Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Stop bitching and offer up a REALISTIC alternative. Newsflash - neither the UN nor NATO would have gone in to Iraq even if we would have asked nicely. Neither has sufficient troops (apart from ours) and are both content to let the US suffer the costs and casualties. And why not? They've been riding our coat tails for the last 60 years, why should they stop now.
|
Stepping away from the decision to go in for a moment, because clearly the battle lines have been drawn on that one, I'm curious whether you think it would have been an unrealistic alternative to involve the world community sooner after the end of "major combat".
At that time we went to the UN and got a resolution basically making the reconstruction our show. Then months later, once things started to go less smoothly, we went back for a new resolution that we hoped would somehow encourage other countries to help more. None have stepped forward, leaving the price tag on the shoulders of the American taxpayers to the tune of $100+ billion so far (including military costs).
After the experience of the first Iraq war, where through attention to our diplomatic relationships and some pointed arm-twisting from James Baker the US paid only $9b of the $61b price tag, are you really telling me that there was no realistic alternative to this administration's handling of Iraq? Have our former allies in NATO and the UN gotten so selfish over the intervening 10 years?
Or am I misreading you and this argument only about the decision to go in to Iraq? Even so, I would argue that the successful reconstruction of Iraq is part of "taking the fight to the terorrists" and I'm rather disappointed by our prosecution of that reconstruction.
(As I said yesterday, I don't have much problem with the ad, mainly because if people believe it they deserve Bush as their president)
