So the last few days we have been getting the tirade of 'support the troops' and stay in Iraq...but I don't think some of our friends on the right can fathom that we actually DON'T invade many countries and depose evil leaders who kill thier own people and might be a threat to the west through terrorism and other means...

You know, there are countries and leaders who we have NOT invaded in the past, and we seem to have plenty of reason too if you want to take the 'Invade and stay in Iraq' argument to the extreme (as some of you do). There are guys had to have come up to the level of 'evilness' and terrorist connections of Saddam(?), don't you think? Why did we not bring democracy to these countries by invading them?

I little stroll down memory lane...

WE DID NOT INVADE/TAKE OVER AND DEPOSE:

Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi has been the leader of Libya since 1969.
Throughout the 1970s, his regime was implicated in subversion and terrorist activities in both Arab and non-Arab countries. By the mid-1980s, he was widely regarded in the West as the principal financier of international terrorism. Reportedly, Gaddafi was a major financier of the "Black September Movement" which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and was accused by the United States of being responsible for direct control of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that killed three people and wounded more than 200, of whom a substantial number were U.S. servicemen. He is also said to have paid "Carlos the Jackal" to kidnap and then release a number of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil ministers.

Idi Amin Dada was the President of Uganda (1971–1979)
Upon gaining power, Amin promised to hold elections within months. Shortly after taking power, however, Amin established the so-called "State Research Bureau," which were actually his own brand of death squads to hunt down and murder Obote's supporters, as well as much of the intelligentsia, whom he distrusted. Military leaders who had not supported the coup were executed, many by beheading.

Kim Jong-il is the leader of Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a position he has held since 1994
According to defector Hwang Jang-yop, the North Korean system became even more centralized and autocratic under Kim Jong-il than it had been under his father. Although Kim Il-sung required his ministers to be loyal to him, he nonetheless sought their advice in decision-making; Kim Jong-il demands absolute obedience and agreement, and views any deviation from his thinking as a sign of disloyalty. According to Hwang, Kim Jong-il personally directs even minor details of state affairs, such as the size of houses for party secretaries and the delivery of gifts to his subordinates.By the 1980s, North Korea began to experience severe economic stagnation. Kim Il-sung's policy of juche (self-reliance) cut the country off from almost all external trade, even with its traditional partners, the Soviet Union and China.South Korea accused Kim of ordering the 1983 bombing in Rangoon, Burma (now Yangon, Myanmar), which killed 17 visiting South Korean officials, including four cabinet members, and another in 1987 which killed all 115 on board Korean Air Flight 858. No direct evidence has emerged to link Kim to the bombings. A North Korean agent, Kim Hyon Hui, confessed to planting a bomb in the case of the second, saying the operation was ordered by Kim Jong-il personally. Kim Jong-il has been a constant threat to the west

Saloth Sar better known as Pol Pot, was the ruler of the Khmer Rouge and the Prime Minister of Cambodia (officially Democratic Kampuchea during his rule) from 1976 to 1979.

The Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh on April 17, 1975. A new government was formed and the name of the country was changed to Democratic Kampuchea. Phnom Penh was full of refugees from the war. The new government drove all the refugees into the countryside without regard to the human consequences of their actions. Pol Pot also drew up death lists of former government officials who were to be executed on sight. Out of a population of approximately 8 million, Pol Pot's regime exterminated one quarter, or almost 2 million people. The Khmer Rouge targeted Buddhist monks, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries, people who appeared to be intelligent (for example, individuals with glasses), the crippled and lame, and ethnic minorities like ethnic Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were thrown into the infamous S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were subject to summary execution.

I can go on with others(?),

The precedent for invading Iraq was not actually there if you want to know the truth. Many times we hear who this is a great thing for the Iraqi people...then why did we not invade all these places (+ more countries) and help all these other people via the way we are helping Iraqis?

I have not examined, in depth, every historical scenario that you presented. However, war often times has little to do with "what can we do for others" as much as it does "how can we help ourselves". When you combine the fact there is a evil dictator in an area we would like to have influence over...well you get the picture.

You believe we should not have invaded Iraq, and offer these other instances to support your views. The logic suggests we are wrong on Iraq/Saddam because we failed to remain consistent, identifying and destroying oppressive regimes only when we choose rather than when they arise. The problem is they are completely different times, with different geography, under different rule, with different threats. Bottom line, there are too many variables to base an arguement according to past decision decades apart.

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

Two very intresting posts, I will have to think about them and also do some research before I comment. Thanks for the thoughtful posts.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

What you say is a good 'think through' of what I am trying to say but I would argue compared to this current war there were more and less urgent needs to invade at these different times; Iraq (the 2nd time) was not nearly at the top of the list even in a post 9/11 scenario. So, if you take a long list as a whole of all evil/repressive/American hating leaders in the last, lets say, 30 years why does Saddam so quickly rocket to the top of the list at that time (again, a SECOND time through the 'spanking machine')? Seems as hypocritical as taking down Noriega in a number of ways really. You have to argue the current administration perspective too though. With that thought in mind I would truly have to have someone explain away why Ronald Reagan (Cyrus Vance, James Baker, et al) should not have invaded Libya with this logic especially after the Pan Am flight went down. In retrospect (and more will come out about this) the current administration (onus on Cheney and Rumsfeld) really made this decision in a vacuum and did not look at the other situations. OK, post 9/11, but why not pull out all the stop s to get Bin Laden and focus ont he specific problem, which he still is.

I repeat...we had ALREADY invaded Iraq once...why again?

The reason we did not bother with those guys has to do with geography. Their countries are not located next door to Israel.

George, Libya is awful close. By all means with this train of thought Libya should have been invaded after the Pan Am Flight 103/Locherbie plane went down on December 21, 1988.

Until the September 11, 2001 attacks, the bombing of Flight 103 was the worst act of terrorism against civilian citizens of the United States. The 270 victims (259 on the plane, 11 on the ground) were citizens of 21 nations. Of them, 189 were Americans.

Didn't this constitute an invasion?

As I recall, we bombed Libya pretty good. Killed Khadaffi's daughter. He's been a fine citizen ever since.

We did not invade or OVERTHROW him though. So what does that mean exactly...start to connect the dots, as they say...and does that mean Saddam could have changed with the right amount of force done the right way(?), why is Khadaffi any more or less special than Saddam. Saddam did not bomb the WTC Buildings on 9/11(?)

I'm not sure we needed to overthrow Saddam, and I am dead sure that we didn't need to lose 3000 of our own to put him on trial before a bunch of cutthroat asshole Shias. I'm not even sure Saddam needed an attitude adjustment, like Muammar did. Neocons are starting to say that we were better off with Saddam in power than we are now.

We never established a foot-hold on the area. It appears we won't this time either, nor any future time if I may be so bold. Take down Saddam's govt., seal the borders, est. a govt...that should have been the plan. Instead we dismantled any form of stability without the benefit of fulfilling our overall objective. Why invade, Saddam was on the list, America had been attacked, and the stage was set for war. What more do you believe is required of a dictator before he is ousted?

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson