FDR, JFK, and Truman would have opposed a war like that against Iraq

[fujiyama]

I read a post by a certain poster, that claimed that they were in the mold of FDR, Truman, and JFK, because they were Cold War liberals and that a majority of DUers don't have any understanding of national security.

Sorry, that doesn't hold any water. Iraq wasn't about national security. FDR , Truman, and JFK were realists. They may not have been pacifists, but they knew the right time to fight a war - and they knew with whom to fight one against.

FDR took the nation to war because he HAD to. Hitler was a clear threat to US security. His intentions were clear in that he wanted to occupy as much of Europe (and beyond) as he could. He waited until the last moment to keep the nation out of that war - declaring war on Germany only AFTER Pearl Harbor (and that too after Hitler declared war on the US).

JFK reluctantly had advisors placed in Vietnam but there is some indication that he would have pulled out all troops had he lived longer. JFK also had the judgement of not invading Cuba, but rather working toward a peaceful resolution.

Hell, this war wasn't even in the mold of Reagan and Bush Sr. As terrible as they were, they never had the nation engaged in such a disasterous conflict, with ever changing justifications, of which the original and most trumped was a lie from the begining, with absolutely no exit strategy in sight, and absolutely not even the slightest clue what the costs are both presently and in the future.

So, no, this war will not be worth it because of some "elections". I understand the Iraqis may have had some hope for these elections, but that says little for a country that is ravaged by suicide bombings and an occupying force.

As Richard Clarke said - attacking Iraq is like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Iraq was never justified. It wasn't a threat, and I really don't care if Clinton says so (though to his credit he understood that the consequences of embarking on a ridiculous crusade like this). He too is wrong about that. Perhaps if his administration had also not been irrationally obsessed with Iraq (which played no role in any of the major terrorist attacks against the US during his tenure), we would have had more luck against real terrorist threats.

Ok, but we "liberated" a nation from a ruthless tyrant. Very well, (although the term "liberate" arguably doesn't apply).

Why aren't we "liberating" the people of Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia? What about the victimes of genocide in Sudan (hey the regime there has more links to terrorist groups than Iraq did)? I could go on. The priorities weren't there and never have been with this administration.


So, no I still oppose this war. It was a sham. A majority can claim "it was all worth it" but I don't excuse ignorance.

[Melynn]

1. Not only FDR,Truman and JFK

but also George H.W. Bush would have opposed a war like that against Iraq. Bush Sr. could have went into Iraq in 1991 but didn't. The shame is that Bush 41 will never say in public that he is against the war because his son is the one that started the war.

[whistle]

2. Iraq is about the spread of American imperial hegemony...

...corporations being guaranteed markets and profits by the Bush administration, that's it pure and simple.

[fujiyama]

3. .