I rarely copy and paste... but this is great

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

A terrorist no, a terrorist sympathizer yes.

Based on what? This is the "go to" guy by even Bush on Islamic outreach issues.

The way I see it, the sanctions were brought on by a mad man dictator.
Damn, Spence, you have argued on many, many occasions that the sanctions were working. Not to mention that we should keep sanctions in place for Iran.

I've argued that the sanctions were very effective at keeping Saddam's military ambitions under control. Certainly they came at a high price...

I believe the context I've usually used is that in 2003 we were under little pressure to depose Saddam as Bush insisted as there was no immediate threat...because of the sanctions.

And while we are at it...how about the US lives lost in Bosnia or the first Iraq war to save Muslims. Does that effect the "Islamic perspective"?????

It does to some degree. I'm not sure Desert Storm was seen by Muslims as the US out to save them, but more as hired guns by the Saudis. Also, I don't think people think of specific events as much but they look at a pattern over time. Once measure of good faith may be lost if it's not followed up, and in a pretty dysfunctional region to begin with...this isn't always easy.

Iran is another good example. The US has been meddling in Iranian affairs for 50 years and yet we wonder why there's a lack of trust! Wether we had good reasons for specific actions may justify some of our own actions, but we can't ignore that there's another perspective that STILL INFLUENCES POLICY AND PERCEPTION TODAY.

-spence