolt after Gulf War I, and we encouraged them, but we left so much of Saddam's apperatus in working order that the rebels were fighting tanks with AK-47s. The result was slaugher for the rebels.

"But it's been at the cost of the truth. Going to war should be the LAST thing we do, only used to protect us from acute harm. But that's not what happened. Bush lied to us flatout at worst, or was very irresponsible at best."

If Bush lied to us, then so did all of these Democrats, including John Kerry. So who are you gonna vote for?

I don't buy the "finding middle ground with brutal dictators" argument. There's no middle ground with a guy who's killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, invading peaceful neighbors, and pursuing weapons of mass destruction. (And that last point has been substantiated. Iraq sought yellow cake uranium in Niger.)

More on the historical WMD front: Steven Den Beste on Iraq's Osirik nuclear reactor program, which would have produced weapons-grade plutonium of the Israelis hadn't destroyed it.

I'm voting for Kerry, but not because of Kerry's stance on the war. It's because he's not so delusional to think that "God is on his side". That is the biggest part of what scares me about Bush and draws me toward Kerry.

I'm all for freeing the Iraqi people, but we bungled the post-war moves. Invading was a tactical and logistical nightmare. And on your point of playing middleground with dictators, well are you suggesting that you think the world is that simple? If they're evil take them out? So what are we doing with Kim Jong-Il? Do we stop at dictators? Complete regiemes too? Sudan, Iran, where else? Who else hates us? That is, in the form of a complete nation so that we can fight good ole' missionary style, traditional warfare. To quote Morgan Freeman from The Sum of All Fears, "This is chess, not checkers!"

None of us ever want to see another Sept. 11 tragedy. Sept. 11 was my definition of pornography/obscenity. It was disgusting. I just want us to find and understand the root cause, and try like hell to make sure it doesn't happen again. My take on it is this: And the real answers are much more complex...

Most people in the world want basic things. The ability to be free, be heard, and be as safe as possible, be healthy, do good and rewarding work and have children and/or live out they're lives freely. Prevent or get in the way of any of these things for too long and most people get angry and/or lose it altogether.

So that's my take on it. In America many of us have these things. Maybe not all at once, but we've got it good. We want better. But for everybody else in the world, well? When people feel disinfranchised, left out, etc. then Sept. 11 happens.

Sorry about the delay, I haven't been able to surf for the past day or two. I'd be interested to know what you think.

F-Stop

"I'm all for freeing the Iraqi people, but we bungled the post-war moves."

Says you. Seriously, what is the standard plan for creating a constitutional democracy out of a former dictatorship? There's no guidebook for that. You try, and you learn, and you adapt. You listen to your critics for ideas, but you don't let them bully you into giving up.

"Invading was a tactical and logistical nightmare."

Yet we defeated Saddam's military in three weeks.

"And on your point of playing middleground with dictators, well are you suggesting that you think the world is that simple? If they're evil take them out? So what are we doing with Kim Jong-Il?"

We're recognizing that Kim Jong-Il has nuclear weapons because no one stopped him from acquiring them when they had the chance. Now that horse is out of the barn, and we have to deal with a rogue state with a nuclear weapon, and we haven't figured out how to do that.

The key is to stop dictators before they get to KJI's current state: unstoppable, because they have WMDs.

The Israelis stopped Iran from developing a nuclear facility by unilaterally bombing Iran's Osirik reactor. We bullied Libya into literally dismantling their nuclear program, which is now safe and sound in a warehouse in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

I don't think "if they're evil we take them out." But if they're evil and they cross us we should take them out.

The standard liberal response at this point is "we shouldn't have taken out Saddam, but we should have gone into Liberia (or substitute your least favorite genocidal state)." Given a choice between intervening in places where we have a strategic interest, or a place where we have no strategic interest, I'll take the former.

The Israelis stopped Iran from developing a nuclear facility by unilaterally bombing Iran's Osirik reactor. We bullied Libya into literally dismantling their nuclear program, which is now safe and sound in a warehouse in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

So if these moves were so effective, then why didn't we do something more like this? Tactical strikes and pressure make a lot more sense than invading a country outright. Right or wrong, our moves in post war Iraq are what pissed off many of it's citizens-see what I said earlier about what people want. They want to be able to work, and work they did under Saddam. Once the country was invaded, people felt like the Americans should have provided everything at once. I know that's impossible, but that's what many of them expected. So the insurgency gained strength.

Now to REALLY sound like a liberal, the way to make change is to plant seeds. Add water, sun, some fertilizer and wait. Don't get in the way too much, or you'll smother it.

Al-Quieda dosen't have a nation to invade. We can't invade Al-Quieda and have Halliburton and KBR provide logistics and planning for Al-Quieda. We need to simultaniously return to doing more GOOD in the world, less bad, encourage governements that let their people be heard and participate and go after ACTUAL KNOWN TERRORISTS Patriot Games style. Surgery. Not blunt force decapitation. But i'm sorry to tell Halliburton and KBR shareholders, there is less short term money in that plan.