It’s quite possible that you’re correct, and President Clinton took us into Kosovo for all the wrong reasons. And certainly, turning things over to the U.N. immediately afterwards, given the way they’ve handled it, is something that every American would be ashamed of, if it was being reported in our press. But…

I’d still say going into Kosovo was the right thing to do — because it did help our security and interests, in the long term.

The Yugoslav war was slowly spreading, and drawing in neighboring countries. That was a serious impediment to the recovery (from Communism) of a number of our allies in the region. Ensuring that fledgling free states like Slovenia and Bulgaria have a chance to grow wealthy and free is a critical part of the post-victory stage of the Cold War. Just as the Iraq war will only really benefit us (in the long term) if some kind of a free state and free economy can take root, if we’d allowed eastern Europe to fall back into despotism we’d only have to fight the same battles all over again in a few generations.

Today, in part because of our intervention to end the Yugoslav war (and the contrast with the words and actions of “Old Europe” at the time) many of the nations of eastern Europe are now among our strongest allies — and are contributing troops and political support to the war in Iraq. In fact, grouping all of eastern Europe together, they’ve contributed about as much manpower to the war as the U.K. has. (cite)

I totally agree with you that we should only get involved where our interests are greater than the likely costs of such involvement — but I think Kosovo easily met this test, particularly because of it’s comparatively low cost.

#68 – Clint, I agree.

“NDT – thank you. We at least agree that the US, if it is going to brag about being a nation of liberators, we back it up and we do so in places other than just Iraq.”

Yeah. I DO NOT agree with that at all. That would be truly wasting our young people’s lives.

The U.S. *is* a nation of liberators – that is, when we get involved in foreign wars, we are pretty consistently on the side of freedom (against dictatorship and its horrors). We are justly proud of that. But the operative word or phrase there is, and ought to be, “WHEN WE get involved….” We are not obligated to fix the whole world. We should not attempt to do so. The efforts we make should be rationally selected to (1) stay within our resources where possible, and (2) more important, to actually defend the U.S.

“…millions of Africans were just displaced from their homes…this country will never do a damn thing about it. So pardon me if I question the idea that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator was the reason why 1,800 Americans are dead.”

You seem to be making an assumption that America can solve the whole world all at once. We can’t.

You also seem to be making an assumption that if we decide that one region of the world is more important to democratize first than another, or that if one dictator is more heinous than another AND more involved in worldwide terrorism and WMD acquisition as well, then we somehow aren’t justified in dealing with him first.

I find both assumptions very strange.

“overall I think [the Iraqis] will certainly be better off without [Saddam]. That is not to say however that I believe that is why we invaded Iraq. I just don’t. I’m sorry.”

Of course not. Duh. We invaded Iraq because *America* will be better off without Saddam. It’s called *defending America*. I hope that’s OK with you.

Now we can commence with the argument about how removing Saddam was defending America (hint: it was), whether Saddam was involved with WMD (hint: he was), whether Saddam was involved in worldwide terrorism and progressively becoming more involved with al Qaeda (hint: he was), whether Bush claimed that Saddam was an imminent threat (hint: Bush never did), whether Bush claimed that Saddam was all ready to go with WMD stockpiles (hint: Bush didn’t), whether “Bush lied!” (hint: he didn’t), etc.

“So I just don’t buy it when the argument is used that we liberated the Iraqi people so this was all justified.”

I don’t either. That’s why Lord BJ (I like that, EMT ) was wrong to do Kosovo.

The liberal doctrine of foreign policy seems to be that America’s young men and women, such as Casey Sheehan, should be placed in harm’s way *only* when *no* defense of America or any American interest is involved; that is, only when it will truly be a “pure” sacrifice of their lives. I reject that doctrine. America doesn’t owe squat to the rest of the world, beyond what we are continually paying already in trade and aid. American armed forces should only be used in connection with the defense of America. In this case – the case of Iraq – establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, while taking out a heinous dictator who was pursuing WMD and increasing his alliances with terrorists, is defending America. That’s noble.

“Therefore, cut the bitch some slack for being a bit emotional and outraged that her son is dead.”

I do. But does that mean I should also fail to notice that she has, in effect, chosen to side with Casey Sheehan’s (her son’s) killers?

“As for Joe, et. al., I’m sure she realizes her son made the choice to go because it was a sense of duty and pride and by all means, we can honor that. But if you believe the war in Iraq was unjustified, regardless of the fact that your son was doing his job, you would still likely resent the person who sent him to Iraq where he was killed. You may not understand that simply because you think the war is justified.”

Wow, Britton, by those comments you still don’t get it.

Casey Sheehan wasn’t a hero just because he was “doing his job” or “had a sense of duty and pride”. It’s more than a lot of people have these days; but no, they’re not the reasons. He was a hero because he did those things *in a noble cause*. The related/twin causes of (1) defending America, and (2) overthrowing another Hitler.

If you have any doubt that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler and that overthrowing him was a noble cause, you need to look at this: http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/2005/08/a_memo_to_cindy.html

If you have any doubt that defending America is a noble cause (not that you do, but if you do), you don’t belong on this blog which is title GayPATRIOT.

When Cindy Sheehan goes around saying that Casey Sheehan didn’t die in a noble cause, and America isn’t worth defending in Iraq, she is doing 2 things:

1) She is slandering her own son. (Yuck!!!)

2) She is slandering us.

I understand her rage and grief at losing her son. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the way she is expressing them is destructive of her own son’s legacy and what he stood for. The issue is that she has sided with her son’s killers. The issue is that her rage is badly misplaced. And yes, if she is going to make a public spectacle of herself, then *I get to notice*, and not buy into her garbage.

“ It’s the GOP supporters who voted for Bush who continue to make the argument that anyone who questions this war is a traitor, is aiding our enemies and disrespecting our soldiers. Some democracy.”

I have no doubt there are folks who will make such arguments.

But are you claiming that GOP leaders or high Bush Administration officials have made such claims?

It’s not a threat to democracy when private citizens disagree (nor even when politicians do) — in fact it’s the very essence of democracy. For the record, it’s also not oppression, censorship, or fascism. All of these words, like most others, really do have actual meanings.

“We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush! They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up…” Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”

“The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.”

“We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people.”

So, let me recap:

1. George Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.
2. All Moonbats must “rise up”.
3. President Bush’s two daughters must see combat.
4. Bush must be impeached.

OK, that does it for me; the gloves are off. No more of this, “Well, she lost her son so she can grieve however she chooses.” No, she can’t. Not in this way. This isn’t grieving, this is pure insanity. The Feds need to close down her little circus freak show in Crawford pronto and lock her ass in a nut house until she’s no longer an active threat to herself or to anyone else.

First Michael Moore then Ward Churchill and now Cindy Sheehan. Can the radical Left get anymore reprehensible? I’m nearly at a loss to describe the level of utter contempt I have for this woman. The best thing I can say is that her son is in a better place now than he ever was in her company.

It’s not “anyone who questions this war” as you spin. When what you say does endanger and disrespect our soldiers and our country, that’s treason. When you redefine patriotism and dissent into what you want it to mean and play the “Whoa is me” victim, that’s just plain stupid.

Furthermore, you and Cindy are free to say what you want, but you are NOT free from accountability for what you said. Nobody is. Grow up, grow a pair and move on.

And what would the “same thing” be, Britton? Please elaborate on just exactly what that is, and then state publicly that the posters here want to do that to you and Cindy Sheehan.

Personally, I interpret that as the posters here saying that you should be shot, your bodies mutilated and dumped, your families, including infants and toddlers, killed or imprisoned (or both), and your houses and cities leveled. That was the usual par for the course when one criticized Saddam Hussein.

“I know my rights and recognize that I live in a democracy where I and Cindy should be free to speak out minds. Maybe it’s you and those on the right who call such actions treacherous that should realize you live in a democracy.”

Please. You equate what you go through here and what happens to you for dissenting in this country with what I just described above and say that those of us who criticize you do the same as shooting, torturing, murdering, and destroying you, your families, and homes.

But since you can’t even admit that Saddam was doing that, Britton, I can see where you would make that mistake.

Because, Britton, it is high time that you and Cindy Sheehan are held accoutable for equating being criticized for your views in a country where you are free to protest and free to vote as you choose with what took place in a true fascist state like Ba’athist Iraq.

I think you and Ms. Sheehan both have to admit what would happen had you been living in Iraq and made your criticisms of Saddam as you have Bush, or had she “camped out” in front of Saddam’s summer palace demanding an audience with him for what she calls the “murder” of her son.

I think you have confused “democracy” with “getting your own way without criticism” and “fascism” with “being told no”.

Who the Hell am I? Well, I’m one of hundreds of million of Americans who have that opportunity to determine what honors her son given that Mrs Sheehan has crossed into the public arena while shamelessly seeking protection as a “grieving mother of a slain solider”. I will not tolerate someone like you using the silly notion that we “can’t understand her grief” -crap. We can. It’s not unique. And other parents have done far better honoring their son or daughter than this publicity hound is doing –or the LibLefties have done.

Go back and read about the pornography of grief and the MSM’s appetite for it.

Britton at 13: Matt, Who the hell are you to determine what honors Cindy Sheehan’s son?

Who the Hell am I? I’m one of tens of millions of former veterans who have the standing to comment –maybe more than the general public– given that I DID serve in the military, was in combat for 11 long months, and served as expected of me by my enlistment, the emploment contract I agreed to with the US Govt, and because I expected to “get” something for my service or employ –which I did. It’s a job/service Britton. Casey Sheehan and I did it VOLUNTARILY. Did I think I’d go to war? Nope, but it happened. And everyone I knew were pretty clear on what “being a soldier” meant. Pure and simple.

Who the Hell am I? I’m someone who has many close friends now serving in theatre and it pisses me off royally when I see Cindy Sheehan using her son’s service to dishonor our elected leader in hostile countries which air Al Jerezza or CNN or the BBC or the CBC. This whole exercise of hers is nothing but a publicity stunt.

Shame on her. SHAME ON HER for helping our enemies abroad use her images and vapid protest to recruit new insurgents. SHAME ON HER for helping the LibLeft undercut America’s resolve to win the WOT. SHAME ON HER for hiding behind the grief of a slain soldier’s mom if people question her integrity or motives. SHE IS CONTEMPTIBLE. Many (maybe most) who served would tell you she’s a soldiers’ nightmare come to life –ie, your parent dishonoring your service for cheap political grandstanding.

In her son’s memory and the memory of all those who have honorably served, I hold her in contempt.

And Britton, that’s who the Hell I am.

Your statement in #13 of “She has every right to do what she is doing and frankly I don’t care if the left is exploiting her” tells me volumes about your sense of honor. Frankly, I don’t care about what you think since you DONT find this publicity exercise patently offensive.

We can all hold opinions in America and express them freely, but that doesn’t include undercutting public resolve in time of war –or giving aid to the enemy. We learned that lesson painfully when the Right was trying to get America out of Kennedy/Johnson’s VietNam War.

Britton, the sad truth is that citizens like you never learn. Stick to abortion rights, prayer in the schools, and stopping the ReligRight, ok? When it comes to honoring the military service of a soldier, you don’t know JACK if you can’t comprehend the error in your earlier statements.