Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch What you offer now is post-hoc justification, because the pre-hoc ones were a load of crap.
|
Aren't these "Post Hoc" because we couldn't know this:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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).
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.
|
My point was that the Pre-hoc view of invading Iraq and Afghanistan were pretty much looking the same. In fact an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was looking a lot more dicey.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.)
|
Countrys most often get into alliances because many are stronger than one. Sometimes you need help to get the job done. In this case we didn't need anyone else's help. It is nice if we can get help from other countrys to further our national interest but it is not a prerequisite.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch And, of course, the misleading focus on non-existent WMDs
|
The Taliban had no WMDs
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
and non-existent ties to al Qaeda (and non-existent flowers and sweets) prevented any clear-eyed analysis of these tradeoffs in advance.
|
For some of us, the fact that they could ever get together was enough.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch They just should be aimed sensibly.
|
Can't argue with that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.
|
I was just pointing out that under the "Who started it way of thinking" there was justification. But "who started it" is a stupid argument to get into anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch 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.
|
That is true. But if Lawrence Kabala today tried to rig a stage in South African when Clinton was visiting to blow up, but failed, that would be a whole different scenario. Some sort of reaction would be in order. I don't think we could tolerate him staying in power. One way or another we would have to get rid of him. Especially if he kept up his campaign.
