The London Times gets it right

Parent Cafe
1

<p>

</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2212203,00.html[/url]”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;

2

<p>

You’re trying to tell me the US went into Iraq reluctantly???</p>

3

<p>I don’t really know many Europeans, but those who I have met online and IRL are not anti-American. They love the TV shows and our movies, they love the land, and they love the people. But they sure as heck don’t love the unholy trainwreck of unmitigated crap spewed by out the Bush adminstration.</p>

<p>And that’s really the whole ruse behind this obnoxious article: to be against Bush is to be against America. Nevermind that about ** 7/10 of Americans ** are against Bush - that’s just a silly technicality, of course! The idea that one can be anti-Bush without being anti-American is apparently a distinction that flies blithely over the authors’ heads, and leads to the shamelessly ode to the very same people who embrace torture, schmooze with dictatorships, imprision “terrorists” who turn out to be goat-herders, flaunt the laws and the Constitution at home, and then, oh yeah, tell you they are defenders of democracy, wink wink.</p>

<p>Bush is better than terrorists, but so is every other politician in the country. That’s a pretty low bar to set.</p>

4

<p>Wow, that was a boatload of liberal horse ****.</p>

5

<p>

Saddam immediately began violating the terms of his agreement as part of the end of the first Gulf War. He resumed his weapons of mass destruction program and in 1998 President Clinton had to send 450 cruise missiles into Iraq. Saddam violated at least 14 U.N resolutions. The U.S massed troops next to Iraq and gave Saddam 14 months to change his behavior. He didn’t. Instead, he transferred parts of it to Syria and disassembled the rest. Part of the problem with the U.S. plan was that we were so reluctant to take out Saddam.</p>

6

<p>Yeah, and we aint SMUG in America…right…</p>

7

<p>razor-</p>

<p>The problem of using your logic for justifying the war is that the immediate question comes up: “Why not worse dictators than Saddam?” Why not North Korea, for example? Why don’t we just go clean upthe world as we see it, making everyone into Christian Democrats/Republicans? Don’t you see the sheer audacity of this view? Can you not understand that this attitude CREATES more terrorists and enemies than it will ever conquer?</p>

8

<p>Agree with your post, RugBurn. Well said.</p>

9

<p>razorsharp…please prove what you have claimed to be true…</p>

<p>that he STILL had WMD…come on…PROVE IT…the president of the USA can’t even do that!!!</p>

10

<p>Muslim terror was not created as a response. It is a longterm strategy to spread an extreme form of the religion for domination and profit.</p>

11

<p>Yes, just like the Crusades!!! History does repeat itslef</p>

12

<p>You seem almost gleeful, leftist.</p>

13

<p>

The question is not how bad the dictator is, the question is whether the dictator creates a threat for the USA. We believed Saddam was operating a secret WMD program. This is what Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc. told us – not to mention every major foreign intelligence service. There was every reason to believe he would use WMD (by himself or through terrorists associates) if given the opportunity.</p>

<p>

Clinton gave Korea the nuclear technology to build several nuclear bombs. Clinton got a promise from Korea not to build weapons. We didn’t find out NK violated its agreement until after it had nuclear weapons. We should have gone into North Korea and wiped out that little dictator but we can’t because he may use his weapons. This shows we are always right to use force to stop countries in the process of developing nuclear weapons that may be used against us. It’s called connecting the dots. The NK matter is not over yet.</p>

<p>

If a country does not pose a threat to the US, there is no reason to go in there. That’s why we are staying out of many violent parts of Africa right now. And that is the right decision, despite all the crybabies (all of whom opposed Bush’s interverntion in Iraq) screaming that people are killing each other. If we do have to go into other countries, we need to make them democratic in order to avoid having to return to those countries. Your suggestion that we are creating more terrorists is a myth. </p>

<p>The real problem facing America is that we lack the backbone to take small steps to protect outselves. The result is that we must suffer major hits before taking any action. Terrorist camps were operating all thorugh the Clinton administrator, yet nothing was done. It took 9/11 before the US took any steps to fight terrorism. </p>

<p>It will take Iran or North Korea dropping a nuclear bomb before we do what is necessary to stop the spread of nuclear technology to our enemies.</p>

14

<p>This article (or at least the exceprts offered by the OP) strikes me as silly. Yes, I too deplore thoughtless criticism of America; in fact, I hate mindless criticism in all its forms. Down with bashing! </p>

<p>Much more useful would be a definition of just what America-bashing is. That way we could distinguish the mindless criticism from the thoughtful criticism, and then deal with real ways to address the things we got wrong.</p>

15

<p>" “Why not worse dictators than Saddam?” Why not North Korea, for example? "</p>

<p>Perhaps you could ask that question of the Clinton administration and the US Senate. Clinton was beating the drum of how evil and destabilizing Saddam was and the Senate responded with a unanimous statement calling for regime change in Iraq. If Iraq wasn’t the most threatening place, why did they bother with such a resolution for a “third rate” menace. Why not a resolution for regime change in N. Korea or Iran?</p>

<p>The hypocrisy of the situation is that now, some of those who voted for and spoke vehemently about the threats that Saddam posed are now saying that “Iraq posed no threat”. That’s political balderdash.</p>

16

<p>“Why not North Korea, for example?”</p>

<p>Because Kim Jong-il is afraid of China. As communist as it is…it still wants to keep its capitalist interests. China and Korea don’t really get along…and as long as China has strong economic ties to the US, it will act for them. Not so much can be said for Iran…which looks like that loony isnt afraid of much, and can/will do anything. There was also no real adjacent power to Iraq to keep Sadaam in check…you could say Iran was, but that war was done and over with, both countries following their own agenda by the time 2002 rolled along.</p>

17

<p>Another supporter out there.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060612/12barone.htm[/url]”>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060612/12barone.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;