Does this mean we have to invade them, too?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When he was "no longer a threat" due to American airpower, were you in favor of continuing the American airpower? I mean, if he kills a few hundred thousand people, that's their business isn't it?

If I recall properly (I'm nowhere near sure of this), I was for protecting the Kurds with airpower to the point of ensuring sovereignty but against continuing the economic sanctions. But yes, I will say once again that Saddam was an Iraqi problem (though we we can be faulted for supporting the wacko) that should have been solved by an Iraqi bullet. This idea of creating a different culture in Iraq by violent imposition of democracy just doesn't wash. Right now we are looking across the border at Iran's elected leaders. Iraqi elections bring out the same kind of power madness. Reasonable mob rule depends on the mob being reasonable.

I've been very wrong on occasion on how best to repair the damage done by interventionists. The WOT is fast becoming, however, solid evidence of the foolishness of war-making to solve other peoples problems. The risk that was run invading Iraq was obvious to everyone, obvious enough to keep many moral people from running it. This question of who is being moral is one reason why this issue is so emotional. Both sides had moral positions if success was at all likely. War supportors believed the President to have special knowlege and trusted him. He had no special knowlege.

shock denial anger bargaining depression testing acceptance

Bush appears to be reaching the bargaining stage, maybe his supportors should move on as well.