notupperwareplease said:
So explain to me how they all deserve a tyrant who commits genocide on a moment's notice? Muslims performed the bombings on 9/11, but that does not make them all inherently evil. You could say that all Christians are evil because of the Crusades. You could say a lot of things if you took a single anecdote to establish a broad theory.
Maybe the world isn't better off. Maybe the US isn't much better off. But Iraq is. Most of Iraq isn't enduring insurgency. Only a few provinces are, and most of those are near the border...and guess what? Most of the insurgents are foreigners. I doubt the Canadians and Mexicans would come fight for the liberty of the US if we were conquered. Their goal is to kill Americans and to establish an Islamic theocracy in Iraq...not to defend their country.
Did the Jews deserve Hitler? No. Do the Shia deserve Saddam? No.
How are Camp David's comments indistinct or inaccurate? His neighbor's son made the ultimate sacrifice (aka died) on a field of honor (aka battlefield performing an honorable mission). And your comments could easily be categorized as liberal leftist (considering that the majority of them are anti-Iraq, if not anti-war in general).
Where should we start? So little time...
First, I thought I covered the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative. Otherwise known as bifurcation, this paints the spectrum of beliefs regarding the role of government and especially the validity of the "war" (which is no longer a war but an occupation) into those camps. There are other views that do not lie on the false liberal/conservative continuum. Both putative liberals and conservatives today (as the word conservative is 'mis'used today) do not favor even near-historic definitions (i.e., conservative as Barry Goldwater or even William Taft of earlier in the 20th century). One can have classic liberal (Jeffersonian) views or classic "conservative" views (say, non-interference in foriegn affairs, maximum liberty to the citizen, REALLY small government) and not even have a place on the continuum. That is why you need to use language carefully and make distinctions.
Most of the people that are pro-war have never been in one. Some are, but most aren't. It is some abstract thing, like what goes on in Washington. My own views are anti-unjust war, anti-unnecessary war, anti-BS on civilian costs to the other side, anti-lies to get us INTO war, anti-waste of precious resources like lives, influence, financial capital, and tax money. I could go on.
I'm sorry the young man died; but he died for a poor cause. Ten years from now the maimed and wounded will have their sorrow over what it was all for (as it was built on lies and 'bringing democracy--a false god there--to Iraq' isn't worth one American life) will be what willo they be left?And the dead will still be dead. And for what? When leaders put their own a$$e$ on the line, or ask their own children to do the same in the name of their political objectives, then I might..maybe..believe that the wars they start are honorable. At this time I do not even believe that the U.S. Government is the "good guy" in this fight. That does not mean that the other side is the "good guy", either (we can make distinctions here, can't we?). But a clear-cut case of righteous war has not yet been made, nor can it with the facts in place as they are. The U.S. side is not a "good guy" in this fight; not by intention, not by design, and not by actual, honest objective. That's not a pleasant way to view the thing, but it is better than being blind to the motivations of your government.
As for the people of Iraq getting the leader they deserve, they, as Yugoslavia had Tito, they had someone that kept a lid on the sectarian violence, for the most part. As for political abuses, well, that's THAT part of the world. As Paul Harvey used to say, "We do not all live in ONE world." There are so many reasons why the war, and the rationales for war as specious. Now, after becoming entrenched in this fiasco, the litany of excuses for the war come, all with noble intentions; all different from the one sold to the U.S. people.
Lies. Lies. Lies. Every day, more lies.
The present adminstration is no different than the one that preceded it; they both squandered what little credibility capital they had.
Bill Clinton's picadillos seem almost quaint nowadays. Jorge Bush should be impeached for his crimes. And the border is STILL open.
You state that Iraq is better off. Whether that is true or not (and the point is definitely debatable) SO WHAT? It is not worth ONE AMERICAN LIFE. I suggest you do some reading on the dynamics of what the forces at play are there (Shia, Sunni, and the Kurds) and who REALLY is in control. It ain't all what you read about it in the papers, son. And the Hitler reference is SO overdone. So back and read your newspapers. They do a good job of maintaining the "standard model" for what is going on in U.S. policy.
