09-28-2006, 04:29 AM
Well, I feel like we are increasingly talking past one another, as is the almost inevitable fate of these discussions, so I will just add a few final comments from my perspective.
Taking a country to war is an ultimate act on the part of its government, and it's something that should be done only in absolute necessity. With regard to Iraq, the Bush administration failed this criterion utterly (and they didn't fail it honestly, they failed it dishonestly). They -- in the conventional anti-war phrase -- have blood on their hands, and they should be held to account for their actions. They haven't been, and they won't be, of course.
Of course the terrorists are murderers --- and murderers of completely innocent people.
Iraq as it now stands is a terrible situation --- a lose/lose/lose situation, in fact. Probably the only real question at this point is how the US can get out of Iraq without leaving a terrorist breeding ground behind it and destablilizing the entire middle east. And it's not clear that even that limited objective is achievable. (Nor is it clear that the Bush administration, or future US administrations, actually want to leave Iraq.)
But don't you find it in the least bit Orwellian that an administration whose invasion and mismanagment created this "crack house" is touting the same "crack house" as their "centerpiece in the war on terror"? Do you really believe that they are the ones who can carry out any kind of "urban renewal"? If so, I have a few slum-landlords who would be happy to contact you with properties for your consideration.
Quote:You seem to be seeking to put the Bush administration on trial.
Taking a country to war is an ultimate act on the part of its government, and it's something that should be done only in absolute necessity. With regard to Iraq, the Bush administration failed this criterion utterly (and they didn't fail it honestly, they failed it dishonestly). They -- in the conventional anti-war phrase -- have blood on their hands, and they should be held to account for their actions. They haven't been, and they won't be, of course.
Quote:In my view, the terrorists are the murderers.
Of course the terrorists are murderers --- and murderers of completely innocent people.
Quote:The reality now though (whether we like it or not), is that Iraq has become the terror crack house we accused it of being in 2001 and we still need to do some urban renewal here.
Iraq as it now stands is a terrible situation --- a lose/lose/lose situation, in fact. Probably the only real question at this point is how the US can get out of Iraq without leaving a terrorist breeding ground behind it and destablilizing the entire middle east. And it's not clear that even that limited objective is achievable. (Nor is it clear that the Bush administration, or future US administrations, actually want to leave Iraq.)
But don't you find it in the least bit Orwellian that an administration whose invasion and mismanagment created this "crack house" is touting the same "crack house" as their "centerpiece in the war on terror"? Do you really believe that they are the ones who can carry out any kind of "urban renewal"? If so, I have a few slum-landlords who would be happy to contact you with properties for your consideration.