7 comments

• 

  Erock

  9 months ago

  Holy shit, man. There's no comments because no one is done reading this yet!
  
  You'll hear from me next year. :)
  
  (also, happy birthday!!!!!)
  reply
• 

  Erock

  9 months ago

  One year later:
  
  Great post! I learned a lot in here. Incredible stuff.
  
  I'm curious if you've heard/read any of what Christopher Hitchens has said about going into Iraq? He actually turned me around. I still think it was executed horribly and under terrible circumstances (lack of armor for the soldiers' vehicles comes to mind).
  
  A question to him:
  Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?
  
  His response:
  A majority of the member states thought he was right and had to admit that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. It was scandalous that such a regime could for more than a decade have violated the spirit and the letter of the resolutions that had allowed a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.
  
  I think it's interesting. Though I still think it has turned into the ultimate clusterfuck.
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  9 months ago

  I think that a realistic appraisal of the Iraq situation, a sound plan, and the cooperation of the international community would have created a very different situation in Iraq. That said, I still don't believe it was a necessary war. Saddam was a broken man. He had no money, no real power, given time the Iragi people could have solved the problem themselves with a coup or something. Yeah, Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but so are a lot of other petty despots. If the Iraqi people had deposed him (something they would have likely done eventually) there would be a million Iraqis still alive today. War is just such a blunt instrument. Why kill a million people to get rid of one? This is the kind of thing that always happens in wars like this and the cost is far too high for the result attained. The ironic thing is that Bush Sr. knew this, he understood the ethnic situation in Iraq, so he didn't do this. His son was too simplistic in his thinking and used the big, ugly, blunt tool to try to solve the problem rather than the complex but more effective options available.
  reply
• 

  Erock

  9 months ago

  Yeah, I agree.
  
  I believe that bush went into Iraq for dishonest reasons. And he gave the american public a load of absolute hogwash to pull it off. I just think it's interesting that there was a valid defense of the idea of invading Iraq from a UN security council perspective, with them having violated so many regulations.
  reply
• 

  Jeffy

  9 months ago

  On the topic of misleading people into war -- this interview (I've placed the link to it below) has an interesting story about Cheney lying to get a member of his own party to get the man to change his mind about going to war. I don't trust those for whom the ends justify the means. Machiavelli had nothing on our current administration.
  
  http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?v...
  reply
• 

  Jeffy

  9 months ago

  Granted that he essentially admitted as much, but at this point I'd have to say that the catalyst for your very excellent post was little more than a troll -- only interested in being an agent provocateur and not interested in an honest intellectual exchange. Or perhaps he is just working on his rebuttal, but somehow I doubt that very much. Perhaps my hate-filled accusation here that he's a provocateur will make Mr. Andy re-engage (if only just long enough to say I'm a hater or some such nonsense). Opinions?
  reply
• 

  Jeffy

  9 months ago

  And I don't know why your posting logger thinks it is 4:26 in the blessed AM, but thankfully it is not nearly that late yet.
  reply