Obama Death Squads

I wouldn't label those things as even "predictable" ... I'd label them as "axiomatic." When I referred to subsequent developments, I was talking about the post-war difficulties in effecting some workable, stable, non-terrorist-ick-y Iraq.

You never know, though. Some day it may be the case that the Iraq war was a turning point for the good. I'm not optimistic, mind you, but it could happen.

 

Not for nothing, but what prompted that presence? It was a play for Kuwait by none other than that easily-bought-off Saddam!

 

Who we had armed and kept in power.

You wanna work chickens home to roost back past Abdul Rahman Arif or Mossadegh to Sykes-Picot, that's fine by me.

That we couldn't see what was coming by invading Iraq is nonsense.

 

Hey, I am right there with you on much of that. We've been dicking around over there for a long time, and in years past I have wondered if Milo Minderbender was Asst. Sec'y of State for the Middle East. I am decidedly not of the neo-con stripe. But I don't think you were as certain of what would happen in Iraq (other than that it would be costly/deadly/haphazard) as you suggest.

This is a bit of a threadjack, but one of the things that really irked me in the early days of President Obama's administration was his being given a pass (vis-a-vis the economy) that, to paraphrase, "having done the things we did, as bad as things are they're not as bad as they would have been." If you're going to let that fly -- and I don't -- then you have to accept the argument from President Bush (the younger) that, in the Middle East, things aren't as bad now as they would have been without our doing what we did. I'm not ready to buy that either.

 

Many millions of people were in the streets that spring saying exactly that. And saying that the total price of 'costly/deadly/haphazard' was far too high to justify whatever imaginary benefit was being predicted on the other side of the argument.

 

So what? When many millions of people believe what you believe, that makes you more certain? What about the millions who don't share your beliefs?

You believed then that the Iraq War was a mistake (I would assume). You're telling me the fact that many millions shared your views made you more confident? I, for one, believe that the corporate income tax should be abolished. That many millions share my views doesn't make me more certain in them ... but maybe it should.

 

If I might be so bold, I think being right made Azrael more certain in his beliefs -- the millions who were right with him were merely to rebut the absurd notion that knowing not to invade Iraq was "hindsight".

It was common fucking sense.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You keep saying that no one was certain how Iraq would turn out. I'm saying the specifics of its failure are immaterial when weighed against the known costs of 'deadly/costly/haphazard.'

I'm further saying that millions of people were absolutely certain how it would turn out, based on an accurate understanding of the history of war.

That doesn't make me any more 'certain' that my position at the time was correct.

But it does make the case that those people weren't heard at the time.




(add: Thanks, z.)

 

We had a case study to go off of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

 

So, was Communism the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

 

It was "common fucking sense" among those who opposed it. It was "common fucking sense" to those who believed it would be another Vietnam. It was not "common fucking sense" among those who supported it, or didn't see the parallel to Vietnam as nearly so obvious. I'm not saying that it was a good idea. I am saying that it was not obviously wrong at the time. Anyone who says it was obviously wrong (except for moral reasons) is being intellectually dishonest. I know I am being overly focused on the semantics, but the semantics matter here. Well, they do to me, anyway ...

 

Fair enough ... that's what I was getting at.