(steve...it's quite ok, george and I might agree on menu items, but on some other things we argue)
First of all, it goes without saying that a military response to a neighbor's aggression is (outside of complicity in cause) justified. Obvious and simple point.
Quote:My objection to Blatham's views is that he assumes the necessities that; the intent of the U.S. government is objectively wrong.
I do not assume that US government intentions are 'necessarily' of any nature. Historical and cultural realities set some limits to what a US administration might do or intend, but that range is vast.
Quote:the motives of its leaders are equally wrong on a human level
This sentence is unclear in meaning. Let's assume you mean to claim I said all US leaders are morally bankrupt. I didn't say that, of course. I did say that THIS ADMINISTRATION clearly has no hesitation to tell untruths to its citizens: that both its attack on Iraq and its international negotiations preceding were examples of false pretences and arrogant disregard for international standards (think shell game plus Madison Avenue plus disdain for public opinion - domestic (lie to them) and foreign (who cares).
Quote:the public utterances of its spokesmen are uniformly
deceitful; "uniformly"... Well, I suspect you're more comfortable with absolute than am I. Can we simply settle here on the observation that no other administration has been so commonly indicted for deceit, by commentators within the US and outside, than has this one.
Quote:its execution of the recent war was carelessly wasteful of Iraqi lives;
You got grandkids, George? Ought we to imagine their guts and eyes splashed on the ceiling because somebody thinks cluster bombs are examples of engineering genius? As I think, along with the great majority of the world, that the war itself was unjustified, then yes, your sentence would apply.
Quote: its motives in allowing reporters unprecedented continuous access to combat units were to hide and deceive; etc.
As it happens, again you have me correctly, I do think this. Of course, so do many other writers and observers (see numerous links on this thread). You do too, though you'd use the terms 'direct attention' and 'security concerns'' and 'proper context' and 'reporter safety' and 'don't give jerks like blatham what they want'.
Quote:However the critical reader should recognize that his conclusions flow directly from his basic beliefs, and not from either the facts or a balanced view of history.
George, I confess I am not confident that you have your audience correctly picked out here, as 'critical readers' might not be identifiable to you readily.
