Re:Whaaaa? (Score 1, Informative)

"When the UN voted against invasion, he basically gave them the finger and went in anyway" - what if they voted to kill all blue-eyed people in the world (or any other thing which we would oppose)? Should the US abide by the vote, or do what it thinks it should do? Face it, nations act in their own best interests - do you think that is not what was happening in the UN? Why would France not back an invasion into Iraq? Could it have something to do with their 8% Muslim population? Germany has 4% Muslim population, and both countries have had a steady increase in Muslim immigrants in recent years. Do we remember the "Oil for Food" program? If you need a refresher for why it is that some countries had a vested interest in the US staying out of Iraq, check this conservative think-tank's page of facts (I'm letting you know the bias ahead of time, so follow the link and try to dispel the facts): http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217. cfm

Do you believe that the President of the US has access to more and better information than reporters? I would like to leave the possibility that there is intel out there that CANNOT be shared with the public that may explain Bush's actions. I am not so egotistical to believe that I can or should know as much as my leaders. What I do see gives me no reason to distrust them - Bush obviously is deeply motivated to do the things he does. He thinks he is right. Now, history may rule him a madman, but for now all we can judge him by is his other actions.

Aside from the war in Iraq, what is it about Bush that bothers you? The economy? Last I checked, the economy is doing a lot better now than it was when he took office. I think so, anyway. So does Susan Bies, a governer on the Federal Reserve Board: http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/01/news/economy/fed_b ies.reut/index.htm. The Fed is the body charged with day-to-day management of our nation's economy, not a president. It is simplistic and foolish to ascribe credit or blame for an economy on a president. The Fed members serve 14 year terms precisely so that they will not be controlled by party politics - and if Kerry is elected, he will have the same Fed to deal with. Yes, the war has cost a lot of money, but I believe it is worth it. Until we can rid ourselves of a dependence on oil, it is plain looney to have the world's oil supply in the hands of the tribal leaders that happened to own the land on top when it was discovered. Showing the nations free democracy and capitalism makes them much more stable trading partners for us and the rest of the world. This is why Bush said from the start that it would be a long process, not a quick bombing campaign like Gulf War 1991.

"...if you are truely concerned with making the world a better place in the long run" - Okay, now I would love to make the world a better place. But is that really the job of my government? I believe my government exists to provide me with the things that I cannot do on my own, such as police and fire protection, a military to protect our nation's interests, macro-economic controls, enabling me to make more money by trading with other nations, etc. Making the world a better place is not necessarily my country's charter from the people. Protecting my life, liberty, and property is. There are times when the best interests of the world align with the best interests of the US (often), but that should not become the rule by which we make global decisions. Do not delude yourself into believing that any other country in the world would be benevalent if they had the power that the US has - and if you disagree, take a look at a history book's section on colonialism. The countries who oppose the US now have proved themselves utterly incapable of fair rule when they had the reigns of power.

Wouldn't it be good for the nation of Paraguay if the US was to send a few extra billion dollars of aid down there next year? How about if the US send money to every country on the planet. Would that pass a "global test?" Of course it would. It would hardly be in the US's best interests, obviously, but it would make a lot of third world countries much richer. Or their leaders, anyhow. The sad state of many of these countries is that we can't even send food to starving people without crackpots with AK-47's taking over our shipments and using the food to garner support for a corrupt leader (remember Somalia?). Again, the point of Iraq is that a free and stable government is a better trading partner than the government of a dictator. A dictator can enter or break agreements at will (with either other coutries or terrorist organizations); a free democracy has inherrent checks and balances that reduce that capability.

Casey