Originally Posted by geeWiz15
Yes, we're at war against evil.
Which is just... terrific. I have no idea how we can fail.
Honestly, how much of a halfwit can you be to think you can defeat the concept of evil? Bush clearly clearly ain't got much going on up in that head of his. "We're going to defeat terrorism." Terrorism has existed since the dawn of civilization. You are not going to defeat it with guns and bombs. This isn't the movies.
Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire". We were at war with communism (an ideology), and many of its supporters, for over 40 years.
The true failure in defeating evil is not trying. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
He also said " Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security."
Yes, we are war with an ideology. Our war is not against Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, or even the Taliban. Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism for decades. If you don't believe me, do some research on the Abu Nidal Organization, Carlos the Jackal, PLFP, and countless others. These are organizations that have killed Americans (disco bombing in Germany, etc), who were given safe haven and finances by Saddam.
The war in particular is against state sponsors of terror. The WMDs were oversold. 3 of the 23 items listed on the Congressional AUMF were for WMDs. A majority were for his violations of cease fire conditions.
I invite you to read what our Congress actually voted on to go to war, and find how many items are no longer valid.
The original fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, of course, played a role in their votes — but only a role. In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam, senators at the time also cited Iraq's sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam's attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other more numerous reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable.
Nevada's Sen. Reid summed up best the feeling of Democrats that there were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam Hussein in a post-9/11 climate. He reminded his Senate colleagues that Saddam's refusal to honor past agreements "constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."