Actually, I like the ones that are "like that" if by that you mean neo-cons. The ones that typically get vilified over here. The nub of the issue is obviously Iraq which most Europeans think was a golden land where the rivers flowed with chocolate and children laughed and danced and adults sung the praises of the wise old farther Hussein.
Obviously the post war planning was absolutely dire. Its a shame the British did'nt have a greater say in that, our experience in N.Ireland and E.Europe means we know alot about 'winning the peace' as its now called. But America is a big swinging dick and decided to @#!* something (rightly) they just did the cuddling after really badly.
But your right that America gets a lot of unfair stick. Most Europeans should be on their knees thanking America for all it has done over the last 50 years in the world. With the possible exception of the British who were so stone cold broke by the time America decide to step up in late 1941 that we went from world superpower to basket case. Still if the mantle of superpower had to go to anyone else I'm glad its people who got the language and code of ethics right even if they do drive on the wrong side of the road.
Going off topic for a moment - I find that to be a really weird perspective.
First of all, Iraq had not attacked us - in the U.S. at least, those wonderful cuddly neo-cons you like got their way in this by convincing a lot of Americans that
A) Iraq had attacked us and,
They were trying to get weapons with which to do so again.
I will concede, quite happily, that the evidence they used was flimsy and should not have convinced anyone, what was true was not convincing, what was convincing was often easily debunked, and all too much of it has proven in the final analysis to not be mistakes, but deceit.
The odd thing is that all this was obvious at the time to a large group of Americans, who were vilified for pointing it out. So a large portion of the blame rests on an American Public that was eager to be deceived. But, being eager to be lied to is still a lesser sin, to my mind, than doing the lying, and the neo-cons did the lying.
So I have objections to people that like those "Like That".
Secondly - Rivers of chocolate? That's BS, Saddam was a bad person, I don't regret that the bastards dead. But there are verified civilian casualties in Iraq of 100,000, and estimates in the range of 500,000 to a 1,000,000 dead. More than twice those that died in the actual Iran/Iraq war (~200,000).
Are those estimates, and therefore fallible? Sure, in the same sense that *all* the casualty figures in historic wars are estimates. To be blunt - if those figures are off, then they are off in a way that will carry over to all casualty estimates in any historical period - the U.S. Civil war, WW I, WW II, Korea, the Holocaust, these are all measured with he same statistical models, and when those models have been compared with verified casualties (when we could get them) they've turned out to be pretty damn accurate. So I'm inclined to believe John-Hopkins when they estimate casualties.
I think the world is better off without Saddam, but I think it is worse off without the 500,000-1,000,000 people that got killed to get him. It's a hard sell to say he was 'anti-worth' 500,000 people.
Lastly - Those soldiers and money could have been doing worthwhile things. Do you think Kim-jong Il would have been the happy go lucky psychotic he's been for six years if he didn't know the world most powerful military was tied down? Do you believe for a minute that while George Bush was 'looking into Putin's Soul', Putin wasn't going "He's actually stupid enough to tie the only military that can stop us down in some third world quagmire. Great!".
Instead, we are probably going to cede a strategic region to the "Neo-Russian Empire, Czar Vladimir the 1st", and Georgia will be listed in the same class of "We said we'd help and then weren't there" as Budapest in 1956 or the Kurds in 1992.
Jonnan
