Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

You keep saying had. He had them. Yes. He had them in the 80s - maybe the early 90s. It`s a long time since Iran and the Kurds. He didn`t have them when we invaded and deposed him. The UN inspector said they could find no WMDs. Our own military could find no WMDs. It`s common knowledge he had WMDs, but it`s also pretty clear that had was the key word on the eve of our invasion. When we began the current invasion that led to his arrest, we couldn`t say, "He has WMDs." It was had even then. So no disagreements there. He had them. Just not recently. To say he hid them or had them destroyed just in the nick of time is no argument. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If WMDs are found, then I`ll concede that Bush wasn`t lying about his cause for war.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

I`ve got an idea of how we can all get along. Let`s assume that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Let`s assume that Mr. Hussein was just trying to run his country the way any nation`s leader should be allowed to do.

Let`s assume the people of Iraq were happy people until we invaded for no reason. We`ll also assume that Al Qaeda never spent any time in Iraq at all. Maybe a little bit in Afghanistan, but otherwise, somewhere we didn`t invade.

Let`s just forget about all that stuff. We`ll agree that George Bush was an idiot and wasted everyone`s time in a bunch of pointless wars. We`ll also assume the United States government blew up the World Trade Towers just to piss people off so they`d accept a phony war.

We don`t need a "war on terror" anymore, since there really isn`t any such thing. There aren`t any enemy combatants, and it`s just a few misguided and over-enthusiastic people who have a right to worship as they please.

Instead, let`s focus on borrowing the money we would have borrowed to sustain the war, and pour it into the failing companies dragging down the economy. Let`s worry about our own back yard, and focus on getting back to an American life of barbecues and SUVs.

If it turns out there are some sort of terrorists, we`ll deal with that later. After all, if someone lights up a suitcase bomb, that`s pretty easy to see, right? We`ll know for sure there are WMDs at that point, and we can deal with it later. At that point.

There are enough straw men in that last post to fill a bus. I never claimed that Al Qaeda didn`t blow up the WTC. I support the war in Afghanistan. It was a just war in retaliation for an attack. I made no claims as to the happiness of the Iraqi people. There are tons of nations with bad leaders and unhappy people. I don`t propose invading them all. I never called George Bush an idiot. The war on terror could be a good thing, but I argue it was waged poorly. Argue my points. Don`t lump me in with conspiracy theory idiots and then argue against that. 

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

If Bush had one admirable quality, it was that he did what he thought was the right thing to do, no matter how many people disagreed. Always doing what you think is right is admirable. It just so happens I don`t think he was always right. He wasn`t a bad man. I did vote for him against Kerry. I didn`t against Gore. I thought he initially responded to 9-11 perfectly. It wasn`t until the Iraq invasion that I began to withdraw support. When Saddam was captured, I initially reconsidered. I thought, maybe I was wrong. But looking back, I think he was the right kind of malevolent dictator for the region. Odds are, once the US withdraws, we`ll see another Islamic dictatorship.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

See, this is the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thinking: that it`s possible to have a "right kind" of dictator.

It`s like the old Soviet argument, whenever communism or socialism failed. The theory is right, it just wasn`t implemented correctly.

Read that to mean not enough people were forced to cooperate. :-)

Conservatism is founded on the core principle of individual liberties. There cannot be a "right kind of" dictator. ALL dictators are wrong, whether malevolent or "benevolent" dictators. Tyranny is just that: tyranny.

I agree with your principles on dictators. In a perfect world, every nation would be a democracy/republic. I don`t think liberals and conservatives disagree on that. If anything, the difference is the level of pragmatism. I don`t like dictators any more than you, to be certain. However, the world has so many problems, it`s not possible to tackle them all at once. In the mean time, I think accepting lesser evils is fine while you come up with lasting solutions. There are dozens of malevolent dictatorships out there. We can`t depose them all. I suppose my theory boils down to the idea that it`s better to have a bunch of dictatorships infighting amongst themselves rather than unifying against us. It`s easier to negotiate with a military dictatorship than a religious one, because their goals are more tangible. If it becomes the US role to depose dictatorships, I argue we depose the unpopular ones that keep the other dictatorships preoccupied last. They`ll still be there when we`re done deposing the ones with regional support. I`m not sure, however, that it should be the US role to take down faulty governments. We can aid popular uprisings, but we shouldn`t start them. Democracies only seem to last when the people start them. All our meddlings tend to fail.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.