At 2p.m. British time on Monday the 12th of February, I turned on Sky News. I was greeted by the sight and sound of various people (including a bearded person in Washington DC – who I think I remember watching on the BBC some years ago) going on about how the “legislators and media” in America doubted the “claims” that Iran has been arming and training the terrorists in Iraq (O.K. “the resistance” to you ‘progressive’ people out there).
Supposedly the evil Bush and his henchmen are cooking up stories to justify plans to attack the peace loving Islamic Republic of Iran.
Of course the Iranians (and their friends ‘The Party of God’ in Lebanon) have been arming and training people in Iraq for years. Many Americans and British soldiers and Iraqi soldiers, police and civilians have been killed by these Iranian actions.
Indeed the Iranian regime has even armed Sunni groups in Iraq – even though it knows that some of these groups kill large numbers of Shia. Causing blood soaked chaos (in order to undermine the Western will to fight) is the main aim – even if very large numbers of Shia are killed.
The Iranian regime has been in a de facto state of war with the United States (really with the West generally) for 28 years – even since the Iranian Revolution which occurred after President Carter betrayed the Shah.
To give a example, the Iranian regime was behind the suicide bombings against the Americans and French in Lebanon in 1983. Bombings that killed hundreds and mutilated many others.
The President of Iran is one of the people who invaded the American embassy in Iran and held the Americans there hostage (in various places) for a year, he holds that Israel should and will be wiped off the map and that the ‘hidden Iman’ will soon lead the Faithful to world conquest. The ‘Supreme Leader’ of Iran and the ‘Council of Guardians’ agree with this theology and they wish us all dead (or enslaved). Now the people of Sky News can ignore all this if they choose. They can say that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (but for some reason they do not mention President Clinton, and many others, who believed much the same) and they can ignore (as The Economist now chooses to do) the evidence that Saddam Hussain was still very active in his plans to gain atomic weapons, although he did not have the same industrial capacity, thanks to such things as the Israeli attack of 1980 and the Gulf war of 1991 and its consequences, that Iran does.
The actions of Iran (in both terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction) are on a much bigger scale than Saddam’s were by 2003 (as Iran’s capacity is greater). I did not support the judgement to go into Iraq, but I understand what retreat in the face of Iranian pressure would mean. But, as I have said, Sky News is free to ignore all this.
Indeed it is free to support the ‘American media’ that it so faithfully cites. Even though the entertainment end of the American media were busy giving ex President Carter an price for his latest everything-is-the-Jews-fault book on Sunday night (he was honoured with the ‘Dixie Chicks’ and other profound thinkers).
However, my question is simple. What is the point of Sky News?
I can see the point of Fox News, which is to offer an alternative to the standard ‘progressive’ line of the broadcasting media. But what is the point of Sky News?
How is the “Bush dubious claims” stuff I heard there any different from the BBC, or from CNN, or from the English language service of France or Russia or India or China, or Head Hacker TV with David Frost?
In Britain, Sky News is no different from the BBC or ITV or Channel Four – so I say again, what is the point of it?
What’s the point of another news channel? Why, that someone guessed there were more people who wanted to buy advertising time on news channels than there was ad space available on existing news channels, and was willing to risk his or her (or their backers’) money to see if they could take profits off the resulting revenue.
I should hardly have imagined I’d have to point this out here.
What’s the point of watching Sky News instead of another channel, that, I couldn’t say.
Paul I mainly watch Sky news for the simple reason that it isn’t as bad as the BBC news (I don’t even bother with Channel 4 news). However I suspect many of the journalists working for Sky really want to work for the BBC who I suspect pay more. So they ape the views of the BBC journalists in the hope of getting noticed and getting a nice safe job.
Personally I avoid the BBC news like the plague these days since there is nothing of interest bar the occasional attack on Cameron and fawning platitudes to Labour. Sky News isn’t that much better either with that waste of space Boulton. About the only TV news I can stand for more than 5 minutes is indeed the Channel 4 news, given that ITN appears to have completely given up on ITV – their news appears to be just a rather bad extension of Hello magazine now.
Perhaps there might be room now for a serious alternative to ITN to take over. Reuters perhaps?
“Forgetting” your previous stances is standard operating procedure for cable news here in the US, CNN especially.
Right now cable news outlets are presenting every bit of evidence that Iran is harming US interests in Iraq without any doubt that Iran is the bad guy. That will change about 3 month into any sort of war with Iran. Then we’ll start seeing stories about faulty intelligence, US propaganda, hidden agendas, and racism.
They did the same thing with Iraq (both wars). They built up the “Let’s go kick their ass” hype and then, once the gears of war were in motion and unstoppable, turned to stories about how the US was wrong about “rushing” to war, or how “too much force” was applied, or how it’s being done in an incompetent manner (seeing as how a news anchor is the definitive source for military logistics and strategy).
As far as Sky being a poor carbon copy (people still use carbon paper right?) of the Beeb, much could be said of MSNBC being a poor man’s CNN. I say let the markets decide. They certainly have here, as no one seems to watch MSNBC, as most people prefer to get their biased news from the other two news outlets. Well, three if you count BBC broadcasts on BBC America or whenever they run it on local public access stations.
How is the “Bush dubious claims” stuff I heard there any different from the BBC
Maybe it isn’t any different because Bush’s claims are dubious, not because of some fiendish media conspiracy to misrepresent him.
I don’t have any sixth sense that tells me what the military situation is in Iraq and how it gets that way. If you do, then there is a huge fortune for you to make supplying military intelligence.
What you can’t do is derive valid military intelligence from information everyone has about the Iranian president being a loose canon and the long-running very low level conflict between Iran and the US. You can say that makes Bush’s claims more plausible. You cannot say it makes them true.
Absent the sixth sense, we need some evidence for those claims, whether they are plausible or not. The global news organisations (with a little more opportunity to do so than private individuals in England), plainly haven’t seen any persuasive evidence, and they may be mindful that the same US administration engineered a pretext for attacking Saddam’s Iraq after similarly making it plain that it was spoiling for a fight.
Given that making the claims can only increase the tension between the US and Iran, and at the same time encourage anti-US militants in Iraq and elsewhwere by letting them think they have an ally, it is hard to see what diplomatic or tactical advantage there is in making them, unless the US does want to increase tension more than it cares about weakening its position elsewhere. If they aren’t dubious, they are plain wierd – or the fact of making them is.
The reason is that journalists need to have an alternative to their current work place because they need to have power to increase their wages via competition.
If there is a Conservative, a Socialist, a pro EU and an anti EU TV stations they are stuck in their respective places for life.
Only when the News Market surpasses the Journalist Market things will change.
No, Quenton, nobody uses carbon paper anymore. This is 2007.
I think Paul Marks sums up the situation with our pals in Tehran and Qom very nicely. One minor quibble (and it really is splitting hairs: the Osirak raid was in ’81 not ’80).
Still, it was bloody well done and those F-16s must have been flying on vapour by the time they returned.
Hats off to the IAF, that was a piece of work!
Which is the problem. The West is not going to get tough enough with the ayatollahs because we know that if we leave it long enough Israel will be forced to do something. For the politicos of the West this is the ideal solution because it removes the threat without the West dirtying it’s hands and the invariable image of the dead Arab baby on BBC News is clearly somebody else’s fault. Israel will be subjected to the usual UN roasting but behind the scenes practically everybody will be saying “cheers mate!” to the Israelis.
The great irony of this is that it feeds into Arab muslim paranoia because we really are using Israel as the “attack dog” of the West.
A few years back I made a prediction to some pals that nuclear weapons would be deployed in anger in my lifetime. I was met by shocked silence then so I’ll re-jig my estimate to within 5 years.
Unless somebody stops Iran there will be hell to pay.
I gotta disagree with the implication that the United States should take some action against Iran. A, the claim that Bush is manufacturing “evidence” against Iran is not so totally unreasonable, considering that he tricked the American people into supporting a war in Iraq using such methods.
Here is what the United States needs to do:
1) Cut all military and economic aid to every country in the world. Only one group of people, namely U.S. citizens, pay U.S. taxes. Therefore, they are the only group of people in the entire world who deserve American military protection. Even they don’t deserve American economic assistance, except in the form of tax cuts.
2) Accept that if there is war between Israel and the Arabs, Israel may not win. It may not even continue to exist. That’s OK. As far as I know, the continued existence of Israel does not advance any valid U.S. interest. Even if they did, whatever it was, they would not be worth supporting. Supporting Israel directly supports their illegal occupation of the West Bank and their awful human rights and civil liberties record. It is not surprising that their victims are somewhat grumpy at us. The Islamists do not get their support because they hate freedom. They may not want freedom for themselves, but if freedom itself was the problem, they’re much closer to Europe then they are to us. But it probably annoys them that of all the bombs and bullets they’ve dodged, all the dictators they have suffered under, all of the socialist economies that have impoverished them have been supported, one way or the other, by the United States. It sure would annoy me if I had to live under the Shah, or the Ayatollahs, or Hussein, or the Taliban, or Israel’s military occupation, or any of the other governments that the U.S. has been propping up. Even the new Iraqi constitution does not include the right to keep and bear arms. Another tyranny in the making.
3) Accept that the prices of oil will fluctuate until they eventually establish some sort of stability there. If there is oil available from there buy it. If there is not, buy it elsewhere or do not buy it. If the prices get high, other energy sources get more economically feasible. If they do not, we can use oil. It is the market’s job to solve such problems. It is government’s job to create problems for the market to solve. If we cut back on the latter, the former will take care of itself.
4) Accept that some governments may exist in the world that we do not like. Accept the rights of other countries to be damn fools. Instead of trying to force other nations to follow our lead, which be it’s very nature removes the possibility of our leading in the right direction, we should lead by example, by demonstrating how freedom, combined with a policy of free trade with all nations and entangling alliances with none, can make a nation healthy and wealthy. Following that lead would make them wise.
5) Bring all U.S. troops within U.S. borders. Prepare to defend those borders against any and all threats from without. Announce that any aggression against the United States will result in the responsible parties being bombed to glass. (Glass results when sand melts. Think about it.)
6) Proceed to prove the forgoing if needed. This with no nation building, no welfare to the enemy, no attempts to impose democracy on people who don’t want it. Just bombs and bullets and repeat as needed.
Sooner or later, they will either run out of the means to make war, the will to make war, or the population to make war. And since we’re no longer supporting their enemies, within or without their borders, they would very quickly run out of (sane) reasons to make war.
7) Let the rest of the world deal with their failed governments, while we dismantle our failing government. When war breaks out, allow our private companies to send salesmen to either or both sides. Announce that we will not defend their ships at sea, however, so they had better charge enough to either buy insurance for their ships at sea and cargoes, or to self insure against loss, or to pay for the arming of such ships to allow them to defend themselves. We don’t want to get dragged into something the way we were dragged into the World Wars. If business gets the benefits of trade, business should pay the costs thereof. Anything else is corporate welfare.
8) Relax. Get rich. Enjoy.
I forgot. We should also withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, and any and all foreign treaties that specify anything beyond “If you don’t bomb us, we won’t bomb you”.
Rich Paul… interesting but that is really not what the article is about.
The discovery of Iranian ammunition et. al. seems to have been a fairly regular first hand report on MilBlogs, so I tend to believe that it’s true. Paul’s potted history also points out that there is tremendous form. It’d also be absurd for Iran not to.
Sky doesn’t positively add much to our culture. Obviously, it doesn’t have to. It apparently makes money, so it’s doing what it’s meant to.
The key benefit of Sky is negative. It detracts from the BBC’s viewing numbers. Most viewers of Sky news are being saved from taking part in the promotion of the Beeb’s legitimacy as a state funded body.
There are about 130,000 reasons why American Intel in Iraq is better now than it was five years ago.
I can’t remember any doubt being cast when the British showed evidence of Iranian involvement in Basra.
Sky News has been losing market share since its rebranding into BBC-lite. Come back Richard Littlejohn, all is almost forgiven! At least he didn’t offer us the usual regurgitated cultural-marxist claptrap.
Rich Paul,
Check your facts. There are plenty of non US citizens paying US taxes. There are also plenty of US citizens living outside the US and paying US taxes.
Sorry, suppose I was off topic. I’m just so tired of having U.S. blood and treasure wasted trying to police the world against every bogyman that my government can find, invent, or create that it makes my blood boil.
ResidentAlien:
It is, of course, true that non-citizens within our borders should be included in our military (and police) protection. On the military side, it’s really the territory that gets protected. But since neither the U.S. Army nor the F.B.I. is going to come running to the rescue if citizens abroad are harmed, I’d say that they should not (though I know they are) be taxed.
Nick M,
Unless somebody stops Iran there will be hell to pay.
Quite the contrary. Trying to “stop Iran” ensures hell to pay. This is the good old enemy, the personalisation of nation states.
Powers are contained, balanced, managed, weakened sometimes – but not stopped. It is crazy to look for clearcut or final solutions in international politics. Seeing the back of Ahmadinejad would perhaps be a route towards Iranian containment, but sabre-rattling might well strengthen his internal position.
Julian, it would be nice to think that Reuters woudl re-enter the fray in running a serious news channel, but that is not going to happen in the near term. Reuters is still pouring millions in expanding its news wire service to China and Asia, and TV tends to eat up cash at an alarming rate. Plus, if it is political bias we are worried about, Reuters’ BBC-lite tendencies are not particularly encouraging. (Given my close sources to Reuters, I should know).
That said, Reuters could, if it tried, do something to rival the BBC World Service.
Paul’s points on Iran are excellent. I guess the problem here is that many people simply do not want to face up to what Iran and its leadership now is. It is plain denial, pure and simple,.
fixed.
Quite right, I wish those bastard Jews would stop their wimpering. Always with the “oh look this country wants to kill us, that country wants to kill us, it might not turn out so nice for you guys either, pass the gefilte fish”. And when has it ever happened? Never, that’s when.
Just like that retard Churchill, “let’s strangle Bloshevism in the cradle, or we’ll regret it” Rubbish! “We better stop Hitler sooner rather than later” Crap! Clearly it was, in fact, this sort of personification of states that led to any, rather minor, problems with the pair in any case. Stalin took legitimate offense at our (or rather that of the less enlightened among us) use of vulgar hegelianism in elucidating a foreign policy. Naturally he repsonded by taking out a few Ukrainians, but like I said, who gives a flying monkey’s anyway?
French style realpolitik is the only proven way to stop major disasters. So I say, why fix it if it ain’t broke and if milions of Jews die go… I mean that’s none of our concern. Anyway I’m off to read the New Statesmen.
Gabriel, I think you are being very unfair to Rich. He is not arguing for appeasement a la 1939, merely stating that it is the not the job of the USA or Britain to be the world’s designated driver while everyone else is drunk. He is saying that states should focus on self defence, not pre-emptively trying to fix the world’s problems. I may demur from his assessment of risks, but he has a point.
My main quibble with Rich was his biased description of Israel, a country that would be targeted for destruction even if it changed some of its actions vis the West Bank, etc.
I would have to take issue on that. In this current climate the USA needs to be seen to be backing up its bets, regardless of whether those bets are Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan or any other country on the receiving end of a USA pledge.
Just look at the 40’s/50’s/60’s to see how the British withdrawal from Empire was seen not so much as isolationism but as the cowardly British running home from the problems of the world. If the USA embarked on such a course now you would be perceived as handing a massive propaganda coup to Al Queda and every other anti-American cause.
Sooo…. Anyone remember the “What is the point of Sky News” thingy?
…and has anyone noticed that most of the news channel reporters and anchor people seem to spend so much time flapping their gums to fill up air time that no one seems to notice (least of all them or their editors/producers) that they often talk absolute excitable nonsense.
Also what is that thing where they seem to have taken to interviewing each other?
I’m not sure what I found more painful, the jarring and repetitive grammar of the original post or Rich Paul’s ignorance of history, international relations, and regurgitation of Jimmy Carter’s latest fiction.
I think Guy Herbert summed up the point of Sky News best – to make money and sell advertising space. What’s the point of having different brands of peanut butter? The taste is only slightly different for each one, but as long as the manufacturers can make money selling peanut butter, good on them.
Correction: Kevin’s post, not Guy’s.
Phil A: re. interviewing each other. I noticed that, too. Reminds me of the wonderful parody Broken News that was on last year some time.
I did find Sky News had the more informative coverage during the Iraq war. I mainly watched it for the interviews with Wilf Owen, who I think was an ex-army guy and had interesting things to say about military matters.
Well actually I was being unfair to Guy. All I did to rich is imply that he is ignorant, which is a statement of fact. Point (3), I think, shows this most obviously, unless we have re-defined “free market” to signify a market completely controlled by governments composed of darker skinned peoples. I can count 8 basic errors in (2) and a number of claims that are mutually incompatible.
“Supporting Israel directly supports their illegal occupation of the West Bank and their awful human rights and civil liberties record.”
Occupation of West Bank isnt illegal. It wasnt illegal the occupation of Germany after WW2 until the Nazis were cleaned or forced to change at gun point . Only an idiot would let give birth at is side of something that want to destroy him.
Not even going to comment on the Sky News portion of this. To the geniuses out there who think the U.S. should attack Iran– have you considered the consequences? I’ll sum it up for you. Iran shuts down the Straight of Hormuz; 40% of the world’s oil supply stops flowing; global economic collapse; global world war. Oh, and the “mini-nukes” have a 1-340kt range– that’s 23 times the Hiroshima bomb if set to max. The explosion is not contained under ground…we’re talking about massive fallout floating downwind as far as India, and bringing nukes back into play after containing them for 60 years. You won’t hear that on Fox news. Bush and Cheney would rather destroy the world than admit that their little Project For a New American Century failed. I’m also guessing that Israel can “defend” itself with those 200 nukes and the massive conventional military they weild. One last question: Are the Saudi’s supporting the Sunnis in Iraq? Don’t hear that question too often….I wonder why? This new “evidence” against Iran is so weak that it’s presented by anonymous sources. This is worse than Powel’s crayon drawings at the U.N. God fricking help us.
I remember the first time I watched SkyNews. I thought it would be like FOXNews and a real alternative to the Beeb. Those are 11 minutes I’ll never have back.
I’ve always wondered if a FOXNews type of channel would find viewers and advertisers in the UK.
I hate to sound like a FOX shill, they provide 22.25 hours of horrid celebrity crap and yellow journalism a day. But then they have seven or eight shows a week that are good and couldn’t be found anywhere else.
I suspect that Fox News type operation (even though there are many Democrats who either work for, or appear on, the network) would run into problems with British regulations – I expected Guy Herbert to bring that up (as he knows more about the regulations than I do), but he did other things instead.
No President Bush did not make any “dubious claims” Guy (and why the “maybe” – state a opinion openly or not at all, do not hide behind “maybe”).
Actually (in the press conference I watched) President Bush was rather weak. Just pointing out that the stuff and the training came from Iran, but saying that the top people in the government might not know about it.
As these people have (in various capacities) been engaged in war against the United States for 28 years this does not seem likely.
As for Guy not having any E.S.P. about Iraq. Neither do I Guy – and I do not need it (nor do you).
On interventionism:
As I said I did not support the judgement to go into Iraq. My judgement was that (although the ceasefire violations provided a legal justification for invasion) Saddam did not, at the time, have the capacity to be a clear and present danger.
However, my judgement could have been quite wrong. Many people held it to be quite wrong (and no, whoever it was, the evil Bush/Hitler did not distort the evidence – he interpreted it in the same way a lot of other people did).
If Saddam had develped weapons of mass destruction (as he was trying to do) and (say) reduced central London to radioactive slag (by giving a weapon to a terrorist group) – well me looking silly (for not supporting intervention) would be the least of our worries.
Would war with Iran be the correct move now?
I do not know.
In an ideal world the C.I.A. would be able to help overthrow the Islamic regime without any war. But the world is not ideal – and the C.I.A. failed time and again to overthrow Saddam (indeed factions in the C.I.A. even held that the comming to power of the Arab Socialist party back in 1968 would turn out well).
Apart from writing intelligence reports (which whilst they are not lies are not original either – they tend to be cut and paste jobs from sources anyone could get), I am not sure what the modern C.I.A. is for (although, I admit, they had some great successes in the past – such as Italy in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s).
Perhaps (now I am sounding like Guy with his maybe) I am being unfair to the C.I.A. (success in the covert world might be kept covert), but I just do not see them getting the job done.
I remember listening to various ex C.I.A. people who said they had trouble getting the Agency to even understand that the Iranian regime was dedicated to the destruction of the United States (and to the West in general) – the bureacratic structure thought (if it thought at all) like an “International Relations” academic with no link to the real world.
As for war. Actually I will use Guy’s “maybe” (thus giving him the right to point out that I have been inconsistant). I just do not know. There are so many ways for the government to mess up this sort of operation .
Certainly I agree with Guy that a limited attack would actually make the regime stronger.
As for an attack to destroy the atomic weapons production capacity. That might, if there is to be no invasion, have to be a nuclear attack itself (as so much of it is deep underground). And I can not see President Bush ordering such an attack.
Rob complained about my jarring and repetitive grammar.
I must plead guilty. I have never had any interest in such things, so (no doubt) I am guilty of all sorts of grammatical errors.
It is a credit to this site that people like Rich Paul are on it.
Here is just a thought: We are goddamn fools for calling Iranians meddlers in Iraq while while we have 130,000 meddlers in Iraq.
So to SkyNews–I dunno anything about it. But television news in the states shows Pink Floyd were prophets. There are always at least “fourteen channels of shit (news) to choose from.” I would love to see more channels like C-Span reporting from other countries.
Well in Britain (via sat – but not a special package, just the standard fifteen Pounds a month, which covers lots of stuff as well as news and current affairs) I get several American news channels , several European ones (in English) and the English language news channels of the French, Russians, Indians and Chinese (as well as Head Hacker T.V. with David Frost – who has been working on anti West propaganda since “That was the week that was” back in the early 1960’s).
Of course I tend to mostly watch Fox (it is odd, I often do not agree with what is said – but I always feel better), but the other stuff is there. I am sure it is the same for you (via sat or cable – if you access to cable which I do not).
Of course there are poor shows on all the stations. But there are also good shows – and the coverage sometimes covers different things (for example Russian, Indian and Chinese television cover local stories that I would not see anywhere else – of course they have a leftist bias, but it is no worse than the B.B.C.).
So come on Michiganny – either get cable, or just put a sat dish on your house (as you know they are very small these days).
By the way what the “goddamn fools” are saying is that the Irainians are killing Americans in Iraq.
In fact the Iranian regime has been killing Americans (around the world) for 28 years.
Perhaps one day you will understand that when one’s country is at war with a ruthless and evil enemy it is a good thing to support one’s country.
I am not American – and I still understand that.
As for Rich Paul – I found his comments about Israel’s human rights record (and so on) rather amusing (in a sick sort of way).
In 1948 some Arabs did indeed leave the part of the Holy Land that the Jews managed to hold on to (the Arabs were trying to drive the Jews into the sea at the time) indeed some Arabs were forced out (although that was not the policy of the elected Jewish leadership). However many Arabs stayed and about 20% of the citizens of Israel are now Arabs – mostly Muslims (included the soldier who shot a British person in Gaza – although the B.B.C. have never mentioned this and continue to imply that the Jews were to blame).
The Jews who were in the areas of the Holy Land that the Arabs took (such as the “West Bank”, which almost cuts Israel in two, and Gaza) had a rather different experience.
An experience of mutilation and death that had also occured in the 1930’s and 1920’s – and during the First World War.
Indeed even as early as 1890 the largest population group in Jerusalem were the Jews. Most (although not all) “Palestinians” (as some Arabs call themselves) came from Egypt after this date.
Also, for all the alleged flaws in Jews, the religion does not demand world conquest – Islam (as interpreted by many, although far from all, Muslims) does. Muslims (whether Sunni or Shia) who interpret Islam as demanding world conquest can not be wished away just because the world would be a more fluffy place if they believed differently than they do.
Just tossing the Jews to be exterminated will NOT buy the United States peace. Even the anti interventionist Thomas Jefferson understood this (see his policy towards elements in Muslim North Africa).
There are vastly more Muslims than there used to be (even in 1900 they were such a small minority of the worlds population that just ignoring them was a possible policy) and (thanks to oil) they have a lot of money (which both Shia Iran and “our friends the Saudis” of the Wahabi Sunni, use to spread their death-to-the-infidels message round the world).
By the way, in spite of the name “Marks”, I am not a Jew – although my grandfather (on the father’s side – the mother being the important side for Jews) was a Jew.
I admit that some relatives were killed by the National Socialists (perhaps in camps that the Arab Grand Mufti visited – camp visits were a thing that even Adolf Hitler did not do), but a relative of my mother’s was blown up in the King David hotel in Jerusalem by Jewish terrorists.
So, I hope, I will not be accused of proJewish bias.
First, let me say that as an American citizen, I do not consider myself to have been “fooled” by the Bush administration. I saw the evidence they laid out, I consulted my own sources, and I decided that prudence dictated that we had to invade. I am not a child who sits slack-jawed at the tube nodding “uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh” at whatever my leaders are saying at the moment and taking it as gospel. I have an independent and well-advanced mind of my own. I understand probability theory and risk theory and I base my political choices on sifting through the best information available and making decisions on that basis.
Iraq was no bed of roses before the invasion and, terrorism did not spontaneously appear when George W. Bush took office. I am glad we invaded. It was the right thing to do strategically, economically, and morally. There has been no catastrophe – indeed, this is the lowest casualty conflict we have ever fought for such high stakes. Rome was not built in a day, neither will the benighted Middle East be brought into the modern era painlessly.
Yes, the advanced nations of the world have the duty to be and are the de facto police force of the world. I am not going to sit idly by cringing and wringing my hands and supposing that we are impotent against tinpot dictators who thump their chests and try to get away with as much as we will allow. The narrative of history is clear: when you allow despots to flourish in the hope of avoiding pain today, you are only setting yourself up for far greater pain in the future. Isolationism in today’s shrunken world is a stupid and blinkered policy prescription. If you think the fanatics can be appeased by handing them the Sudetenland, excuse me, Israel, then you have no grasp of history and no fundamental intelligence.
Oh and, as to the question of whether Iran is fomenting strife and death in Iraq and if the US that wants to build up a democratic Iraq is morally equivalent to an Iran that wants to tear it down I can only say, what are you, retarded?