-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.8 Aug 2006

Hmm, so Uncle Sam sold weapons to Saddam. It always surprises me when people use this (usually in combination with the photograph of Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Moustache itself) as an argument against regime change in Iraq. It seems to me that one of the most radical aspects of recent American foreign policy is how it is beginning to spell a break from the old model of propping up dictatorships whenever it seems convenient. It was that kind of short-termist realpolitik which led to the infamous Rumsfeld-Hussein Kodak Moment. If the idea of America selling weapons to Saddam is undesirable (and it is), then I'd have thought it at least slightly pleasing that we've now tossed the scoundrel in jail, and are at least trying to pursue a long term political solution to the Iraqi problem.

Your gloating over the prospect of civil war is equally surprising, particularly when the coalition's enemy in Iraq - the insurgency - has openly declared that they want to foment a civil war between Sunnis and Shia. That's why they blow up mosques and fire rockets into crowds of pilgrims. I'll grant there's an argument to be made about whether or not the presence of foreign troops in Iraq makes the situation worse for ordinary Iraqis. It's not a strong enough argument to dissuade me from supporting regime change, but it is at least an argument I can respect. But when you post five verses about the plight of the Iraqi people, spend the entire time spouting Michael Moorisms, AND DON'T DIRECT A SINGLE WORD OF CRITICSM TOWARDS THE INSURGENCY, it makes me think that you're not so much anti-war, as pathologically anti-American. In future, if you want something to blame for the sectarian strife in Iraq, blame more than 20 years under brutal dictatorship, rather than our overdue attempts, against considerable odds, to rectify the situation.