Originally Posted by dlssmith

In theory, the invasion of Iraq was done to preempt action that might have been brought against us later. The case was poorly made by the Bush administration and congress. And, don't be fooled by anyone in congress - most of them voted to authorize action in Iraq - and most of them had access to ALL available intelligence. If they say they didn't know - they're lying. If you were in Congress, would you vote without knowing the facts on something as important as the invasion of another country? Give me a freakin break.

As painful as WW2 was, dithering politics allowed it to happen. Most of our policy post WW2 has been influenced by that fact. There seems to be an interventionist attitude that prevails - Despite the trouble it's caused in Korea and Viet Nam and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I don't let them off the hook for it, but after the 6 months of steady drumbeating by all members of the Bush admin. in the rollout of their new "product," the nation was primed with the belief that Saddam had to be removed, and soon.

A recent letter in the SF Chron said it well:

Editor -- Debra J. Saunders' denial of Bush's war because of the votes he was able to squeeze out of Congress is so misleading. Remember what post-9/11 America was like? We as a people were so terrified at our newly revealed vulnerability that we were putty in our leaders' hands. President Bush knew it, as did Congress. His use of the red/orange/yellow terror alerts are now shown to have been placed at politically convenient times, and helped to preserve the 9/11 fear (and give Osama bin Laden more bang for his buck).

Bottom line: Any politician who openly questioned Bush's war was political roadkill. The Democrats did let us down, but we would have killed them off, if they hadn't.

MIKE FLEMING

I understand the pre-emption POV but my concern all along was that our very presence in that area, freely tossing about deadly force, would lead to more danger than it would allay.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I understand the pre-emption POV but my concern all along was that our very presence in that area, freely tossing about deadly force, would lead to more danger than it would allay.

Originally Posted by dlssmith

This is an excellent point. Politicos have always said that we must keep the oil flowing for the sake of the world economy, etc. So we went to Kuwait and kicked butt there. But, I counter by saying that the oil will flow no matter what because the oil producers want money. So why do we bother mixing it up in their politics?

I do believe that Israel has a right to exist and that we should give succor there when necessary, but it's a small strip of land that our Navy can defend with relative ease.

I am a conservative person, a republican at times, but I don't think this war has been good for the country. It's hard to identify the good guys sometimes and in the ME it's damned near impossible. So who do we kill?

Originally Posted by Designo_E320

I believe the time has come for the democrats to take this country back and to bring America's image back to that which existed before Bush in the international community, IE smart, intelligent, powerful, fair, just, humanitarian, DEMOCRACY, etc.

Originally Posted by Howitzer

That is your opinion you have a right to think what you want and write about it. Thompson thinks service is a noble deed as do others dating back to the first day an Army was formed. Some Soldiers talk about it and some don't what difference does it make? Are the men that were interviewed on Band of Brother less noble than someone who was not? I think the Pacifists that smoke jumped during WWII are noble and served honorably heck I think someone that serves as a volunteer fireman has done his/her job for society.

Soldiers were glorified in Vietnam? Personally I think that people don't like the rah rah Soldier talk because in makes their anti Soldier views and prejudices taboo and not something they want to shout out loud in a public place.

In summary - I will give the answer that nobody likes - I do think much less of people who have not served. Its my thought, its my life, its my life and thats how I roll and am not afraid to say it.

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

This word Empire is being bantied about rather loosely here. Have we not had military bases around the world for some time now? I know because I have been to a lot of them since 1963. Seems like that's a long time before GW took office.

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Yes, and we should be shutting many of them down and bringing our boys home, not adding to them. The maintenance of those military bases, many of which are completely pointless from a national security perspective, comsumes an enormous portion of our federal budget.

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Yes, and we should be shutting many of them down and bringing our boys home, not adding to them. The maintenance of those military bases, many of which are completely pointless from a national security perspective, comsumes an enormous portion of our federal budget.

Originally Posted by Botnst

I've been saying that for over a decade.

For example, WTF do we still have forces in Europe? The EU is a rich and powerful group and they can afford their own defense--why are we subsidizing their welfare state by paying for their defense?

Same with S. Korea & Japan.

It's a big world out there. Let them play their own game at their own expense.

This does NOT mean that I think we should disarm. Far from it. I think we should maintain an extremely powerful military capable of heavy cargo lift anywhere in the world. Also, if countries pull their own weight and work as partners with us (and us with them, of course) I have no problem forming military alliances with them. Like the UK, for example. I like that we have a nearly unified command and nearly free exchange of intelligence with the Brits. We are both better for the relationship, IMO.

B

Originally Posted by Botnst

I've been saying that for over a decade.

For example, WTF do we still have forces in Europe? The EU is a rich and powerful group and they can afford their own defense--why are we subsidizing their welfare state by paying for their defense?

Same with S. Korea & Japan.

It's a big world out there. Let them play their own game at their own expense.

This does NOT mean that I think we should disarm. Far from it. I think we should maintain an extremely powerful military capable of heavy cargo lift anywhere in the world. Also, if countries pull their own weight and work as partners with us (and us with them, of course) I have no problem forming military alliances with them. Like the UK, for example. I like that we have a nearly unified command and nearly free exchange of intelligence with the Brits. We are both better for the relationship, IMO.

B