vroom, I’ve already given you my rationale for military intervention on behalf of democracy and human rights-- unilateral or otherwise–in Iraq vs. Sudan, for example. It is not a situation of “everywhere or nowhere.”
I understand that in Canada, you have more human rights and democratic freedoms than in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. So I don’t think it will be productive for us to invade your country unless competition with you brings down our prescription drug prices.
And vroom, if you intend to reply, “But Brian, your rationale for intervention was not the same as the Bush administration’s,” then I must insist you explain to me exactly WHERE the administration might pursue further invasion and regime change. Otherwise, your criticisms are without substance, and your virtually just badmouthing your neighbor.
Do you truly fear that after this controversial escapade in Iraq which has turned up almost no WMD, the U.S. will likely invade and begin regime change in Syria, NK and Iran without clear-and-present danger?
Brian, I don’t know. Bush has a big hammer and all the arabic nations look like nails at the moment. However, he might decide to go after North Korea or others on his Axis of Evil list. Who can say?
If some terrorist wacko makes it into the US and kills several thousand more people the troops will be going somewhere in response…
Sort of like Ronald Reagen calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” The liberals hated that one too. But, you saw the end result!
Vroom writes:
“Bush has a big hammer and all the arabic nations look like nails at the moment.”
And you look like chicken little at the moment. If you think Bush is out to ravage “all the arabic nations,” you should purge yourself of these dark fantasies. Or are they somehow enjoyable to you?
Vroom writes:
“Bush has a big hammer and all the arabic nations look like nails at the moment.”
And you look like chicken little at the moment. If you think Bush is out to ravage “all the arabic nations,” you should purge yourself of these dark fantasies. Or are they somehow enjoyable to you?
You guys make an awful lot of assumptions. I have nothing against the phrase “Axis of Evil”. I’m also not against the odd invasion when it is really called for.
However, invading some pissant country in response to another terrorist action would, in my opinion, be a mistake. I’d question whether it was politically driven or simply opportune.
There are other options that wouldn’t unite all the fanatics (hey, wait, maybe he is a uniter).
Uniting “all of the fanatics” in Iraq, is better than uniting them all in the USA (or any other free country). Which is what would have happend had it not been for the Iraq invasion.
I know we have an honest difference of opinion on this one, and I can respect your view point. We simply see things differently.