A sad fact, though I don't think they lie more than the general public, they just do it more visibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarMan
Fair enough, you certainly do get to choose your evil, and those are two nasty choices. Had I those choices, I'm not sure how I would choose. After all, the first one could be a case of a simple mistake, or it could be a description of Saddam himself. I have no doubt that he had a justification for all the people he had killed.Quote:
Often times on this planet we can not choose something good. We must choose the lesser of two evils. I would much rather choose a leader who makes a decisiion based on poor intelligence and kills a man who just kills whoever he sees fit then choose a leader who cuts your tongue out for speaking bad about him.
Actually, it is only through consideration of after-action reports that we ever really improve. You may call it nit-picking, but every significant organization intent on improving their game, whatever it might be, does the same.Quote:
I also believe if people spent as much time and energy making the world a better place than nit-picking what was done poorly...and focus on what needs to be done now.
Obviously, based on my last statement, I thoroughly disagree. However, my opinion is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the rest of the world will judge us based on their perception of our actions. Furthermore, our future actions will be dependent on the outcome of past actions that are deemed similar by those who are making the future decisions. The Iraq war will be seen as a disaster, the magnitude of which will be largely dependent on how people evaluate it. America is certainly not better off as a result of that war, regardless of what reason we went into it. The war has cost between one and three trillion dollars, so far, and is not over yet. The end result is not currently to our benefit, and a positive outcome is looking unlikely. After all, from an American perspective, what IS a positive outcome? A genocidal, partisan, anti-American, shiite state is certainly not positive, yet it is becoming the most likely outcome. Whoever wins power will pay us lip service as long as our forces are available to help them consolidate power, but it will be nothing more than that.Quote:
Most of the people who complain about what was not done right put not a single drop of effort into improving anything, they live in the past.
I agree. If that was our motivation, then I would have no problem with it. However, much of the rest of the world is well aware that we have supported dictators (including Saddam at his most murderous) in the past, and continued to do so even as we stated that we were acting to depose one. We are judged by our actions, not by the spin we put on those actions, which are seen for what it is by the rest of the world.Quote:
While I agree with you Dexter that a bad man is not a good reason to go to war, again I would need volumes to properly explain myself. A bad man who kills thousands of innocent people and continues to do is (at least in my mind) a good reason and always will be. Even if more people die in the war, it is the only way to improve the planet in that particular aspect.
The Palestinians get used as pawns by all sides. Iran has supported more of those actions against Israel, and Iran is Shiite, while Saddam was Sunni. While Iraq did participate in the Yom Kippur War (ineffectually, and late), they weren't big players compared to some others. You complain that HB is making assumptions, yet your argument is based on the assumption that Saddam was funding anti-Israel activities. Since it is clear that Iran was, I would rather expect that Saddam was not. Do you have evidence to the contrary?Quote:
And honeybee, just because Saddam is paying them doesn't mean they have to be Iraqis, he will pay palestinians also. Assumptions like that cause all kinds of false information. Now you sound like Bush.
