EXACTLY
Might as well have invaded China in response to Pearl Harbour. No, scratch that. That would have made WAY more sense than the Iraq War, as there were actually Japanese troops in China.
U.S. Deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan Decline Dramatically in 2008
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
EXACTLY
Might as well have invaded China in response to Pearl Harbour. No, scratch that. That would have made WAY more sense than the Iraq War, as there were actually Japanese troops in China.
Leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq was unacceptable.
As long as all the U.S. did was "contain" Saddam Hussein it sent an incredible message of American weakness to the rest of the world. Including to terrorists.
It said
"You can invade U.S. allies. Hurl missiles into the cities of nonbelligerent nations. Kill American soldiers. Violate a U.S. mandated cease fire agreement. Try to kill a former U.S. president...........
.....and the United States will still not remove you from power".
There could be no war against terrorism or against radical Islam without the eradication of the Hussein regime.
When Saddam Hussein was captured by the U.S., when Hussein was executed later...NOT ONE MAN in the entire world was directly responsible for the deaths of more people.
That alone justified U.S. invasion.
Regardless of motives.
As long as all the U.S. did was "contain" Saddam Hussein it sent an incredible message of American weakness to the rest of the world. Including to terrorists.
It said
"You can invade U.S. allies. Hurl missiles into the cities of nonbelligerent nations. Kill American soldiers. Violate a U.S. mandated cease fire agreement. Try to kill a former U.S. president...........
.....and the United States will still not remove you from power".
There could be no war against terrorism or against radical Islam without the eradication of the Hussein regime.
When Saddam Hussein was captured by the U.S., when Hussein was executed later...NOT ONE MAN in the entire world was directly responsible for the deaths of more people.
That alone justified U.S. invasion.
Regardless of motives.
There are tons of other countries that the same argument could be made about. You ready to invade Russia? Iran? North Korea? North Vietnam? Venezuela?
The U.S. has no obligation to invade every brutal dictatorship just because we were justified in invading Iraq.
There is nothing morally wrong with only attacking nations that can be reduced with minimal cost and loss of life to ourselves.
Each nation is unique and the solution to the problems involving them are different.
But for the record, when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, I was hoping that it would be a cakewalk with less than 500 U.S. fatalities (and corresponding less Iraqis killed as well), and that the U.S. could move on to invading Iran in 2005 or so, and then invading and liberating North Korea in the 2007-2009 time frame. All leading up to the eradication of the Chinese regime in the 2013-2015 time frame.
But I'm not an expert in such matters so that might not have been realistic.
You don't say?
A majority of Americans either still think or have thought for a long time that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks or at least had prior knowledge of them.
The majority of Americans were wrong then.
The majority of Americans are wrong now.
They're only right if they agree with you. You can't possibly be the one who has no grasp on the situation, can you?
Dayton, you started this thread knowing what kind of reaction you would get. Are you trying to use the moderators as weapons again?
Oh come on. I made that comment what? Four years ago? I think so because IIRC it was in the first season of the new Battlestar: Galactica.
Amazing that is one thing that has stuck with people nearly half a decade.
I enjoy posting here.
I don't want to be attacked or insulted. I assume if everyone keeps things civilized and polite then this thread can continue without incident.
Never understood why everyone got so up in arms anyway just because of controversial opinions......
Then you don't understand what "controversial" means.
You say that so matter-of-factly but you've yet to be able to prove anything you have said.
"controversial" should never be an excuse to abandon respect and civility.
It is my opinion.
I don't have to prove anything.
I thought it being an "opinion" was implied.
From what I've observed on message boards, something like 99.9% of posts are opinions.
So I think I can be forgiven for assuming no one needed me to state the obvious.
Of course you need to prove, or at least justify, your opinion. Otherwise it is not a respectable opinion.
Would you be willing to accept anything that concluded the invasion of Iraq was fully justified from a strategic, legal, and moral standpoint and in the best interests of the United States and that the losses suffered by the U.S. were acceptable?
If it was one that made sense, then yes. I've yet to hear one, though.
Not germane to the discussion, since the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was to combat terrorism and all the fighting during the occupation of Iraq is with terrorists. If it wasn't for the religious nuts, we could have been out of there in six months to a year.
Terrorists who were there because we were there. As pointed out already, Saddam's regime was one of the most anti-Islamic Extremism in the world. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would have found it extremely hard to operate within his borders. By removing him from power and opening up the country to an influx of Islamic extremists with a ready made, home delivered, US target, we created a war on terror there, we didn't solve one.
How many times have you been banned in those four years?
You know very well what you are doing.