Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
The difference is that I have a report that tells me that 7 of 16 are going well. You simply have your skepticism to disbelieve that. Skepticism is usually very affected by emotion. I am simply pointing out that you say you "find it hard to believe" yet you gave no resaon why and I suspect it is because you don't really have any concrete reasons.
And where did I say it was going great? Good old fashioned misdirection with that comment if you ask me. Don't have a good argument, then just project an opinion into someone else's argument to weaken it I guess.
|
Look, I have no problems saying that I was against this war from the start. So yes, my outlook on what the Bush administration tells me is "progress" is a bit jaundiced. Especially when you consider that the "progress" they speak of comes with the price of blood spilled by American troops who never should have been responsible for Iraq's "progress" to begin with.
This never should have been our fight. Iraq posed NO threat to us whatsoever. Overthrowing Saddam upset the balance of power in the middle east. And instead of the misguided hope of making Iran and Syria shake in their boots at the strength and might of American military superiority in that region, they are licking their chops at the prospects of a weakened Iraq and all of their oil reserves.
No matter how they define "progress" -- it was still a dreadful foreign policy decision, it destroyed our credibility in the world, it has emboldened al Queda, increased their recruitment levels, spread our defenses way too thin, and cost the lives of over 3000 Americans and wounded nearly 30,000 more.
So, I stand by my statement. No matter the outcome, the "progress" has come at too high a price.