but alas, a candidate is just that – someone who represents similiar views to your own – and someone who you believe, for whatever reason, will do the right thing. Iraq is an amazingly complex an issue – especially when arguments are founded in emotion and not facts. we can “believe” anything we want – but without facts to support our beliefs – we ultimately lack credibility.

as is with most conversations i have with those who claim to understand what’s going on in the middle east – it ends in frustration. I am frustrated people don’t research things for themselves, are generally mis-informed, and generally just go along with what the TV feeds us. I’m frustrated by the millions of people who choose to live in this country but then hop on a bandwagon of the next best craze badmouthing the government / country that makes this free speech possible. The average american wants to have their cake and eat it too – but when asked “why not move to another country?” – ultimately they say they PREFER to live here … amazing :) because if someone really WAS so upset with the way we do things – they should go live in canada under a health care system that takes 6 months to get an appointment with a much higher tax rate ….

of the people i’ve chatted with about this issue – and there have been many – the people that have been to iraq say generally one of two things …. “we are needed there and its important what we are doing – want to go back” – or “the problems involved in that country are so overwhelming – i don’t know how we will ever succeed…. send me home!! i don’t want to risk my life for a something i don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.”

whether its positive or negative – NEVER – and i say NEVER – have i heard someone that has served in iraq – met the people – looked an iraqi child in the eyes and realized that he now has a future say “we shouldn’t have come to iraq in the first place …” because ultimately, we are doing this to make future generations better – giving children of both genders the right to an education and the ability to pursue their dreams.

the process which we are embarking upon in trying to rebuild a country is a separate issue than the initial decision to try and help. I absolutely agree that the plan following the military offensive was substandard – and that we are expecting too much from our young military leaders in asking them to rebuild a government. but the decision to help a nation in need – to free a country from the opressive reign of an evil dictator (to use an adjective you originated) was solid. most arguments by most people use facts from post 19 mar 2003 to try and support a pre-19 mar 2003 decision.

with anything in life – mistakes were made, things could have done better, and that’s why we study history to avoid repeating them. As anyone who has been in a “simple” relationship can tell you – even if you mess up, identify your mistake, and try and fix it – we are human and will absolutely sin again. Thank God for forgiveness! This applies to life at all levels. considering the nature of humanity – and the fact we are living in an imperfect world – we can scrutinize the past all we want based on the cozy chair we are relaxing in now … but given the information at the time – which even Senator Clinton had and voted in favor of the war (as did the vast majority of our leaders from BOTH political parties) – they made the best decision they could. this decision was not a unilateral one by the president – and its foolish to claim as such. If you expect perfection from anyone – they will always disappoint you. Accordingly, any argument which claims perfection is the goal – is idealistic.

No matter how much credibility you would like to put in Obama’s resistance of the war in 2002, he did not vote – he was not a national leader – and it means as much as you or i saying we are qualified to be president if we also disagreed with the war. I personally don’t believe ANYONE is qualified to be president with only three years in the senate. but that’s not the argument at hand :) in those three years of FEDERAL level position – what bills / legislation has Sen Obama proposed, authored and / or gotten passed? that simple question has become the root issue surrounding Obama’s qualifications.

For a position as important as the Presidency, I personally feel it is too big a gamble to go with someone without a proven track record of executive management (along the lines of Pastor Carey’s point re: governor’s of state) – or someone without extensive experience in national level politics.

Now imagine us having this discussion in Iraq under saddam – we both would be executed by public hanging for voicing dissent with the government!! Of course there wouldn’t be a candidate to debate about either – because any contender to the presidency would be killed as well …. as for me – i’m extremely happy to live in this country – and i’m extremely happy that our government, as flawed as it may be on any given day – truly does try to do the right thing for us and for the world.

You certainly have your dander up over all this!

First, you didn’t address Adam’s main points at all, you simply diverted the conversation…

Second, Arabs taking flying lessons is a bit vague to take much specific action on, much less to predict something like 9/11. And by the way, isn’t that racial profiling? You wouldn’t have liked it if Bush, etc. HAD used that as a reason for investigating someone, now would you?

And to say that Bush (or anyone for that matter) WANTS more G.I.s to die needlessly is both foolish and unacceptable (on my blog anyway). If you continue in that sort of vein… well, you know, I AM the owner of this blog…

- In your opinion. If you fail to recognize the potential global impact of a dictator who previously invaded another country (Kuwait) – in order to try and gain a foothold in Saudi Arabia (his ultimate goal, stepping stone approach to controlling the vast majority of the worlds oil – aka wealth) – then you are letting your opinion of a state senator’s “foresight” cloud the overwhelming evidence that hundreds of thousands of people would die. Maybe you believe that a hundred thousand lives of another country’s citizensare not our concern, but that is where you and I differ. there are human rights travesties occuring all through the world – we can’t impact them all – but iraq was one supported by the international community, authoried by the UN, and viewed by the world as the “most important issue” to be dealt with at that time.

WHEN SADDAM INVADED IRAQ , THE WORLD, INCLUDING ARABS, ROSE UP AS ONE TO THROW HIM OUT DEMOLISHING HIS ARMY IN THE PROCESS.

OUR INVASION OF IRAQ HAS KILLED AT LEAST 100,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS. ( AND I CLAIM ,NEEDLESSLY)

THE US INVASION WAS CONDEMNED BY MOST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR THE COALITION OF THE BRIBED AND THREATENED AND MOST OF THEM HAVE BAILED BY NOW. IN MOST CASES THE POPLE IN THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION WERE AGAINST THE WAR.

2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?

Because a stupid, crazy man (both subjective terms by the way, one man’s crazy may be seen as brilliance or defiance to authority) –would use sarin gas against a third of his country’s population? I’d hope you’d call any world leader “crazy” that did this … to claim otherwise, you’re ignoring the circa 50 years of death saddam brought his country.

STUPID ,CRAZY AND SUICIDAL. SADDAM WOULD GUARATEE HIS OWN AND HIS COUNTRIES DESTRUCTION IF HE ATTACKED THE USA.

Yes, our defense budget is significant. but so is our GDP. A free market economy creates wealth and opportunity (Thomas Friedman writes several excellent books on the world economy) – and we have learned from the past that a strong military helps keep us safe. Can you imagine how the Cold War would have turned out if we did not have a strong military deterring the USSR from invading / attacking us? There were several movies out that provide hollywood’s best guess – special effects of the 80’s however weren’t that great!

WHAT HAS THE GDP; DEFENSE BUDGET RATIO DO WITH IT.? THE DIFFERENCE IN MILITARY POWER BETWEEN THE 2 COUNTRIES IS ASTRONOMICAL.

all in all – our miltary is not used to conquer countries and aquire land. We have not taken a drop of profits from iraq’s oil – we have not taken a square foot of land – and one day, we will come home and Iraq will have the means to govern themselves without assistance.

BECAUSE THE WAR WAS SCREWED UP DOES NOT MEAN THAT OIL WAS NOT THE MOTIVATION FOR THE WAR.

3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.

- although i never argued that the liberation of the iraqi people was directly related to 9/11, its a common perception – and i agree its a reality because of the links throughout the middle east (and world) of Al Qa’ida. Iraq as a stand-alone issue because of the human rights violations of saddam and his potential danger to other countries – and us – was justified (see previous argument) for over a decade. 9/11 changed the way the US viewed potential threats – and our government decided to be proactive versus reactive.

BUSH AND CHENEY MADE A STUDIED EFFORT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IRAQ CAUSED 9/11.

your last point regarding the impact of offensive action against a oil rich country with no threat towards the US i presume is an attempt to put iraq into that category – which I believe you’d change your mind if looked at the situation from another angle …

compare the iraq war to WWII. when did we get involved? in a reactive manner after thousands of people died in pearl harbor. how many people died in the world up to the point we entered the war? hundreds of thousands of people. how many people did the united states lose after starting military campaigns in europe? hundreds of thousands. how many people died when we deployed two nuclear weapons against japan? i shudder to imagine – lets just say “a lot” …..

THE US PREEMPTIVE INVASION RESEMBLED MORE HITLER’S INVASION OF POLAND.HITLER TOLD GERMANS THAT POLAND WAS A THREAT.

so our nation’s leadership has a dictator in the middle east who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens…. do we wait until it gets to the point we need to react? or should we be poactive and control the situation? the best way to prepare for the future is to learn from the past …. while every soldier’s death is an absolute tragedy – and i have lost several very close friends – the numbers of a reactive war would dwarf our current losses. trying to stop a military while its on an offensive campaign is very difficult (i.e. study WW2) and its much easier – and less costly in human life – when done proactively.

BUSH WANTS EVEN MORE GIs TO DIE IN VAIN.

regarding Al Qa’ida and other countries – or even their activities in iraq, the former leader of Al Qa’ida in iraq was jordanian …. his successor was eqyptian … and they have offices in pretty much every country in the world. to claim that iraq wasn’t connected or involved is just ignoring the facts. If you really believe GW BUSH is such a bad president – then how would you explain that the planning / pilot training / operational brainstorming for 9/11 absolutely started and happened right under our noses during the Clinton presidency?

REPORTS WENT INTO THE FBI THAT ARABS WERE SUSPICIOUSLY TAKING FLYING LESSONS DURING THE GW BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Bush In Office – 20 Jan 2001…. Attacks 11 Sep 2001… you think this attack was carried out from beginning to end in under 8 months? by all estimates – even as documented in post-9/11 studies – this operation had been planned for several YEARS.

NO, BUT MEMBERS OF PNAC WHICH HOPED FOR A 9/11 TYPE EVENT WERE IN A POSTION TO TAMPER WITH OUR DEFENSE FOR 8 MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.

4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.

This is your opinion …. but it goes against what your nation’s leadership decided based on the facts at the time. Unless you’re in a similar position – which i am not and i presume you’re not as well – then I find it rather presumptuous that you believe you have enough facts to make an educated decision.

OBAMA SAW FACTS THAT TOLD HIM THAT THE INVASION WAS A BAD IDEA.

5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.

Obama did not have any optic with which to view the trees / forest accurately. A state senator’s scope of responsibility does not allow his access to the information needed to make an educated decision. Obama had the same access to information the mayor of Springfield, Illinois. To claim this position allowed him access to the facts needed to make an educated decision seems rather naive.

OBAMA HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND MILITARY POWER AND COMMON SENSE.

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE IRAQ INVASION (CHENEY, WOLFOWITZ, FEITH, LIBBY, BOLTON, PERLE) WERE ALL CHICEN HAWK DRAFT-DODGERS WITH NO MILITARY TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE.

- In your opinion. If you fail to recognize the potential global impact of a dictator who previously invaded another country (Kuwait) – in order to try and gain a foothold in Saudi Arabia (his ultimate goal, stepping stone approach to controlling the vast majority of the worlds oil – aka wealth) – then you are letting your opinion of a state senator’s “foresight” cloud the overwhelming evidence that hundreds of thousands of people would die. Maybe you believe that a hundred thousand lives of another country’s citizensare not our concern, but that is where you and I differ. there are human rights travesties occuring all through the world – we can’t impact them all – but iraq was one supported by the international community, authoried by the UN, and viewed by the world as the “most important issue” to be dealt with at that time.

2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?

Because a stupid, crazy man (both subjective terms by the way, one man’s crazy may be seen as brilliance or defiance to authority) –would use sarin gas against a third of his country’s population? I’d hope you’d call any world leader “crazy” that did this … to claim otherwise, you’re ignoring the circa 50 years of death saddam brought his country.

Yes, our defense budget is significant. but so is our GDP. A free market economy creates wealth and opportunity (Thomas Friedman writes several excellent books on the world economy) – and we have learned from the past that a strong military helps keep us safe. Can you imagine how the Cold War would have turned out if we did not have a strong military deterring the USSR from invading / attacking us? There were several movies out that provide hollywood’s best guess – special effects of the 80’s however weren’t that great!

all in all – our miltary is not used to conquer countries and aquire land. We have not taken a drop of profits from iraq’s oil – we have not taken a square foot of land – and one day, we will come home and Iraq will have the means to govern themselves without assistance.

3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.

- although i never argued that the liberation of the iraqi people was directly related to 9/11, its a common perception – and i agree its a reality because of the links throughout the middle east (and world) of Al Qa’ida. Iraq as a stand-alone issue because of the human rights violations of saddam and his potential danger to other countries – and us – was justified (see previous argument) for over a decade. 9/11 changed the way the US viewed potential threats – and our government decided to be proactive versus reactive.

your last point regarding the impact of offensive action against a oil rich country with no threat towards the US i presume is an attempt to put iraq into that category – which I believe you’d change your mind if looked at the situation from another angle …

compare the iraq war to WWII. when did we get involved? in a reactive manner after thousands of people died in pearl harbor. how many people died in the world up to the point we entered the war? hundreds of thousands of people. how many people did the united states lose after starting military campaigns in europe? hundreds of thousands. how many people died when we deployed two nuclear weapons against japan? i shudder to imagine – lets just say “a lot” …..

so our nation’s leadership has a dictator in the middle east who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens…. do we wait until it gets to the point we need to react? or should we be poactive and control the situation? the best way to prepare for the future is to learn from the past …. while every soldier’s death is an absolute tragedy – and i have lost several very close friends – the numbers of a reactive war would dwarf our current losses. trying to stop a military while its on an offensive campaign is very difficult (i.e. study WW2) and its much easier – and less costly in human life – when done proactively.

regarding Al Qa’ida and other countries – or even their activities in iraq, the former leader of Al Qa’ida in iraq was jordanian …. his successor was eqyptian … and they have offices in pretty much every country in the world. to claim that iraq wasn’t connected or involved is just ignoring the facts. If you really believe GW BUSH is such a bad president – then how would you explain that the planning / pilot training / operational brainstorming for 9/11 absolutely started and happened right under our noses during the Clinton presidency?

Bush In Office – 20 Jan 2001…. Attacks 11 Sep 2001… you think this attack was carried out from beginning to end in under 8 months? by all estimates – even as documented in post-9/11 studies – this operation had been planned for several YEARS.

4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.

This is your opinion …. but it goes against what your nation’s leadership decided based on the facts at the time. Unless you’re in a similar position – which i am not and i presume you’re not as well – then I find it rather presumptuous that you believe you have enough facts to make an educated decision.

5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.

Obama did not have any optic with which to view the trees / forest accurately. A state senator’s scope of responsibility does not allow his access to the information needed to make an educated decision. Obama had the same access to information the mayor of Springfield, Illinois. To claim this position allowed him access to the facts needed to make an educated decision seems rather naive.

If you haven’t you should read Adam’s reply above. He states “firsthand” facts that militate AGAINST much of what you are insisting upon. As well, From #1 of your points you are making statements that are YOUR opinion (that you are entitled to), NOT facts…

We will continue to disagree, I’m sure…

Obama came to his conclusion based on information that was known to everyone.

Obama :

1.Identified the relavant facts.an defined the problem

2. Assigned priorities appropriately

3. Applied common sense

4. Displayed a knowledge and understanding of international affairs.

5. Displayed a knowedge and understanding of the use of military force.

6. He predicted with uncanney accuracy what could well be the result of the invasion.

Maybe you personally were convinced that the invasion was a good idea and have sympathy for those who were equally duped but it would be better if we had a President who can sort things out the way Obama did.

Thanks for your comments. I always find your insight illuminating on things like this, especially!

gasdocpol,

To claim it was “foresight” on Obama’s part to oppose the war, is giving him FAR too much credit! I dont’ deny that he made a stand that he thought was right, or that he did so for possibly legitimate reasons… but to claim that as proof for his “fit” for the Presidency is very small proof indeed…

2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?

3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.

4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.

5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.