Uh, OK. I'm not sure where we were, so I'm not sure how we strayed. The 'question' was never clear to me. It seems to keep shifting on me. I missed the (earlier?) context that you've mentioned above.
My apologies. I was trying to respond to this, which you wrote:
Does anybody here in the U.S. have anything against these possibilities?
A stable and democratic Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, uh… Middle East.
A defeated (or dead) Osama bin Laden, and a crushed Al Qaeda.
A convicted and death-sentenced Sadam Hussein.
To me, the primary issue is how to we, the US, comport ourselves while we attempt to achieve these noble goals. Have we done a the best job we could? Can we adapt to the changes occurring on the ground?
from here:
Message 22321731
Much of the left/right squabbling in the USA in foreign policy is about both the goals and the methods of achieving them. Is democracy "good" for the ME, is it achievable, by what means, and will we like the results?
I've tried to ask you, perhaps very poorly, about those issues.
My own views are largely that any group of people should be allowed to determine their own fate in their own regions. If they pose a sufficent threat to their neighbors, there may well be trouble. I'm doubtful of the odds that a foreign power, and one that is disliked for its other policies, will have much success in bringing fundamental change to any group that has significant cultural and religious opposition to the change. FWIW. |
