Addressing your points:
1.) I wouldn't have used the adjective "cowardly" myself. Nor would I use "noble". The alleged atrocities, if true, are ignoble. That being said, I have no doubt that many brave and noble actions have taken place. I don't really think you can call it a "this" war or a "that" war at all. A long string of adjectives is required.
2). I'm very glad Iraq was forced to disarm. Saddam was dangerous and crazy. However, in retrospect, the chosen method of assisting the Iraqui people seems very flawed. What about a genuine anti-Saddam insurgency, supported by the US? Let the Iraquis determine their own fate...
3.) Yes, a good way of planning an invasion! But why lie about it. Instead of fabricating WMD stories. Maybe the best case would have been a supported Iraqui uprising with the Marines coming in at the finish...
4.) I'm glad you see the value of dissent 🙂 .
Was your initial reaction to Roy's statement somewhat emotional? Just asking.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Sasquatch the US needed to have a highly charismatic and strong leader who is a great statesman to lead the war to a success. The problem is the U.S lacked credibility to reduce the after-war violence.The U.S 's flip flop position on several issues including Saddam, Israel gives the perception that whatever it does is it for selfish gain .So no one believes it when it says that it suddenly was fighting on the side of freedom and was dislodging Saddam as it had the Iraqi's best interests in heart ,least of all the Iraqis.
Bosse,
In this post you said "winning hearts and minds takes skill."
It is in this regard where the Bush administration has most miserably failed. There's a book out by Thomas P.M. Barnett called the Pentagon's New Map. The book is a prediction of where, and why, the US will fight in the 21st century, and I must say it makes a most compell ...[text shortened]... ay on the horizon, mean that all people, everywhere, can live in peace and without fear.
Most of the post-war violence can be attributed due to that .The common Iraqi beleives the U.S. is not going to just withdraw from Iraq and will continue to rule the country with proxy -governments and rob all its oil resources. There is also a perception gained that it is a war against Islam and the prisoner-abuse episode has not helped reduce this perception.
The war could have been better received if the strategy was to support some anti-saddam group like done in Afghanistan. Or it could have been better if the U.N was involved. The U.N for all its failings has credibility . The U.S. government instead of strengthening the U.N weakened it further by directly defying the U.N charter by not going to war without its agreement .
The U.N could atleast have been involved once the war was over for peace-keeping. It would have increased the credibility of U.S if it had left Iraq with its forces and allowed a multi-national force headed by U.N to do the after-war peacekeeping.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI understand perfectly what you're saying..
Perhaps you have a non-linear view of time, Bloop. Or are incapable of understanding a series of events.
Saddam was armed by Big Bush. He used the weapons with great glee. Then after Kuwait he had to disarm. That's why those weapons, which assuredly did exist previously, were not not found by Little Bush. Does that make sense?
it's just that you can't get an elected Democrat in this country to even admit that Saddam EVER had weapons...even though they complained for years that Bush 41 (and Reagan) armed him. Now, according to the Democrats, he was NEVER a threat...
The democrats today are not saying that Saddam HAD weapons and then disarmed...they're saying he NEVER had them... it's the Democrats that don't get it, and that's a good part of the reason they keep losing election after election after election...
We, of course, know that Saddam did have WMDs because he used them against his own people (not to mention the Iranians)
@Sasquatch: thanks for the long post--much to mull over. I need to digest this information.
@The Bloop: I obviously took your statement out of context! Thanks.