Printable View
"Why?" is the most important question of all. If I can't trust the man, and I'm not only talking about the war here, then I can't very well think he's fit to run the country.
And that's completely brushing aside whether I think Saddam being out of power is a good thing (I do), or whether I think our men and women are wasting their lives (As long as we stick to our guns and make a better life for these people, I don't).
You can dislike the man.
You can dislike the way this war was built up - the way it was sold to the public, the way in which we tried to sell the war to the UN.
If you think we made the right decision the wrong way, then I understand - I even agree with you, on some levels.
But if you (not you specifically) dislike the results, if you think we made the wrong decision, if you can't see the good that we've done, and the evil that deferring to the UN would have caused, then you're a fucking idiot.
We either did the right thing for the right reasons, or the right thing for the wrong reasons.
I found this article while I was cruising around for material for my Pol-Sci research paper, (due on Friday OMFG!!!).
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/f.dowker/racism.html
A fairly interesting read, although I don't agree with all of it. Think of it what you will.
We went to war for the wrong reasons, we took a homicidal maniac out of power, and the backlash is going to take our idiot president out of office. Save for our casualties, what's not to like?
I don't get it. Why is a policy that "has caused the deaths of 227,000 children under five" evil in the mind of Mr. Halliday, but a dictator who has executed 1 million people "not...a nice man" and someone who we at most should 'dislike' (from a Halliday interview on Salon, Google it)?
Key is - neither one is okay. We could have ended the sanctions, and left Saddam to his own devices, killing 250 Iraqis a day - or, we could end the Sanctions and END SADDAM. No more kids under 5 years old starving to death, no more Iraqis getting executed.
We had the power to remove Saddam quickly. By not doing so, the blood of 250 Iraqis was being spilt on our hands each week. We would've been as culpable for the deaths of Iraqis executed as we were for the Iraqis who were starved by our foolish Clinton-era containment policies.
-
Dean's going to get bitchslapped. There are so many different things Bush could do to win the election.
Look, the prospect scares me, but Bush could simply declare victory in May, bring everyone home, and watch Dean crumple. The economy is trending upwards. The Dow touched 10,000 today.
I like certain aspects of Dean. He was a good-to-great governor - this left-wing disguise he's thrown on in the past year is strange, sort of annoying, and not characteristic of his time in Vermont.
I'd rather see Dean in 2004 than Hillary in 2008. However, I don't think it's going to happen.
This should be a fun campaign, but I can't see why people ought to be getting their hopes up over Dean.
I don't recall even knowing who Clinton was when we pulled out of Iraq twelve or so years ago.
And we didn't go to war because our leaders are nice, peace-loving people. We went to protect our country from terrorism, and on that we failed.
Say you're a terrorist, and you're interested in getting the most dead Americans for your Saudi dollar.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Where would your money go:
1.) On some risky plot to attack an American target. Not likely to succeed given the distance, the protective measures in place, so on.
2.) To terrorists in Iraq. You've got loads of American troops just sitting there waiting to get killed.
Cost-benefit, Burgundy. The cash will go to Iraq because it's easier to kill Americans, to "make progress", by killing the US invaders in Iraq than it is by trying to execute some sort of high-wire terrorist plot in America itself.
This is one of the sicker, less pleasant aspects of the "war on terrorism", but basically, our occupation of Iraq is acting something like a bug zapper. Our soldiers are the light that attracts the terrorists, diverting them from the US.
We're going to have to expose our countrymen to terrorists one way or another. We can expose armed US soldiers, or we can expose unarmed officeworkers.
Terrorism is less of a threat to the mainland now than it used to be.
I suppose I can't argue with your logic. But it's not like Bush & Co. can sell it like that.
Generally, I can't speak ill of your passion for improving the lives of Iraqis. I have no doubt that you are genuine. But the war wasn't sold to America on that basis - we bought it because we want to root out the bastards that killed American civilians and we want to make sure it never happens again.
And some of us red-blooded Americans just want to shoots some towelhead bastards.
But slowly, the war is becoming a quagmire, with reports of American soldiers dying and no new Jessica Lynch stories to keep morale up, with more money being requested, and no Al Qaeda and no weapons to prove the administration right. Maybe Iraq is really better off, and maybe it's just spin, but I don't think America gives a damn.
Only thing I would say is that if FDR asked the country:
"Hey, guys, do you want to spend 4 trillion dollars (in 2003 money) and sign off on 300,000 American lives in order to save Europe from Europeans and Asia from Asians?"
and put it to a referendum vote, I wonder whether the vote would have succeeded.
Stone, you argue against containment of Saddam and how we had to go in there and get the bastard. I agree with you. I don't agree, however, that we did it with our cape and mask on for "the benefit of the Iraqi people." That's just bullshit. Call the war a hunt for terrorists and WMDs, a diversion from the flagging economy, revenge for daddy, an oil hunt, whatever, but there's no way I can look at GW's face and believe that it was to honestly help those people. How was Saddam, halfway around the world, any more a violator of human rights than Castro has been? We've contained him, only 90 miles off our own shores for over four decades. He was a Communist, a dictator, and anti U.S.; everything you need nowadays to kill of a head of state. Yet there he remains.
Human rights isn't the issue. No way. A convieniently placed chair onto which we can toss the shirt of war, yes, but a human rights mission, no. If it is, we are the biggest hypocrites on Earth and it's no wonder no country takes us seriously.