Do we now as Americans agree to remove all tyrants?

[dread]

I agree my subject title is over simplified , but I do have a point. Since we basically knew that Iraq was quite overmatched military wise and that acceptable numbers of casualties were to be expected do we now take on all tyrants or is Iraq an isolated case because of political situations. I agree that Iraq was under a horrid regime,but many other countries too numerous to list live under similar conditions. I have heard over and over again when questioning the war on Iraq how can we just let these people live like this and that enough was enough from many of the Hannity like spokesmen. I have never believed this war was about liberation and that it would be more of an after product of this war even though it was used as a way to make this war seem more rightous in American eyes.That reason has seemed to work based on polls. Do these same individuals that support the war also feel that we should make whatever sacrifices we have to make to remove all tyrants at all costs?

[Bonegavel]

The simple answer is no.

I agree with that this war is not about liberation, though it is now being thrown around by some as a main reason. In time, I feel that we learn what intelligence lead us down this path. I will fully trust this Administration until they give a reason not to. You can call me naive, but that is my opinion.

If it turns out later that this war was fought because of reasons like, "Well, I just didn't like him" or "I wanted to test MOABs in actual combat" then there is a problem. I think we will find out that our intelligence uncovered information that will more than justify this war. If I am later proven wrong, then I will fully admit the fact and I will have lost all faith in Bush.

The interesting aspect of this type of action is that it will be hard to understand the full consequences of our actions today. We will never really know what actions we have prevented by ridding the world of Sadaam. We will, however, most likely find out what actions we have caused by this, and the liberals will be happy to point them out when they occur.

[The Afoci]

We are screwed if we do, because people will call us warmongers (sp?) and screwed if we don't because people will ask how we can let these monsters stay in power.

[Airhog]

I think we are already called warmongers :D

[andy m]

what about tyrannosaurus rex? the greatest tyrant of them all. he must be stopped!

[couriers]

If it ends up being all then so be it but it should be one at a time starting with Syria or North Korea.

[The Afoci]

I vote Syria, all our stuff is already there. :)

[Kodos]

Originally posted by andy m
what about tyrannosaurus rex? the greatest tyrant of them all. he must be stopped!

Somebody already took care of him. :(

I'd give anything to see a real T. rex.

[Qwikshot]

Just don't mess with Collosal Squid!!!!

Syria may be next...I doubt we take on Iran.

North Korea is possible...but I think it'll invite a nuclear war.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by dread
Do these same individuals that support the war also feel that we should make whatever sacrifices we have to make to remove all tyrants at all costs?

At all costs, no. But when it is such a small cost to us for such a big gain for others, yes.


Now that China has gotten into the diplomacy against North Korea I don't see us going to war there.

[ACStrider]

IMO, Syria and Iran must go. Sudan's regime makes me antsi too. Bush may be right in following a strategy of letting Asia handle the NK situation (unless something drastic happens), but I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination. What I do know is that these nations have either harbored or funded terrorists (the first three at least), and while most of these terrorist groups have limited their actions to their own region of the world, Bin Ladin's influence on the fundamentalist Muslim world has shifted many muslim terrorist groups' primary target from Israel to the US. I used to be a strict isolationist but with September 11th I now think that the "if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone" philosophy is hopelessly naive.

[detroit_fan]

I agree with the bone-man!

[couriers]

Here we go

Bush: Syria has Chemical Weapons (http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=246929&lang=e&dir=news)

[tucker342]

Guys, we can't be going to war with everyone we disagree with...

There are things here in the states that are more important...

[Fritz]

As America, we agree to remove all Tonka Trucks!

[astralhaze]

This is reason number one why I was, and am, opposed to this war. Where does it end? Thankfully, despite the quick and relatively painless process this war turned out to be, I would seriously doubt we will attack Syria or Iran and especially not North Korea at the moment. I doubt they could make a satisfying case to the public for it and it would further increase the international anger with the United States. That said, this administration has already proven that it is willing to disregard the opinions of the rest of the world and the public was convinced this war was a good idea, although I found the case to be remarkably underwhelming.

[couriers]

I find myself being afraid to get on the highway because where does it end? Yet somehow I always manage to get off at the right exit ramp.

[astralhaze]

Getting off on a highway exit and invading countries aren't exactly comparable.

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Getting off on a highway exit and invading countries aren't exactly comparable.

Never said that they were but thanks for pointing that out.

[Fritz]

One time I got on a highway in Costa Rica, missed my exit, and ended up invading Panama. No one noticed though.

[Killebrew]

I imagine many would like America to bulldoze any nation they judge to be ruled by tyranny, but I don't think the Government could sell many more liberty invasion's. I think economic concerns in America would begin to overtake the war euphoria after a short time, though maybe one or two more invasions could be slipped in (like Syria?) before a serious dent in the polls is seen. Of course this is a complete guess on my part, I am very surprised the current war is getting as much US poll support as it has received.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Killebrew
I imagine many would like America to bulldoze any nation they judge to be ruled by tyranny, but I don't think the Government could sell many more liberty invasion's. I think economic concerns in America would begin to overtake the war euphoria after a short time, though maybe one or two more invasions could be slipped in (like Syria?) before a serious dent in the polls is seen. Of course this is a complete guess on my part, I am very surprised the current war is getting as much US poll support as it has received.

Curious on how much this statement will hold true if Bush gets re-elected to another 4 years in which he will not need to worry much about public opinion. If he secures a second term without the possibility of a third he may go balls out with his campaign to rid the world of terrorism wherever it may exist. Just a thought.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by couriers
Curious on how much this statement will hold true if Bush gets re-elected to another 4 years in which he will not need to worry much about public opinion. If he secures a second term without the possibility of a third he may go balls out with his campaign to rid the world of terrorism wherever it may exist. Just a thought.
And a truly terrifying thought for those that think his administration is seeding further terrorism, not ridding the world of it.