War in Iraq

How about this: It was a good action done badly.We had the capability to do good by the Iraqis, and the man leading them - if he can even be referred to as a leader - was a danger to everybody, especially to the Iraqis.He wasn't an imminent threat to anybody, but he was a constant threat to his own people. The problem is that we haven't made things better over there. At least when Saddam was in power, the electricity and water ran for more than 9 hours each day.We had a chance to export the best parts of our country - freedom, public government, peace - and instead we've given them the worst - corporate arrogance, political disenfranchisement, violent lawlessness on both sides.The question isn't as simple as "war or no war." That ship has sailed. I don't know how to work the moral calculus that would tell us if doing nothing would have been better than doing what we did.But I can look and see how badly this administration has cocked this up, and how badly it's cost us internationally. People in other democracies are winning elections by demonizing us. That can't be good.I was in favor of the war, simply because liberating the Iraqis was the right thing to do. But we haven't done that. I don't understand how any Republican can look back on this with a clear conscience. You've got to be crazy or outright heartless to feel good about this war, or to vote for Bush.

Dude, don't sweat it. He's on his way out.Standing up for Rumsfeld and Ashcroft is going to hang him, as these guys more and more are starting to look like the architects of outrageous prison abuse.He's tied or trailing in almost all the polls, and the undecideds have never broken for the imcumbent come election day. And why would they? If almost four years of Bush isn't enough to win you on his side for another four, what could possibly happen in the next six months or so that would?No incumbent president has ever been elected with numbers this low.

Do you think there was a way we could have done it better than we did? Or do you think the venture was fundamentally flawed?Do you think it's never appropriate to invade a country to depose a dangerous despot?I'm not trying to argue, I'm just wondering exactly what your position is.

Obviously no one wants that. In fact, that's the point - relecting Bush means Americans harmed and terrorists on the loose.

You don't think it's possible to disagree with a politician's position and actions, and therefore advocate for his opponent in the election, without hating him?Who said anything about hating Bush? I disagree with his actions, and I think he's the wrong man for the job. What part of that requires hatred?

Is that where we're at? "Vote Bush - he's just as bad as the other guy."Kerry's approach attempts to restore America's reputation abroad. Bush's approach of "people can like America or go fuck themselves" drives people to the terrorist camps.

You mean, maybe you shouldn't have construed opposition to a public figure's policies as irrational emnity towards a private individual?Sorry, didn't mean to flip out. But it's a pretty common conservative tactic to do exactly what you did - style the opposition's disagreement with policy as irrational hatred.Anyway I think I made my position pretty clear.

Well, from what I've read of his biography, he's a man of courage and integrity, with proven leadership experience. In addition he's well-educated, well-spoken, and capable of appreciating the nuance of an issue, rather than having a need to abstract everything into black and white.Our current president has none of those qualities, as far as I can see. What could be more optimistic than "there are some things wrong with the world that we all can help fix"? I mean, I guess you could say "everything is great; nothing's wrong; no need to change leaders", but that's wishful thinking, not optimism.

You act like he didn't have any choice in the matter.Kerry chose to "deploy" himself - he requested duty in the Vietnam theatre. Bush, on the other hand, somehow landed in flight school - ahead of hundreds on a waiting list - with the bare minimum test scores required to qualify.There was absolutely no danger of Bush being deployed to Vietnam if he didn't want to go. Moreover to suggest that "he would have done as well" totally ignores the content of many of Bush's officer reviews. Of course. But as a general principle, it's always better to think too much than not at all, right? Is it really wrong to prefer a leader who gives thought to the issues, as opposed to one who takes hasty, "decisive", wrong-headed action, and then refuses to even admit a mistake or change course?Sorry, Paisano. I've gotta lean towards the candidate who can think. Because the situation in Iraq is vague and muddled. Moreover:

quote:

---

A Strategy for Success in Iraq
To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq’s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk.

​

I. Make Iraq a Part of NATO’s Global Mission

​

NATO is now a global security organization and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. Every member of NATO has a huge stake in Iraq’s future. NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq’s border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone.

​

II. Authorize a High Commissioner for Governance and Reconstruction

​

An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, the High Commissioner will organize elections and the drafting of a constitution, and coordinate reconstruction. The High Commissioner should be an individual who is highly regarded by the international community and who has the credibility and capacity to talk to all the Iraqi people. The High Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. While the process of establishing the High Commissioner is underway, we must fully support the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi to set-up an Iraqi interim entity.

​

III. Launch a Massive Effort to Build an Iraqi Security Force

​

We need a massive training effort to build an Iraqi security force that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed and must be rethought and reformed. Training must be done in the field, on the job as well as in the classroom. This key task should be part of the NATO mission, and units should be put on the street with backup from international security forces. The creation of viable Iraqi security forces — military and police — is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces.

---

That's Kerry's plan for Iraq, from his webpage. That sounds a lot less vague to me than "we'll stay the course", which is more or less the only thing I've heard from Bush on the subject. I totally agree. All I've seen from Bush are plans that only have the appearance of addressing issues, from abstinence-only sex ed to a countdown to turing over power to an Iraqi government (in less than 6 days!) that doesn't yet fully exist. So look past the venom. Go to Kerry's website and see what he stands for. (I suspect you haven't done that yet.) It's possible to have an intelligent debate on this issue, but it won't happen so long as conservatives cast any sort of opposition as "venom" or "Bush-hating."Kerry isn't "far left." You'd know that if you paid attention to what the far left thinks about Kerry.