All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let me say this very slowly: if another country (let's pick one, say, Syria) is a greater threat to the US than Afghanistan, then that may be justification for invading Syria.

So all of a sudden they don't need to attack us first. What happened to:

"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."

"Like it or not, there's a lot of emphasis in the world on "who started it." It's pretty clear (but not crystal) we didn't "start it" with Afghanistan."

"This is stupid."

Originally posted by baltassoc
It is not justification for invading Iraq.

(Unless you go for the "bloody nose" theory, i.e., when confronted with a half dozen bullies, pick the biggest one and bloody his nose and the rest will run away. Except, well, that hasn't worked out very well. Is that what you're saying?)

The point, if you had been paying attention, was the Iraq was just as big a threat as Afghanistan. Saddams Hussein's regime was much more sophisticated than the Taliban, so if Saddam had hooked up with Al Queda or someone else for 9-11 part two it would have made 9-11 seem like a pin prick.

Somewhere you got the idea that because I mentioned these other countries I was arguing that since they were a threat we should invade Iraq. I never said that. I only brought up those other countrys to show that there were just a few countrys that had regimes who had it in for the US and were a threat. Iraq was on that list. And of that list Iraq was the most threatening and the lowest hanging fruit.

Again, I never said we should invade Iraq, because other countrys were a threat. I said we should invade Iraq because Iraq was a threat.

Originally posted by baltassoc
If only any of that had been the justification for going into Iraq. if only it had been so clean. But it wasn't. It just wasn't. Was not.

Who cares what the stated justification is. That is just diplomatic double talk. The important point is was it justified. From a national security perspective I think it was because we had seen what could happen when a poor unsophisticated regime that had it in for us (the Taliban) hooked up with a terroist group, and we did not want to wait and see what a sophisticated regime with a history of owning WMDs might do if it hooked up with Al Queda or a group like Al Queda. From a moral perspective, getting rid of Saddan was clearly the right thing to do. Unless of course you think gassing the Kurds, the killing fields, draining the swaps to kill millions of Shias etc. was acceptible behavior and not of enough excuse for regime change.

Originally posted by baltassoc I'm not saying that one can only attack when attacked.

At least be honest. That what you were saying. See above quotes.

Originally posted by baltassoc I'm saying that nobody disagrees that when one is striking back that one is on the high ground. In the absence of that, one better have one's ducks in a row or anticipate criticism.

Who cares about the "high ground" and why should we have our ducks in a row to "anticipate criticism"? Keep your eyes on the ball. The only issues are "is it in our national security interest" and is it "morally OK for us to do it". If the answer to both is yes, then you do it and who cares whether or not you have the "high ground", whether the international community agrees with you, or if you "anticipate criticism". And if the answer to both those questions is no then you don't go in, again, regardless of what the international community says, whether or not you have the "high ground", or if you "anticipate criticism".