“We didn’t support Iraq for Iraq’s sake- we supported them as a counterbalance in securing freedom of the seas and American interests. Whether you take the enemy-of-my-enemy approach or not, ultimately the support we lent to Iraq during their engagements does not equate to the support of a WMD program utilized against its own people. The two events are mutually exclusive. Period.”
“Bullshit. Every action has consequences. Many of these consequences are both inconvenient and unintentional. That doesn’t make them go away.”
Congratulations on the vagueness of the statement; however, the consequences of American support of Iraq during their war had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam using chemical weapons on the Kurds. No one puts blame of any sort on the United States for Saddam’s actions, so I am happy to report that this connection only occurs in your mind. If rationality were imagination, you would have walked off with this argument posts ago. Let’s try something: you keep espousing the statement that United States was responsible for Saddam’s mass murder of the Kurds as many times as you can, and we’ll see if it becomes truer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“So you give a man a gun and a magazine and say, “Go shoot at that bad guy.” He does, but on the way he also empties three rounds into someone else who he just happens to be upset with as well.”
Again, only you and you alone use this analogy. But remember the game! Keep saying it, and it might turn into a truism!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your sarcasm was noted, but you’re mistaken if you think I was being as such when I posed this question.
“Why- preytell, would we even need to respond elsewhere if our War on Terror is "ended"? If our need to curtail terror activity has ended, why should our ability to respond elsewhere even be an issue?”
This question came from your twin statements, which contradict each other. In the first instance, you stated:
“Since you mention the larger GWOT, you should know that our war in Iraq has more or less ended it.”
In the same instance, you state:
“We'll be recovering from this for a long time, and our ability to respond elsewhere is severely diminished.”
My question still stands: if our war on terror has effectively ended because of Iraq, then why would the need to “respond elsewhere” even be an issue?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I wouldn’t tell that to the people of London, Madrid, Norway, or France. Unlike you, they might not be under the false notion that terror attacks only happen in the east portion of the world.”
Again, sarcasm.”
You need help in the sarcasm department. The use of sarcasm is employed to show irony and satire; you go along with an argument for farce-sake. My argument has never been that our engagement against terrorism is or should be isolated to two primary locations, or that terrorism will be the only problem America will encounter around the world. As such, you have nothing to be sarcastic about, unless you blindingly assume that I believe as much. This would be mildly ironic and amusing, since it is you who attempted to show wit to begin with.
Enough horse beating. Long story short- work on your use of sarcasm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We shouldn’t have to respond in many places. We should be utilizing the UN and other countries to rid themselves of their own injustices. Being proactive and solution-oriented is what solves this. The world does not hate the United States. Our methodology is what they take issue with. The go it alone efforts shown by a handful of countries, led by the US, has been our only repertoire thus far. These same democracy-seeking countries demand the US go into them to rid terrorist activity, and then are not able to maintain their own autonomy after we leave. We need lasting results. Any ideas would be wonderful, and you would probably be surprised to know you and I would agree with each other about possible solutions.
