Dave Hall wrote:
Another glowing example why countries should not be ruled by
oppressive dictatorships; communist, socialist, or fascist.

And yet, here you are, cheerfully proclaiming that Bush & Cheney are our
ordained leaders regardless of whether they were elected last time or
"forced" to cancel the election this time...


Lose the sarcasm. It doesn't help your credibility.

Ask me if I care. You are never going to learn anyway. Not about boats,
not about history, and damn sure not about politics.

... Besides, modern
liberalism didn't really start taking off until the 1960's. Although
they have been caught trying to "revise" history.

Like when?

In any event liberalism as a political concept dates back to the
earliest Renaissance. You clearly are not very well educated... well
indoctrinated, maybe, but your education sucks. Ever read a book? You
know, those things with words printed on paper?



... Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

What "greater good" are you talking about?


That should be plainly obvious. Ridding the world of a threat.

Like what?



In WW2 we were fighting a
declared war against nation-states. Civilian casualties were a
regrettable strategic necessity, once the imperative of destroying enemy
industries was established. Many people still do not accept it as axiomatic.


So why then should your well crafted thought here, not equally apply
today? Does the fact that the players play by a different set of rules
change the urgency or legitimacy of the mission?

The only players that go by a "different set of rules" are Bush &
Cheney. Terror tactics and suicide attacks have been around since Old
Testament times. Only the ignorant think they are something new.




In this case, we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation for no logical
reason and with no serious justification.


The logic and justification are there. The problem is that you refuse
to accept it, for reasons which I'm sure you think are valid, but are
based on little more than your own personal beliefs.

OK... what was the threat? Where are the WMDs? Where are the links to Al
Queda?

So far, Bush & Cheney have claimed it's all true, but they have provided
no evidence. The 9/11 committee asked them repeatedly.


.. and in the course of that
war our military inadvertently killed over 10,000 civilians. It did
little or nothing to hasten the defeat of enemy armed forces.


Saddam's army is history. His WMD program is gone, the citizens of
Iraq have a chance at self governing. We've accomplished many of our
goals. I'm also not so sure that that 10,000 civilian casualty figure
is accurate.

No, it's probably closer to 15,000

Saddam's army was no threat to the U.S. His WMD's were gone since the
early 1990s. Invading another country to install a democracy is not
acceptable... if that were the case, then the U.N. would be justified in
building a coalition to invade the U.S. based on the 2000 election.



There was
little or no enemy industry to destroy, indeed we wanted to preserve the
most important (oil) so as to grab it quickly.


It's not important to destroy industries. The only reason to cripple
industry is to deprive the enemy the means to continue to wage war. In
the case of Iraq, the war was over so quickly, that there was no need
to knock our manufacturing and other support industries.

So why did we? That is where the "collateral damage" happened, in the
"shock & awe" bombing campaign to knock out Iraq's infrastructure (read:
roads, water & electric utilities). By some amazing coincidence, the
contracts to rebuild that infrastructure have been mostly handed to
Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.

Iraqi civilian deaths are a fact that the Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will
not ever accept, but true nonetheless. Unfortunately this will influence
history for a long time to come.


I don't understand your duplicity here. In one paragraph you defend
the civilian casualties of WWII as "strategically necessary", yet you
bemoan the same statistic in Iraq. War is war.

You yourself just said, it was not necessary to knock out Iraq's
infrastructure. But we did. And caused 10,000+ civilian casualties doing it.



.... But ask yourself,
is the world better off with or without Saddam Hussein in power, with
his network of thugs aiding and abetting anti-western terrorists and
covertly developing WMD?

Considering the fact that Saddam was not aiding abetting anti-US
terrorists and had no credible WMD program? Or should I consider Bush &
Cheney's smoke and mirrors?



Yes, he's not the only one, but you have to start somewhere. The
bigger question is: are you ready to take the war against terror to
the next level?

I would like to see the U.S. take the war against terrorists to the 1st
level. So far, we did a pretty good job in Afghanistan but left it
unfinished, and then took a horribly wrong turn.

IMHO if you're going to kill 10,000 people you'd better have proof. So
far Bush & Cheney have none. If you're going to divert hundreds of
millions of dollars, billions of man-hours, devote a major part of the
U.S.'s considerable military might, then the goal should be worth it.

It's not.

So far, Bush & Cheney have no proof. They don't even have very good
evidence. And by some great coincidence, the war in Iraq has
tremendously enriched a lot of Cheney's former business partners as well
as completing GWB's personal vendetta against Saddam. If it looks like a
duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... is it really a duck?

Or in this case maybe it's a turkey. But you Bush/Cheney cheerleaders
refuse to see it.

DSK