Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
ace, i can't speak for others, as i was against this little foray from the get go. i remember being at a friend's house when the news conference came on about us dropping hell on baghdad, and thinking to myself 'fuck, here we go. this is not going to end well.' as for the conversation, what i find annoying, personally, is that we are largely having a synthetic conversation in my opinion. if this was a game of risk or axis and allies, no one would suggest invading papau new guinnea to free the new ginneans. i think we clearly went in because of a perceived need to assure access to oil and for the ability to militarily respond to situations in the middle east. if i recall correctly, we had some problems getting approval to fly through certain countries air space when we went into afganistan. i'm as bothered by the fact that we keep rehashing all this wmd and operation iraqi freedom! nonsense as i am by the fact that we went in in the first place. the problem with discussing the united states pre-emptively invading another country to protect our strategic interests in light of concerns over world oil supply, economic stability of the $, and military response times and effectiveness is that it clearly violates international law to do so. so we have all these horseshit (my opinion) justifications for what i think was a cold-blooded decision influenced by think-tank guys like pnac. certainly the fact that the war didn't end in six weeks with iraqi children racing into the streets to wash the feet of our victorious soldiers has not made it easy to get away with. its become very messy, and the fact that our administration seems to have either outright lied or blissfully wallowed in feigned ignornace would seem to be a conversation and investigation that is necessary for the american public to engage in, per roach's post above. what do we really stand for?
|
I hope we are a people that stand behind the decisions we make and admit when we have made an error rather than make excuses (I supported the war, but now I don't, I was lied to - I don't support the war, but I will fund it - I don't support sending more troops, but I will confirm the General who wants more troops - Sadaam was a threat, but he wasn't a threat - I am tough on terrorism, but I don't want to fight them unless it is in Afganastan, etc.) At this point Bush does not believe we have made an error, and is acting accordingly. If we think this is an error, we need to end it, and stop playing political games and trying to re-write history so we don't look bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Then tell the people that there was conflicting intelligence and why you believe in one set of intel over another if you are asking them to sacrifice. Why would that have been so hard for Bush to do?
|
On an issue like this I always look to the way Churchill lead. When things looked there worst, he "lied" for the good of the nation and with those "lies" he lifted the spirits of his people and they gained strength and over came adversity. Forget the b.s. about making public statements about this and that and what if's and doubts.
P.s. - If I am ever your President be advised. You will know what to do when I want to go to war. I hope.