Anyone up for a good debate??

[dtolle]

Laurie, I think you are missing my whole point. I am well aware that its not just Iraq. I know that there is just as much danger with places like Iran and Tajikstan. And I know that the war on terror extends farther than just ousting Saddam.

I am just saying that I think Iraq is just as serious a threat and needs to be dealt with.
You don't need to give me a current events lesson

I'm well aware of what is going on around this world. But I think, and I will continue to think, that Iraq poses a large enough danger that deserves the attention of our US military. And since they voted in Congress on it yesterday and it was approved, I'd say many others agree with me.
Ok, NOW I am done!

 

[ldg]

Gotcha.

I'll just add...I obviously am missing the point, sorry to be dense.

...in this debate, I haven't picked a side. What I feel personally is in conflict with what I believe is in the National Interest. I can come up with lots of reasons not to go to war, but I can't come up with reasons to go to war, now, without the support of the U.N.

I've been asking questions and providing information that addresses points brought up with arguments on both sides. I'm trying to understand why it's in the national interest right now. No one has yet addressed that with anything other than an opinion, and that is fine. It just speaks to my point about the lack of information being provided to us as a nation.

I brought up my issues, not intended as a current events lesson, but as a rebuttal to the notion that what we've been doing as a Nation is making the world a safer place. As a rebuttal to the idea that taking out Saddam Hussein helps make the world a safer place. As a rebuttal to the idea that waging war against Iraq now without U.N. support helps make the world a safer place. That what we've done in Afghanistan has made the world a safer place.

I would love it if we could send in covert ops and take out Hussein. There are just no instances in history where this has helped. I would love it if we could just independently attack Iraq and that would solve the problem. I just don't understand why that doesn't generate a whole new set of problems that are just as dangerous as what we now face.

Are there any instances in history that would address these questions? ...We went to Afghanistan to get bin Ladin. This didn't work.

The only thing that really has worked over time is fighting with economics. The U.S.S.R. is a case in point.

For me, it is not about being right or wrong or being in the majority or being in the minority. It is about exploring these questions to come up with an informed answer as to what IS in the National Interest. There just appears to be a dearth of information.

And at this point in these discussions, I still don't understand why Iraq isn't more than politics. I don't understand what threat Iraq poses that others don't. I don't understand why no sanctions are being taken against, say, Saudi Arabia (I get the oil part). I don't understand why we need military action above and beyond the already daily bombing raids and policing the airspace. I don't understand, if it was so important, why we didn't have sanctions against France for not honoring the boycott we had against Iraq. I don't understand what we achieve by "taking out" Saddam Hussein, especially since we've proven over and over that we're not good at that.

And no one has addressed the questions to the positive side in an argument for war. Now. Without the support of the U.N.