Fred, I don’t think you should bring Hitchens up, as he claimed that that it was only through a series of miscalculations, and general nefarious doings, and after years of pursuing totally self-interested goals in the middle-east that the US had accidentally ended up on the right side of history. :?
Anyway, regarding what I said and how you repied:
I’m not surprised you don’t get me since I never mentioned the cost of the war and yet you write as if responding to something I said.
[quote]Rather than constantly berating the US and its policies, I would like to hear how you justify those of France, Germany and Russia or how this example is the first time action has been taken without a UN resolution or how this is some new precedent for pre-emption given previous similar actions.
[/quote]
Who’s constantly berating the US and its policies? And why the obvious set-up Fred regarding UN resolutons and pre-emtive strikes? I’ve been following the debate. You guys use this issue over and over again to trip people up who haven’t your clear, broad, detailled historical knowledge. Your schtick is old man. 
Regarding France, Germany and Russia please show where I have ever applauded their actions in this war.
When will you and Tigerman get it through your heads that while you may read non-mainstream news sources, and even primary source such as UN resolutions, the majority of Americans don’t. They get their news through TV and they never would have given support for an invasion of Iraq simply for humanitarian reasons, or for complex foreign policy goals. Yes, WMD was not the only reason stated for war but its spurious to suggest that it wasn’t the matter that galvanized support for it, or the issue that was used and abused to garner the greatest support.
Cheerleading. Absolutely, because you refuse to criticize your government in any way. You think Iraq is a giant success. Yet:
- Bush was completely wrong on the WMD issue. Iraq was not a threat to the US. Neither imminent nor growing. The conclusive proof of this has embarrassed the admin and caused more bad blood around the world.
- Tigerman berated me in the spring for suggesting that containment could work (even though of course I wasn’t arguing for containment). It wasn’t working he said. Yet clearly, as the Kay report shows, it was working. Working brilliantly. As far as neutralizing the threat of Saddam, Clinton had it right. (As far as freeing the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator, I agree it was doing nothing.)
- The Bush admin thought they could ignore or circumvent the UN. Now they are back looking for support. Another thoughtless blunder. It’s 10 times harder now than it would have been before the war. Resources and people that could be used more productively are bogged down.
- The admin seriously erred in believing the Iraqi people would rise up in suport. Again, responding to situation took more resources, and lives, than anticipating and preparing for it would have.
- The admin misjudged how much infrastrucure damage would result from the war and from deliberate sabotage. Again, they were unpepared.
- They misjudged how many troops would be needed to secure peace in Iraq. While this does not mean the situation is a quagmire, it does again mean that more lives are lost, more time is lost, and more resources squandered or wasted than necessary.
- Before the war, the Bush admin promised that Iraq would pay for itself with oil revenue. That is almost certainly not going to happen. The war is going to cost more and add to your debt. Was this clearly spelled out to the American people? Of course not. The war was going to be a cakewalk and pay for itself.
You call this campaign a success. I think it is working in spite of the people running it, not because of them. And I am not writing this with the benefit of hindsight. All these issues were out there before the war.
I call you a cheerleader because you never suggest that matters could be better. You never take your government to task for the obvious blunders they have committed. Instead you quote tendentious articles about the immaculate conception theory of foreign policy to excuse egregious errors.
What I worry about now is that Bush will lose the next election to a Democrat who will want to pull US troops out of Iraq prematurely. Iraq will then turn into a sham democracy at best. The entire exercise will have proven a massive waste of time, money and human life.
I worry Bush will lose because of the WMD fiasco, the cost of war (exasperated by tax cuts and a lingering joblessness), the unexpected cost of human life, and just the fact that given all the above and more, people just no longer trust the man?
You may say Bush can’t control this but I say he will be directly responsible for such an outcome, as it is his handling of the war now and in the past than has led to people’s mistrust. Build an insecure structure and don’t be suprised if people come along later and need to or want to tear it down.
I want to see Iraq succeed. My criticism is that your government has increased the odds that in the long run, it won’t. And it has done so through arrogance, intimidation, deceit, willful blindness, and a too strong belief in what they are doing that precluded reasonable second-quessing.
You keep telling everyone to wait a few years before they judge the success of the Iraqi war. Please be consistent and hold the same wait-and-see attitude toward the region at large. It’s far too early to gloat or cheerlead.
I love America, which is why I follow the events there more closely than in my own country. I also am a supporter of globalization, a liberal atheist (and so modern), and live to Taiwan because I enjoy change.
Is this directed at me?
Let’s see, I wrote:
“After the war, I applauded the US for toppling Saddam with a minumim of loss of life on both sides.”
Wheres is the invective Fred?
Do you ever read what you have written Fred? Let me rephrase the above for you:
I don’t understand much of what you’ve written because even before reading your words I decided that you don’t understand the issue.
I DID support the war you utter imbecile. And how am I not supporting America’s goal of getting out of Iraq? You’re asking for reasons for something I’m not doing.
Now you know why I warn newbies. Not because I think they may be too sensitive, but too sensible to waste their time arguing with someone who reads at an ESL level.
