Re: Have We Forgotten!!!!!!!
Kiwi,<br /><br />I also do not like labels, but when you use the label of "liberal" and use "Peace at all costs" as an adjective to describe them, then I have to object.<br /><br />I don't know what a New Zealeander's definition of the terms are, but by any definition I am aware of, both JFK and FDR (both of whom I admire as well) would clearly be considered liberal by a US definition.<br /><br />FDR tried to stay out of the war as best he could, but ultimately saw the handwriting on the wall, and with great personal political peril, devised a scheme called the "lend-lease" act that he could legitimately supply our allies prior to our eventual involvement in the war--over the objection of many conservatives here.<br /><br />JFK knew that war was a last resort as well, but had the fortitude to stand up to the Russians during the Cuban missle crisis. Now there was a real threat to the US, that had to be eliminated.<br /><br />Even conservative Bush 41 knew that we could not let Saddam get away with an aggressive move against another country, Kuwait, and of course the Desert Storm war resulted. We of course knew that Saddam at the time had wmd, as under the Reagan administration, we were the ones that supplied them to him (under the direction of Rumsfeld, BTW)<br /><br />I suppose it is hard to understand a reason for supplying him these weapons if we expected him never to use them...I guess the theory was if he used them on his enemies in Iran, that would be ok, but if he used them on his enemies the Kurds, that isn't? I guess I am not smart enough to understand the distinction.<br /><br />But your question was what would the world be like if it were led by peace at all costs leaders? Who knows, but luckily we have not had those kinds of leaders, and neither has England or Canada, or the folks down under, for that matter.<br /><br />But America has never had leaders that have wished to impose the will of America on the world, either, and has always reacted only to real threats. Until now.<br /><br />You have to give Bush some credit, though. He has pretty masterfully changed the image of Evil in this war on terror from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam with no apparent relationship between the two.<br /><br />Really, since 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, one would think that Saudi Arabia ought really to be the likely target.<br /><br />Maybe they are next on the list for being a targets. If North Korea doesn't cut in line first, of course.<br /><br />As my father used to tell me, it is easy to charge head first into quicksand. What's trickier is figuring out how to get out of it once you are in it.
<br /><br />If FDR, JFK or even Al Gore were the president today and were taking the same actions as George Bush - then I would be equally supportive.<br /><br />I stand by my usage of "peace at all costs" as most of the arguments I'm hearing against military action centre around striving for peace and rejecting war outright - regardless of the reasons.<br /><br />Regarding using war as a last resort - surely THIS is the last resort. This game with Saddam has been going on for over a decade. When do you think it's time to start enforcing the UN resolutions - after he uses his WMD's in a terror attack ? He's been building up his WMD's over the last 12 years, even with all the containment...<br /><br />North Korea is a separate subject and needs dealing with in a different way. It's no reason to cancel action against Iraq. There are many threats in the world today - they all need dealing to in their own timeframes. The police don't drop their handling of one criminal just because another moves into town.
