Ok, you started off with something that was kinda....wrong....You thought Tony Blair's term was up?
Do you think the world is flat too?? :-)
C'mon ET - you are smarter than that. I liked you man...But that is silly!
BLAIR ANNOUNCED THE END TO HIS TERM. THE JIG WAS UP MAN.
Additionally: There is no term of office for a prime minister. The prime minister holds office "at Her Majesty's pleasure". As however to gain supply (control of exchequer funds) that requires that the government be answerable to, and acceptable to, the House of Commons, in reality the convention "at her Majesty's pleasure" means "at the pleasure of the House of Commons".
All right, let's leave that one be. You may have been confused. Who cares... It's the UK anyway :-) Bet you hate the french though! I can feel it!
As for A New Way Forward -What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
NOTHING. That's the point... Semantics and foolish new names for the war cannot make it right. And that was my point... you were in a semantic eddy, just like the white house.
As for "Heavy Lifting.." Again - semantics. Hear me now, believe me later: Whatever you want to call it, this is the US's war... and that is one of the problems... we are diplomatic jokes. We are doing the heavy lifting.
The UN was never gonna tell us ANYTHING-We did not listen to their concerns. We bullied them. And now we want their support.
It is like the Geneva Conventions that we abandoned for Enemy Combatants... Heaven help our troops if they get captured and are tortured....and the Geneva Conventions are ignored. That's the paradigm we have established.THE U.S. CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...IT'S BAD DIPLOMACY AND FRANKLY DANGEROUS IN PRACTICE AND IN PRECEDENT.
Moving on: UK and the war? Man, have you never worked in international affairs
(I have). A man must do things with political savviness ET. And drawing down the troops is what Gordon is doing for that very reason - while saving face.
If any doubts: Only 30% of UK citizens in a London Times Poll backed the UK remaining in the Iraq war.
As for your support of the war in lieu of a general that could not (if that doesn't speak volumes I do not know what does?) But let's take a look. You took the time to write and that was nice of you - so I will read:
You said you will "do it for him".
Look, I got to go. But you are buying into exactly how this war got sold.
Saddam is bad. So, war is good.
The problem is that this is a much mor ecomplicated isssue. And the bad has outweighed the good so far... because it was built on false circumstanes and no plan. Let's take this piece by piece as you have stated:
1) The war eliminated a major supporter of terrorism.
(MYTH: SADDAM was not linked to 911 - Cheney get caught here:
YouTube - Cheney admits no Iraq/9-11 Connection) He is trying to make a connection weakly to Al Qaeda.
2) It eliminated a regime that was attempting to attain nuclear weapons, and had already attained chemical and biological weapons and used them.
(Please don't forget (like many folks) that The Gulf War occured: and weapons inspectors worked long and hard after the war as well...
Weapons inspector (Scott Ritter - Remember Him?
From the GULF WAR already went through this PRIOR to IRAQ, and told anyone that would listen that saddam was neutered of weapons... For anyone that wanted to listen: SADDAM HAD JACK--yellow cake?! no. (see also valerie plame-gate) nukes?? no...
Biological weapons? no...
The kurds we murdered unjustly with his weapons, but by the time of 911, he was a petty disarmed dictator.
And not any threat to US or anyone else..
And Do I support his regime? Of course not. But the time to attack was with all our allies from the Gulf when we had a cause and a plan.
Not on a lark loosely tied to 911 - and when we had a clear enemy in Al Qaeda and the taliban and Bin Laden.
And besides: The only true weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear weapon. Chemical weapons are actually very poor weapons, it might be a weapon of mass destraction or a weapon of mass terror but a threat to us - NO.
3) It has made Iraq, not New York City, the main battlfield of the war on terror, with terrorists flocking there instead of here. Every terrorist there is one that is not here.
This is one of my favorite myths. The idea that by attacking Iraq we are fighting the terrorists... nevermind that no 911 bombers were Iraqi - (but rather Saudi, who we are kind of... buddies with. And Syria is even more of a state terrorist sponsor than iraq. And Bin laden was in Afghanistan and now likely Pakistan. If you want to fight terrorism cut off their pocket books but playing with suicide bombers in Iraq is nothing more than providing a playground for the disenfranchised to come hop a car/train/bus and take a pot shot... I'd say the country has more terrorists than before 911. (SEE FOLLOWING POST)**
(Let's not forget that... the 911 gang were sloppy and we already had intel on them that was botched by the FBI and CIA and all names were out immediately after 911.. That's the point. They were not so sneaky, we just failed to do anything. Now a lesson has been learned and HOPEFULLY corrected.
The idea that we need to be scared because they could live among us and/or come over the border is nice but facile. We did not take the war to them - we brought chaos to us. Over there...
We lose iraqi and US lives everyday and no one is "winning" - just because there has not been another attack does not mean we have done anything new...
4) It has freed 25 million people from a tyranical, oppressive regime.
(We freed them by killing 300-500,000
CIVILIANS?? Umm, forgive me but NO.)
How you free them is get A LOT more troops and go in and kick A-- with a multi-lateral objective.
The Iraq war is the most half-assed effort ever. WHY? We couldn't justify it... DID YOU NOT SEE THE PERSIAN GULF WAR?
We came. We saw. We conquered. The world was with us... as they would be again if we knew how to conduct a foreign policy based on facts.
Oh, and if you want to say that we quit the Gulf War too early that is fine... but objectives were met. If you have new objectives you regather allies with a just cause...
We killed an EVILL DICTATOR... yes... and... if the world were a simple place that would have been the end of it, and the world would be happy again, but that is not the case. Why? EVIL DICTATORS cover the earth... we backed pinochet in south america. We backed saddam once... we backed bin laden once... and on and so on... should we go after Mugabe in Zimbabwe?? If so, what's the plan? He has no oil, be mindful of that. Should we go after Moi in Kenya? What is the plan? Kosovo worked with alliess and an objective...
In Iraq we cut off our nose to spite the face. Saddam's demise was not going to help us or anyone without a multulteral plan. Otherwise it was throwing gas on a fire to see how big the flames would be? How could we be treated as liberators if there was not a clear objective on what we were to liberate? Kurds? Sunnis? Shiites? It's very complicated.
5) It has paved the way for the posibility of a democratic government in Iraq.
(I like that one. If I had more time I'd write about 5 pages on why history will make that impossible until some things happen that are not even close to happening now... see alsoo thpousands of years of fighting before we showed up with "the army you go to war with.." (Ohh Donny R... where are you to9day?)
6) "Every one of these five facts makes us safer here at home."
- They are not exactly indisputable facts though if you feel safer I am glad....I want you happy.
- Still, if i was gonna fight a war I would have stayed focused on the guy who attacked us:
His NAME is Bin Laden and he was once our ally....
Go figure. We sure know right and wrong don't we?
I'll get back to your other stuff later... I have a dinner to go to - but have enjoyed your rantings... ONE THING THAT I WOULD ADD:
When I mentioned that we had killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilans (more than Hiroshima) your statement was:
"Yep. We should have nuked Iraq."
One of my family's friends would have been killed and so would have his family if you were in charge and dealt with the world that way.
That's GENOCIDE.
I am going to let you sleep on that one. Think before you speak perhaps please.
I am not as big a fan of yours anymore. Sorry. But knee-jerk anger and killing is exactly how we got into this ill-advised war to start...
*Do you really believe in blanket/indiscriminate killing of a race of people?