In the context of Iraq, it does take a special kind of mind to write an editorial on the topic of "The best way not to learn from our mistake".
well-meaning morons who just will not ever learn from their mistakes
People, innit
hardcore ideological lunatics = well meaning morons who will not ever learn from their mistakes.
The problem on both sides is a willingness to let go of reality before letting go of your ideology.
What I find so odd is that they're even daring - with the history of their reporting in the run-up to Iraq - to even claim that the war was one of liberal interventionism. There were tons of countries far more 'deserving' of such intervention at the time. And surely, too, a 'liberal interventionist' would be against a war that didn't have a clear post-war plan? But oh no, the main problem in Iraq is that peopel might not want to do the same thing again, obviously...
"that was supposed to improve the lives of Iraqis"
You didn't ever believe that, did you? Nations don't go to war to improve the lives of the people they intend to conquer. They do so either because they believe they themselves are severely threatened, or because they see an opportunity for advancing their own national interest.
There was nothing wrong with the war on Iraq, it was the peace they got hopelessly wrong.
David, that's like saying it was a wonderful orgasm but nobody expected the baby that resulted.
Like Santayana said, "Those who wish to repeat the past must first take steps to forget it." Or something like that.
If you gave an anti-cancer drug to one patient dying of cancer, and he died, it would not prove anything at all.
Certainly not that you should never try to cure cancer.
Not that I think I will be supporting many liberal interventions in the future.
Hang on there for a second...liberal intervention, my arse!
I like saying means determine ends, and it was clear from the moment we started deluding ourselves that this would end up in the way it has.
There were good grounds for invasion, but they were not made in the dossier, so the overall strategy was based on false premises and confusion.
My current favorite contrarian justification for a show of strength in the gulf region, beyond immediate one-sided economic considerations, is as a 'small preventative war' - which will either be unprovable if we the coalition is successful, or will show the situation in Iraq as an insignificant distraction from the main event (china-russia-india showdown anyone?).
"that's like saying it was a wonderful orgasm"
Not *like* it at all.
"There was nothing wrong with the war on Iraq"
Oh, you mean the invasion? Ok, I'm splitting hairs here, but that bit where we bombed them, rolled in, took their cities and then 'kicked back and whittled some' hardly merits the term 'War'
"it was the peace they got hopelessly wrong"
I'd say there was everything wrong with 'The War on Iraq', this is why 'The Peace' could only ever go hopelessly wrong. The very arrogance of the premise for invading Iraq ensured chaos would reign supreme in the aftermath.
The pathetic thing about all of this is that the moron in the Whitehouse and his thugs attacked the wrong country!! Most of those responsible for 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. We should have attacked them. !!! (Oh, I forgot..The Saudis and the BinLadens are great friends of the Bush Cartel...
Granted..Saddam was a monster and needed to go... but the man didn't have a thing to do with AlQueda or 9/11
Commenting by HaloScan
