@SomeGuy:

I think my main concern is just that the story seemed to keep changing. It went from "we're looking for WMDs" to "we're hunting for terrorists" to "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein" and so on. Again, just the amount of confusion going back and forth made it hard to solidly get behind too much of anything back then.

I honestly think some of the blame for that comes from mistakes made by the administration. In an attempt to give people something they could understand, instead of the full story, which if you dig a little further is there, they relied on short snippets that took a life of their own. They made the mistake of focusing on only one aspect of the picture.

Yes they were looking for WMDs as the term was coined, but it was only part of why they were there and considering the time frame of when said weapons went missing, it's no wonder they didn't find much. I could hunt up the few reports I saw where they did find indications that some of those older stockpiles were used against other countries. I can only think of one at the moment though.

The terrorist angle was more of a potential problem really. The events of 9/11 showed, in retrospect, how big of a mistake it was to wait so long to actually do anything. So if anyone got the idea that there were actual connections, I'm not sure how, I've always had it straight that those two things were seperate, other than perhaps some of them using Iraq to hide, not as a point to work from or the point of origin.

As for Saddam Hussein, that was the other part I didn't really get into. I hear the cry that America is attempting to force democracy on Iraq when it was Saddam Hussein's abuse of this system that allowed him to remain in power (just like Hitler in Germany who when elected to the Reichstag, he actually successfully changed the constitution to consolidate power and to establish an autocracy). From what I read, Saddam Hussein's actions were similar.

There is one bit I read about where, just after being elected, Saddam Hussein is at a fully-attended Parliament. He just sits there with his cabinet and begins reading names off a list. As each name is read, the Member of Parliament gets up from their seat and exists the building. They are being shot as they go outside. This horrific perversion of Iraq's democracy is what allowed Hussein to remain in power despite the objections of Iraqi citizens.

So in the end, who do I blame? A government and media who distorted the truth with short speeches and sound bits that can't possibly tell the whole story, or myself?

It is within my power to do some research and read up on what's going on. It just takes time and effort to do so. And to tell the truth, after all the fuss going on and conflicting stories that I heard, I got fed up and did just that. And even now, there's still more to be learned.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you didn't mind the longer comment.

-Darren

@SomeGuy:

Yeah, I've heard the $250,000 bit, and I've also heard it said Obama lowered that to $200,000 (and some even claimed Biden stated it'd go as low as $150,000). I can't say if those latter claims have any real fact behind them or not, but it's still quite likely my family will get taxed more with the Democrats having the majority and all.

@Miss Anonymous:

Hey you.

I really do think you hit the nail on the head with your last point. US and coalition forces blew through the country and wiped the previous government off the map within the span of about a week. But you're right, the basic fact is that people over there aren't totally comfortable with a democratic process right now, and that's leading to so much of this stabilizing period. Absolutely agreed.

As for the other bit . . . last I read, the tax increases for high-income homes was starting at $250,000 and up. Possibly reiterating what you already know, and if that's the case then I'll just leave it at that. I've no arguments here.

Thanks.

@Rachmaninoff:

Hey, after a post like that, longwinded is certainly the least of the worries.

I've still got some wonders about these particular issues and how the acronym WMD suddenly became the most important three letters in the world.

I think my main concern is just that the story seemed to keep changing. It went from "we're looking for WMDs" to "we're hunting for terrorists" to "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein" and so on. Again, just the amount of confusion going back and forth made it hard to solidly get behind too much of anything back then.

But yes, your points were absolutely appreciated. Thanks, Darren.

Well, I think another reason to be glad that Obama won is because if it had been the other way around, our VP wouldn't have been able to name all the countries in North America. And quite frankly, I'm not sure if she forgot about Mexico or Canada. Or maybe the US.

I heard that 9 world leaders called/sent letters to congratulate Obama on his win already. That's rather impressive.

Now, as a pretty-much-confirmed Republican, I will say this:

I have nothing against Obama. Rather, I am against the majority of our government being Democratic now. Whenever one party leads over another like that, a lot of bad crap starts happening. I would prefer if there were some more Republicans in Congress right now, but as it stands I can only expect to get screwed over.

And this leads into a story about my first enraged Republican rant I had a few days ago.
My parents technically make enough to be considered upper-middle class; basically, we're gonna get taxed under this new Democratic government. However, the reason they have to make so much money is to support the three kids they have in college right now (two in private colleges, which basically require you to pay money out your ass [pardon my language] and then me in community college), house payments, car payments, various taxes, gas prices, etc. So really, we live a very middle class life.
Also, my parents didn't come from rich backgrounds. In fact, they came from very poor families. They worked their way up in the world, and look at where they are now. It pisses me off, quite frankly, to think that after all that hard work, the government will just say "LOL we'll take half of that paycheck, kthnx" and then either use it for what they say they will or (more likely) squander it.
I'm more of the mindset that if you want to give your money to help support these other people who are havin' it hard, fine; but use your own damn funds and generosity to do it. Some tax money being used for that purpose is fine, as in the case of helping kids get better educations which will inevitably help them get better jobs. But again, I'd bring up the wasting-the-money-and-not-using-it-on-what-they-say-they-would deal.

And finally, on the Iraq war, the part where I think they started screwing it up is when they tried to force democracy on them. It's all well and good that they overthrew Hussein, but you can't just force your own ideals on other people. If they have their own form of government that overall works for them, let them figure it out and use it on their own then.

That's a pretty long post and for the most part I agree with it except for one thing, so I'm going to address it. Fair warning in advance, I'm going to get very long winded on you here. Anyway...

The US invasion of Iraq was not justified.

Uh, putting 9/11 aside, the invasion as you put it was indeed justified. People have mistakenly put forth the connection that it is somehow connected to 9/11 when the events leading up to that are something else entirely. I’ll explain.

The very first Gulf War in the early 90’s was a U.N. sanctioned action brought about as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The forced that attacked Iraq pushed its forces all the way from Kuwait up to the boundary of Baghdad.

The original war did not stop; it was suspended with a ceasefire treaty that Iraq signed. Said treaty pointed out that if Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire, the U.N forces would have the authority to re-enter the country.

So guess what happened? Iraq did violate the ceasefire on many occasions. The Iraq military routinely fired upon U.N aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones, so they blatantly broke the terms of their own agreement.

On this basis alone, the forces were rightfully able to re-enter the country, but it doesn’t stop there. U.N. security council resolution 687 (from April 1991) required that Iraq destroy – under international supervision- “All biological and chemical weapons and all subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related.”

It also required the destruction and removal or rendering harmless of ballistic missiles with a range of 150kms or more.

During the following decade, Iraq, instead of complying according to the treaty they signed, did everything they could to confuse and subvert U.N attempts to verify the destruction of their known stockpiles. In 1998, Iraq dismissed UNSCOMM from the country, declaring that they would no longer assist the United Nations.

So Resolution 1441 was passed, which basically said “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations Inspectors and the IAEA and to complete actions required under Resolution 687.”

At that point, they were given one last chance to comply. The issue surrounding the war was that Iraq had failed to declare what had happened to thousands of known stockpiles that had “gone missing.”

Resolution 1441 set up a body called UMNOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) which was designed to bring an end to the disarmament process. This resolution also repeated the call for serious consequences should Iraq fail to comply and cooperate fully. They did not comply.

UNMOVIC's head, a Dr. Hans Blix (who opposed the invasion btw), reported that Iraq was unable to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and about 1,000 tons of chemical agents including VX nerve gas. He also found strong indications that Iraq had produced more anthrax than it had previously declared and that some of this stockpile had been retained. Iraq had also failed to declare 650 kilograms of bacterial growth, which would be enough to produce 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

In addition to all of this, UNMOVIC confirmed that Iraq had violated the terms of the resolution related to its ballistic missile program.

Specifically, it had reverse-engineered existing rockets so that they could travel well beyond the 150km limited range (Iraq did this by inserting additional engines into the same capsule, thereby hiding the true nature of the rockets' range).

So legally speaking, Iraq was well in violation of all applicable U.N. Resolutions. There’s more I could go into, but this has gotten long enough in my opinion.

Sorry for being so long winded, but I wanted to point out that people fail to look beyond 9/11 to see just what resulted in the war in Iraq. It’s so much more than that event, though 9/11 did change, strategically, how countries approached certain situations. So in closing, I don’t like the war in Iraq, but I don’t see it as a dumbass move either.

-Darren

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, especially as it pertains to the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Wasn't really sure what to think of the war at the time -- because, frankly, I was a political 'tard during the lead in to the war -- but the way I am now, I definitely would have opposed it. But, as you write, that is obviously all in the past, and we have to make sure we at least stabilize things as much as possible before we leave (although I don't think we'd get close to completely stabilizing it within what most people would consider a "reasonable timeframe").

As far as political leanings, I did not agree completely with either candidates point of view -- with Barack Obama it is his economic views I am not that thrilled with (although I do not think he is some insane socialist), and with John McCain it's some of his social and military views I don't like (I think he'd be a capable military leader, but he is too hawkish for my taste, and he was clearly influenced by the Neocon wing of the Republican party, even if some of his past political beliefs ran counter to theirs). Neither had me running scared like a lot of people, though -- presidents are more moderate than your run-of-the-mill political candidate, because they have to appeal to such a broad base of people to get elected.

Frankly, I am much more worried about Congress, and I would be worried whether there was a Democratic or Republican majority (although maybe a bit less worried with a Republican majority since Obama would be there to shoot down the more extreme bills). Congress has absolutely no clue how to moderate itself and has driven this country into record levels of debt. The president gets all the hype, but Congress has had an enormous hand in driving this country down to where it is right now.

Anyway, it is interesting to read your thoughts, and after briefly browsing the Wikipedia article on the whole softwood lumber dispute, I am actually interested in learning more about, mainly because it is a complex issue.

True, the world is hugely effected by America's actions so I think that a bit of concern is understandable, and smart. I've heard that some world leaders are sighing in relief and have already invested more trust in America because of the president-elect.
So... I guess we did good ;]