Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
For me the position one takes doesn't make me respect them more or less.
More important is how they justify their position and that their position and their actions are not opposed to each other. To me one of the biggest issues in american politics right now is exactly what you posted above. When someone has a differing opinion they aren't repsected and are villified for it.
|
Except his argument didn't make sense. I have no problem with a differing opinion. My beliefs and Hitchens' were pretty much lock-stock until Iraqi Freedom 2 Electra Buga-loo went down. It was pretty obvious to anyone that paid attention, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends where spinning a tale and Hitchens fell for it.
Quote:
Well I am not sure why you can't follow.
He could have just continued to criticise Bush and his policies, paroting all the talking points of no WMDs, etc... against the Iraq war.
But, instead his stance (in short) on Iraq was/is that when you weigh all that happened in Iraq the removal of Saddam Hussein tilts the scales towards the "good" side.
That showed me that he isn't just another lefty-ideologue but someone whose opinion worthy of consideration. Whether I agree with him or not.
|
Not sure if you've noticed yet, but most of those talking points were right. Iraq didn't WMD's and wasn't involved with 9-11, combine that with you equating any dissension to war with the term lefty, kind of weakens your argument.
It has been way too soon to determine if the removel of Saddam was good or bad for that region. What we do know is that the US has spent way to high of a price for Saddam's scalp. Not to mention the fact that drawing attention away from Afganistan aided in Osama's escape. A real life terrorist.
Which makes me think that invading Iraq wasn't the best idea for the US.
I do think Saddam was a crazy Mo-fo who was an evil e, but his posturing in a twisted way, keep that region somewhat stable and Iran in check.