4 ms·

The world is not clear-cut black and white. Few are completely bad or completely good. Maybe no-one is. Sanguinely, the world is realpolitik and the good mus

by mc32 4y ago

The world is not clear-cut black and white. Few are completely bad or completely good. Maybe no-one is. Sanguinely, the world is realpolitik and the good must do some bad to increase good. Also the bad do some good in order that they may continue to do bad. On balance was it good? It's an open question. Should the world have let Saddam initiate an Iraq-Iran War II? Was he bluffing? We don't know -he's dead. Maybe countries, like siblings, need to duke it out sometimes. Many years ago there were people calling for Bush (and maybe Obama) to be arrested by the ICC. Bush and Obama are rehabilitated and now there is a more immediate foe who is now to be arrested and rendered to the ICC. Still, we could benefit from examining and have a congressional inquiry into the matter with consequences so that future presidents think twice before committing to war so easily. Then again, the Congress has abrogated its responsibility to declare war, and allows presidents lots of latitude to engage the military in "not war near wars" which are wars in all but name. If they really meant it, they would take that responsibility back. It's more about degrees of good vs degrees of bad. There is no clear-cut good guy and we have to live with that. There are people who are bothered by the duality.

pjc50 4y ago
> Bush and Obama are rehabilitated I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him, they've just added more people to the front of the list.
- mc32 4y ago
  Maybe in theory, in practice anything moved down the list basically is not on a list.
- newaccount2023 4y ago
  > I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him they did after he trash talked Trump apparently saying "grab her by the p----y" is worse than starting two wars
  - comte7092 4y ago
    Name one leftist who got on that bandwagon.
- stametseater 4y ago
  [flagged]
krapp 4y ago
>On balance was it good? It's an open question. No, it isn't an open question. The United States dragged the world into a war based on lies and false pretenses. It invaded and destroyed a sovereign state, allowing museums and priceless cultural artifacts to be looted and burned, murdered millions of people - Iraqis and allies - and left a broken country to the depredations of the insurgent forces their own ham-fisted belligerance created. And no one knows why. It wasn't because of WMD, that was bullshit. Not because Iraqi intelligence had a hand in 9/11. Not yellowcake from Africa. All lies. Not even for the oil. We didn't even take the fucking oil. Why? Because the neocons already had plans to Christianize and democratize the Middle East? Because Bush wanted to cement his family's legacy? Because Afghanistan wasn't big enough to satisfy American bloodlust against Muslims post 9/11? It was evil. Unqualified evil. Absolute evil. Evil that will have the United States mentioned in the same breath as Nazi Germany for the next hundred years.
- mc32 4y ago
  It's an open question because we don't know how things would have panned out if Iraq had continued under Saddam. He might have gone for Iraq-Iran War II with the commensurate casualties, or he may have mellowed out and been much better off than the Bush alternative. We don't know, therefore it's an open question. But, yes, we should have a congressional inquiry with teeth to find out why and punish wrongdoers and establish a precedence by congress that a president cannot go sending American soldiers to war capriciously without having to answer why and have convincing reasons.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Iran-Iraq War 1 was supported by the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... (apart from the bit where the illegally conducted private foreign policy was selling arms to the other side in order to fund some other terrorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair ; really it was the pardoning of everyone involved in Iran-Contra that set the stage for the Iraq war misconduct. Oliver North ending up as a TV host rather than, say, jail)

by mc32 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

> Bush and Obama are rehabilitated I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him, they've just added more people to the front of the list.

mc32 4y ago
Maybe in theory, in practice anything moved down the list basically is not on a list.
newaccount2023 4y ago
> I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him they did after he trash talked Trump apparently saying "grab her by the p----y" is worse than starting two wars
- comte7092 4y ago
  Name one leftist who got on that bandwagon.
stametseater 4y ago
[flagged]

krapp 4y ago

>On balance was it good? It's an open question. No, it isn't an open question. The United States dragged the world into a war based on lies and false pretenses. It invaded and destroyed a sovereign state, allowing museums and priceless cultural artifacts to be looted and burned, murdered millions of people - Iraqis and allies - and left a broken country to the depredations of the insurgent forces their own ham-fisted belligerance created. And no one knows why. It wasn't because of WMD, that was bullshit. Not because Iraqi intelligence had a hand in 9/11. Not yellowcake from Africa. All lies. Not even for the oil. We didn't even take the fucking oil. Why? Because the neocons already had plans to Christianize and democratize the Middle East? Because Bush wanted to cement his family's legacy? Because Afghanistan wasn't big enough to satisfy American bloodlust against Muslims post 9/11? It was evil. Unqualified evil. Absolute evil. Evil that will have the United States mentioned in the same breath as Nazi Germany for the next hundred years.

mc32 4y ago
It's an open question because we don't know how things would have panned out if Iraq had continued under Saddam. He might have gone for Iraq-Iran War II with the commensurate casualties, or he may have mellowed out and been much better off than the Bush alternative. We don't know, therefore it's an open question. But, yes, we should have a congressional inquiry with teeth to find out why and punish wrongdoers and establish a precedence by congress that a president cannot go sending American soldiers to war capriciously without having to answer why and have convincing reasons.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Iran-Iraq War 1 was supported by the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... (apart from the bit where the illegally conducted private foreign policy was selling arms to the other side in order to fund some other terrorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair ; really it was the pardoning of everyone involved in Iran-Contra that set the stage for the Iraq war misconduct. Oliver North ending up as a TV host rather than, say, jail)