2,000 Dead, Better Pull Out Now! But then again...

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Here's a viable plan. Pull out all the troops from Iraq, who, by the way, had nothing to do with 9/11. Place the troops on our Southern border. They can erect fences, conduct patrols, and generally make it impossible for illegals and terrrarrists to cross the border.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: glenn1
As usual, those opposing the war will mark this milestone in completely the wrong way. A progressive worthy of the name would have wistfully mourned the loss of so many men with the regret that if we had done the morally right thing 25 or 30 years ago like we should have, there would have been both less Americans killed and an entire generation of Iraqis wouldn't have suffered a complete loss of thier human rights under a genocidal dictator.

Instead, the left of today will mourn with crocodile tears the dead, and despair of the cost to the Treasury. Like the accountant who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, the left in this country is completely oblivious to the value of the principle of standing up for human rights and are instead dwelling on the costs and dreaming of what social programs they'd have funded with it instead. Faced with the choice between supporting their ideals and their baser desires, they betrayed their ideals and would have left yet another generation of "brown skinned people" (which IMHO they secretly hold in complete disregard, if not contempt - notice their unveiled assertions that Arabs aren't mentally or culturally disposed to democracy) to the whims of a genocidal madman.

THAT, Glenn, is true over and over again.

 

[IndieSnob]

And yet you use the 2000 dead for your political gain as well, just so you can give a childish knee jerk reaction to it. Ironic, eh?

I think, and hope that I speak for alot of fellow 'liberals' in that the majority of those calling for a pullout are really the minority. As much as I hate the mess the administration has created, it serves no good for either side. But go ahead and paint everyone in the same corner if it makes you feel better.

 

[sandorski]

around and around it goes

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Oh, I think Muslim civilians were being killed on mass long before 9/11, but hey the terrorists are crazy, they couldn't have possibly done 9/11 because of innocent civilians being killed, nope.

American persecution of Muslims? If you are referencing the support of the Israeli persecution of Muslims, which is influenced by the American government, I concede that is troublesome. But, having been raised as a Muslim myself, I would not have killed 2000+ innocent lives on 9/11.

 

[nageov3t]

so 2,114 deaths and we pack up camp?

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Here's a viable plan. Pull out all the troops from Iraq, who, by the way, had nothing to do with 9/11. Place the troops on our Southern border. They can erect fences, conduct patrols, and generally make it impossible for illegals and terrrarrists to cross the border.

Presently, it does not matter if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Whether we drew the terrorists to Iraq or they were there to begin with matter not. If you consider that all of them are freedom fighters fighting for a noble cause, then I agree that we should leave, as the pose no threat. However, I do not believe that all are freedom fighters. Many are foreign-born terrorists travelling to Iraq. If they travel to Iraq, what is to prevent them from taking student-visas to the US?

Your border-control method seems reasonable, but, like I asked, is it going to stop a determined terrorist?

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: glenn1
As usual, those opposing the war will mark this milestone in completely the wrong way. A progressive worthy of the name would have wistfully mourned the loss of so many men with the regret that if we had done the morally right thing 25 or 30 years ago like we should have, there would have been both less Americans killed and an entire generation of Iraqis wouldn't have suffered a complete loss of thier human rights under a genocidal dictator.

Instead, the left of today will mourn with crocodile tears the dead, and despair of the cost to the Treasury. Like the accountant who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, the left in this country is completely oblivious to the value of the principle of standing up for human rights and are instead dwelling on the costs and dreaming of what social programs they'd have funded with it instead. Faced with the choice between supporting their ideals and their baser desires, they betrayed their ideals and would have left yet another generation of "brown skinned people" (which IMHO they secretly hold in complete disregard, if not contempt - notice their unveiled assertions that Arabs aren't mentally or culturally disposed to democracy) to the whims of a genocidal madman.

THAT, Glenn, is true over and over again.

When are you going to pack & pay for the war to rid the world of madmen in Iran, NK, China, etc...?

Wait a minute the US should invade Canada because it is such a liberal/socialist contry that don't do things the American way.

:roll:

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: glenn1
As usual, those opposing the war will mark this milestone in completely the wrong way. A progressive worthy of the name would have wistfully mourned the loss of so many men with the regret that if we had done the morally right thing 25 or 30 years ago like we should have, there would have been both less Americans killed and an entire generation of Iraqis wouldn't have suffered a complete loss of thier human rights under a genocidal dictator.

Instead, the left of today will mourn with crocodile tears the dead, and despair of the cost to the Treasury. Like the accountant who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, the left in this country is completely oblivious to the value of the principle of standing up for human rights and are instead dwelling on the costs and dreaming of what social programs they'd have funded with it instead. Faced with the choice between supporting their ideals and their baser desires, they betrayed their ideals and would have left yet another generation of "brown skinned people" (which IMHO they secretly hold in complete disregard, if not contempt - notice their unveiled assertions that Arabs aren't mentally or culturally disposed to democracy) to the whims of a genocidal madman.

THAT, Glenn, is true over and over again.

When are you going to pack & pay for the war to rid the world of madmen in Iran, NK, China, etc...?

Wait a minute the US should invade Canada because it is such a liberal/socialist contry that don't do things the American way.

:roll:

And bring the terrorists to Canada, brilliant! We all know the terrorist's weakness winter, why do you think they live in the desert? Its so simple.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: glenn1
As usual, those opposing the war will mark this milestone in completely the wrong way. A progressive worthy of the name would have wistfully mourned the loss of so many men with the regret that if we had done the morally right thing 25 or 30 years ago like we should have, there would have been both less Americans killed and an entire generation of Iraqis wouldn't have suffered a complete loss of thier human rights under a genocidal dictator.

Instead, the left of today will mourn with crocodile tears the dead, and despair of the cost to the Treasury. Like the accountant who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, the left in this country is completely oblivious to the value of the principle of standing up for human rights and are instead dwelling on the costs and dreaming of what social programs they'd have funded with it instead. Faced with the choice between supporting their ideals and their baser desires, they betrayed their ideals and would have left yet another generation of "brown skinned people" (which IMHO they secretly hold in complete disregard, if not contempt - notice their unveiled assertions that Arabs aren't mentally or culturally disposed to democracy) to the whims of a genocidal madman.

THAT, Glenn, is true over and over again.

When are you going to pack & pay for the war to rid the world of madmen in Iran, NK, China, etc...?

Wait a minute the US should invade Canada because it is such a liberal/socialist contry that don't do things the American way.

:roll:

Don't you love MAD?

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Oh, I think Muslim civilians were being killed on mass long before 9/11, but hey the terrorists are crazy, they couldn't have possibly done 9/11 because of innocent civilians being killed, nope.

American persecution of Muslims? If you are referencing the support of the Israeli persecution of Muslims, which is influenced by the American government, I concede that is troublesome. But, having been raised as a Muslim myself, I would not have killed 2000+ innocent lives on 9/11.

Its great to see you can put yourself in the Muslim's shoes.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Here's a viable plan. Pull out all the troops from Iraq, who, by the way, had nothing to do with 9/11. Place the troops on our Southern border. They can erect fences, conduct patrols, and generally make it impossible for illegals and terrrarrists to cross the border.

Presently, it does not matter if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Whether we drew the terrorists to Iraq or they were there to begin with matter not. If you consider that all of them are freedom fighters fighting for a noble cause, then I agree that we should leave, as the pose no threat. However, I do not believe that all are freedom fighters. Many are foreign-born terrorists travelling to Iraq. If they travel to Iraq, what is to prevent them from taking student-visas to the US?

Your border-control method seems reasonable, but, like I asked, is it going to stop a determined terrorist?

That is exactly right.

What is preventing the terrorists from taking "student-visas to the US" at the moment?
Is the war in Iraq suppressing or eradicating terrorist or is it creating more sophisticated terrorist?

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Oh, I think Muslim civilians were being killed on mass long before 9/11, but hey the terrorists are crazy, they couldn't have possibly done 9/11 because of innocent civilians being killed, nope.

American persecution of Muslims? If you are referencing the support of the Israeli persecution of Muslims, which is influenced by the American government, I concede that is troublesome. But, having been raised as a Muslim myself, I would not have killed 2000+ innocent lives on 9/11.

Its great to see you can put yourself in the Muslim's shoes.

Erm, what?

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: JinLien

Another 45,000 needless death of good American + millions more of Iraqi civilians before the Administration pull the troops out. See Vietnam War for reference.

Unfortunately, there are currently terrorists in Iraq who want to kill us. Do you want them to kill us? I believe we should fight them.

Then secure the the borders. Killing Muslim civilians only adds to the terrrarrist's cause.

Killing civilians on 9/11 only added to the American cause.

Is there a viable plan to secure the borders? In all seriousness, do you have a link? I'd like to familiarize myself with the subject. Who runs on this platform?

Here's a viable plan. Pull out all the troops from Iraq, who, by the way, had nothing to do with 9/11. Place the troops on our Southern border. They can erect fences, conduct patrols, and generally make it impossible for illegals and terrrarrists to cross the border.

Presently, it does not matter if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Whether we drew the terrorists to Iraq or they were there to begin with matter not. If you consider that all of them are freedom fighters fighting for a noble cause, then I agree that we should leave, as the pose no threat. However, I do not believe that all are freedom fighters. Many are foreign-born terrorists travelling to Iraq. If they travel to Iraq, what is to prevent them from taking student-visas to the US?

Your border-control method seems reasonable, but, like I asked, is it going to stop a determined terrorist?

That is exactly right.

What is preventing the terrorists from taking "student-visas to the US" at the moment?
Is the war in Iraq suppressing or eradicating terrorist or is it creating more sophisticated terrorist?

That is a difficult topic with the biased news sources. Being bombarded with cynical and optimistic ariticles from every direction does not help. It's very hard to tell.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Your border-control method seems reasonable, but, like I asked, is it going to stop a determined terrorist?

Nothing in the world is entirely safe. There's always the chance something could go wrong. At the very least, with a significant military presence on our southern border, a terrorist is going to have a very hard time crossing undetected and might get himself killed for his trouble - long before he accomplishes his mission. Compare that to a border where poor Mexican peasants can sneak across with their children, undetected - imagine what a funded, trained terrorist could do...

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Your border-control method seems reasonable, but, like I asked, is it going to stop a determined terrorist?

Nothing in the world is entirely safe. There's always the chance something could go wrong. At the very least, with a significant military presence on our southern border, a terrorist is going to have a very hard time crossing undetected and might get himself killed for his trouble - long before he accomplishes his mission. Compare that to a border where poor Mexican peasants can sneak across with their children, undetected - imagine what a funded, trained terrorist could do...

Question: Border patrol is currently National-guard?

Would border-patrol duty be an appealing job to enlisted men?

 

[glenn1]

When are you going to pack & pay for the war to rid the world of madmen in Iran, NK, China, etc...?

Been there, done that. I spent a considerable amount of time in the military including in that particular area of the world and have since moved on to a different phase of my life, but I think I can fairly say I've paid my dues on that front. And now I pay my dues via my taxes.

I think the better question is when someone like you who claims to support the goals of human rights and the other legacy of classical liberalism, when do YOU pack and pay? Sitting around the Starbucks saying "fvck yeah" reading a press release from Amnesty International doesn't do anything except show you're willing to talk the talk but nothing more, when asked to sacrifice your time or treasure.

Wait a minute the US should invade Canada because it is such a liberal/socialist contry that don't do things the American way.

I don't recall Canada being a haven of crimes against humanity. If you were gassing Kurdish villages, sending money to suicide bombers, and named to the sponsors of terrorism list, and had a leader who seemed to get off on invading other nations, I'd probably say that Canada should be dealt with too. But you aren't, so we don't. Of course you don't even associate Saddam-era Iraq with human rights violations or crimes against humanity (see above for how you've lost all moral perspective on that subject), I can see where you'd be confused and thinking Pierre Trudeau was just as bad as Saddam.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: glenn1

When are you going to pack & pay for the war to rid the world of madmen in Iran, NK, China, etc...?

Been there, done that. I spent a considerable amount of time in the military including in that particular area of the world and have since moved on to a different phase of my life, but I think I can fairly say I've paid my dues on that front. And now I pay my dues via my taxes.

I think the better question is when someone like you who claims to support the goals of human rights and the other legacy of classical liberalism, when do YOU pack and pay? Sitting around the Starbucks saying "fvck yeah" reading a press release from Amnesty International doesn't do anything except show you're willing to talk the talk but nothing more, when asked to sacrifice your time or treasure.

Wait a minute the US should invade Canada because it is such a liberal/socialist contry that don't do things the American way.

I don't recall Canada being a haven of crimes against humanity. If you were gassing Kurdish villages, sending money to suicide bombers, and named to the sponsors of terrorism list, and had a leader who seemed to get off on invading other nations, I'd probably say that Canada should be dealt with too. But you aren't, so we don't. Of course you don't even associate Saddam-era Iraq with human rights violations or crimes against humanity (see above for how you've lost all moral perspective on that subject), I can see where you'd be confused and thinking Pierre Trudeau was just as bad as Saddam.

Pack and pay?

I'm sorry if you fought for a dubious cause, and that may be very hard to live with. But we fought against the draft and now we don't have to go. We still have every right to protest the numerous crimes going around in the outside world. You going to Korea and killing a few Asians doesn't make you any smarter on global policy.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Your border-control method seems reasonable, but, like I asked, is it going to stop a determined terrorist?

Nothing in the world is entirely safe. There's always the chance something could go wrong. At the very least, with a significant military presence on our southern border, a terrorist is going to have a very hard time crossing undetected and might get himself killed for his trouble - long before he accomplishes his mission. Compare that to a border where poor Mexican peasants can sneak across with their children, undetected - imagine what a funded, trained terrorist could do...

Question: Border patrol is currently National-guard?

Would border-patrol duty be an appealing job to enlisted men?

I think the border patrol is its own organization, under the DHS, not military. Its poorly staffed and underfunded.

Would it be appealing? Maybe. But it really doesn't matter. I'm sure many service men would rather not go overseas, but when you're military, you do as you are ordered.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
To all the wacko liberals who want to use 2,000 as some sort of arbitrary number to justify an immediate American withdrawl from Iraq, consider the following bit of history: During the American War for Independence (which lasted longer than the present war in Iraq) did you know that a total of 2,113 FRENCH soldiers died fighting on our side? What if France has said, "Well, 2,000 is our quota, sorry Americans, good luck in your fight for freedom..." Luckily, the French stayed the course. Its so sad that the biggest piece of news this week isn't about the ratification of the Iraqi constitution, but the big 2-0-0-0.

Nice of you to use the 2,000 American deaths to bash liberals. A bit of friendly advice: You seem to be a little confused on your talking points. You do know you're supposed to bash the French, not give them compliments on their courageousness in battle, right?

:laugh:

And oh yeah, the Iraqi Constitution story ran on every single mainstream media web site ... so, what? Did you crawl out of a cave or something? It's not the rest of our faults that you aren't paying attention. Or do you just want to whine and moan about the "liberal media?"

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: glenn1

When are you going to pack & pay for the war to rid the world of madmen in Iran, NK, China, etc...?

Been there, done that. I spent a considerable amount of time in the military including in that particular area of the world and have since moved on to a different phase of my life, but I think I can fairly say I've paid my dues on that front. And now I pay my dues via my taxes.

I think the better question is when someone like you who claims to support the goals of human rights and the other legacy of classical liberalism, when do YOU pack and pay? Sitting around the Starbucks saying "fvck yeah" reading a press release from Amnesty International doesn't do anything except show you're willing to talk the talk but nothing more, when asked to sacrifice your time or treasure.

Wait a minute the US should invade Canada because it is such a liberal/socialist contry that don't do things the American way.

I don't recall Canada being a haven of crimes against humanity. If you were gassing Kurdish villages, sending money to suicide bombers, and named to the sponsors of terrorism list, and had a leader who seemed to get off on invading other nations, I'd probably say that Canada should be dealt with too. But you aren't, so we don't. Of course you don't even associate Saddam-era Iraq with human rights violations or crimes against humanity (see above for how you've lost all moral perspective on that subject), I can see where you'd be confused and thinking Pierre Trudeau was just as bad as Saddam.

You are right that I haven't paid my due by blood, but I definitely pay my due in taxes.

I also glad that I didn?t have to be in the army or in the position that I must kill or be kill. I was drafted by the age of 12 because I was a tall kid in Vietnam, however thanks to my parents who had enough money for bribes to keep me out of the army & certain death. I have seen enough war and death in Vietnam to last 2 lifetimes, and many of my family members & friends have lay down their life to defend the Western ideology of Democracy that was forces down our throats. Therefore, I am against ideology/momentary gain wars.

I detest war, but you better pray to your God for your safety if my freedom and families are threaten.

IMHO, American lives & freedom aren?t being threaten, however Americans are at risk in Iraq and many places in the world due to the war and its lack of diplomacy.

 

[glenn1]

We still have every right to protest the numerous crimes going around in the outside world.

So I've noticed. You'll protest all day long. You'll protest Robert Mugabe, or the events in Darfur, famine in North Korea, or genocide in Rwanda all day long. It's only when someone proposes actually doing something about it (or worse yet, actually goes and does it) that might actually DO something to change the situation you suddenly lose interest. Let's face it, when Hutus start butchering a few hundred thousand Tutsis you'd rather sit around with thumbs up your ass in comfortable Central Park having a big rally than demanding the U.S. send in the 82nd Airborne and a MEU backed by an aircraft carrier.

 

[bay]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
To all the wacko liberals who want to use 2,000 as some sort of arbitrary number to justify an immediate American withdrawl from Iraq, consider the following bit of history: During the American War for Independence (which lasted longer than the present war in Iraq) did you know that a total of 2,113 FRENCH soldiers died fighting on our side? What if France has said, "Well, 2,000 is our quota, sorry Americans, good luck in your fight for freedom..." Luckily, the French stayed the course. Its so sad that the biggest piece of news this week isn't about the ratification of the Iraqi constitution, but the big 2-0-0-0.

uhh the french weren't killing american citizens and if they were it definately wasn't in the numbers that are happening in Iraq. Basically what I am saying is that that analogy you used is not the best.

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
And yet you use the 2000 dead for your political gain as well, just so you can give a childish knee jerk reaction to it. Ironic, eh?

I think, and hope that I speak for alot of fellow 'liberals' in that the majority of those calling for a pullout are really the minority. As much as I hate the mess the administration has created, it serves no good for either side. But go ahead and paint everyone in the same corner if it makes you feel better.

well put

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: glenn1

We still have every right to protest the numerous crimes going around in the outside world.

So I've noticed. You'll protest all day long. You'll protest Robert Mugabe, or the events in Darfur, famine in North Korea, or genocide in Rwanda all day long. It's only when someone proposes actually doing something about it (or worse yet, actually goes and does it) that might actually DO something to change the situation you suddenly lose interest. Let's face it, when Hutus start butchering a few hundred thousand Tutsis you'd rather sit around with thumbs up your ass in comfortable Central Park having a big rally than demanding the U.S. send in the 82nd Airborne and a MEU backed by an aircraft carrier.

Well because we don't have the right to send those guys over there if we aren't in danger. I don't feel comfortable sending the 82nd Airborne into a dangerous area when I'm 'sitting around with my thumb up my ass'.

Believe me if we actually had a fair, global peacekeeping force that actually handed out true justice I would be among the first to pick a gun and get my revolutionary ass going. Its something I fvcking dream about every night.

 

[glenn1]

I detest war, but you better pray to your God for you safety if my freedom and families are threaten.

Trust me, I don't like war either. But I think with your experiences you can agree that war is sometimes less bad than the alternative. Democracy is a side issue - I could care less if Iraq becomes democratic, socialist, or any other form of stable government which respects the basic human rights of its citizens and its neighbors. Obviously the closer to classical liberalism they go, the better I think it will be for them, but that's for them to decide.

Rather than using the example of the U.S. and French involvement in Vietnam as a comparison (which I will agree is tainted and was not with entirely pure motives), let's try another case. Given the events in Cambodia, including Pol Pot's Killing Fields, would you agree or disagree that Vietnam's invasion was a less bad alternative than Cambodian genocide? Like the U.S., Vietnam's hands weren't completely clean either, and I think it's fair to say that Vietnam was not motivated by a desire to "force democracy down their throats" (Cambodia's throat, that is).