I agree with your premise that the American people do not support unprovoked war. They are more likely to support pre-emptive war when the circumstances call for it. Many people, including foreign leaders, felt that Saddam was a threat. And why not? He had previously invaded a neighboring country, used WMD on his own people, and paid off Palestinian suicide bombers. He was not a peaceful neighbor. There was legitimate reason to believe that Saddam would resume his nuclear ambitions after the UN sanctions were lifted. Knowing all this, wouldn’t it be foolish to ignore what we already knew about Saddam?

Diplomacy is great. But it’s only effective when dealing from a position of strength. That wouldn’t be the case if rogue nations recognize that there are no penalties for breaking agreements or defying UN resolutions. Empty threats do not produce any positive policy changes.

I do not believe the United States should be considered a “warmonger”. Part of tending to our own affairs means taking steps to protect our country and its people. We were attacked on September 11th, and it was a wake-up call to those of us who weren’t aware of the terrorist threat we have been facing for years (before Bush 43, and before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). When other countries support terrorism, it becomes our problem, because terrorists attacked us on 9/11, and could attack us again in the future.

You say that “The U.N. is a great forum for proper intelligent, civilized and self-respecting conversations…” I wish I had your confidence in the U.N.’s ability to solve problems in the international community. I don’t. They haven’t proven to me that they deserve that confidence or to be taken seriously when they attempt to discipline rogue states. If it weren’t for the UN refusing to enforce its own resolutions and monitor Iraq sanctions, we might not be in the situation we are in today with Iraq.

The UN can’t stop North Korea or Iran from getting nukes without co-operation from the rest of the international commmunity. I just don’t see many countries willing to take the necessary steps to stop North Korea and Iran. I hope that I’m wrong about that.

Unprovoked war is certainly not wanted by a majority of Americans.

I have written in 1985 for the FREEZE as a volunteer, and had the opportunity to interview what was then named “Beyond War Movement” out of California, locally represented by a Hartford Physician who was a member of the Beyond War movement, and noted the theme “War is Obsolete” due to the technology as being entirely out of proportion and not a proper conflict resolution. At that time, in 1985, “new modes of thinking” was what they claimed was needed.

My layman’s non-expert view, with a pre-eminent attorney, Ralph Nader as a Proper Presidential candidate offering anti-war DIPLOMACY and withdrawal of the troops and humanitarian aid as the immediate need in Iraq–is that sanity (The Freeze in 1985, soon thereafter changed their name to SANE/FREEZE and is now PEACEACTION, and likewise, the Beyond War Movement has changed to Global Community-at my last check, which is not current…the themes are solid…stop the production of nuclear weapons applied to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and still DOES! and the theme of the Beyond War movement that WAR IS OBSOLETE, is actually not only long overdue in 1985, but a proper view of human civilization. Civilized people should not expect to declare war, but instead seek diplomacy as the proper view of international policy as a FACT and CONSTANT.

The U.S. is not supposed to be a “warmonger.” We are supposed to be a self-sufficient, self-governing country properly attending to our own affairs.

Iran should be dealt with at the international level, and that is a proper place for attorneys to tender legal diplomacy. The U.N. is a great forum for proper intelligent, civilized, and self-respecting conversations about each country’s proper position in this field of “nuclear weapons” which are supposed to be STOPPED.

Vote Democrat!

As for the first post, its tough to take anyone seriously who spells ‘Muslim’ ‘Moslem.’

I pity the fool that actually believes that Iraq is a separate event, a ‘distraction,’ from the war on terror. I imagine an individual that believes such tripe must have difficulty putting his socks on without assistance.

Let’s get serious here. Even the terrorists admit that Iraq is THE front for the terror war. Yet, President Bush is a liar according to the Democrats. If Bush is lying about the war then Osama bin Laden must be lying about it as well.

While spreading democracy to the rest of the world is an worthy goal, spreading freedom is much more desirable if your goal is to bring lasting change.

I’m in 100% agreement with you.

On the war and Iraq:

War sucks in general and this Iraq war sucks even worse — but we’re there!

If the President is right about anything (and he occassionally is) he was absolutely right when he theorized that Democratic nations don’t attack other Democratic nations so a Democratic Iraq would not be a threat to us. The flaw in that theory is that a democracy that is set up in a Moslem country is a frail excuse for a democracy that is not likely to last long. The people there understand one kind of rule, theocracy; and as soon as we are uninvolved that’s where the Iraq “democracy” is headed.