Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII
About the planning issue:
What do you reckon is more probable, that efforts like the Iraq war are the result of a large, more or less coordinated scheme or of about as many different agendas as people involved? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion on it.
|
Neither, and both at the same time. While I have no doubts that different agendas are at work, the overall war itself was and still is conducted with a surprising degree of coordination. Talk of an "exit strategy" is a red herring. While the democrats and republicans all talk of such a "exit strategy" they are only talking in context of limited withdraws and not a complete expulsion of our military forces. Honestly I have no way of knowing either way. It's somewhere close to impossible to determine, but skepticism from the very beginning has been a problem in the matter of civil discourse.
Whether I'm right or not, I think we can all agree that the Iraq War was started and carried on without as much scrutiny as it deserved. Certainly more then just OIL. The resource, or what was once called Operation Iraqi Liberation. But that'll be up to the historians.
Originally Posted by Soluzar
I gave my own opinions. History has been kind to them because their postitive actions have been found to outweigh their negative actions. That doesn't make certain actions that they took any less improper, and nor should it. If I believed that George W. Bush had accomplished sufficient good to outweigh his negative impact on America and on the world, then I wouldn't criticise his presidency either.
|
I'd to think what Bush has done has had some positive repurcussions. By channeling this nationalistic frevor into what's essentially a war without end, this practically will guarantee an end to extensive American influence and power abroad. While limiting our foreign policy options, I don't think forcing us to act in accordance with our allies (at the very least) is that bad of an outcome.
Originally Posted by Soluzar
I admit that I did not make myself entirely clear, but I believe that I can clarify my view in such a way that you would not view it as a contradiction. I don't think that it's entirely fair to condemn any President of the United States for the actions that he felt needed to be taken. It's only fair to take into account the fact that the likelyhood is that he was only doing what he thought was right. On the other hand, even if those decisions were made with the best of intentions, it still does not automatically make the results a good thing either for America, or for the world.
The likelyhood is that Bush believes he is doing what needs to be done, but that will not stop his presidency from being judged on the basis of his results. That's really the most valid basis, in my mind, on which to judge a US President, and on that basis, I'd suggest that his results are going to prove to be substantially worse than any of the four former presidents we have discussed in this thread. I think you'll find that this is less contradictory, even if you don't agree with me.
|
I'm don't disagree. I'm just thinking along the lines of the long term causes and effects. I make frequent comparisons between to Nixon and Bush. Mostly because what Nixon did still has such far reaching consequences to this day. Now more then ever it's a common perception that our elected officials are crooks. Republicans or Democrats. This is a particularly new reevaluation completely uncommon years ago. Since immediately after Nixon resigned, it was generally assumed that the system itself was stable. It was only Nixon's fault and personal corruption which made the events of Watergate possible. In the short term, what Bush is doing is not helpful to the America or the world. As for the long term, who's to say?
Originally Posted by Soluzar
Where did I state this? I believe that Britain and the rest of the world will be better off with a president other than George W. Bush, but I don't believe that a Republican president is automatically worse than a Democrat. I am not one of the blinkered ideologues who belies that all Republicans are ineffectual and evil.
|
Nothing personal, by posting what I did I was merely trying to fight against what I consider a relapse into old styles of judgement that yield responsible from our positions of power. Too many liberals/democrats in this country blame the man, not the office. Since the office itself is frequently and easily corruptable and corrupted. My comments were solely based on what I mentioned above. ^
Originally Posted by Bradylama
One interpretation of an intentional botched invasion of Iraq is that the military is used as a destabilizing force in an oil-heavy region. Driving up the price of oil, as a result, and increasing the value of oil futures. This makes oil interests very happy, but as a result, it also encourages market shifts towards alternative methods of fuel.
|
Another interpetation would be the that the invasion/occupation was not botched in the first place. Everything is going according to plan. We have 100,000+ troops in a strategic region at the all important time of the end of the age of cheap and abundant oil.
Was it not Dick Cheney said that the "American way of life is not negotiable."? I don't think he was kidding.
I was speaking idiomatically.