RateItAll: The Opinion Network

IN the current situations, I believe that we should have done what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan is obvious as to why it was a smart move (harboring al - quaeda), Iraq seems to baffle people. The groups that are for human rights (Democrats in general) should have been estatic about the decision to end a genocidal regime. I'm really just surprised I haven't heard as much from feminist as I would have expected, given the situation in the the Middle east for women.

Redoedo makes excellent points, particularly the quotation. War is war, and it sucks. Presidents (and their supporting politicians) ought to be required to make the case for their military incursions before, during and after, because the fog of war and national security considerations obscure the calm analysis of the facts as they become known to the general public. I see the primary difference in how the press (US and Western Europeean)covers "wars" conducted by different administrations. Democrats are not required to justify their use of the military equally. The press is more hostile and cynical toward republicans, particularly those "they" refer to as Neo-cons. Was there a daily body count from Kosovo? Anyone remember any war protests anywhere in the world (thousands protested, particularly in Europe)? I know, I know, I'm imagining a bias in the press. Tell yourself that if a "Cindy Sheehan" had emerged criticizing Clinton, she'd have received the same megaphone. Imagine if Colin Powell, or Condoleeza Rice had said (to a reporter) "What's the use of having the world's best military when you don't get to use them? " -Madeleine Albright, during the runup to Kosovo. Anyone read that quote anywhere? They're just trying to be objective? That being said, I welcome the scrutiny of the use of the military, including that of today. I just disagree with the nearly unanimous concensus opinion of the press today that Iraq is a quagmire and a mistake. Deciding to deploy the US Military is an enormous presidential responsibility, one the Founding Fathers were careful to place in the hands of a "civilian" Commander-in-Chief and not in the military itself. A Commander-in-Chief who is answerable to the voters. The press should pursue the facts vigorously regardless of their party affiliations. They don't do that today.

Wars have been fought under administrations and congresses of both parties so I do not believe it is fair to characterize either side as being "in favor of" or "against" war. While this is not so much true today I was always fond of the saying that liberals favor a small army to be used everywhere and conservatives favor a large army to be deployed nowhere.

1. Issue Of Who Decides No one likes war. Let's face it. What reallys sucks is that usually the decision to go to war is made by people who themselves don't. That I have a problem with. Let someone who fought in a war make war decisions. If we want a "War President" then let's really vote for someone who served in a war. Both parites are guilty of going to war based on decisions by leaders who did not serve in war. The Democrats could have taken the better ground though on this issue if Kerry had won--but he didn't. 2. How To Decide War. I cannot stand elements of both parties on this. Republicans tend to go to war, in some cases, no matter what...They lean to always go to war. Democrats lean against protesting a war most of the time, because they say war is wrong. I say this to both parties: War is ugly, it is wrong--but sometimes it's the last resort (KEY WORD: LAST resort). So all you Democrats out there, understand that protesting unanimously is sometimes not the best choice. All you Republicans out there, don't be so da*ned eager to always go in the first place. 3. Latest WAR Criticisms: Vietnam: Bad move. God bless the vets, but God Da*n the Democrats and Republicans both for taking us there at the time. Bosnia: (comment same as Iraq) Afghanistan: The Taliban and Osama were there, they attacked the United States first... That country and the rest of the world are fortunate we didn't nuke them. This is about the ONLY thing Bush has ever done right in his entire time in office--so I'll give him credit for it. However, depsite the fact Bush takes credit for our millitary power on this, and Republicans BLAST Clinton for "defunding" the millitary--check your facts folks. No matter what side of the aisle you were on, Bush didn't take any approvals or vetos on funding bills until after Oct. 2002. We were already in and almost finished with invading Afghanistan by then...the last funding for concentric warfare (primarily used in Afghanistan) was approved of (funding) by CLINTON. So the Republicans out there need to give Clinton credit where credit IS due as well. I am so tired of Party Politics taking place over ISSUE oriented politics. Dems always say Rep's do all wrong, and the Rep's never find fault on their own side and call Dems "unpatriotic"...The rhetoric is getting boring and not serving us, the American people--so wake up America. Iraq: If you want to have a dicussion of what countries to stop dictatorships in, have that discussion--don't pick them for false reasons or try to get the American people to buy bulls*t about Weapons being there. There weren't any, nor evidence of them. If they were there, they were removed or sold, etc... We would have lost the case had it gone to court--hence we shouldn't have gone there. An argument that an evil dictator should be killed is NOT the same argument as "They are an immediate nuclear threat to the United States." We believed Russia had nuclear weapons...yet we didn't invade them, and they were also declared a threat to the United States... and now communism has collapsed on its own. The United States would be BEST served to do two things: 1. Find an alternative fuel source to remove OIL from the "middle east debate" all together. I don't personally care if one thinks we are there for oil or not--get it out of the equation and elminate it as a factor, and the issue becomes non-existent. 2. Let the middle east fight themselves, and have the US stay out of it. Stop supporting Israel in the name of Christianity. Stop supporting (or pretend to be at times) Palestine. If the civilians or children of those nations want to emmigrate to the United States, let's focus on a system of getting them here properly and legally--and let the millitary and governments of those nations kill each other as they choose to see fit. I believe in nation building.... ...in AMERICA first. Sincerely, Mathew

What difference? None of them actually DO the fighting. . .

There are differences in who to fight and how to fight among the opposing political factions.

The left and right are shape-shifting and morphing in and out of each other on the issue of war. The leftos and the traditional conservatives are both in the same boat about the war in Iraq, for instance. The old alliance in opposition to the Soviet Union has collapsed. I forsee a new anti-war alliance building. The left will be part because it is against war. The traditional conservatives will be part because they oppose wars not in America's national interest. Others may join for instance, the Libertarians. How is Iraq in that interest, for example? Maybe some Chrstians will join. The possibilities are interesting. This alliance should work nicely in the same vein as the anti-Soviet alliance contained disparate elements.

Although the differences seem to be breaking down of late - with everybody against the war except partisan hardcores.