mikeandgerry wrote:Calling me arrogant is a rather personal attack, don't you think Mr. Moderator? You fail to see your own caustic remarks.
Where to begin?
Do I really have to explain what ad hominem means?
Apparently I do.
When you post something like "We needed most of all a forward operating base from which to secure the region. Iraq was conveniently located in the center of it all"
and I point out that the idea of taking over another country to serve as a FOB is arrogant, it is not an ad hominem attack.
When you reply to a post by saying "you're a democrat and therefore because you are a dem you are wrong"
you are attacking the person, not the argument.
You're coming to the conclusion based on who is making the argument rather than the argument itself.
I know it's nuance, but a lack of understanding of nuance is the root of many of our problems.
mikeandgerry wrote:You all refuse to acknowledge that diplomatic resources were exhausted.
All of you refuse to acknowlege the security docrines mentioned.
None of you acknowledge the state of mind of the government post 9-11.
All of you are Monday morning quarterbacks who only acknowledge that it was GWB's fault in all cases. You never address facts, just fault finding. It's lame. It's lazy. It's sophomoric. It's pathetic.
This situation is by no means all GWB's fault and frankly, I've never argued it was
(that's your ad hominem problem
showing again, assuming what my argument is because of who you think
I am rather than actually reading my argument).
This problem is also Clinton's fault. The lion's share of the blame goes to Bush41 who decided to pick sides in the internal arab fight. It's Reagan's fault. It's Carter's fault. It's Nixon's fault. Heck, most of all it's Winston Churchill's fault going back to post WW1 when he partitioned the area. The fault is completely bipartisan.
I readily acknowlege the security doctrines. I think they're WRONG
. Iraq/Kuwait was a border dispute going back to the partitioning of the Brits (who wanted to keep a strategic port). Frankly, through the 1990s Iraq was far more of an ally in the region that Kuwait was. We supported Iraq both financially and with intel.
You say "diplomatic resources were exhausted". What was about to happen? Nothing. Saddam didn't give a *censored* about the US. Saddam was worried about Iran. By removing Saddam we strengthened Iran (even a troglodyte should see that now).
The state of mind of the government post 9-11? They were hysterical and emotional. That was the problem.