TorgoX writes that what Bush is trying to do in Iraq will do poorly even if the Iraqis are lucky.
That's really really dumb.
No one knows what will happen, and as noted many times before, no one had any other solutions beyond "let's let the situation continue to fester with Hussein in power." We tried something, and by all indications it is going very well. Sure, you can point out some of the tragedies -- there are many -- that have occurred along the way, but these will not prevent the long-term goal from occurring. It's like saying a football team had a bad game because the QB threw a few interceptions: what matters is whether they win in the end.*
Oh, but because I believe this, I am probably not "persuaded by the facts." Yes, people who disagree with you are closed-minded. That's so original. And insipid.
The facts are these: Iraq is progressing about as well as anyone could have hoped. There have been problems, including too many civilian deaths, too many insurgents, and a rebuilding effort that has not been strong enough in some areas. There have been many good things too, such as Iraq doing quite well governing itself for more than six months and just recently having extraordinarily successful national elections (which were secured primarily by Iraqi police).
By all indications, the nation is well on its way to having its own entirely independent country, with new executives to be chosen soon, and a Constitution to be written by the new representatives, to be ratified later this year. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, of course, and there are a large number of obstacles along the way. But the naysayers are the same people who said a handover of power last summer could not work, and that elections in January could not work. Why should we believe them now?
Ah, but Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves. So this is doomed to failure. Is there a word for this that does not imply racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry? I am trying to think of one.
* And by the way, I couldn't care less about complaints about sports analogies in war. Our sports are simplified versions of war, in essence. And so when trying to simplify war for the sake of discussion, we naturally use something else we already have that is a simplification of war.
Re:long term
pudge on 2005-02-03T23:34:22
If there were WMD of any variety in Iraq they are now probably in the hands of people who are not much better that Hussein.
Sure. At worst, we are likely not much worse off. But I never supported the war because I thought WMD existed, this was never my priority, and it doesn't have much to do with my thoughts on the matter one way or another.
The war in Iraq seems to have made large chunks of for want of a worse word old europe more anti Bush and probably more anti american now that he has been reelected.
This doesn't matter to me. Yes, I want people to like us, but more than that, I want to do the right thing, and I think going into Iraq was the right thing.
The failure to find any WMD leaves people with a bitter taste in their mouths about preemptive wars.
Yeah, and it's why I was -- before the war began -- angry with how the war was being sold, because of some of the effects like this.
I can not see america having much help taking on Iran or North Korea unless the other guy starts it. Maybe this doesn't matter.
I don't think it matters in the case of North Korea. No one would help us take on North Korea anyway. No one will strike North Korea first, not the U.S., not anybody, unless Japan perceives a real imminent threat of a missile strike (which is not impossible, but probably unlikely).
Iran and Syria and others have the potential to be more similar to Iraq, but remember, we didn't go into Iraq until we tried and failed for 12 years to get them to comply with their obligations under UNSC 687 (and following). There's nothing similar to that kind of defiance of the world community with Syria. Iran has a similar, though different, problem with its nukes, but that is being dealt with (although we'll see how effectively).
Wars may cost quite a lot of money but occupations cost more. I'm not an economist but apparently quite a lot of euro is flowing into the usa to pay for the war in Iraq(amongst other things) and this is part of the reason the dollar has lost a large chuck of its value against most other major world currencies. Some people seem to think this will have long term major consequences.
I am no economist either, but in some ways, this is a good thing. The dollar has been overvalued for a long time (considering the huge U.S. debt), and it's good for U.S. businesses that it's coming down, as it helps with the trade imbalance. In the long term, I only see a big problem here if the U.S. doesn't begin to fix its trade imbalance, and this devaluation provides a great opportunity to start to do that.
Not that I am in favor of increasing debt to devalue the dollar, but that doesn't mean some good can't come of it.
Re:Attribution
pudge on 2005-02-04T01:03:56
In the post you link to, he makes no comment at all... Because you are not referring to something he actually wrote, but rather an article he linked to... ... I am safe to infer he agrees with the content, when it seems reasonable that he would. Which it does.
Re:Attribution
phillup on 2005-02-04T02:14:26
I am safe to infer he agrees with the content, when it seems reasonable that he would.
I'll leave arguments of reasonableness to you.
But you did not infer this, you claimed that he wrote it.
He did not.
I guess there isn't much more to say to make that point...
Re:Point of View
pudge on 2005-02-04T02:11:15
You're really boring.Re:Point of View
TeeJay on 2005-02-04T15:49:13
You know thats the problem with the U.S.Kerry didn't get elected because he couldnt or refused to reduce complex moral, economic and military issues into happy chirpy apple-pie bullshit, unlike Bush who lied through his teeth to provide patriotic sounding soundbites.
Why listlen when its boring - much better to believe that Saddam was a bad guy (in fact he is quite far down the list of bad guys, compared to dictators accross africa and asia) that needed to be removed from power, or that the iraqi opposition group that was used to justify and legitimise the invasion was in fact created and funded by the CIA and was mostly used to funnel public funds into a handful of pockets.
Re:Point of View
pudge on 2005-02-04T21:55:56
Kerry didn't get elected because he couldnt or refused to reduce complex moral, economic and military issues into happy chirpy apple-pie bullshit
Keep deceiving yourself if you want your party to keep losing. Don't let me stop you.
much better to believe that Saddam was a bad guy (in fact he is quite far down the list of bad guys, compared to dictators accross africa and asia) that needed to be removed from power
Talk about simplistic bullshit!
