Bush declares "Law Day" - Irony, you know no bounds...

[Knightshade Dragon]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080501.html

What?  This is just too unreal to be believed...

[TK-421]

Just so long as it doesn't preempt Life Day

[Knightshade Dragon]

Just so long as it doesn't preempt Life Day

The wife and I tried to watch the special about a month back.  We got about half-way through and couldn't stomach any more.  My God...

[Jeff]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

"A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history."

http://www.bushslastday.com/

1-20-09

The End of an Era Error.

[CeeKay]

Just so long as it doesn't preempt Life Day

The wife and I tried to watch the special about a month back.  We got about half-way through and couldn't stomach any more.  My God...

I tried watching it last X-Mas with lots fo alcohol... I made it maybe a half hour before I couldn't take it anymore.

[Ironrod]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

"A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history."

And yet, somehow, 28% of those polled think he's doing a fine job. Who are these people?

[Hiccup]

Is this closing line standard?

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

[Creepy_Smell]

Is this closing line standard?

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

That stuck out to me too until I google-fu'd a bit. Its just the traditional way to say A.D. in documents. Even The Constitution has the phrase since it was the way dates were written out in documents at the time.

[Larraque]

That article is so confusing.

As our country celebrates the 50th anniversary of Law Day

do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as Law Day, U.S.A

So Law Day's been around for 50 years, or it's a new thing?

[Mr. Fed]

That article is so confusing.

As our country celebrates the 50th anniversary of Law Day

do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as Law Day, U.S.A

So Law Day's been around for 50 years, or it's a new thing?

Actually, it's common practice to proclaim holidays and other days of note every year.  Thanksgiving, for example.

[Jeff]

Is this closing line standard?

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

That stuck out to me too until I google-fu'd a bit. Its just the traditional way to say A.D. in documents. Even The Constitution has the phrase since it was the way dates were written out in documents at the time.

Yeah, IIRC, 'A.D' means Anno Domini in Latin, translated 'the year of our Lord'.

And yet, somehow, 28% of those polled think he's doing a fine job. Who are these people?

Neocons? fundamentalist Christians? Wal-Mart shoppers? I dunno. It's scary though, that 28% of the country thinks he's doing a fine job. This is easily the worst president in U.S. history. The toll he will end up taking on this country cannot yet be measured.

[helot2000]

Actually, it's common practice to proclaim holidays and other days of note every year.  Thanksgiving, for example.

Yes but Bush is the only President to cap his proclamation of Law Day with a signing statement.   

[cheeba]

And yet, somehow, 28% of those polled think he's doing a fine job. Who are these people?

Neocons? fundamentalist Christians? Wal-Mart shoppers? I dunno. It's scary though, that 28% of the country thinks he's doing a fine job. This is easily the worst president in U.S. history. The toll he will end up taking on this country cannot yet be measured.

I think he's doing fine. I'm not a neocon. I'm not religious. I must admit I have shopped at Wal-Mart a few times but I hate doing so considering it's an Arkansas-based company. I've an education from a very good university (hail! hail!).

I think the war in Iraq was the right move. Some things regarding the occupation have been mishandled, but I think we've done about as well as we can there. I think the economy is largely unaffected by the President, so I do not blame him for the current troubles. I loathe his spending like a new-money housewife.

So by and large I think he's done just fine. Start the guffawing .

[Brendan]

Why would anyone guffaw?  This presidency has created tens of thousands of tragedies.  There's nothing funny about that.

[cheeba]

Why would anyone guffaw?  This presidency has created tens of thousands of tragedies.  There's nothing funny about that.

So have many, many other presidencies.

[Jeff]

I think the war in Iraq was the right move. Some things regarding the occupation have been mishandled, but I think we've done about as well as we can there. I think the economy is largely unaffected by the President, so I do not blame him for the current troubles. I loathe his spending like a new-money housewife.

So by and large I think he's done just fine. Start the guffawing .

I'm not going to laugh at you, but i can't refrain from saying "wow". The war was the right move? Some things have been 'mishandled'? It's a complete, and utter disaster (an opinion shared by retired 4-star generals). We are now locked into one of the worst quagmires in modern military history, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since our unprovoked invasion. 4000+ young U.S. soldiers have died and left wives and children forever, for the whims of this president.

What possible gains do you see from this invasion that make it the 'right move'. Do you honestly think democracy will be set up in the middle east?

You think we've done "about as well as we can there"?    Almost no one agrees with this, including Bush himself!

If you think Bush has done "just fine", I really don't know what to say. I'm stunned, to be honest.

[cheeba]

We are now locked into one of the worst quagmires in modern military history

So you're saying Vietnam wasn't modern?

and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since our unprovoked invasion.

Unprovoked? Do you not remember Iraq attempting to assassinate Bush the 1st? Or nearly every day shooting at American warplanes over the United Nations-created no-fly zone? Or the non-compliance with how many United Nations resolutions?

4000+ young U.S. soldiers have died and left wives and children forever, for the whims of this president.

Well at least no old US soldiers have died, apparently. As to the "whims" of this president, you do remember that the nation was for the war when it started, right? And that he had congressional approval?

What possible gains do you see from this invasion that make it the 'right move'. Do you honestly think democracy will be set up in the middle east?

I'm all for giving the people there that chance. Imagine if they do build a democracy. The implications would be astounding, and positive for us in many, many ways. At the very least we can have a good foothold in a region where we desperately need it. Strategically, Iraq is of great importance.

[brettmcd]

I still find it amusing that people will consider bush to be the worst president in us history when for one we are far too close to what has happened to make an accurate historical judgement, and even if we threw that out I can easily think of a half dozen presidents who I would consider to be worse.

[Jeff]

So you're saying Vietnam wasn't modern?

I said "one of", yes, Vietnam was a clusterfuck as well.

Unprovoked? Do you not remember Iraq attempting to assassinate Bush the 1st? Or nearly every day shooting at American warplanes over the United Nations-created no-fly zone? Or the non-compliance with how many United Nations resolutions?

Yes, those are all good reasons to launch a full-scale land invasion of a sovereign nation, and to overthrow their government, and occupy their land for many years. /sarcasm

As to the "whims" of this president, you do remember that the nation was for the war when it started, right? And that he had congressional approval?

The 'nation was for it' = great idea! I don't think so. Who controlled the congress in 2003?

Americans were extremely angry at 9/11 and if asked, probably would've voted to nuke a random Middle Eastern country. Furthermore, they were lied to by the U.S. government about the reasons for the Iraq invasion.

I'm all for giving the people there that chance. Imagine if they do build a democracy. The implications would be astounding, and positive for us in many, many ways. At the very least we can have a good foothold in a region where we desperately need it. Strategically, Iraq is of great importance.

Jesus .. that's just fucking scary. Sorry dude - but we're not playing a giant game of Risk. What other countries should we invade because they'd be of "strategic importance", or because we might convert a 5000 year old culture to be like us for the first time ever.

Wow ...

[cheeba]

I said "one of", yes, Vietnam was a clusterfuck as well.

Except on a much grander scale such that it's not worth the comparison.

The 'nation was for it' = great idea! I don't think so. Who controlled the congress in 2003?

So congress was complicit and therefore it wasn't just the whims of a single person. And with the number of democrats who voted to go along with it, do you really think it mattered who controlled congress?

Jesus .. that's just fucking scary. Sorry dude - but we're not playing a giant game of Risk.

Yeah man, like totally way scary dude. It's like, looking out for US strategic interests in our foreign policy is like totally fucking cold man.

Wow ...

Totally...

[helot2000]

At the very least we can have a good foothold in a region where we desperately need it. Strategically, Iraq is of great importance.

With U.S. bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE, what does the Iraqi foothold provide that the others don't?   

How is Iraq of great strategic importance to us?  Iraq was once of strategic importance as a counterweight to Iran but not so much since we set about enforcing the UN resolution(s).   

[cheeba]

The more influence we have in the middle east the better. Iraq is a big country, and if in 10-20 years its citizens are mostly democratic, driving BMW's and listening to Miley Cyrus "Back From Rehab, Again" albums, it will go a long, long way in making a friendlier middle east.

[Ironrod]

And yet, somehow, 28% of those polled think he's doing a fine job. Who are these people?

Neocons? fundamentalist Christians? Wal-Mart shoppers? I dunno. It's scary though, that 28% of the country thinks he's doing a fine job. This is easily the worst president in U.S. history. The toll he will end up taking on this country cannot yet be measured.

The ones who got the big tax cuts and own all the oil stocks must make up a few of those percentage points. If you're insulated from the runup in energy and food prices, and you're above the social class whose children fight the wars, then you're probably pretty satisfied with the way things went these past eight years.

Another few percent of the population either can't understand the question or just answer randomly. 

That still leaves probably 20% unaccounted for. Maybe they're the ones who judge a president by his moralizing, or who bought into the faux folksiness.

It's common wisdom that he's the worst in modern US history. I don't know my history well enough to give him the all-time crown though. We've had some pretty bad scoundrels and incompetents. (edit) Plus, as cheeba said, we still don't know how Iraq is going to turn out in the long run. The prewar status quo sucked, and the postwar has not yet been born. There's a very small chance that history will regard Bush as a bold visionary who stood fast while everyone around him tried to sabotage him. Not bloody likely, but it could happen.

[helot2000]

The more influence we have in the middle east the better. Iraq is a big country, and if in 10-20 years its citizens are mostly democratic, driving BMW's and listening to Miley Cyrus "Back From Rehab, Again" albums, it will go a long, long way in making a friendlier middle east.

Continuing our occupation of Iraq in order to bring it Democracy seems like pasting feathers together and hoping for a duck. 

[Freezer-TPF-]

It's common wisdom that he's the worst in modern US history. I don't know my history well enough to give him the all-time crown though. We've had some pretty bad scoundrels and incompetents. (edit) Plus, as cheeba said, we still don't know how Iraq is going to turn out in the long run. The prewar status quo sucked, and the postwar has not yet been born. There's a very small chance that history will regard Bush as a bold visionary who stood fast while everyone around him tried to sabotage him. Not bloody likely, but it could happen.

The title of worst president EVAR usually goes to James Buchanan.  As for this century?  I guess Mr Teapot Dome (Harding) or Hoover.

[Ironrod]

It's common wisdom that he's the worst in modern US history. I don't know my history well enough to give him the all-time crown though. We've had some pretty bad scoundrels and incompetents. (edit) Plus, as cheeba said, we still don't know how Iraq is going to turn out in the long run. The prewar status quo sucked, and the postwar has not yet been born. There's a very small chance that history will regard Bush as a bold visionary who stood fast while everyone around him tried to sabotage him. Not bloody likely, but it could happen.

The title of worst president EVAR usually goes to James Buchanan.  As for this century?  I guess Mr Teapot Dome (Harding) or Hoover.

It's hard to compare Bush with presidents from much earlier times, simply because the US is so much more powerful now and the world so interconnected. Whether he is "worse" or not, Bush's energy and environmental policy failings may do more lasting damage than Buchanan, Harding, or Hoover could manage.

[Ironrod]

And yet, somehow, 28% of those polled think he's doing a fine job. Who are these people?

Neocons? fundamentalist Christians? Wal-Mart shoppers? I dunno. It's scary though, that 28% of the country thinks he's doing a fine job. This is easily the worst president in U.S. history. The toll he will end up taking on this country cannot yet be measured.

The ones who got the big tax cuts and own all the oil stocks must make up a few of those percentage points. 

Just to run with this point a little...

Chevron records 5.1B first quarter profit

That's just one company, in just one quarter. For perspective, $5.17B is higher than the ANNUAL budgets of five US states!

Soaring oil prices provided a similar first-quarter lift to four of Chevron's biggest rivals - Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. Collectively, Chevron and those four companies earned $36.9 billion in the first quarter, a 25 percent increase from last year.

$36.9B is higher than the annual budgets of all but 10 states, and probably an awful lot of countries as well. Yowzah. I'm sure that the nice folks behind the four biggest oil companies are very, very happy with the Bush administration.

[Brendan]

As for this century?  I guess Mr Teapot Dome (Harding) or Hoover.

I think you have your centuries mixed up.  In this century, there's only one to choose from.

[Electronic Dan]

As for this century?  I guess Mr Teapot Dome (Harding) or Hoover.

I think you have your centuries mixed up.  In this century, there's only one to choose from.

Err, two, Mr Technical

I don't like Bush, but I see Nixon and Carter about as bad as he is.

Between FDR's court packing attempt to Bay of pigs to assassinations of the 60s to Vietnam to Nixons crimes, to stagflation, to the Iran hostages, etc., the US has survived a lot more than Bush has thrown at it.

This too shall pass.

[Blackadar]

I'll be glad when OO is reopened and the JV debate team leaves.  It's not even worth a point-by-point rebuttal of Cheeba's illogical reasoning (retroactive perspectives) and red herrings (group culpability). 

[Destructor]

Just so long as it doesn't preempt Life Day

The wife and I tried to watch the special about a month back.  We got about half-way through and couldn't stomach any more.  My God...

I tried watching it last X-Mas with lots fo alcohol... I made it maybe a half hour before I couldn't take it anymore.

I watched this absolutely god-awful 'movie' (and I'm using the term VERY loosely here, folks) thanks to the folks behind MST3K. Even with their help...wow.

[cheeba]

I'll be glad when OO is reopened and the JV debate team leaves.

Regarding my "illogical reasoning", put up or shut up and leave the discussion to the adults.

[Victoria Raverna]

The more influence we have in the middle east the better. Iraq is a big country, and if in 10-20 years its citizens are mostly democratic, driving BMW's and listening to Miley Cyrus "Back From Rehab, Again" albums, it will go a long, long way in making a friendlier middle east.

Democratic Iraq = Iran style terrorist sponsoring fanatic leadership. By invading Iraq, US helped her real enemies.

[Blackadar]

I'll be glad when OO is reopened and the JV debate team leaves.

Regarding my "illogical reasoning", put up or shut up and leave the discussion to the adults.

You might want to watch the CoC.  You don't have Rip to protect you here.

Let's start off with "unprovoked" (i.e. retroactive perspectives).  Iraq was cooperating more completely than at any time since the first Gulf War when Bushie attacked, so the timing for a "provoked" attack was beyond odd.  Nor was that one of the primary reasons given for this war.  Trying to find reasons (which are laughable) for starting a war when your primary reasons have been rendered utterly false is called being an apologist.  You don't get to shoot someone on the street and then claim "well, they might commit a crime someday".  The two main reasons were: #1 - WMDs, which was simply and completely false.  The UN inspectors said it and even our own intelligence community knew that the chemical weapons we gave him many years ago were rendered inert by the ravages of time.  #2 - Al Queda , which again was completely false.  There never has been anything more than a incidental connection between the Iraqi regime and Osama Bin Ladin.  Trying to retroactively find justification for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is rationalization.  It's a coping mechanism, not insightful thought.

Let's finish with "congressional approval" (i.e., red herrings).  Yes, he sure did - of course, he had a clear majority of Republicans in Congress as well.  There's also over 900 documented false statements given to the public to build a case for war.  Just as bad, there are a large number of omitted facts that Congress never saw regarding the intelligence gathered for the case for war.  Instead of the whole truth, Congress and the American people got a snow job that was clearly orchestrated by the White House.  Collective guilt is much less effective when one party is deceitful.

Your lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the Middle East, combined with your apologetic tone for the current administration shows that you've yet to do any real thinking or research regarding this subject.  You showed your lack of understanding when you didn't realize that the US already has a good foothold in the Middle East in a number of other countries.  If you have any factual insight regarding Iraq or the entire Middle East besides what you've been spoon-fed from the talking heads at Fox News, please feel free to share.  But your naivete' shows when you think that Iraq will be driving BMWs and listening to Miley Cyrus in 10 years.  History has shown that Democracy doesn't particularly work well in the Middle East and a dictatorship or plutocracy would be more stable.  Colin Powell understood this, but unfortunately his sage advice wasn't heeded and that's why we're in the mess we are today.  And like everything else with this administration (fiscal responsibility, greenhouse gases, health care , Middle East peace, Osama Bin Ladin...the list goes on and on), Bush is leaving the mess for someone else to deal with. 

[cheeba]

You might want to watch the CoC.  You don't have Rip to protect you here.

I believe there's something in the CoC about not being a douche, isn't there? Either way, you insult me, I insult you, that's how it works. If you wish the OO'ers to leave, well, tough shit.

Trying to find reasons (which are laughable) for starting a war when your primary reasons have been rendered utterly false is called being an apologist.

There were many reasons for going to war. I never thought the WMD thing was the proper argument for the case of war. But now, who cares? We had several good reasons to go, even if one of those reasons turned out to be faulty intelligence.

You don't get to shoot someone on the street and then claim "well, they might commit a crime someday".

Says who?

Trying to retroactively find justification for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is rationalization.  It's a coping mechanism, not insightful thought.

What makes my arguments for war retroactive? These arguments were as valid back before the war as they are now. I feel the government made a mistake in arguing so strongly about the WMD. We had other, better reasons and the gov't shouldn't have relied so heavily on the WMD argument.

Instead of the whole truth, Congress and the American people got a snow job that was clearly orchestrated by the White House.  Collective guilt is much less effective when one party is deceitful.

And who controls congress now? If the democrats wanted, they could stop the occupation by simply discontinuing funding of the war. They haven't done so. They've not even managed to attach any conditions to the funding of the war. You wanna whine about republicans? Go for it. If you think democrats share none of the blame, however, you're just naive.

Your lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the Middle East, combined with your apologetic tone for the current administration shows that you've yet to do any real thinking or research regarding this subject.

Ah yes, it's not that I simply have a different opinion from you, it's that I've not devoted thought or research to the subject. How enlightened. When you grow older you will realize that intelligent people may disagree even when given the same information.

You showed your lack of understanding when you didn't realize that the US already has a good foothold in the Middle East in a number of other countries.

Ugh. Of course I've known about American bases around the middle east. That doesn't make Iraq any less strategically important. We need feet on the ground there to continue to create a pro-American middle eastern nation.

But your naivete' shows when you think that Iraq will be driving BMWs and listening to Miley Cyrus in 10 years.

And your lack of reading comprehension shows when you make that statement. Here, let me help you out:

if in 10-20 years its citizens are mostly democratic, driving BMW's and listening to Miley Cyrus "Back From Rehab, Again" albums, it will go a long, long way in making a friendlier middle east.

Notice the letter in bold and italics?

In conclusion:

[Hiccup]

You might want to watch the CoC.  You don't have Rip to protect you here.

I believe there's something in the CoC about not being a douche, isn't there? Either way, you insult me, I insult you, that's how it works. If you wish the OO'ers to leave, well, tough shit.

Not commenting on this, just practicing my "break out the quote-a-quote" skill for the following.

Trying to find reasons (which are laughable) for starting a war when your primary reasons have been rendered utterly false is called being an apologist.

There were many reasons for going to war. I never thought the WMD thing was the proper argument for the case of war. But now, who cares? We had several good reasons to go, even if one of those reasons turned out to be faulty intelligence.

WE actually had no good reason to go.  Mr. President had a lot of made up reasons and a revenge reason, but on the whole we had more reasons to invade North Korea/Iran.  I'm not saying that we SHOULD have invaded anyone, but Iraq was at the end of a short list.

You don't get to shoot someone on the street and then claim "well, they might commit a crime someday".

Says who?

   Really?  Seriously?  I'm trying to figure out if this is just a trolling comment or what.  Are you actually advocating killing people who may or may not do something worthy of the death penalty sometime in their lives?  Hell, even take it down 1000 notches and say we can ban people from internet forums because they may or may not post something offensive.

Trying to retroactively find justification for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is rationalization.  It's a coping mechanism, not insightful thought.

What makes my arguments for war retroactive? These arguments were as valid back before the war as they are now. I feel the government made a mistake in arguing so strongly about the WMD. We had other, better reasons and the gov't shouldn't have relied so heavily on the WMD argument.

If there were other, better reasons, I would think (and this might just be stupid wishing) that we would have actually used that to begin with.  Why lie with the risk of being caught when a truth would be safer.

Instead of the whole truth, Congress and the American people got a snow job that was clearly orchestrated by the White House.  Collective guilt is much less effective when one party is deceitful.

And who controls congress now? If the democrats wanted, they could stop the occupation by simply discontinuing funding of the war. They haven't done so. They've not even managed to attach any conditions to the funding of the war. You wanna whine about republicans? Go for it. If you think democrats share none of the blame, however, you're just naive.

Say I convince 20 out of 25 of my neighbors that we should light a grassfire in a grassland a couple miles away because there is a fox that may or may not hurt their children.  I mostly used their fear to agree with me, so they are still aprehensive about starting the fire, but still don't try to stop me.  We do have the fire department on hand to try to control it.   I go start the fire, kill the fox, but the fire keeps buring.  I argue that there could be more foxes coming out of the woods to replace the original fox, and we should let the fire burn.  Some of them still agree with me, but the majority thinks it's a bad idea.  The majority, has two options.  Walk away with the fire department, and let the fire rage and possibly put other houses and families in danger, or stay and try to put out the fire even though they didn't really agree with the whole fire thing in the first place.  Cutting the funding to the fire fighters would not only make them leave, but we drove them out there and we'd have to find a way to get them back.  Plus no one is really set on leaving the fire buring, so they stay, trying to put out a raging fire that no one really wanted in the first place.

Your lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the Middle East, combined with your apologetic tone for the current administration shows that you've yet to do any real thinking or research regarding this subject.

Ah yes, it's not that I simply have a different opinion from you, it's that I've not devoted thought or research to the subject. How enlightened. When you grow older you will realize that intelligent people may disagree even when given the same information.

Maybe it's both?  Even if everyone was fully educated to the point were we knew everything, there is still the confusion between "opinion" and "belief".  There is a chance at changing one's opinion, but not so much a belief. 

You showed your lack of understanding when you didn't realize that the US already has a good foothold in the Middle East in a number of other countries.

Ugh. Of course I've known about American bases around the middle east. That doesn't make Iraq any less strategically important. We need feet on the ground there to continue to create a pro-American middle eastern nation.

We really can't create a pro-American middle eastern nation from something that is so anit-American to begin with.   They have to change their minds on their own, and occupation will not create such a thing.  Besides, it's been tried.  Look how well the region loves Israel.

But your naivete' shows when you think that Iraq will be driving BMWs and listening to Miley Cyrus in 10 years.

And your lack of reading comprehension shows when you make that statement. Here, let me help you out:

if in 10-20 years its citizens are mostly democratic, driving BMW's and listening to Miley Cyrus "Back From Rehab, Again" albums, it will go a long, long way in making a friendlier middle east.

Notice the letter in bold and italics?

So, if in 10-20 years it's citizens are mostly democratic, the mostly anti democratic nations surrounding it will accept them?

[cheeba]

  Really?  Seriously?  I'm trying to figure out if this is just a trolling comment or what.  Are you actually advocating killing people who may or may not do something worthy of the death penalty sometime in their lives?  Hell, even take it down 1000 notches and say we can ban people from internet forums because they may or may not post something offensive.

Well I'm really just mocking the attempt to analogize the actions of a hegemon with the actions of an individual. Truth is, they can ban people from the forum for whatever reason they want. There is no authority preventing those actions.

If there were other, better reasons, I would think (and this might just be stupid wishing) that we would have actually used that to begin with.  Why lie with the risk of being caught when a truth would be safer.

Invading a country for the reasons I argued, albeit good reasons, is an incredibly tough sell.

Say I convince 20 out of 25 of my neighbors that we should light a grassfire

Even though the war had decent support, its support was not exactly universal. There are lots of arguments against the war, many of them being valid whether or not you totally ignore the WMD issue - Iraq wasn't a threat to the US, for example. The democrats still voted for it. It takes a strong partisan to remove any culpability from the democrats.

Maybe it's both?  Even if everyone was fully educated to the point were we knew everything, there is still the confusion between "opinion" and "belief".  There is a chance at changing one's opinion, but not so much a belief.

Certainly. Either way, the ubiquitous internet argument that the opposition is an idiot, spoon-fed by whatever biased news source, lacking in research, education or whatever, is just cliche and rude. One can argue well, just as you have done, without resorting to condescension or insults, just as you have done.

We really can't create a pro-American middle eastern nation from something that is so anit-American to begin with.   They have to change their minds on their own, and occupation will not create such a thing.  Besides, it's been tried.  Look how well the region loves Israel.

If you look at Iran, you see a nation so worried about the cultural influence of America on its people that it bans the Barbie doll. You're right, we can't create friends with the occupation, but hopefully we can secure the nation enough and finally minimize our forces enough so that we can still allow them access to our culture.

So, if in 10-20 years it's citizens are mostly democratic, the mostly anti democratic nations surrounding it will accept them?

They have to accept them as a legitimate government controlled by the people. The other middle eastern gov'ts will no doubt not much like a democratic Iraq, as it will mean their people will begin wanting the same freedoms and access to wealth. That's the goal and the hope.

[Ironrod]

WMD and teh terrorists were a justification for invading Iraq. It went over very well.

The reasons for invading Iraq involve neoconservative geopolitics (especially containing Iran) and oil. Stationing most of our military on either side of Iran must've looked like a smart move. I supported the invasion because I thought it would work out. With all that Iraqi oil revenue going to US contractors for reconstruction, it should've been a straightforward transfer of taxpayer and consumer wealth to Haliburton and their ilk. The Bushies win!   

We need a strong, secular, pro-Western state in the vacuum that we created when we killed Saddam. A puppet democracy is not likely to deliver that, ever. Ultimately we're going to need a Saddam II to forestall the rise of an ayatollah. Or we can occupy the country for the next 100 years. Or we can abandon it to Islamic fundamentalists. 

[Victoria Raverna]

If you look at Iran, you see a nation so worried about the cultural influence of America on its people that it bans the Barbie doll. You're right, we can't create friends with the occupation, but hopefully we can secure the nation enough and finally minimize our forces enough so that we can still allow them access to our culture.

Umm, Iraq was not a nation that worried about the cultural influence of America. Saddam's Iraq was secular.

So if the goal is to let them access western culture, the war was a step back. A better solution was to lift the UN sanction and helped Saddam restore the country. I'm sure if given choice, Saddam would embrace the west again if only to survive and to stay in power. But it is too late for that solution.

[Victoria Raverna]

They have to accept them as a legitimate government controlled by the people. The other middle eastern gov'ts will no doubt not much like a democratic Iraq, as it will mean their people will begin wanting the same freedoms and access to wealth. That's the goal and the hope.

Or they can just point at Iraq as example of why they don't need democracy. People were much better during Saddam era than the current democracy one.