A) It would be hard for it to be 'much more', in that over 90% of the planet was opposed to the invasion. B) It is entirely relevant. Big picture. If you don't dismiss the possibility, as much of the world doesn't, that the US can be a threat to world peace, then it's motivation for it's actions are as relevant as those actions themselves. Remember, as I;ve told you many, many times, virtually every expansionistic empire in history has given 'reasons' for it's expansion beyond extending it;s own power, and many of those have been more credible and held up longer than the reasons we gave for this one. So, as such, if you look at why Iraq and why not all kinds of other nations, IF the difference is because some in power feel that excercising our power in Iraq is to our benefit whereas in , say, Liberia it is not, then the long term ramifications might and to many would supercede the short term benefits of removing a dictator. Among other reasons, it will be important because the residents of the region themselves will be less prone to support the transformation as directed by us if they feel we are there for our interests not theirs. And, guess what, that's the way most Irais feel. And how well is it going? For the rest of the planet, if they see us acting aggressively only against those despots whose overthrwo benefits us, and ognoring or supporting the others, they will be less prone to give us the support on this and future enterprises. As we see currently. There is virtually no debate as to the lessening of our international standing as a result of this action, and we have never been this mistrusted before. It's can't all be everyone else's fault. This is not an isolated incident. Even if it were, the fact that we sold this war with different reasons, reasons which have failed to materialze, is worth more than a shrug. It begs many questions, and answeres some. For one thing...if our motivations were humantiarian and democratic, why did we subvert our own democratic process to accomplish it? As with a witness on the stand, once you;ve been caught lying, especially as many times as we have, then the tendancy to look at your motivations in the best light thereafter is remote, especially when other reasons more in keeping with your established pattern are available.
And yet, there it is. I don't see anyone proposing that Saddam was not a bad actor. Do you? However, I do see quite a few people, including Iraqis who are glad we removed him from power. Remember, as I've told you many times, every intervention is exercised with 'reasons' why its good. That's true of those we'd consider justified or not. I can say both that and the intervention in Iraq was justified. You saying that doesn't prove it wasn't justified. In addition, if your argument were true then interventions in places where we DO NOT have interests should increase our 'credibility.' They don't as proven by Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and Haiti among others. As far as Iraq I think they are quickly tiring of the 'insurgency.' As long as we continue to move toward leaving they'll be pushing them out more and more. If it's not an isolated incident, then we'd hardly have a great deal of credibility anyway. Kinda takes out the impact to your international credibility argument. Anyway, I never said Bush's main justification was humanitarian, although it was certainly present, so I'm not sure what you get for that. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that Bush justified the intervention properly. As per our usual conversations, however, that doesn't mean its not justified, or that its not a good thing overall. And you should also consider that many of the same people you would point to that consider the US a threat to world peace would have said the same thing (some did in fact, like Arafat, and many 'people in the region') when we invaded Iraq under the UN banner. An action that you supported, unless I'm mistaken.
They can't be as bad, otherwise the military would not need to call up 5600 soldiers involuntarily. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=885608&tw=wn_wire_story Army Plans Involuntary Call-Up of Thousands Monday, June 28, 2004 11:16 p.m. ET By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday. The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries. Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.
