you are a moron

Excellent post, Karol.

But watch out.

Nothing makes the left madder than signs of freedom.

Jake, thanks. It doesn't seem their 'arguments' have improved much either in the last 2 years.

Gee, Joshy, project much?

Everything's falling into place just as Wolfowitz's gang predicted, though a little faster... my guess is in 20 years President Bush will be as impossible to criticize on the national stage as Reagan is now.

Karol:

All your "heroes" are all staged photo ops, all your "results" are White House press releases masquerading as news, and all your "nay sayers" have been proven right.

Yaron:

I have no difficulty criticizing Reagan for supporting apartheid in South Africa and the Khmer Rouge in the UN. 20 years from now I'll have no problem criticizing Bush for corporate welfare and his for-profit war (assuming, of course, I haven't been disappeared by then).

The cost:
US credibility around the world massively impared. (Because of the decision to wage war on the notion of possible WMD and the failure to find them). Relatively safe haven for terrorists in Iraq. Overstretching of US Troops so that they will not be able to react adequatly to different threats that could turn out to be worse. A devided US, huge deficits, US moral authority questioned (Abu Grahib, Gitmo) and probably more stuff I can't think of.

Don't get me wrong I think he will be remembered as the president who changed it all. But I think he will also be remembered that f*cked up so many things it almost went wrong.

Don, I just can't imagine how you don't walk into walls. What's been proven right? We're there for oil for our fries?

Vincent, sorry to break it to you, but wars aren't flawless. If Democracy continues to take in the Middle East, that's all anyone will ever remember about W.

And if it doesn't that is all anyone will remember.

All the points Vincent made are accurate and if anyone here can provide proper evidence to the contrary be my (or rather Karol's) guest.

On the surface some things do look like they may turn out well but it is far too early to tell.

What happens to Iraq WHEN the US and "coalition" withdraw their forces?

Will a democratic Iraqi government survive long enough to be stable and can the Iraqis grapple with democracy in time to form a stable and prosperous country? Those who say NO out of hand are being overly negative to the same extent that those who proclaim it to have been a success and that things WILL improve are overly naive.

Jake I am on the political left just about and i place freedom higher on my list than prosperity and security. Is why i am disgusted that the government has passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It reduces EVERYONES freedom in order to counterbalance a threat that statistically has a minimal chance of doing lasting damage.

Alright, I don't want to get into another pissing contest, but: Don, when I said "the national stage" I chose my words carefully. A lot of people still hate Reagan, but you won't find a national politician of either party who's willing to say unkind things about him. They may think it, but they wouldn't say it.

Nick, your request to disprove these vague blanket statements is ridiculous. I, for one, say that the U.S. has never had more credibility than it does now. Disprove that, Mr. Accuracy!

Karol, that is probably true within the US, but outside the US I would doubt it. Each country writes its own history and will have it's own views on it. For instance I would contend that Reagan was as influencial as most people in the US make him out to be. This is to each country its own of course, but still there is allot that can happen in 4 years. And do not forget that most academic people have an aversion to this president and that probably includes historians. But when it comes down to Iraq I can imagine it looking as Bush having a debt to settle that his father left with the Iraqi people. But the cliche says history will tell...

And Yaron I can think of a moment in the 60's when the US ambassador to the UN, went to France and said to Charles de Gaulle that they had pictures of missiles coming in to Cuba. He said that all he needed was the word of the president. That's what I call credibility and what I'd like to see again.

Don, I just can't imagine how you don't walk into walls. What's been proven right? We're there for oil for our fries?

Karol, I wonder the same thing about you. Your complete and total blind faith in whatever your leaders tell you is amazing.

Yaron:

Your point about self-censorship is well-taken. With 51% of the electorate (and 90% of the news media) made up of blind followers like Karol, no one speaks the truth because no one is listening anyway.

Vincent - oh yes, that was the story Kerry told at the debate, I remember that. According to the Weekly Standard it's false.

Seriously, though this line of logic makes no sense because the French refused to help in Iraq even *before* we supposedly lost our credibility.

Don, I know it's the worst insult you can think of, calling someone a 'blind follower', but it would work better for you if that was accurate.

Did De Gaulle ever say to Acheson during his meeting to talk about the Cuban Missle Crisis,

"The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me."

Yaron, your link doesn't claim that conversation did not take place. That makes me believe it's not false but just spin to make it seem like Kerry lied by giving a different opinion about what Achesons purpose was.
All that link does is raise confusion over what Kennedy was doing.
Raising Support VS Informing.

If it really were false your link would have flat out said, "Acheson NEVER said those words to De Gaulle. Kerry is a big fat lier."

According to some book writing historians.
http://regulus.azstarnet.com/voteblog/000203.html

'After giving DeGaulle a summary of the situation and telling him that Kennedy planned to address the nation that night, Acheson then offered to show him the surveillance photos of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
"A great nation such as yours would not take such a step if there was any doubt," DeGaulle responded, according to Brugioni. "I need no such evidence. For our purposes, the missiles are there."'

AND

'"Put your document away," DeGaulle told Acheson, according to Lacouture. "I've enough to deal with as it is. The word of president of the United States is good enough for me."'

Karol,

The 'arguments' don't need to improve, they remain the same.

We were all duped by the government, right or left. They lied to us and the world. The reason going in was to get rid of Saddam, and he's long gone. Democracy was not the reason until after Saddam was captured.

Of course we can't just pull out completely now but we're sure in a hell of mess with no forseeable end and we should not be there.

Now the reason is to promote democracy within the region. It's a very good disguise for the no-bid, wealthy, nepotistic contractors who are securing Iraq's oil fields on behalf of our profiteering officials (2nd largest oil reserves in the world and we're there to promote democracy? I think you and everyone must know what's really going on. This is America. We make profits not democracies.

So now everything's cool because some men are able to vote! How about the women? Until the men in the region see and respect women as equals, there will be never be a real democracy.

And we're not going to change thousands of years of male dominated history and culture with this bloody, pointless, long-done conflict. But we're gonna control the oil there, that's a definite.

So it really is all about the oil, then?

All right. Then how come we haven't invaded Venezuela yet? I mean that country is a member of OPEC and is led by one Hugo Chavez, a Socialist leader who is opposed to the United States. Why not promote freedom and democracy there? We could probably take them in a week or so. Never mind that's a much shorter trip.

That doesn't excuse the reason why we are in Iraq but Venezuela has only the 4th largest oil reserves...don't worry we'll be there if necessary. In fact, you'll recall the coup attempt back in 2003? Totally supported by the U.S. government. Only difference is Chavez isn't trying to take the oil export profits for himself - he's trying to distribute them equitably to the people of Venezuela (there is your Socialist). Opposite of Saddam, but U.S. reasons for intervention are the same: OIL COMPANIES WILL LOSE PROFITS. Don't fool yourself about this government. We've been doing this shit to the world since we could figure out how to do it. How do you think we made it to the top?

So it really is all about the oil, then?

All right. Then how come we haven't invaded Venezuela yet? I mean that country is a member of OPEC and is led by one Hugo Chavez, a Socialist leader who is opposed to the United States. Why not promote freedom and democracy there? We could probably take them in a week or so. Never mind that's a much shorter trip.

Shawn, the White House doesn't want to upset OPEC. The White House is OWNED by OPEC!

Bush rode into office on a gusher of Big Oil money and filled the West Wing with dozens of Big Oil executives (look it up, Shawn...it's all quite above board and part of the public record).

Big Oil is making huge profits off oil at $56/barrel, and those high prices you're paying at the pump is going straight into the pockets of the men who paid for Dubya's campaign.

Actual freedom---in Iraq, in Venezuela, or in Saudi Arabia---would only serve to endanger Big Oil's profit margin.

Yaron if you really are dumb enough to believe that US credibility in the world has not been higher then for your own sake read proper news papers and watch something other than FOX. My country is Americas biggest supporter outside Israel and the majority of people do not view you in a favourable light. The country my family lives in (France) detests you with a passion. Ditto Germany where my best friend lives. Hardly anybody Trusts America anymore. Can't think why.

Nick, and can you tell me about that golden age when everybody loved America? Oh, before you were born was it? Never existed?! Why, that's all George W. Bush's fault.

Karol. If you wish to be asinine and puerile fine. On the off chance that was a serious invitation.

America has never had an age where EVERYONE loved it. no country ever has however the US was more popular (and you can argue the contrary till the cows come home if you like) under Clinton particularly in western Europe. I for one used to look up to American and felt it was a good nation to be allied and associated with. America in the 1950s was much more popular then than now.

FACT!!!!!!!! Americas credibility has plummeted since the Iraq War and the blame for that and FOR THE ENTIRE MESS lies in the white House.

Nick, Again, it may be harder for me to dispute this if I hadn't been an American living and traveling in Europe at the time. When you're the big, rich kid on the block, people are going to irrationally hate you. When you're blatant about it, like Bush, they're going to hate you more. That's the fact here.