thanks for the positive comments but there are some falsehoods manufactured by a corrupt media and too many people either aren't smart enough to research or are simply too lazy.
You are welcome! And all my best wishes for our friends on the other side of the ocean, I am sure you can handle your problems, as you always have. But don't worry, I am not someone who buys in superficial media reports easily, no matter if those are American or European media reports. I did quite a lot of research on Iraq myself.
Also, while it's true that many parts of the media are superficial and advance falsehoods against the war, I found that there are at least as many falsehoods advanced on right-leaning, biased parts of the media. I'm sad the debate about this controversial, yet crucial topic was so much influenced by partisanship on all sides.
First, regarding the "unnecessary" war. Tell me do you think the world would be better off today with Saddam Hussein still in power funding and harboring terrorists? At the time, your intelligence agencies along with British intelligence and most other intelligence agencies said Saddam Hussein had WMD and after the biggest attack on American soil that could not be allowed to happen. Being proactive is something politicians do not often do but that sometimes means doing what is right even if unpopular.
Well, first of all, I am happy Saddam Hussein no longer is in power to oppress his people. And I hope Iraq will become a florishing democratic republic, as its people deserves. But that's not sure yet; once America withdraws, it may very well fall back into civil war between different factions or ethnicities, or become prey of Iran, which allies with the Shia majority there. In that case, all the efforts spent to bring Iraq freedom would have been in vein. And it's too early to tell.
My opposition to the Iraq war was based on the conviction that it was simply too risky. Now things may end well, but that wouldn't make my opposition wrong. It's well possible it was indeed too risky, but still worked out. Why do I think it was too risky? Even before the invasion, many skeptics already outlined the problems, many of which actually became reality: The occupation will not be as easy as Bush and Rumsfeld imagine, America will not just be welcomed as liberator, it will take much longer, there will be high bloodshed, it may destabilize the region and cost much, much more than initially expected. It's negligent not to send more troops. And there are no good plans for a stabilization post-invasion.
All of these concerns have unfortunately proven right by history. I don't have exact numbers, but the invasion was incredibly costy. The bloodshed was very high, different estimates say between 100,000+ and 655,000+ civilian casualties, which means not much fewer to five times the number of people per year than were killed under Saddam's rule. There was rampant violence, crime and almost civil war, until "the surge" which brought some relief -- but that could have been avoided, had Rumsfeld and Bush not insisted on such a low number of soldiers at first. The worst predictions about a destabilization of the region have not yet come true, but it's not decided yet.
And I understand America was in a shock after 9/11. I felt with you. But I believe Bush abused this shock. He used the atmosphere of fear to get through this unnecessary war, which he would never have been able to get through without that fear. Why unnecessary? Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. It was a secular regime by a nationalist dictator, who even imprisoned islamists. It was well-contained after the war 1991, and 20 years behind compared to the rest of the world. The claim about them developing WMD that pose an "immediate threat" to the US was exaggerated at best. It was simply not necessary, and way too risky to invade. I agreed with the Afghanistan war, but I believed and still believe Iraq was just not the right target, the invasion was unnecessary and way too risky -- and the results, we see today; Iraq way still fall to Iran, it has contributed a lot to the US deficit and the bloodshed was very high.
As for your claim the German intelligence service supported that claim, I have to correct you: This was the report by a source the BND considered as "grade D" and "highly unreliable". The chief of the German BND even explicitly denounced the claim he supported the invasion on national TV before the invasion, claiming "these reports the Americans are referring to are classified as highly unreliable", and he doesn't see any reliable evidence in favor of Bush's claims. And this is just one of many examples of the many falsehoods and half-truths the war-supporting propaganda media, especially the Murdoch media, advanced. They deliberately distorted the truth.
And indeed, after the invasion, none of the bold claims of the war supporters could be confirmed (at some point, Blair even suggested Saddam will have nukes soon that could reach Britain!), but on the contrary, no WMD were found. I was deeply concerned about the propaganda war and fearmongering the Bush and Blair administrations engaged in, and consider them a severe abuse of public trust and fear, and an unforgivable example of damaging democracy and public debate.
But maybe debating this now leads us too far off-topic. I just want to let you know where I stand.
Bush spending like a drunken sailor is what you have been led to believe. The President of the United States only controls about 40% of the budget which is discretionary spending so with a 3 trillion dollar budget that is about 1.2 trillion dollars. The rest is entitlement spending and that amount has built in cost of living adjustments. Bush discretionary spending increases were less than inflation and didn't lead to the debt he left us. 9/11 cost over a trillion dollars, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike cost billions and those hit the deficits. Bush tried to reform entitlements and was rebuked by both Democrats and Republicans. In spite of all that he is responsible for the debt generated by his deficits yet Obama has tripled the Bush deficits and has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years.Bush added 5 trillion in 8. You do the math as to what Obama will add.
Thanks for the explanation. You are probably right that Bush's spending wasn't as bad as I said, using words of exaggeration. But I think you will agree that Bush did at least not really do anything to lower spending either. He did spend a lot, and was part of the problem, even if his role is smaller than some say.
Also let's put to bed the lie that Bush inherited a surplus. According to the U.S. Treasury there was NO surplus and the Treasury is the checkbook of the United States. Every year of Clinton the debt went up and that wouldn't have happened with a surplus. It was a projected surplus based upon govt. generated assumptions that never materialized and a lot of that had to do with the recession Clinton left Bush and then 9/11. There is no way the projected surplus could happen with a recession.
Fair enough. But at any rate, the budget was in a better situation when Clinton left, than when Bush left, wasn't it?
I am very happy that Germany in florishing. I really like Merkel and believe she is headed in the right direction. I will still stay in this country and benefit from my own productivity and entreprenuerial ability. With Barack Obama it won't be long before we are just like every other country in the world and for me that is hard to take.
Thank you very much! For some weird reason, Merkel's government is in a similar, yet different situation than Obama: The economy is growing, yet her government is very unpopular and polls show her a low at least as bad as Obama's. Sometimes, voters are not fair, it seems.
And my best wishes for your country! I'm sure you will make it, with or without Obama.
