![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris Mark" wrote in message ... From: artkramr@ Define deep do-do Not facing a guerilla war. Not facing a hostile population on the verge of a national uprising against US presence. Not even close to "another Vietnam"--not that I ever thought that Vietnam was a "Vietnam." Hmm. I'm afraid that saying this makes you look like an idiot in my view. Sorry. And no sign of the imminent threat from Iraq. That is one of Bernard Henri-Levi's key points. He agrees that invading Iraq was right morally--to depose an odious dictator, period. But it was wrong politically and strategically because it took our eyes off the main threat which is principally to the US, but in the long run to all of Western civilization. This threat--and it is a very, very serious one--in his view emanates from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent from Yemen. Maybe. Now the US is tied up with Iraq, there is no solid allied front against radical Islam in the West...and the most violent and devastating attacks against the West are building towards their inevitable execution while the West and its sole remaining paladin (I *love* that description of the US--especially coming from a Frenchman!) squabble among themselves and focus on the wrong enemy. It sure would have been nice if the US and Europe (and even Japan, Thailand and other Asian nations) could have sat down together and planned out how to counter this real challenge to our civilization and acted together to defeat it. If Pakistan was determined to be the real core that needed to be taken on, I would love to have seen French and German troops attacking alongside US, British and Aussie forces. Somehow we have messed up this defense of the West. Yup. i don't see it as solely the fault of Bush. Him, his team, and our very own poodle Mr Blair. The French certainly were confrontational when they probably could have been more effective as concerned but cooperating friends. The Germans weren't much better....well, we all know how things have played out among the allies. The French and the Germans made the right choice for themselves and for the world. Sometimes it takes more guts to hold fire until the right target comes along. It is hard not to question the administrations judgement under these conditions. I don't believe there has ever been an administration whose judgements I haven't questioned; that's part of being a concerned citizen. I tend to see Bush as like Truman in a number of ways, both in his personality, his previous political experience, his unexpected ascension to power, the way the press treats him and especially in the huge and unexpected foreign policy threats he faces, threats that will not only define his presidency and his place in history, but will change the direction of US and world history for decades to come. And threats which are (unlike Truman) often largely of his own making. Certainly the ongoing casualties in Iraq fall into this last category. John |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|