APPEASEMENT?

[mf_dolphin]

And with all due respect Johnathan I think you are equally blinded by our liberal media. While nothing can replace the lives we are losing in Iraq, these losses are within what should be expected. Freedom comes with a price that's paid in blood. It's been that way since the beginning of time and won't change in our lifetime. While I agree that Saddam was no Hitler, what might have he become if left unchecked? The cause was just and necessary and we just need to see this to the end.

[rainstorm]

you also seem to know little of history. ww2 came about because of french inaction. had france reoccupied the rhineland in 1936 it would have averted the death of 50 million people. france and england defeated germany in 1918, then sat on their hands while hitler rearmed. i applaud bush for doing the right thing. we will never know the positve consequences of bush's courageous actions in iraq. however, i am confident if we had done nothing, a major disaster would have awaited us in the future. i cant believe you equate us to hitler's germany. we dont want to exterminate anyone.

[Rainband]

the time has passed for us to REACT to what terrorists do to us. war has been declared, and we must take that war to them. how different would history be if churchill had decided that fighting hitler would cost too many lives, and too much money. the easy thing to do is quit, the right thing to do is win.

THIS is no comparison to hitler Hitler killed Millions of people and invaded other countires The later is Kind of like us

is here. our enemies would happily exterminate every one of us. to equate us with hitler is repugnant. you dont win a war by fighting and dying on your own soil. to win a war tough decisions have to be made. chuchill made a tough decision in 1940 by destroying the french fleet at toulon and in the process killing thousands of french sailors, but it was the right thing to do. war has been declared on us.

I agree the WAR ON TERRORISM is jusitified. BUT to invade a country..ruthless dictator or not..and go against the UN which is representing the "free world" pretty much and NOT finding any smoking gun..makes no sense to me. They(UN) supported us in desert storm..why NOT ..NOW!!! The Support for the US in Iraq..where is it. How many countries support our occupation of Iraq.....Open your eyes and see whats really happening

[Rainband]

you also seem to know little of history. ww2 came about because of french inaction. had france reoccupied the rhineland in 1936 it would have averted the death of 50 million people. france and england defeated germany in 1918, then sat on their hands while hitler rearmed. i applaud bush for doing the right thing. we will never know the positve consequences of bush's courageous actions in iraq. however, i am confident if we had done nothing, a major disaster would have awaited us in the future. i cant believe you equate us to hitler's germany. we dont want to exterminate anyone.

I said the later ..I didn't say we exterminated anyone

[Rainband]

the time has passed for us to REACT to what terrorists do to us. war has been declared, and we must take that war to them. how different would history be if churchill had decided that fighting hitler would cost too many lives, and too much money. the easy thing to do is quit, the right thing to do is win.

THIS is no comparison to hitler Hitler killed Millions of people and invaded other countires The later is Kind of like us

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[rainstorm]

who cares about the un? i dont. i guess thats the difference between me and you. i dont want to surrender our independence to a bunch of nations that hate our guts. only 2 european countries failed to support us in iraq, france and germany. those nations are jealous of us. they want to control us through the un. no thanks!! we were attacked, not the un.

[rainstorm]

the time has passed for us to REACT to what terrorists do to us. war has been declared, and we must take that war to them. how different would history be if churchill had decided that fighting hitler would cost too many lives, and too much money. the easy thing to do is quit, the right thing to do is win.

THIS is no comparison to hitler Hitler killed Millions of people and invaded other countires The later is Kind of like us

Please don't put words in my mouth.

"hitler killed millions of people and invaded other countries. the latter is kind of like us"

that is comparing us to hitler, is it not? again, a history lesson. we defeated iraq after they invaded kuwait. they did not comply with the cease fire. plus we were already in iraq ever since 91. england and france defeated germany in 1918. they, however, did nothing when hitler did not comply with the peace treaty, thus allowing 50 million to die. bush did the right thing. we will never know how many people would have died had bush not acted, but clearly following the example of france in 1936 would have been very unfortunate. it amazes me, with the history of french appeasement, that you want us to do what france dictates to us

[Rainband]

The MAJORITY of free world was against the Iraq Invasion. France seems to be a historical convenience at this point????

[ameriwx2003]

Rainstorm. So your reasoning for the war in Iraq is not the war on terror but because they broke a treaty??. Hmm, North Korea has broken treaties as well, We aren't so quick to invade that country though are we??:):):)

[mf_dolphin]

The whole free world was not against the war against Iraq. If you're going to make a point at least be accurate...... The last time I looked the US, Japan, Australia and several other members of the coalition were part of the free world....

[wx247]

The whole free world was not against the war against Iraq. If you're going to make a point at least be accurate...... The last time I looked the US, Japan, Australia and several other members of the coalition were part of the free world....

While official governments may have supported us countless majorities in almost every country were against the invasion. Not that I feel we need to look at poll numbers before we make a decision but I would venture to say that more than 75% of the free world was against the war.

[j]

Home was looking pretty good a few years back...

Yes..it certainly was while plans for 911 were in the making!

[Derek Ortt]

The UN is the most illegetimate organization in the entire world. All they want to do is turn us into a backwards banana republic. While I do not like Bush, I am quite glad that he stood up the UN. However, I wish he had also told the UN to pay their billions in parking tickets or get the you know what out of this country. They are the most hypocritical people in the world as they refuse to follow our laws, but insist on us follow every single edict that they spew from their rear ends

[rainstorm]

The whole free world was not against the war against Iraq. If you're going to make a point at least be accurate...... The last time I looked the US, Japan, Australia and several other members of the coalition were part of the free world....

While official governments may have supported us countless majorities in almost every country were against the invasion. Not that I feel we need to look at poll numbers before we make a decision but I would venture to say that more than 75% of the free world was against the war.[/quote

i dont doubt 80% of france wanted to avoid war with hitler at any cost in 1936 when he remilitarized the rhineland. whats your point? and they paid a high cost indeed.

[stormchazer]

the time has passed for us to REACT to what terrorists do to us. war has been declared, and we must take that war to them. how different would history be if churchill had decided that fighting hitler would cost too many lives, and too much money. the easy thing to do is quit, the right thing to do is win.

THIS is no comparison to hitler Hitler killed Millions of people and invaded other countries The later is Kind of like us

What you say is granted, but 4 years earlier, the current PM of England, Chamberlain went for appeasement. At that time, there were those that said the same of Hitler that was being said of Sadam. "He is a danger to Europe, he has attacked his neighbors (Czech and Austria). He is stockpiling weapons in violation of the Treaty of Versailles." Hindsight is 20/20 I know and we have not found WMDs (though every President and most World Leaders including the UN thought he had them), but can anyone here say that Sadam was not potentially a dangerous man? We all knew Osama was potentially dangerous? We have proven that Al Qaida elements were there and Sadam was paying families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Peace is all well and good but as long as you have evil people willing to make war, then sometimes you have to fight to have peace. Ask 7 million Jews if they appreciated Chamberlain's peace plan...or the thousands of Kurds Sadam murdered after Gulf War I. Did the Rawandans murdered in the mid-90's appreciate our restraint. The problem and gift is that we Americans seem to think we have to protect the world. We are the only Superpower right now and we have a duty to do what we can diplomatically and on occasion, at the point of a gun, to fight terrorism and look at for those to weak to resist. I'd rather take them on in Iraq and Afghanistan then take them on in downtown New York. My cousin and two uncles serving in Iraq believe that too. :usa

[stormchazer]

The whole free world was not against the war against Iraq. If you're going to make a point at least be accurate...... The last time I looked the US, Japan, Australia and several other members of the coalition were part of the free world....

While official governments may have supported us countless majorities in almost every country were against the invasion. Not that I feel we need to look at poll numbers before we make a decision but I would venture to say that more than 75% of the free world was against the war.

Only number I care about are the 70% of Americans who were for it! We do not base our security on a pitiful, spineless UN. If the UN gets involved, then failure is often the case.

[rainstorm]

The whole free world was not against the war against Iraq. If you're going to make a point at least be accurate...... The last time I looked the US, Japan, Australia and several other members of the coalition were part of the free world....

While official governments may have supported us countless majorities in almost every country were against the invasion. Not that I feel we need to look at poll numbers before we make a decision but I would venture to say that more than 75% of the free world was against the war.

thats the thinking that caused 9/11 in the 1st place. we had been attacked many times before that. however, the politicians, dem and repub, refused to make the hard decisions because they feared "public opinion". they feared what the "world" thought. they worried over what the un would "think" of us. in other words, they decided to do nothing.
LEADERS LEAD, they dont follow public opoinion, they shape it. i am not sure george bush would have done anything different than any past president, but this time the war was forced upon us. i support his actions after 9/11.

[GalvestonDuck]

What you say is granted, but 4 years earlier, the current PM of England, Chamberlain went for appeasement. At that time, there were those that said the same of Hitler that was being said of Sadam. "He is a danger to Europe, he has attacked his neighbors (Czech and Austria). He is stockpiling weapons in violation of the Treaty of Versailles." Hindsight is 20/20 I know and we have not found WMDs (though every President and most World Leaders including the UN thought he had them), but can anyone here say that Sadam was not potentially a dangerous man? We all knew Osama was potentially dangerous? We have proven that Al Qaida elements were there and Sadam was paying families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Peace is all well and good but as long as you have evil people willing to make war, then sometimes you have to fight to have peace. Ask 7 million Jews if they appreciated Chamberlain's peace plan...or the thousands of Kurds Sadam murdered after Gulf War I. Did the Rawandans murdered in the mid-90's appreciate our restraint. The problem and gift is that we Americans seem to think we have to protect the world. We are the only Superpower right now and we have a duty to do what we can diplomatically and on occasion, at the point of a gun, to fight terrorism and look at for those to weak to resist. I'd rather take them on in Iraq and Afghanistan then take them on in downtown New York. My cousin and two uncles serving in Iraq believe that too. :usa

So, why aren't we doing our duty by protecting the exiled government of Tibet and stopping the systematic violations of the Torture Convention by China? If we go after Saddam because of how he tortured and killed Kurds, why do we ignore what's going on elsewhere?

[stormchazer]

What you say is granted, but 4 years earlier, the current PM of England, Chamberlain went for appeasement. At that time, there were those that said the same of Hitler that was being said of Sadam. "He is a danger to Europe, he has attacked his neighbors (Czech and Austria). He is stockpiling weapons in violation of the Treaty of Versailles." Hindsight is 20/20 I know and we have not found WMDs (though every President and most World Leaders including the UN thought he had them), but can anyone here say that Sadam was not potentially a dangerous man? We all knew Osama was potentially dangerous? We have proven that Al Qaida elements were there and Sadam was paying families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Peace is all well and good but as long as you have evil people willing to make war, then sometimes you have to fight to have peace. Ask 7 million Jews if they appreciated Chamberlain's peace plan...or the thousands of Kurds Sadam murdered after Gulf War I. Did the Rawandans murdered in the mid-90's appreciate our restraint. The problem and gift is that we Americans seem to think we have to protect the world. We are the only Superpower right now and we have a duty to do what we can diplomatically and on occasion, at the point of a gun, to fight terrorism and look at for those to weak to resist. I'd rather take them on in Iraq and Afghanistan then take them on in downtown New York. My cousin and two uncles serving in Iraq believe that too. :usa

So, why aren't we doing our duty by protecting the exiled government of Tibet and stopping the systematic violations of the Torture Convention by China? If we go after Saddam because of how he tortured and killed Kurds, why do we ignore what's going on elsewhere?

Same reason we did not invade the USSR. But that didn't mean we did not try to beat them diplomatically. We beat them with our economy. Sadam's case called for different measures.

Peace is all well and good but as long as you have evil people willing to make war, then sometimes you have to fight to have peace.

I said sometimes, not everytime. You have to chose the method that has the most chance of success and sometimes that means war. How smart would we be to attack China? But if China invaded Taiwan, we said we would get involved militarily. We have chosen to try to beat China the way we beat the USSR. We are getting our goods in there and by doing so we are showing the people of China our way of life. That is what Tianammen Square was about. The war with China is not over yet. It is a psychological war that has just begun.

In his case, we told Sadam to fess up for 12 years or else. Well the "our else" came. I'm sorry but that is a well used peacenik arguement. Peace at ANY cost has lost more Wars then they have won. Sometimes you have to take the ultimate step.

[stormchazer]

The whole free world was not against the war against Iraq. If you're going to make a point at least be accurate...... The last time I looked the US, Japan, Australia and several other members of the coalition were part of the free world....

While official governments may have supported us countless majorities in almost every country were against the invasion. Not that I feel we need to look at poll numbers before we make a decision but I would venture to say that more than 75% of the free world was against the war.

thats the thinking that caused 9/11 in the 1st place. we had been attacked many times before that. however, the politicians, dem and repub, refused to make the hard decisions because they feared "public opinion". they feared what the "world" thought. they worried over what the un would "think" of us. in other words, they decided to do nothing.
LEADERS LEAD, they dont follow public opoinion, they shape it. i am not sure george bush would have done anything different than any past president, but this time the war was forced upon us. i support his actions after 9/11.

My opinion exactly. No person wants a war but sometimes you have no choice.