| | Jon Trager:
John: "Your premise that we shouldn't try to correct past wrongs or that our lives for some reason are static throughout time, and the variables that should govern our decisions never change through time, are not consistent with reality."
What? I wasn't making the argument that the U.S. government shouldn't have overthrown Saddam Hussein because the U.S. government gave him WMDs a couple of decades ago. I only noted, as an aside, that the only WMDs Hussein has ever been proven to have (and used) were from the U.S. government. You're inferring too much from that one statement.
So Jon, if that's not what you meant, why did you even bring it up? Was there a point you were trying to make with that issue? Either there was something you were trying to imply or what you just brought up something that was irrelevant to the decision to go to war in 2003. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" I'm just trying to understand what point you were trying to make.
John: "You can't honestly say the chances of nuclear proliferation has not at least been mitigated."
Me: "Yes, I can."
John: "Why?"
This is a complicated issue and I can't say much on it in a forum post. But I don't know of credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to start a nuclear weapons program,
Well I don't know how much credible evidence you need. The United Nations, several foreign intelligence agencies including French foreign intelligence agencies all thought he had weapons of mass destruction, was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and if enough time had passed he would have eventually acquired one. He also outright violated UN resolutions pertaining to weapons inspections that were outlined in a treaty he signed agreeing to adhere to. He had a pre-existing record of using and manufacturing WMD. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.
John: "You act as if there would be no consequences to inaction."
No, there are always opportunity costs to alternative actions. I just believe that the costs to the welfare of Americans from Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq are far outweighed by the (still rapidly rising) costs to Americans of the U.S. government invading Iraq and continuing its occupation.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Leaving now would have drastic effects that would ruin our credibility as a military power and would only embolden our enemies to attack us on American soil. If American troops left, they wouldn't just continue setting up I.E.D.s to kill non-existent marines, they will follow us here at home. I think that is a choice that should be out of the question.
John: "It is ridiculous to ask for evidence for a future outcome when I am advocating a particular strategy to attain a desirable outcome. I have no more evidence of what will happen that you do of what won't happen."
Don't you think that history offers us guidance for the future? The Bush administration clearly doesn't. In its breathtaking ignorance of the history of the Middle East and Iraq in particular, the administration initially announced the entire Iraq effort would cost U.S. taxpayers about $50 to $60 billion and would likely result in a few hundred U.S. deaths. Of course, anyone with a historical knowledge of the region said that notion was absurd. But they were shouted down or ignored. And 4,000+ deaths and $500 or $600 billion later, here we are, with no end in sight. By the way, $600 billion was the cost of the *entire* U.S. federal government in 1980.
By no means do I think this war was executed flawlessly, that mistakes due to incompetence were not made. I don't think this is some Platonic Ideal of a war. I'm not happy with everything about it, I wish things could've turned out differently, I wish bad choices that were made were not made. But Presidents don't lose wars, nations do. And if we are trying to prove a point that Bush was an incompetent fool, a hypocrite, an arrogant leader, that we should then punish the entire nation by putting our security at risk because Bush didn't do the job correctly and we should hold him accountable, is an insane proposition. The choice today is either we leave or we stay, the consequences of both need to be weighed. You think it's better we leave because of (x) consequences, I think it's better to stay because of (y) consequences. You point out the costs spent so far, I am pointing out the devastation that would likely occur if we left. I don't want us to look weak in front of our enemies.
John: "Bad by what standard? If it is better today than a year ago, it is good that it is better. Is it satisfactory? No, but to shun any improvements is to deny that we shouldn't value any and all salient steps to an eventual desirable outcome."
My point is that whatever overall "improvement" there has been in the situation in Iraq over the last year, it's minor and not indicative that Iraq is close to becoming a stable, self-sufficient country, nevermind one that aggressively destroys Islamic terrorist). Actually, I think deposing Saddam Hussein, A Sunni whose regime was unique in the Arab world regarding the amount of religious freedom it tolerated, in favor of Shiite Nouri Al-Maliki is a step *backward* in any coordinated effort against Islamic terrorism.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion considering al-Maliki's government is not pursuing a WMD program nor are they sanctioning or funding Hamas and Hezbollah.
|
|
