Posted by
Scott Keys on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:42:28 PM
Finally have time and energy to reply to Dave. Here goes:
First, thanks for reading the blog and double thanks for posting the comments. It's exactly what I was hoping for. Secondly:
>Although
it may be comforting to justify a mistake by saying, "everyone thought
it was true," I just can't go with that idea. I believe there were
plenty of people who thought there were no WMDs, both in this country
and in Britain, but that wasn't the intelligence either Tony Blair's or
W's administration wanted to hear.
me: If you know the name of someone in a position of authority who didn't believe he had them I'd like to hear a name, otherwise your "belief" is just that; your personal "belief."
>Once again, the only justification
that I remember W giving for invading Iraq was WMDs.
me: Sorry that's all you can remember , Dave, but it doesn't make it true. Here's a quote from the President's radio address of 3/22/03:
"...And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people..."
>I also appreciate
that there may have been weapons there that were moved out, the "great
deal of evidence" that you propose exists I also haven't seen.
me: Here's one place to go to see the docs that came to light last year. If you're unconvinced just do a search. I can't blame you much for not hearing about these. The news folks didn't give it much coverage.
>Two,
three, four, seventeen wrongs just don't make a right.
me: We've addressed this and, I hope, cleared up the confusion about the "no WMD" argument on a couple of levels: as the only reason to go to war and, in light of emerging evidence, their apparent existence.
>I'm really very
glad you promised to say it only once. That means I won't have to read
it again.
me: Well, I didn't actually promise but, just to please you, I won't reiterate a point that, again, I think we've clarified?
>(P.S. the very fact that Ted Kennedy believes something to be
true is justification enough to doubt it.)
me: And if Teddy were the only one claiming it I wouldn't disagree with your opinion of his believability.
>Your comparison of
Japan, Germany and Italy in the forties to Iraq is puzzling and
possibly a bit hasty. Iraq hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, nor had it
declared war on us as those three nations had.
me: I didn't "compare" anything, that's your characterization. You said we shouldn't make regime changes in independent countries. No reference to being attacked or not. We did, in fact, cause a regime change in Japan, Germany and Italy so my example met your criteria. Did you want to be more specific for my edification?
>I still stand behind the
idea that no matter how strong our country and overwhelming our
military, we shouldn't be attempting to spread democracy at the point
of a sword.
me: It would be great if rogue, aggressive states like Iraq could be persuaded to be nicer and let their people have a voice in their own governance and not, you know, torture and kill them and stuff. It never happens that way. Ever. Whether we should be doing it or not is certainly food for discussion and honest difference of opinion. Depending on the situation, and with the condition that is in our best national interest it is my opinion that the US should be able to do whatever it sees fit, barring outright imperialism and subjugation, to ensure the continuation of our way of life.
>Many criticize Moslems for having spread Islam at the point
of a sword (something, BTW, that Christians have done quite a bit in
the past as well), but then we think it's okay to spread democracy the
same way. A little hypocracy, maybe?
me: You're right: Both Christians and Moslems are guilty of attempting to spread their religion through the use of force. The difference is, and it's crucial, is that Christians stopped doing it a long time ago. Moslems believe that it is their duty to God to make believers of all infidels (that's you and me, Dave), or help them on their way to the afterlife. We're attempting to help establish a democratic government in the aftermath of going in to eliminate a threat to our national security. That's not hypocritical in the least.
>...I really do believe that some of W's motivation
for invading Iraq was to stop people criticizing his father.
me: There's that "believe" thing again. We believe differently I guess. But I believe the motivation for going in was as enumerated by the President and Congress when we attacked. It seems like enough reason to me without the psycho-babble about proving something to his father.
>I think
I'm fully aware of what the first Gulf War was about.
me: I'll take your word for it.
>No one
voted the US the protectors or the policemen of the rest of the world.
me: And thank goodness for that. It's bad enough we have the UN voting on stuff like this, telling countries(independent ones) what they should do. We always ought to do whatever we think is right for us as a nation, regardless of whether anyone else agrees. Hope that never changes.
>The interesting thing I have noticed about the war in Iraq is that we
keep changing our reason(s) for being there. First it's WMDs. When that
doesn't pan out, we talk about supporting Al-Qaeda. When that
(apparently) doesn't pan out, we talk about oppression of minorities.
When that suddenly looks bad (because some of our friends also oppress
minorities - come to think of it, so do we), we start talking about
invading neighbors, gassing people, and paying families of suicide
bombers. So what WAS the real reason?
me: I think we've covered this. These reasons were all articulated before the war. We didn't change our reasons every other day, despite what you may remember as the sequence of events. But I am curious: who are the minorities that suffer government oppression here in the US?
>I mistakenly (apparently)
thought this wesite was sponsored by former AG Ashcroft. There was a
banner at the top of the page when I logged in that had his picture. My
comment was of a more general nature, wondering if whomever "runs" this
website would encourage the free speech of someone who doesn't agree
with them. I'm fully aware of current administration officials.
me: Sorry for the assumption about your ignorance of admin. personnel. Have never seen a pic of Ashcroft on the site. The blog is sponsored by Townhall. com, a conservative site for sure but totally unmonitored and uncensored.
>The
Republic Party in general, and W in particular, have made mistakes that
have embroiled us in a really unfortunate situation in the Middle East.
Almost no one over there any longer wants the "help" of the US in
resolving conflicts and trying to bring some modicum of peace to the
region. We are seen as arrogant imperialists at best and stupid
screwups at worst.
me: Well I'll be the first to admit that if the only thing you read are major newspapers and the only thing you watch is the network news that's certainly the position you'd have. It may even be correct but it if you want to get an alternative viewpoint you might not be quite so sure that you're getting the whole story. Here is a blog by a guy named Bill Roggio who is actually on the ground in Iraq close to the troops, not sitting in a hotel or news bureau office somewhere. This blog is by an Iraqi living in Baghdad. These might at least convince to moderate your opinion of what's going on and how we are perceived over there.
>Although not a Democrat, I was heartened that
the majority of the nation (a slim majority, to be sure) feels like
business as usual with Republicans in power isn't working any longer.
me: Do you have a party affiliation? If you're not a Democrat you certainly have the talking points memorized. And exactly which part of the nation's "business as usual" isn't working? The 7.3 million jobs created in the last 3 years? The 4.5% unemployment? The robust economy? I think people voted on the war and it doesn't seem to be going well, I'll admit, but I'm not convinced that we should cut and run. I think it would a disaster for Iraq, the region and eventually for us.
>Slim,
you seem to have a rather sarcastic edge to you. Here's something to
remember: Those who can't logically argue against a position ridicule
it.
me: You're right, my response was too sarcastic and I apologize. Must have been something I ate. By the same token I think your inference that I didn't respond logically is mistaken. It's perfectly possible to ridicule while being logical and I think that's what I did. I didn't attack you personally, call you names or anything, even though I was a bit sarcastic. I strive to always be logical and persuasive without the ad hominems characteristic of the kind of discourse to which you refer.
Anyway, I look forward to your next comment. How did you happen upon the blog? Did someone I know call it to your attention? Sorry this was so long. Later...