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 they were not "capable."
because they were not working with the people who actually were capable, and were threatening us.
because removing a dictator who could not mount an effective threat was not worth 3000 American soldiers, $400 billion, loss of credibility and influence, creating the best al Qaeda recruiting drive imaginable, and loss of military capacity to deal with actual threats (such as Iran, or al Qaeda itself).
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?
|
The point is always to further the national interest. But effective cooperation from other countries is part of that, is it not? (If not, then please explain why countries bother to seek alliances in the first place.)
From a national security perspective, we are in a worse position than we were, or could have been, without the occupation. And at massive cost.
And, of course, the misleading focus on non-existent WMDs and non-existent ties to al Qaeda (and non-existent flowers and sweets) prevented any clear-eyed analysis of these tradeoffs in advance. What you offer now is post-hoc justification, because the pre-hoc ones were a load of crap.
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.
|
I agree with this. This is not a playground. Preemptive strikes are a valid option. They just should be aimed sensibly.
Quote:
|
Not that it mattered, but again, Iraq had started it. If breaking a treaty to end a war, and trying to assisinate the former of head of your state is not justification enough, I don't know what is.
|
You are right again -- it didn't matter. "Who started it" is a stupid concept, as you pointed out at first. Attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq in accordance with that concept, however, is no less stupid.
If Laurent Kabila had tried to assassinate the president through a voodoo ritual, that would not have justified invading and attempting to occupy Congo. Or, much more importantly, it may have "justified" it -- but it would not have made it worth the cost.
