>>>I'm on vacation this week (some vacation - I'm rebuilding my bathroom
>>>from scratch)
>sounds like fun! Hope you get to take a shower when you're done :-)
Unless I've done something very, very wrong, I'll be able to take a shower
in my own house on friday - first time in 3 weeks. thank goodness for
friends who live nearby!
fingers crossed!
>>>It would be nice to have the backing of the rest of the world - and we
>>>tried, don't you think? We negotiated for months with world leaders,
>>>the UN, etc.
>Frankly, I don't know how hard we tried, because I don't know what
>negotiations went on beyond what was reported in the press (which was
>not much). In public, it didn't seem to me that we tried very hard. I
>thought it was clear fairly early on that Bush and his advisors had
>decided to attack Iraq no matter what happened, even as they were still
>saying that they hadn't made up their minds. Instead going to the rest
>of the world
>and saying, "we've got a problem -- how shall we deal with it?", I got
>the
>impression we went to them and said, "we're going after Saddam -- are >you
>with us or against us? (And, oh by the way, we don't really care what >you
>think or what you do)."
I'm sure that Bush and his reps met or talked with european leaders on a
number of occasions, trying to hammer out some semblense of an agreement,
to no avail. Maybe it was a 'damn the torpedoes' type of talk, but since
neither you or I were there, all we have are our impressions, and we'll
ever know for sure. If it were me, and I tried negotiating, and it became
clear that all they were interested in was to protect their oil contract
business with saddam, I don't know how much harder I would have tried.
>>>Eventually, with full congressional backing, and at the time, the
>>>overwhelming approval of our own public opinion, we attacked.
>That approval coming largely, I think, from the mistaken belief that
>Saddam had an active WMD program that was on the verge of supplying
>terrorist organizations. I think that if the public had been told that
>the
>inspection program was actually working fairly well (not perfectly) on
>the
>WMD issue, but we were going after Saddam because he's a bad guy and we
>think it would be better to have a real democracy in Iraq (apparently,
>our
>current rationale), approval might not have been so overwhelming.
point taken. But you assume that the Bush admin knew there were no WMD.
They may have been the chosen reasons to sell a war of choice, but it
doesn't mean they didn't think it was true.
saddam had months lead time to move/hide his WMD program, while we wrangled
with the UN and the rest of the world to do something. Who's to say that
his stockpiles didn't go to Syria or somewhere else, while we waited for
the rest of the worlds blessings? At any rate, he sure didn't act like a
man who had nothing to hide. He had ample opportunity to fully comply with
the UN resolutions.
>(And if we were really concerned about WMDs falling into the hands of
>terrorists, maybe we should have been more concerned about Pakistan,
?>North
>Korea, and the gangsters running the former Soviet Union . . .)
I keep hearing that arguement. Should we be invading all of these
countries instead/first? I don't buy it. You act as if we are completely
unconcerned about them. I have a feeling that all of these are being
watched closely, and none are candidates for invasion.
>>>On an aside, did you hear this weekend that the new Iraqi governing
>>>counsel
>>>is negotiating with the insurgents (even al zaquari, and the rest who
>>>have
>>>been killing our boys) for amnesty? While I think that is the wrong
>>>thing
>>>to do, just the fact that they CAN do it, against our presumed wishes,
>>>will
>>>go a long way towards giving credibility to the new regime in the
>>>eyes of
>>>Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world. That is a good thing, don't
>>>you
>>>think?
>I tend to agree that it's a good thing, but I'm afraid it also feeds my
>pessimism about the situation. I think for any government to seem
>legitimate to either the Iraqis or the other arab states, it will do a
>lot
>of things we don't like. In the end, the Iraqi people may be better off,
>but I'm not sure we will be.
The key is a binding constitution, and a powerful judiciary, which I
believe the groundwork for has been established. Time will judge.
>>>If someone's going to be the biggest guy on the block, i trust us more
>>>than
>>>anyone else out there to do the right thing.
>I agree with you, but for purely selfish reasons. It gives me no moral
>standing to suggest that other countries -- using exactly parallel logic
>-- shouldn't do everything they can to topple us off our perch. I don't
>think that's a healthy situation.
And the alternative is? stand down? dismantle the military? ignore
global threats until they've taken control of the planes or floated a nuke
up the hudson river?
>saddam WAS low hanging fruit. and, if we're successful, his downfall
>could
>be the beginning domino for the rest of the region - without firing
>another
>shot. Brilliant if it works, I try not to think about what if it
>doesn't.
>I'll try not to provoke him further, but I do admire the seriousness >with
>which you approach questions of faith and doctrine. Leaving aside >whether
>that's how it "should be", I think you're unusual in this day and age
>?>(at
>least in my experience; which may be a shame, because I think you're
>definitely right on this one :-).
serious? really? I'm making most of this stuff up as I go.... (only half
kidding :)
have a good one,
Rick
