That doesn’t make it not stupid. Anyone paying attention knew from the start it was stupid and that the Bush Administration was lying and manipulating its way to war; the fact hat so many bought it anyway just demonstrates how willfully stupid the American public is.
At what time? Prior to the AUMF vote in Congress, it was not. I’ve cited this many times on this MB, but I can do it again if you want.
It is singularly irrelevant whether that decision was right, stupid or popular, either at the time or with hindsight.
The decision was taken precisely because that action was considered by the then administration to be in it’s domestic political interests.
Given that 50 million American voted for Bush in 2000 and 62 million in 2004 you’d have to say the only empirical evidence that counts supported that agenda.
You’re right; sorry; I read your post too quickly.
Bush Administration acted in its own interests; foolish septimus was still caught up in the pretence that America’s interests were of interest. :eek:
No, you wouldn’t. The Iraq war wasn’t the only issue in the campaign, and the other guy ran one horrible operation trying to defeat Bush. One can easily argue that Bush won re-election despite of the Iraq War, not because of it.
Nevertheless, it was a huge issue in the election, and Bush was re-elected by the largest (absolute) popular vote majority in American history.
As far as I remember it, a lot of people (including me) supported the Iraq invasion until things started to go really wrong which was after 2004.
It wasn’t the immorality or illegality of the invasion that bothered centrist Americans, but its cost and the fact that it failed.
pdts
As Sir Humphrey Appleby would say: Foreign policy is about surviving until the next century - domestic policy is about surviving the vote on Friday afternoon.
You could, though I don’t know how easily.
But if you did use that argument, the corrollary would be that the Iraq War was incidental to the USA’s domestic interests and, to relate back to the OP, why this means sometimes the US supports odious regimes, and in other times withdraws support from odious regimes they previously supported.
Nonsense. The Preamble to the Declaration is as global a statement of human rights as has ever been made.
Since we’re talking about percentages, that’s a meaningless statistic.
“A lot” is also meaningless, since we’re talking about percentages. It was about 50/50 (at best) by 2004. This cite has some data, but you have to scroll down about 1/5 the way to find the poll with data going back to 2003.
I don’t see why that would matter in terms of what we’re debating.
Maybe you could point to a few examples of how it influenced American foreign policy in the first or second hundred years after it was written. The declaration of independence is not a framework for any government policies, let alone foreign policy or even human rights policy - something that would not really exist in any meaningful way for another 175 years after it was written.
It’s like pointing to the Beatitudes to figure out what the policies are of Christian churches.
Yeah, the DoI was a one shot deal. We didn’t even apply it to ourselves all that much. I think it was more of a rationalization for secession.
If the US was only friendly with countries that were sufficiently like ours in terms of freedoms, rights, etc, we’d have even fewer friends in the world than we do now. I think that alone is enough to explain why being sometimes friendly with dictators is a whole lot easier (and cheaper) than trying to go invade and remake their countries. Iraq ring any bells?
If you exclude the fact that only one nascent country wrote the thing, and even we don’t recognize it in any fashion in being binding on our own people.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights, on the other hand, is a document drafted and unanimously supported (though with abstentions) by every member of the UN at the time. I think that has way more legitimate claim to being “global.”