We are only as alone as we chose to be in Iraq.
What is that supposed to mean. Other countries aren't going to join in and provide a massive level of help just because we ask.
You argue that our actions in Iraq are stupid, for the most part I disagree but even if your right about that its irrelevant to the point we have been arguing. Whether or not a course of action is an example of leadership is not determined by how wise or foolish the course of action is. If you lead someone off a cliff they are still being led.
You have said nothing to refute any of the points in my earlier post -
"France, Germany, China and Russia were not going to send divisions in to Iraq to do the dieing for us. The Iraqi resistance isn't going to give up if the forces backing the Iraqi government start wearing blue helmets instead of US Army (or Marine) standard issue. 100,000 UN resolutions could be passed, none of which would change the facts on the ground. We win or lose by what happens in Iraq, and by how much Americans support or oppose the war, not by what happens at UN headquarters or in Chirac's cabinet meetings, or by what Germany or Russia, or China think about the war"
Your statement -
"There are plenty of countries that could have stepped in to provide what the people of Iraq needed post-invasion -- public services and basic security -- but Bush was so in love with himself that he wanted Iraq to be an American thing."
- is simply not true. Assuming the invasion did happen (and if it didn't than talking about what other countries would have done post-invasion is meaningless) then there would not have been substantial help from France, or Germany, or Russia, or China, or anyone else that didn't provide help anyway. Bush could have been more diplomatic but it would have changed nothing. If Kerry or Gore had been president my guess is that we would not have invaded Iraq, but if we did the actions of France ect. would not have been very different.
Tim |
