carepov

So who got it right, the electorate in 2004 or the electorate of 2008?

Yes, but Obama was against the Iraq war and that won him votes. Saddam was the wrong enemy at the wrong time.

Yes, if lessons aren't learned then the same mistakes will be made. If a major attack comes from Columbia, then a Republican President will invade Columbia, Venezuela and Cuba...

Yes, we were all wrong about Iraq. I am glad that you, unlike bush_cheney: -Admit that Iraq was a mistake -Value international cooperation

I know, but am thankful anyways - especially to the members of the armed forces and their families for all their sacrifices. I just wish that their efforts weren't wasted on counter-productive wars like Iraq. Well, the USA was "loved by the world" on 9/12/2001 and had the opportunity to greatly advance their own self-interests. I am glad that the electorate finally recognized the incompetence of the Republican administration.

OK, thankfully, American attitudes and expectations changed for the better since 2004. So why doesn't the US pull out of NATO and other "entaglements" like the UN?

Do what, you mean like invade Iraq in 2003 and make the world a worse place? I hope no one. I am thankful though that the US "won" the cold war and protects Taiwan, Japan, etc...

I will never forget the 2004 elections. It is proof that an electorate can be wrong. Thankfully, the electorate can also learn from its mistakes and it did so in 2006 and 2008. Most American and NATO interests are common interests. Cooperation was very beneficial to the US in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, and even in Afghanistan. Yes American's pay a higher price than anyone else, it is partially noble and courageous, but also partially foolish don't you think?

Well then fine, the "longstanding US policy" in Iraq was counterproductive to America’s own interests (i.e.: a quagmire) and the Republican administration was indeed held accountable in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Also, as recognized since 2009, and generally agreed to by the electorate since, it that it is in America's own interests to cooperate more with NATO and other allies. It's a good thing that at least some leaders recognize mistakes and learn from them.

I cannot think of any despicable deeds that require religious affiliation... can you please provide some examples? Agreed. No. No, good deeds do not atone for past bad deeds. By the way is the KKK organized religion? Either way, I am against the KKK. Yes I agree. However I will add: religion/faith has, does, and will continue to inspire more charity. Yes, I agree. If I understand correctly, your proposed "solution" is to eliminate organized religion, the trouble is: 1. Your proposal is completely impractical - like it or not religion is a part of humanity and cannot be taken out. 2. Your "solution" will do more harm than good. Again, think about the societies that tried to stamp out all organized religion. And again, think about all the good religions inspire. Yes we should all criticize all despicable deeds regardless of religion. But, please stop mocking and marginalizing all those people of faith that are progressive and standing up against the same despicable deeds that you are denouncing. What would you say to the Dalai Lama if you had the chance? Would you have marginalized Martin Luther King for his beliefs? What about all the members of this group: http://www.miic.ca/mission_statement.aspx What about the people that live ordinary lives and go to a place of worship once a week and get comfort, or serenity, a social life, business contacts or whatever from their religion? Why do you insist on mocking them?

No, you twisted my words 180 degrees. I have severe criticism for all chicken-shit countries that show a lack of commitment - including Canada. To balance some of my criticism of the USA, it deserves praise for its bravery and sacrifices in the War on Terror. Don't you think that it is important to review mistakes and hold people accountable so that we are not doomed to repeating them?

Good question. Most NATO members are too chicken - they definitely deserve criticism. But the biggest blunders were made by the USA. It was sheer hubris and stupidity to think that they could fight and win two wars simultaneously, while insulting and not cooperating with many of its allies.

Well for the Axis yes, WWII was definately more of a failure... For the Allies, no. Despite the greater costs, the benefits to WWII outweigh the costs. In other words the consequences of not fighting WWII were worse than the costs. I 100% agree with you, and Romeo Dallaire, that we have a responsibility to protect and that Rwanda was a shameful failure. Darfur = failure, and The Dem. Rep. Congo is also an ongoing failure. One of my biggest criticisms of the War on Terror is that so many resources (political, economic, military, etc...) have been wasted that the West now has little or no capacity or stomach to intervene in places where it should.

I hope that you are right. By the nature of your questions I strongly suspect that you are misunderstanding my position, I will try to clarify and hopefully address all your questions: -I was in favour of the invasion of Afghanistan and still think that it was the right move in 2001 -Nation building was also a good idea (even though Bush mocked the idea in the 2000 election campaign). -It's the execution that was terrible: it seemed like the West tried to do things on "the cheap" and were pennywise pound foolish. Not enough resources were deployed and this is why the war dragged on: Big mistake -Overall, I am proud of Canada's armed forces and the way that they operated. -I supported Harper when he went to Afghanistan and claimed that Canada would not "cut and run" and would not give a timeline for withdrawal, unfortunately that's just what we did. This is a sign of failure. -From the US and Canada at least, there was a constant message of "we will never negotiate with the Taleban". Another sign of failure is that we are going to be doing just that. -You are right, once the war starts and there is a commitment to nation building, the benefits change. I agree with you, the consequences of quitting are worse than the costs of continuing. We were stuck and had really no choice but to finish the job. So then, WHY THE HELL START ANNOTHER WAR IN IRAQ??? -Again, IMO the decision to invade and try to rebuild Afghanistan was good. To me, the military operations and organization looked good (not perfect), it is the bungling by the USA of the war on terror that caused Afghanistan to be a failure. -Another mistake by the USA that hurt the mission in Afghanistan was its pissing away most of the goodwill it had with 99% of the world in 2001 (Iraq, rendition, torture, hubris and stupidity...) -It's hard to say what would constitute success, but if the US sent more troops to Afghanistan in 2002-2003 instead of Iraq I think that we would have had better, faster results at much lower costs - that would have been a success.

Yes for a few posts I did focus on the number of years as an indicator of the total costs of the war. However my position is that for a war (or any action) to be declared successful, the total benefits (security, economic gain, humanitarian, or other benefits/objectives) must outweigh the total costs (primarily human suffering, political, financial, environmental, opportunity costs, etc...). It looks like you are revising you position and similarly beginning to factor in the costs of war when judging it's success, am I reading you correctly?

Yes, of course. An interesting discussion would be: was the Cold War worth it? What were the benefits and the costs? What were the key moves and mistakes made by each side?

No, I have made it clear that the costs of war include finacial costs, political costs but especially the cost of all human suffering. But perhaps if the USA did not invade Iraq in 2003 and instead focussed on Afghanistan the war would have been successful.

Can you name a 12 year long war where any side "won"?

You are correct but this is besides the point. Are you saying that America has made no mistakes, has no regrets, and there are no lessons to be learned in fighting the war on terror?

Not necessarily, but a war lasting 12 years must be wasteful. Also, is Afghanistan now secure enough for NGO's? Wars that do nothing to increase security - or even worse those that decrease security - are wasteful. There are many that fall into these categories.

1. Well you may be right in your example, but remember you set out your example as a way of clarifying my position - your example is not my position. My position and claim is that the West, led by the US, could of and should have used the resources spent on the War on Terror to educate more women (perhaps ten times more) in other parts of the world where there is a similar societal illness of violence against women. Pakistan for example. Or Zimbabwe. Or Haiti. Or Burma. or all of them... 2. Remember, there have been improvements in Afghanistan, but we are not out of the woods. What if the Taleban retake power and begin to deny girls the right to education? What do we do then? 3. New point: where was the West between 1996 - 9/10/2001? Helping Afghan women was of no concern then, and AFAK was not an objective of the War on Terror. No that is not at all what my line of reasoning suggests. I suggest that we use resources (political, financial, etc..) wisely - and that is not what the US has done in its' war on terror. Maybe it was correct for the international community/NATO/US to invade Afghanistan - but not in the way that it did. 12 years of war - so many dead - so much suffering - so much opportunuity cost - so much money spent - not enough gains to justify.

Yes, you and I share same goals and give the same importance to educating women. If ressources were unlimmited then you would be correct and we should educate all women no matter the cost. No, it's like saying "successfully" treating one child by giving them a 50% chance of surviving is actually a failure because ten children with the same illness could have been treated with close to 100% chance of surviving. Agreed. But sometimes it isn't.

Yes, America has written many good cheques - but many have also been NSF (Somalia, Iraq, and perhaps Afghanistan). And now America is so bankrupt (politically and financially) that it cannot even pull out their chequebook without being mocked. I agree, again, my opinion is that America's biggest blunder in the War on Terror was Iraq.

No, your point only strengthens mine. I am saying that we could have had strong, sustainable gains for 150,000,000 women accross sevaral continents instead of the gains for 15,000,000 Afghan women that are at risk of vanishing. Imagine the examples and women leaders that could have been developed if all those ressources were not wasted on war!

No, I think that you are misunderstanding me, try looking at it this way: Let's say for the same cost as educating 15,000,000 girls in Afghanistan we could have educated 150,000,000 girls in other countries. You are partially correct in saying that the war was a success for Afghan girls and society (IF the Taleban doesn't regain power and erase all the gains) but what I am saying is that the War was a failure for the 150,000,000 girls that were neglected and their future generations.