I don't think we exhausted all of our options before we jumped into war mode and sent our troops over there. If nothing else, we know now that our leaders' desicions were based on bad intelligence that was probably not even checked over with any great deal of caution. That alone is enough to make me stand against the desicion to put our soldiers in harm's way. I complain about this war because I don't want to see our soldiers die for what might be an unjust cause. Yes, I am thankful that they are willing to put their lives on the line for me, but that should only happen in a case where national defense like this is necessary. It is a difficult desicion for any president to make that results in our troops being placed into battle, and so such a desicion should weigh very heavily on the entire administration. Saddam posed no proven threat to the US, and I have yet to hear any factual argument about finding WMDs. There are rogue nations out there with a nuclear arsenal that we should probably be more focused on.

But Saddam was a cruel leader, if you can even call him a leader, towards his own people. The question I wrestle with is whether or not the US should make themselves the international police and get involved unilaterally. I lean towards no, although every situation is different. I may be a long-haired lefty liberal, but I'm no pacifist. Certain situations require force. But we need to be sure of what those situations are. Terrorists and dictators operate under the principal "might makes right" - we should be careful not to do the same by acting unilaterally or else we shall have something in common with them.

But in this situation things are obviously different than they have been in the past. There is no clear cut villain here, perhaps with the exception of Saddam, but even in his case there was no clear link between him and Al Qaeda (I don't care what you say about it, if we don't know for certain, then we don't know for certain). For the purposes of argument, I don't place him in relation to world wide terrorist attacks, only those within his country against his own people, of which he committed numerous horrible crimes.

The 'war on terror' is a very strange thing, It's not like going to war with Germany in 1939 or even Vietnam which was messed up enough in its own right. Al Qaeda by itself does not represent ALL terrorism, just a portion of it led by certain people. Fighting terrorism requires more 'behind the veil' work than bullets and bombs, and I don't see that happening here. This will not be a quick fight, and there will be no simple division between the winners and the losers, if it ever ends, where the winners can make demands of the losers and put new laws in place to keep them in check. So when our leader makes it seem otherwise, I know he is not telling me the truth or he is ignorant of the real situation. Who we elect to this position holds an great deal of power, so be careful. Don't make a choice based on petty partisan side shots. The next president is going to have a real, lasting influence in the world during this unprecedented time in history.