Do you agree with Hitchens' on the Iraq War?

[Clinton Huxley]

It was a rogue nation, which did, in fact, support terrorists and terrorism, it threatened global stability, had designs and was thought to still have designs on catastrophic weapons, was not in compliance with international law after numerous attempts and resolutions.

You could be talking about the US there....

[Coito ergo sum]

The main 'evidence' Blaire provided was that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, ready and waiting to be used at 45 minutes notice. There were not.

The war was completely justified even without any WMD existing.

If we take out the whole allegation of WMD, and just look at the rest, we can see that the humanitarian reasons were more than sufficient to get in there and take him out. Example: Libya. The humanitarian reasons in Iraq were far, far grimmer and more actualized -- real, rather than potential - crimes against humanity than ever were shown in Libya.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Atheist-Lite]

He needed a enemy because some always do. But let's not forget hundreds of thousands of lives lost and how the West should have manouvered Saddam into a new war with Iran for maximal strategic advantage.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He needed a enemy because some always do. But let's not forget hundreds of thousands of lives lost and how the West should have manouvered Saddam into a new war with Iran for maximal strategic advantage.

We fight better with dollars than with troops. Slower that way, perhaps, but we have fewer Gold Star Mothers that way.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Doonebury is on the fifth or sixth panel in this series, I think. Fun reading. http://www.doonesbury.com/

[Ian]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

Obama was saying the niceties expected of a President addressing the troops which had just left the country after 8+ years. Candidate Obama hit the nail more directly on the head when he called it "a dumb war". He didn't start it, but as President he was obligated to wrap it up as nicely as he could.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

Obama was saying the niceties expected of a President addressing the troops which had just left the country after 8+ years. Candidate Obama hit the nail more directly on the head when he called it "a dumb war". He didn't start it, but as President he was obligated to wrap it up as nicely as he could.

And getting out of a morass is a bit more difficult than getting into to one. Pripet Marshes, anyone?

[Coito ergo sum]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

Obama was saying the niceties expected of a President addressing the troops which had just left the country after 8+ years. Candidate Obama hit the nail more directly on the head when he called it "a dumb war". He didn't start it, but as President he was obligated to wrap it up as nicely as he could.

So, you think Obama thinks it's a foreign policy disaster? Or, now that things have worked out alright, it's not a disaster?

[Ian]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

Obama was saying the niceties expected of a President addressing the troops which had just left the country after 8+ years. Candidate Obama hit the nail more directly on the head when he called it "a dumb war". He didn't start it, but as President he was obligated to wrap it up as nicely as he could.

So, you think Obama thinks it's a foreign policy disaster? Or, now that things have worked out alright, it's not a disaster?

No, in the bigger picture it was a disaster and Obama rightfully sees it as such. How might he see it as working out alright? America's reputation (soft power, political capital, diplomatic influence, whatever you want to call it) around the world was trashed and will remain so for years. Untold billions if not trillions of dollars lost. And roughly four thousand five hundred troops US servicemen dead, and tens of thousands wounded.

And after all that, what's the bright light at the end of the tunnel? A shaky quasi-democracy where once stood a brutal dictatorship? The theoretical promise of democracy catching on around the Middle East? All that blood, treasure, and reputation need not have been spent to create that. The Arab Spring has toppled governments, and it sure wasn't inspired by anything the US and its handful of allies did in Iraq. Popular revolt might not have taken off or worked in Iraq as well it has in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya, but nevertheless it wasn't our place to initiate it.

[Drewish]

I disagreed with Hitchens on pretty much everything. The places where he leaned left, are where I lean right, and vice versa, with a few exceptions of course.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

Obama was saying the niceties expected of a President addressing the troops which had just left the country after 8+ years. Candidate Obama hit the nail more directly on the head when he called it "a dumb war". He didn't start it, but as President he was obligated to wrap it up as nicely as he could.

So, you think Obama thinks it's a foreign policy disaster? Or, now that things have worked out alright, it's not a disaster?

No, in the bigger picture it was a disaster and Obama rightfully sees it as such.

Link?

How might he see it as working out alright? America's reputation (soft power, political capital, diplomatic influence, whatever you want to call it) around the world was trashed and will remain so for years.

It's actually gotten worse since Obama took office, oddly enough. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45588

Untold billions if not trillions of dollars lost. And roughly four thousand five hundred troops US servicemen dead, and tens of thousands wounded.

Well, the troop deaths are obviously tragic, but if 4500 deaths is too much in a war, then there will never be a war that is acceptable. If that's the case, then folks ought to just specify that no wars are justifiable because people die. Fair enough. That isn't exclusive to the Iraq war.

And after all that, what's the bright light at the end of the tunnel? A shaky quasi-democracy where once stood a brutal dictatorship? The theoretical promise of democracy catching on around the Middle East? All that blood, treasure, and reputation need not have been spent to create that. The Arab Spring has toppled governments, and it sure wasn't inspired by anything the US and its handful of allies did in Iraq. Popular revolt might not have taken off or worked in Iraq as well it has in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya, but nevertheless it wasn't our place to initiate it.

The Arab spring would have happened had Saddam Hussein not been toppled? I mean, after Hussein was easily (relatively speaking) dispatched, down came Qaddafi (well he rolled over and played nice nice), and then, after the Iraqis started standing up and voting, well, the Arab Spring happened after that. Not before. Why no Arab spring in 2003? or 1993?

Wasn't our place to initiate it? Far more humanitarian grounds existed for the removal of Hussein than for the more recent removal of Libya, and you, as I recall, supported the Libyan invasion. The pretext for the war in LIbya was "he might kill his civilian citizens." Hussein was killing them by the hundreds of thousands. If humanitarian reasons was our place in Libya, then it most certainly was our place in Iraq.

[Clinton Huxley]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

[Drewish]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"