If you have read any of my posts elsewhere on this site you will know that I am a fan of people providing supporting evidence when able. Therefore I take no offense when you ask me to do the same.
Unfortunately there is not supporting evidence in written form for everything. For example, when the United States is attacked, where is the supporting evidence that we as a nation should stand up in our own defense? Sorry, I can’t provide you with a specific link to that because one does not exist. It is a matter of patriotism and love for the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy. It is a matter of personal choice that free people want to remain free and there is no link to prove that.
The other end of that scale is the ridiculous. For example, I don’t think this applies to you but it does make a good example. We were attacked on 9/11 and lost nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. This is well known by everyone. My posts are generally very long and if I provide supporting evidence for this baseline stuff my posts would be so long that nobody would read them.
That said, there is plenty of stuff in between that warrants supporting evidence from someone who asks.
You may be of the opinion that Afghanistan and Iraq were “two poorly conceived strokes of revenge over 9/11” but that is only a matter of opinion, albeit your opinion. You were probably thrilled to find that I might actually agree with you. You might remember that I said “You can legitimately debate HOW those wars were fought but what is NOT open for debate is the legitimacy, or cause, of either of them.”
If you want to discuss the notion that those two wars could have been fought better, you will get no argument from me because I agree. If you want to debate the legitimacy of our participation in those wars I would refer you to what I have already written. I will dig up some supporting evidence for a couple things though.
I will take exception to the notion that Iraq was “revenge over 9/11.” I know that it is a well established liberal talking point but the sad fact (for liberals) is that Iraq probably had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. I say “probably” because that answer will never be known.
The Bush administration assumed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so our participation in the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. This is a liberal talking point that I thought was put to bed years ago. Although the evidence is probably available, I am not going through that much research just to find proof of something someone never said. You can research it if you want. It is a failed liberal talking point.
You said “but Iraq and Afghanistan were MASSIVE overreactions.” This is your opinion as well. You provide no supporting evidence that our freedom is worth a certain dollar amount or a certain number of enemy killed and not a single dollar or enemy more. Please don’t be offended because I know you won’t find any evidence to support that. I neither argue nor accept your number of enemy killed nor dollars spent. Our freedom is worth every penny.
What is our freedom worth? Depends on who you ask. Many a soldier throughout our history have given their lives to defend our freedom and I would imagine that they would tell you that you can’t put a price on it. If someone is going to try to take my freedom, as happened on 9/11, then I probably don’t care how many of them die while I defend my freedom. Same goes for Iraq. There was a very serious threat to wipe out the freedom of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans. What is a reasonable value to put on defending that freedom? Some would say “live free or die.” You make the call.
You said “may be partially responsible for our high gas prices.” At least you got something right. Terrorism is one of the major causes of high gas prices. The other major cause of high gas prices is the fact that our government insists on going out of their way to keep those prices there (subject for another thread).
You said “and is one of the causes of more terrorist attacks of late.” I disagree. The terrorists hit us first and we then defended ourselves. The reason the terrorists are gaining strength and attacking us again is that our current commander-in-chief decided to NOT defend the United States and instead treat the terrorists as equals by giving them rights and privileges that are for Americans only. This is war and should be treated as war. But the liberals want to treat it as a criminal action and run it through the court system. Courts serve a purpose but they don’t protect you on the international scene from those who are hell-bent on killing you. I shouldn’t need to provide links for this because it is painfully obvious.
You said “Also, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN DID NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! Al-Qaeda did.” You are right on one and wrong on the other. Afghanistan did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. Please refresh my memory about where they trained, equipped, and planned that attack on us? Oh yes, now I remember. They trained, equipped, and planned in Afghanistan under the PROTECTION of the Taliban, who at the time was the governing authority in Afghanistan.
You might remember that we (the United States) first attempted to negotiate with the Taliban after 9/11. True, we were not willing to give much in the negotiation but we did tell the Taliban that we wanted them to close ALL al-Qaeda training camps, cut off all funding and assistance to al-Qaeda, and turn over any and all al-Qaeda in their possession.
These may seem to you to be harsh demands but considering that we had just witnessed the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans on our streets at the hands of al-Qaeda, these were very reasonable demands. Guess what? The Taliban told the United States to go to hell. Instead we met them on the battlefield and brought hell with us.
If you need a link to support that you obviously didn’t pay attention during that time. If you were not yet born then, you could have asked anyone. Either way, as a responsible debater you should first do your own research. I am not against providing evidence (and I will) but I tend to go out of my way, not for the obvious, but for the contentious points that perhaps you legitimately missed (because I know that happens).
Your next comment “So what good would invading the middle east do against Al-Qaeda? No good.” Makes no sense now that we know that it was al-Qaeda who attacked us and they did it from the Middle East (you should have been able to figure this one out on your own).
You said “Even Dick Cheney admits that there was only a THREAT of WMDs being given to Al-Qaeda…” Yes he did say that, many times. Everyone in any political position said that many times. Everyone with half a brain understood this. Let me point out the obvious to you because obviously you have not thought this through.
If you take the Obama viewpoint and consider the defense of the American people and the associated freedoms we enjoy, to only be a matter for law enforcement and the courts and specifically NOT the military, then you would do just what you have proposed. You are proposing that we, the United States of America, the most free and powerful nation on earth, not act in our defense UNTIL we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.
Well, in a WMD attack, especially in cities the size of those in the United States, a single attack could render millions of Americans dead. Don’t you think that waiting in the WMD game is a bit too risky? The president of the United States is solely charged with defending the freedoms of this nation and to help him with that monumental task he is given command of the most powerful military in the world AND he is also given the powers of the rest of the government because defending our freedom was and still is the ONLY reason why we even have a government. By the way, George W. Bush was unwilling to take that chance with your life and you can thank him for that any time you wish.
You said “because extensive searching found no WMD’s of any sort in Iraq.” You are wrong here but this is where I feel compelled to provide supporting evidence because indeed, you could have missed it. First my commentary on the issue. This is only one reason why we went to war in Iraq, but by itself it is an overwhelming reason. I listed some others above.
We did in fact find WMDs in Iraq, enough to do serious damage. What we did not find was the large quantity that we expected to find. Another caveat – it is undeniable that Saddam Hussein made them, possessed them, and used them to kill tens of thousands of people (some estimates are over 100,000 people killed by Saddam Hussein and WMDs), this is just a side note but it adds credibility to the program and the fact that he was not averse to using them. You can do your own research here but it is readily available.
WMD in Iraq: http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918
Here is an interesting article from the liberal New York Post (a liberal source so you should enjoy it) about some of the Wikileaks documents revealing WMDs we found in Iraq. I was unaware of this until doing research for this post, thanks Jack.
If you want more you can do the research.
Other acts of war against the United States of America by Saddam Hussein:
You might remember that after Desert Storm the United Nations set up “No-fly” zones in northern and southern Iraq. These were not set up by the United States but they were patrolled every day for several years by coalition aircraft, which included U.S. military aircraft. Saddam Hussein would often fire on those aircraft in an attempt to entice our pilots into attacking his country (for the negative publicity it would cause). We didn’t.
Each and every time Saddam Hussein fired on our military aircraft it was an act of war and each and every time Saddam Hussein committed an act of war against the United States it formalized and legalized any and all military actions we would decide to take against him. We eventually said “enough is enough.” We didn’t even need those other legitimate reasons to answer the call to war in Iraq. Saddam gave us plenty of them. This kinda makes that liberal talking point about WMDs a moot point, don’t you think?
An excerpt from the book “known and Unknown” by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
“Iraq’s repeated efforts to shoot down our aircraft weighed heavily on my mind. Iraq was the only nation in the world that was attacking the U.S. military on a daily basis – in fact, more than two thousand times from January 2000 to September 2002.” (page 418)
Since I am almost certain that a card-carrying liberal would never believe anything Don Rumsfeld wrote in his book, I thought I would share with you his sworn testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on 18 September 2002:
“His regime has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq, ordering the extermination of over 50,000 people. His regime on an almost daily basis continues to fire missiles and artillery at U.S. and coalition aircraft as they fulfill the U.N. mission with respect to Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.”
You made a comment that “In many states, it is required to have car insurance.” I took you at your word and decided to see for myself. I could not find a single state that requires a person to have car insurance.
My reply to that was as follows: “Car insurance: There is not a single state in this union that requires you as a person to purchase car insurance. As far as health insurance there once was a law that required you as a person to purchase health insurance but the United States Supreme Court struck that down.” For that you called me a “liar.” I looked at your next link that identifies car insurance by state and that didn’t convince me that as a person I must, by law, have car insurance.
As proof of that I offer this. I asked my neighbor if his seven year old son had car insurance. I was told that he didn’t. Now, am I doing a strict interpretation here? Yes I am and there is a reason for that.
You ONLY have to have car insurance if you plan to drive a car, meaning simply that if you choose to not drive a car then there is no requirement to purchase car insurance (seems obvious, perhaps even you understand this). That means that you are required to purchase a product (car insurance) if and ONLY if you CHOOSE to participate in driving. Car insurance is NOT forced on you because you are alive, it is forced on you because you choose to participate in driving. Driving is a voluntary action. The reason I went with the strict interpretation is that this will help to compare and contrast this with Obamacare.
Obamacare, on the other hand was written to force you to purchase a product against your will (involuntarily) or to impose upon you a penalty for NOT participating in something, in this case, commerce. Once again, you are ONLY forced to purchase car insurance if you want to participate in driving. You can exercise your freedom and not be required to purchase car insurance.
However, Obamacare, as written requires you to purchase a product even if you choose to NOT participate. Unfortunately, participation in life is not voluntary because the very act of breathing is an involuntary act. The only thing you can do is voluntarily opt out (most people refer to that as suicide).
I hope I have been able to get down to a level that you might be able to understand without calling me a “liar” when clearly I did not lie. You can be compelled to purchase insurance (car) if and only if you choose to participate in driving (where you can interfere with and ultimately deny the rights of others by crashing into and killing someone). However, you cannot be compelled to purchase a product (health insurance) just because you opt to live when killing yourself is the only way to not-live. That would be stupid!
I agree that in general, having a health insurance policy is a responsible thing to do and I am not advocating otherwise. I currently have a health insurance plan that costs me nearly $3,000 per month. I am not against health insurance. I am, however, for the free exercise of our rights.
If for whatever reason, at your particular stage in life, you decide that your pursuit of happiness dictates that you do not have health insurance then that is your right. By the same token and I know this is going to sound mean, if you decide to not have health insurance and because of this you forego that operation you need, that is also your right to do.
You can do whatever you want to do so long as you don’t deny my rights in the process. If you want to die from some curable disease then you have that right. You do not have the right to force me to pay for that operation though. I make a little bit of room for emergency care and a lot of room for charity. But if you take money from my pocket to pay for your health insurance then you have violated my rights by stealing private property.
While I do absolutely believe in charity for those who are less capable to pay their way, every time the government comes in and increases my taxes or does something to make my expenses increase (like regulating businesses unnecessarily) I have less money I can donate to charity.
Also I am not against helping the truly poor. But there are so many people taking advantage of welfare that again, because of the high taxes it demands, I don’t have extra money for the poor.
Big government – few freedoms. Bigger government – even fewer freedoms.
What other facts would you like to ignore?