> wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" >
wrote:
>> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > QX wrote:
>>
>> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is
>> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way.
>>
>> > And Bush was different?
>>
>> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their
>> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?
>>
>> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending
>> thousands
>> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current
>> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)?

> You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us,
> period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it.
First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out
that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I believed
the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in Europe
*was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our
allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention against
Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling
and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World powers
don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is the
point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise
relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under
Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted (WMD and the
possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, Iraqi
interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that
ended the first Gulf war).

>> But I expect
>> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
>> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened
>> by
>> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
>> disagree with you.

> Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and
> want us out.
> <snip>

Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done.
Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence just
because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness to
defend itself and its people are happy we're there. As are a significant
number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the governments,
militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors.

> Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists
> recruited by American actions in Iraq.

Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well
before we were embroiled in Iraq. And I disagree with the notion that the US
should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in check,
that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the
decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you deliberately
excluded North Korea because of geography. <grin>