That's what France says now. I guess it's only bad when the US does it "unilaterally" (that is, with Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Spain...)

Rand,

Not surprisingly, they are hypocrates. As are many democrats too for that matter. Had Gore been the one elected back in 2000, and had he done exactly what Bush did foreign policywise, a large number of the current supporters would be booing and hissing, and a large number of the current detractors would be cheering on the war. The ones who have to be respected even if you can't agree with them are the warmongers and those of us who have consistently been against military intervention outside of a nations borders.

All that said, just because one group is hypocritical doesn't mean that it was was wrong both times (but it also doesn't neccessarily mean they were right either time). In France's case, I personally think that they were right to oppose our action in Iraq--they could have chosen a more diplomatic way to do it, and their motives were far from good in that matter, but IMO their stance was the right one. Just because they're now acting like hypocrates doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of their previous action.

~Jon

Regardless of what you think about their duplicitous actions, I hope that no one with any sense continues to fantasize that it was in any way principled (unless the principle was "screw and impede the US hegemon" and "maintain the Iraqi bribes and kickbacks").

Get off it, France did nothing to impede the US liberation of Iraq. I don't remember the French Foreign Legion in my target list. Nor do I remember any trade embargo on US goods or even stopping United States tourist from entering France. All I saw was a lot of talk about how evil the US was, but they couldn't get excited about real evil in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, PRC, etc (the list is long) or even the skimming of oil-for-food money that allowed Iraqi children to starve.

I'm still waiting for the Pro-peace crowd to demonstrate for freedom in any of those countries. Jon will I ever see the big demonstrations for freedom? Except in places like Lebanon(!). Or does the left only march in support of dictators?

Buffpilot,

I don't do the demonstrations bit. Well, I did once, but it was a pro-life rally (and a rather tiny one at that). Hint, not everyone who thinks this war was wrong is a leftist. There are many principled people from both sides of the fence that have issues with the docterine of preemptive offensive war.

Rand,

I never had any delusions that France was doing this for the right reasons. That doesn't change the fact that in my opinion at least the war wasn't justified. It just means that they are hypocrates. Which I think we already agree on.

~Jon

the war wasn't justified

OK, Jon, but most Iraqis disagree with you. I recall a time when you used to at least pretend to care about them, back in more innocent times when you could blame their problems on us and the sanctions (ignoring Saddam's culpability).

"The anti-secession law is completely compatible with the position of France," he said in a joint press conference with his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao (photo).

I assume this compatibility is due to the extreme flexibility of the current French political leadership? I really doubt this guy speaks for France any more.

Jon,

First I second what Rand said. The protestors NEVER had the Iraqi peoples interests in mind. As they still don't for the long list of totalitarian countries I listed above. As for the coalition of the bribed (UN, France, Russia), its also quite clear their ineffectual interference was purely for the interests of their wallets and to hurt the US.

Again tell me why liberating 35 million Iraqi's from Saddam Hussien was a bad thing? Especially considering the ramifications playing out throughout the Islamic world. Why does the left believe it's fine to live under horrible despotism? That is the message I get loud and clear.

Now if you are against the invasion of Iraq becuase you thought Iran/Syria/Suadi should have been first. Ok, we disagree on tactics. But to win the war on terrorism we need to drain the swamp. Iraq was the, IMHO, the obvious next step (my fellow officers all thought this back in Dec 01, we expected an invasion in early fall of '02.) Just a little off on timing...

Rand,

> OK, Jon, but most Iraqis disagree with you.

And how exactly do you know that? And do you mean most Iraqis, or merely most Iraqi bloggers? I wonder how many Iraqis who've lost family, homes, friends, etc. really agree with you. I wonder how many women who are now being bullied and repressed far more than they were in the past agree with you. I wonder how many Iraqi Christians (many who have now left the country) agree with you. I wonder how many Sunnis agree with you (they are after all at least 20% of the population). I'm sure you can find some people who think that it was justified, but popularity does not equal morality. How many dead Iraqis if they could speak would be glad to have been killed for what you call the cause of freedom?

If removing a bad regime was really the reason for this war, there were options that Bush could have taken that didn't involve actually waging war on the people of Iraq and occupying their country.

> I recall a time when you used to at least
> pretend to care about them, back in more
> innocent times when you could blame their
> problems on us and the sanctions (ignoring
> Saddam's culpability).

I still do care about them, and that is why I still feel the war wasn't just, and that our occupation is also unjust and immoral. I at least can understand why there might be some difference of opinion, I don't think you'r stupid or malicious, or anything like that. But a big part of the reason why I oppose our continuing occupation there in Iraq is precisely because I *do* care about the people.

All of them.

Especially those who have been killed by our military actions, and those families who have been robbed of loved ones by our actions.

I could go on, but the point stands that one can care about the Iraqi people and still not support our invading and occupying their country. IMO, it's actually the more morally consistent view, but that me.

~Jon

And how exactly do you know that? And do you mean most Iraqis, or merely most Iraqi bloggers?

Most Iraqis who respond to opinion polls.

I wonder how many Iraqis who've lost family, homes, friends, etc. really agree with you.

They might, they might not. I don't know why you continue to delude yourself that many (more) Iraqis didn't lose family, homes, friends, etc. under Saddam.

[rest of bizarre attempts at moral equivalence, and ignoring how horrific Saddam's regime was, snipped]

If removing a bad regime was really the reason for this war, there were options that Bush could have taken that didn't involve actually waging war on the people of Iraq and occupying their country.

I've never seen anyone offer any plausible ones (particulary considering that he was bribing almost everyone who mattered, at least in terms of the UN, to keep him in power).

I *do* care about the people.

All of them.

Especially those who have been killed by our military actions

Sorry, Jon, it doesn't wash. It's obvious with every post that you only care about those who have been killed by our actions (including, apparently the monsters who continue to murder other Iraqis), and don't seem to give a damn about the many more killed prior to March, 2003, to the point of seeming to even deny their existence. As I've said before, you need to stop getting your propaganda from leftist web sites.

I actually agree with Jon, to be honest. And I truly believe that Jon cares about the Iraqis, too. Sure, militants die over there... I've heard it was about what, 500 a year? But how many Iraqi police die a year over there? FOUR THOUSAND!! Don't throw out brutal accusations of me being a "leftie" or "democrat," I'm non-partisan. But MUCH more people have died over there in the recent years than did BEFORE we rampaged into Iraq. I mean, the first bombing. Yeah, many Iraqis who have lost their families to Saddam welcomed it, but what about the mother whose two sons were killed in the house next door to where the initial target was? (I don't recall the name of the building, but it was bombed @ 5:00 AM March 17 2003, believed that Saddam was inside, which he wasn't. Zero intelligence points for America.)

The person left in charge after the decision to rebuild Iraq made 2 major mistakes: disbanding the Iraqi army, and getting rid of Baath officials. Tell me, if your city was war torn and completely out of service, how would you feel if some random ignoramus from another country who knows next to nothing about your country decided to take away all military power from you (thinking it would somehow make your country more stable?) and took away the expertise of who runs the water plants, electricity, road lights, and oil productions, and gave them to random citizens who had no idea how to do the job? Pretty pissed off, let me tell you. And the polls. Oh, those good old polls. How many people do you think voted? Do you think the poor, broken families with no media source went to vote? Hell no. Only the fortunate did. Those voting polls were a mess. American Iraqis mostly voted. Rand, you're smart, I'd give you that, but are you mad? How can you state that the people against the war are only concerned about their own interests? I'm only 17. I don't have a car. No oil prices are going to effect me. I'm no rich kid, but my mom and I manage just fine. Nothing in my corner of town has changed ANY since the invasion in Iraq except the price of gas. And maybe the price of cheese. But I still think the war is wrong, regardless if it affects me. Across America, little has changed. I'm willing to agree that *SOME* (but few and far between) of the anti-war activists lie when they say they sympathize for the Iraqis, but that's very unlikely. The troops over there are very unorganized. They're given jobs the Baaths were supposed to take care of, like building schools, and cleaning up raw sewage on the streets. This is a sad truth, but they're not there for that. They're trained to kill, not teach Iraqi kids how to read. As I've said before, we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi army or Baath.
What was the initial reason we went in there?
"They had WMD's." Well, that was a bold statement.
"It was tied to 9/11" Give me a break.
"We had to capture Saddam and 'evil-doers.'"

Truth is, they've been asking for our help all along, but bombing them probably isn't what they had in mind. Invading and overthrowing their dictator makes sense, but why would it take continuous bombing to do that? What happened to military intelligence? What happened to spies, search teams, and negotiators? Iraq needs our help? LET'S BOMB THE HECK OUT OF THEM. Seriously, was the bombing neccessary?

Overall, conditions over there got worse since the invasion. Before trying to "liberate" Iraq and give them the "gift" of "democracy," we should have liberated our troops first. Done and done.

(None of this information was obtained by leftie propaganda websites.)