Pro X,
“And the “assumption” that there were large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was a right assumption to make and base a war off of that we still have not won even though we were told that we won it many months ago?”
While the assumptions I was talking about were more historical, it’s important to note we covered this in another thread. To which I reiterate:
Yes, there was a perfectly valid assumption that there were WMDs. The intelligence agencies of the Western world thought so, and the Clinton administration was one of the bigeest advocates that Saddam was stockpiling after the inspectors left.
And, btw, we did win the war. We have not won the peace.
“Does this mean you believe that the US in no way aided the training of many of the terrorists that we are now hunting down?”
Uh, no - and where did you get that? We trained them, armed them, gave aid to them. It’s realpolitik - something you’re not familiar with. Sometimes the choices in foreign policy - especially as it relates to war - are between something bad and something worse.
“No, that would be ignoring the truth of a situation as long as it supports your own political views…”
What have I ignored?
“Wait a second, in your previous statement, you called it “apologetic” to look through history and not call something for what it truly is.”
Yep.
“If the US has f’ucked up in some way in the past, why would that not be a primary theme in how we go about any further action?”
If the US has fucked up, where did I suggest we should sugarcoat it and pretend it isn’t there? You’re wandering.
My point was that the reflexive desire to blame the overdog for all things under the sun - ie, the fact that the US, because it has chosen to align itself with certain Middle Eastern countries in an effort to protect the oil supplies from enemies ranging back to before the Cold War - ignores what is really going on in the Arab world in terms of what conditions create the Islamists. US policy is riddled with errors, but on balance,it has done inifinitely more good than harm.
“Does this mean we force our idea of a “utopian society” on other nations?”
Nope, but any time since WWII when we have wiped some country’s clock, we’ve tried to put something back in its place rather than go home with the spoils of war. We know and love the Western tradition of democratic government and liberal institutions, and we believe it to be superior, so that’s what we try to leave in our wake.
And, what we suggest is not a utopian society, but it’s a hell of lot better than a 10th century caliphate or feudalistic monarchy that was there before.
“Do you believe that America has developed a “utopian society” itself?”
See above, no.
“Is our form of democracy even wanted by the majority of people in Iraq?”
Hard to tell, but my guess is they like it better than tyrannical oppression, a Baathist police state, and institutionalized torture and death. Just a guess, though.
“As far as the tape, apparently it only enforces who most were already going to vote for and nothing else.”
Fair enough. I suspect it won’t move voting trends much, if any.
“The true target for this war (even though it somehow became Saddam as if that sudden switch wouldn’t be noticed) is still alive and kicking.”
The true target is anyone who has, wants to, or can aid an abet in the harming of our country. Saddam’s name is - was - on that list.
“Regardless of what his words are, his appearance alone states one thing, that we didn’t get the job done even though we were being told that we were.”
We’ve made advances against al-Qaeda, and I think the video is reminder as to how difficult asymmetrical warfare is and how that difficulty requires discipline and resolve.