Were the Authors of the Federalist Papers Liars?

Maybe you are more familiar with them, KenH, because I don't identify with a group called "neo-cons".

Regarding Iraq not ever having literally attacked the US: Neither did Afganhistan which still yet remains the rally point for those against fighting terrorist in Iraq.

But, again, there's no need to list all the reasons for the war in Iraq since Congress did a good job of that in the joint resolution.

 

Apparently the neodems helped as well.

 

The 9/11 attack was by terrorists and we're at war with them, and anyone that's with them, wherever they are. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were of interest because the terrorists operated from, trained in, or were supported from within or by elements of those nations. I think the list of culprits isn't complete yet and should include Iran and Syria as well.

Iraq was also involved because of other matters, again, as defined in the joint resolution by Congress. We must not loose sight of all the reasons for the war in Iraq even though some of the details - specially the WMD matter - seem not to have been literally accurate. The more obvious reasons were clearly accurate and Iraq, by the conduct and words of its own leaders, made their intentions toward us rather clear.

We must also not loose sight of the broader definition of our enemy by limiting the scope to the specific groups - Taliban and Al Queda - verses all terrorists groups who have even the slightest intent and potential capability to inflict harm on our nation. This is not the same as fighting the organized military forces of a specific government as has been definable in the past.

 

We are not alone! We have the power of the Lord behind us if only we will ask and trust in Him and seek to give Him the glory for our success.

 

I'm not a fan of the United Nations. In fact, it would suit me if it did not exist. However, it does and we're a member of it.

We're not acting under the orders of the UN - we're acting under orders of our Congress. Congress has chosen to endorse certain defined resolutions of the UN. We were, in fact, a party to those resolutions.

Under no circumstances should we put ourselves under the authority of the UN but if we choose to enforce a resolution of the UN or, for that matter, another country we are soverign to make that decision and move on it.

 

Yes, that's true, which is the danger of belonging to such an organization if it falls to the wrong hands or motives.

But, of course, that's also the danger of not remaining top dog. Being top dog involves not saying too much, meaning what you say, and backing it up without apology when necessary. It means that your word is believed and your ability and willingness to back it up is well known and respected. You may or may not be liked and admired. Of course someone's always ready to challenge even the top dog.

I don't care much for the UN and don't consider it particularly friendly to the USA. We should always retain our sovernity. If we choose to enter into a treaty or choose to agree with the resolution of another country or group of countries that's fine so long as we have the choice.