Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
T-Rex: How come you never responded to this:
"For some reason you think that it was important for Iraq to have WMDs to justify our invasion. I just don't understand that position. And do not use as an excuse that Bush used it as a reason. Bush used it to help convince those people that don't care about human rights abuses. For those people that look at at US foreign policy soleley in terms of US self interest - then yes - they would need WMD's as a reason to invade. But these same people also opposed Clintons intervention in Serbia. But if you supported Clintons acts in Hait, Serbia or Somalia then you have no reason to harp about WMDs because none of these countrys had them."
Why did we need WMD's to justify Iraq but not to Justify bombing Serbia?
|
WMD are not a prerequisite for military intervention. North Korea did not have the bomb when it invaded South Korea. But the Bush Administration chose to sell the threat of Iraqi WMD as the chief reason to invade Iraq for political reasons, which is why their non-existence was so important. Had Bush said, Hussein is a bad man and we need to get rid of him, or Iraq should be a democracy, so let's invade, then we would be having a different conversation. He said those things sometimes, but we all know what was going on. The State of the Union address is not usually used to give the American people bulletins about British intelligence about central African raw materials. Americans are much more willing to sacrifice themselves to defend other Americans than for these other goals. That is why we might have a policy of regime change, and yet not resort to invasion.
Are you really asking me to justify our military involvement in Serbia?
