'I don't understand why you think getting a group together to do what we have to do is always better than doing it yourself.'
Because it spreads the responsibility for the consequences, that's why .... there cannot fail to come consequences in the case of Iraq, just look at the neighbours there, that's injun country ... the nation itself is not a natural one, it has been formed and then held together by brute force only - you may feel your nation to be mighty at the moment, and sure it is, but so were the Crusaders when they set off to conquer in the area, so was Napoleon, so were a lot of empire-builders who tried it, including the brits who walked away after setting the current boundaries of Iraq, finding the place ungovernable
It is not in the long-term interests of the US national to see his country invade Iraq on its own according to a rigid agenda that threatens international cooperation in both its substance and its style .... the latter being arguably more important, i would say it is more significant in the circumstances, yet in substance as well, because there are always more alternatives than two, until the choice is narrowed to two by a belligerent using armed force .... right here right now it is solely the rulers of the US doing this narrowing, i sure wouldn't want that were i an oregonian or a maineiac
'It has really just become a way to beat on the Administration, IMO.'
That will be true for some, sure, but does it matter? ... Clinton got plenty of irrational hysteria among legitimate criticism levelled at his admin, due to perma-opposition on the part of some, that's just partisan politics, any admin will have it, and it doesn't necessarily follow that everything he did was the best possible
The unilateralist arrogance of current US admin has been thick and heavy, its failure of diplomacy in re Iraq is only the latest and most striking of the symptoms, the one most in the press ..... many are the times they have given the finger to the rest of the world - Kyoto, multiple cases of protectionism, steel, grain, lumber - you never saw a political post from me until these people started screwing my neighbours ... did you know that following the events of 11 Sept '01 some of them remained hard at it, in the October following we saw the heaviest tariffs of all, that's what was the priority in that time for the 'Commerce' department and those who control it - putting the screws to british columbians ... so you can understand that when they feel put upon, we say hey, cry us a river
'If we had the whole world with us, the group here that opposes liberating Iraq would still do so, IMO.'
Well, even discounting for hyperbole, i doubt that's true anywhere near as stated, and for the few for whom it is true, who cares ... you need the irish onside, the danes, mexicanos, dutch, canucks, japanese [yes why not], some of the -stans, as many as possible, a few south and central americans ... not just the brits and aussies ... you do have the kiwis, that is something, it is significant to me, i also know the kiwis will join with us in saying we might properly give little regard to what the french say
But alone, no, this is not the best option for the US, all things considered .... really it's not that big a deal to snuff Saddam Hussein, the Big Deal here is how current US admin is treating the rest of the world ... planet is far too small now for this unilateralist attitude, your hero might do well to look in his favourite book there and read again where it sayeth, Pride goeth before a fall |
