Duh. You ought to consider running for political office.
No, most politicians only have a short-term planning, not a long term-planning.
That's a strange POV. I don't think women, in general, ever thought this war was worth it.
Obviously, but at a certain moment it's been enough for them.
No, it's going to end when the US finally realizes that it can't win
It's not between the US and the terrorists /whatever you name them. It's between the Sunni's and the Shiites and the Kurds.
and some faction in Iraq defeats all of it's weaker enemies.
That's another possibility.
But since that's really hard to obtain, I just think that it'll be a peace eventually where every ethnical group will live in it's part of the land ,maybe even 3 independant nations (though the Turks may oppose to that).
Granted that could be 3 or 4 decades or more. Ah but yes it will EVENTUALLY RE-STABILIZE.
3 or 4 decades is way to pessimistic.
Just speculation here.
It's what the leftish said who were against the war: "Don't start a war, the land will be a mess afterwards becuase the ethnical groups hate each other."
This war would've started sooner or later.
That's not speculation, that's just the normal thing. You may call that speculation, but then I ask you to describe a situation how Iraq would've turned into a normal nation without this war between ethnical groups first.
You can't honestly consider this to be a reason to invade do you?
That wasn't the reason to invade.
I've never given that as the reason to invade.
If they didn't want to take blame they should have stayed the hell out of it.
Thus if the Dutch would've started to slam into each other's skulls after being liberated from the Germans in 1945 by the Canadians, then the Canadians would've been to blame for that?
If I'm being captured by some criminal, and the police frees me, and I use my freedom to murder you, then the police is to blame for the murdering on you?
You don't judge by results do you? GWB told us that we should invade because it was going to make the world a better place and all that crap. He was wrong and he is to blame.
You have a short-term horizon.
The ME needs time to normalize, and the dethroning of SH is one of the first steps into that direction. What you want, an instant paradise, is impossible.
Yes, they end. This one doesn't show any sign of ending anytime soon.
These kinds of wars tend to end when things are worst and one party doesn't want to coninue to fight.
A war ends suddenly.
You can never predict in advance when a war like this will end.
The Iraqis don't have hope.
Yes, they do have hope. A recent poll showed that they had more hope then they used to have under SH. Sorry, I have no link.
Also, they don't hold us in higher regard than SH.
You have to ask that question to them in 20 years again. Not on this short notice.
See above. You might to reread the speech.
The part you bolded out is not an argument, it's a summary of history.
The first argument starts the line after:
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned."
and directly refers to the UN resolutions.
Are you telling me somehow that in modern democracies, with lots of great values which a far to numerous to cite them all here it's too much to ask for that leaders who can decide about life and death of lots of people give sound reasons for their actions
I don't say that citizen can't do that.
I just say that Putin (power hunger), Schroder (elections) and Chiraq (power hunger) used selfish reasons to not go to war.
and that it would be somehow evil to point out if some reasons given are in fact only "window-dressing" (your words) for something else?
I've never liked GWB that sucked himself up to the WMD people, let's start with that.
But the window dressing in itself isn't bad.
If the people only care about the WMD, then you can address their issues.
And there were big issues with Iraq and WMD.
1. Iraq had had WMD
2. Iraq had used WMD
3. Iraq had never made clear what happened to their WMD.
Those are 3 solid reasons to claim that the WMD argument, which is not the most important imho, is still a valid argument to invade Iraq.
I don't see what this has to do with the debate about the reasons, but I'd be more than happy if the Iraq mess would turn into something better.
I'm glad to hear that.
Comment