Just Cover- First off, the term 'bleeding heart' usual is associated with liberal. I'm a registered Republican who has never voted for democratic legislation or a democratic candidate in my life. This isn't a case of republican or democrat or bleeding hearts or whatever..it's a case of disagreeing with the decision to go to war in Iraq, and that is a personal decision made by looking at the situation objectively.
How about those people currently living in Somalia, North Korea, etc.? I would take it that since we are now 'liberating' other countries, those would be next on our list. They are under dictatorship rule and have little or no freedoms, human rights are violated, etc.
Or since we are fighting the war on terrorism, the Saudi ties to Al-Queda should lead us into an invasion there. Or Pakistan has WMD, including nuclear weapons, along with an unstable governemnt, that should be on the hit list as well.
But for some reason I don't think we will be doing jack shit in regards to those countries. Whether it be due to politics, just as the French have their own vested interests in Iraq, we have the same in Saudi Arabia and we won't even think of setting foot there. North Korea, China, Pakistan...we won't do anything there because those are battles we can't win in the long run. So instead we choose Iraq.
Didn't hear anything about the non-compliance until after 9/11. Promises were made that and Iraq/Al-Queda connection would be established...still haven't seen that. It's a country half a world away that has never initiated any type of attack against the United States. WE were the ones got him into power, funneled funds into this regime, gave him the WMD. What the hell has he been doing since the first Gulf War? The usual inside his own country, but not much else. And what he does in his country is beyond hideous. Same can be said for other leaders currently in power. Are we going after them? I would hope so if we are now in the business of 'liberating'..at least be consistent. People like him should not be 'leading' countries. So why did we put him in there in the first place? For our own interests in the Middle East. Turn a blind eye until he doesn't serve a purpose any longer.
I'm all for getting him out of there. But you can't tell me, even if it does sound like something out of a movie, that we can't in some way, shape, have him and his sons assissinated, whether it be from the inside or whatever, I have a hard time believing that could not happen. Especially since we are breaking international law as is by declaring war on Iraq and essentially assissinating them anyway, but at the same time killing innocents and infrastructure.
And those who think it will be all peaches and cream once the war is over, I think you are sadly mistaken. This is the Middle East, with religous roots that go back thousands of years. We will not be welcome there, no matter what good we are trying to do.
Meanwhile, the hunderd billion plus that this war and eventualy reconstruction of Iraq will cost I think might do us a bit of good in our own country. Unemployment is astronomical, educational system is in the pits, etc....how about worrying about the needs of our citizens first and trying to fix the huge problems we face?
Everyone has their own opinion, whether they formulate it by flocking with the other sheep who follow blindly (and that goes both ways...not just going along with whatever the government says, but also going along with the anti-war protests because it's the 'in' thing or whatever) or they think things over regardless of party lines or anti-government feelings or pacifism. That just happens to be my opinion. Doesn't mean I think our country is a terrible place or that I'm rooting for Hussein. This is a great country, one I'm proud to live in. That doesn't necessarily agree with everything our country does. If that was the case and everyone just agreed all the time with our government's actions, that would be a very dangerous thing.
I support the troops as this is their job to carry out the actions of our leaders. This is what they train and enlist to do. Now if the military starts questioning, that is a different story...I don't believe that is right for them and would just cause major, major problems. I can't fault them for carrying out orders (unless if it was some extreme, drastic case that would not happen..say getting orders to bomb Cleveland because the Cavs suck). These are American's that are putting their lives on the line..I can only respect, admire, support and hope they all come back safely. That still doesn't mean I can't disagree with what the leaders are telling them to fight for.
Now if after this invasion, we go to Somalia, go take care of the North Korea issue, go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., then I won't have a problem with what we are doing now. But it just seems to me we are picking on a country that we know has no chance of defeating us, carries a 'name' that the American public is more than familiar with, and is what seemingly looks like a stepping stone to increase our presence in the Middle East instead of facing a more pressing situation in North Korea, liberating Somalia where that country is in just as terrible of shape as Iraq (but we don't have the history with them nor the familiar "Hussein' name that goes along with them), facing Pakistan who actually has nuclear weapons and a government that isn't exactly stable, or Saudi Arabia who has known ties to terrorists and Al-Queda.
It's great that we all have difference's of opinions...if not, as I said previously, it would be a scary thing. This issue isn't tangible, black and white, one way is right one is defintely wrong. And nobody is going to change their minds over what someone on Madjack's forum writes. I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to state my feelings, my opinion, without having to see the typical 'bleeding heart' or 'pacifist' bullshit labels applied to those who don't agree with the war.
