Not as much good to say about it as I thought back in the beginning. I still think the regime that was in power was a threat to the safety of Americans and other westerners. But, in hindsight, I am not at all pleased with how the Bush adminstration handled the war on terror, particularly on the domestic front.
I thought we would go in and give them a 6 month kicking around show them we could shake up there power structure and be done with it. I know many people think at least the power structure was "stable," but many (not pretending to care much about them) were brutalized by that stability.
I didn't expect so much life, time, and resources to be expended. Also, I never dreamed that our government would use the "effort" against "terror" as an excuse to curtail the liberties and freedom of it's own citizens! Even if Bush, et al, had the right "intentions," they demonstrated arrogance, stupidity, and short-sightedness in putting in place measures (Patriot Act, inter alia) so ripe for abuse (if not inherently abusive) to readily fall into the hands of their political enemies!
My "in hindsight" point is not that I once believed the "reasons" proffered and now do not. But rather the points that 1) we didn't make low-budget short work of it, and 2) our gov has suppressed US with furthering the "effort" and "security" as a ruse!
I personally believe Hussein was a threat. That's what I think. I'm not going to try to justify war based on what "I think." But all the same, I couldn't denounce that which I personally thought to be subduing an enemy. I have little doubt that he encouraged and rewarded those who hurt us, and likely was even more involved.
I don't see why one can't recognize that there are serious issues with both Jєωs and moslems.
Belloc's point about "war on terror." I don't quibble with. That's not to say that those who employ the tactic shouldn't be punished.
I'm don't doubt that we gave them wmd. Moslems--why not give them the goods to whip up on the ones who are more our enemies at the time and then go in and whip up on the one we originally gave wmd to when called for. Not saying that was the scenario here, nor that that is a prudent "tactic." But I'm not sure I have a moral or philosophical problem with that "tactic."
I'm not a Hannity fan nor a tea bagger. We need a legitimate third party. But I feel obligated to vote and speak out for candidates who have a legitimate chance of winning. If I go to the polls and vote for someone I'm certain will (and who ultimately does) garner 3% of the vote, then rather than "making a statement," I'm voting for one who can win. Given the option of a tea bagger v. one who supports abortion, obama-care, etc. liberalism, then I'll vote for the tea bagger (but not like it much)!
If the FOX crew and Palin are neocon, then that's not what I am. I wasn't excited about any GOP pres candiate who ever got off the ground last time. I would rather have Buchanan than anyone who has ran in the last 20 yrs. Yes, I'm ok with his foreign policy positions--I don't believe he would permit us to be attacked without some sort of appropriate reprisal. I think his message would have resonated particularly well in 2008.
I don't take precisely the same hard-core hell-pit view of America that you apparently do. But just curious, what corner of this world could one go to and find conditions most consistent with Catholicism?