Eventually discussion will come back to what this war is about. As Rumsfeld says -- it's not over; and we haven't been told what the war was about, because it surely wasn't about Weapons of Mass Destruction (where are they?)

Er...

1) It was about a combination of things, including WMD's. It's not an either/or choice.

2) The fact that we haven't yet run across any (possibly well-hidden and/or moved to Syria) WMD's does not prove that they don't exist. Duh. We'll know in the coming weeks. (I wonder, if we find them, whether the quoted blogger will have the courage and integrity to change his tune?)

3) Even if it turns out that no WMD's are found, that doesn't mean the war wasn't at least in part about WMD's. The wording in the quote above sounds like the blogger is interested in the intentions of the war planners. Let's assume that's the question, and assume WMD's turn out not to be found. We planned the war before they weren't found, get it? So the outcome of that search could not determine what the war was for, understand? But now let's consider the question of whether the war will have had value relating to WMD's even if they aren't found. If they aren't found, it would mean that we were incorrect in our guess that Iraq has them now. That would not mean that there was no value related to WMD's in getting rid of Sadaam. Rather it would mean that under great pressure from threat of military action, Iraq got rid of them. Once. But when the pressure was off again, there is no reason to assume they wouldn't create new stockpiles, and indeed there is significant evidence that that would be likely to happen. I.e., after agreeing not to disarm after the first Gulf War, there is ample evidence that they didn't disarm, and indeed began again to stockpile WMD's, until the recent threat of large numbers of troops on their borders. So what should a reasonable person, looking with intellectual integrity at that information, think would be likely to happen if we backed off again? Note that we don't need certainty here, because the catastrophic nature of what could happen if WMD's were in the wrong hands means we have to ward off a reasonable chance of trouble; waiting until absolute certainty was here would not be in our interests.

and we don't believe our government cares about freedom for Iraqis, because if they did, we'd be at war with China, among many other countries.

That is such an incredibly stupid thing to say that it boggles my mind. A war with China would be a huge disaster because they are incomparably stronger militarily than Iraq, including having nuclear weapons ready to go. A choice not to do something really stupid in a place where our costs would almost certainly be as unspeakably high, and the outcome as uncertain, as they would be in China is not a reason to choose not to do something where the cost is low enough that we can afford it. Duh.

Our track record for follow-through is abysmal, ask Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Why not ask Japan or Germany about whether we followed through after WW II?

Or try reasoning, perhaps as follows: The times we didn't follow through obviously didn't work for us. Those choices were made by other people who lived in another time, and did not have the data regarding our failures that we have now. It is moronic to assume that we are incapable of learning from those experiences and choosing to do the right thing this time, or that we lack the will to do so.

To make such an assumption is to believe that we will choose a path that we already know, by hard experience, doesn't work for our selfish interests, just because we did choose it before we had that hindsight. That's precisely as intelligent as assuming that a baby who touched a red hot stove would be likelier than not to do it again.

I wish it was more common for intelligent people to make some effort to use their minds in an effort try to actually understand what is going on, instead of merely to rationalize their emotionally-grounded assumptions. The popularity of the latter choice is, very arguably, the real root of much -- perhaps most -- of the evil in the world, because it significantly increases the probability that governments will make erroneous choices.

Note: I want to make it clear that my goal in the above is not to show that my personal stance on the war is the right one. I welcome any input to help my clarify my own errors. My problem with the quoted blogger is not with his anti-war stance, but with the mindlessness with which he justifies it.
12:29:14 PM    

Parasite web site. Fascinating.
10:41:01 AM