Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
So the only difference was Afghanistan had been successful and Iraq hadn't. So why wait until Iraq was successful? Why not hit them before they were successful?
|
Because that's not the way we do things.
We don't arrest people for being inclined to commit robbery. We arest them when they commit robbery. Or attempt it. Really attempt it. Not just talk about it.
Quote:
|
You use the word "Justified". I was not talking about if we were "justified", I was talking about what was prudent from a national security perspective. You go after the country that is the bigger threat from a national security perspective. The point here is to save U.S. citizens lives not to please the international community. Is it not?
|
I want you to think for a second about what you are saying. It was justified/good/okay/prudent to invade Iraq because other countries (not Iraq) pose a greater danger than Afganistan.
This is not a debate on the wisdom of the premptive strike. This is stupid.
Quote:
"Who started it" has become an obsolete concept in the age of terrorism and WMDs. We can't let them get in the first blow because in the first blow we could lose Chicago, or even worse Vegas.
|
You aren't going to convince me or anybody similarly inclined this way.
For you, security is paramount. For me, I have higher ideals.
It's ironic that you are the one who defends moral absolutism.
