 Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa  How many iraqis were involved in terrorist attacks on the US?? Zero.. The attack on Iraq was not because "they started it".. but rather because they MIGHT have started it if they were given a few years to actually revive their weapons programme. "Preemptive Strike".. a NEW term coined by the Bush administration.. INVASION sounds too aggressive.
Fact is that the first violence was started by the americans.. that means responsibility for the deaths that come as a consequence. | I think we were going more after Saddam Hussein than the Iraqi people. A lot of our strikes were calculated, and still are with not hurting the people. Actually Saddam had been shooting at our aircraft even though he wasn't supposed to even have anything to shoot with. Some of those missiles he shot at us with could have killed an American. He acted aggressively first. It's really maybe, maybe, maybe. This war has been under the microscope so much nobody can even catch their breath. Iraq is part of the war on terror. Did we need to do it? I don't know. Was it a mistake? I hope not. Quote: |
Agreed.. war IS full of afterthoughts.. But have you noticed how the "afterthoughts" are being touted as the ACTUAL reason for attack? Especially since the US is now LESS safe than it was prior to the Iraq war. After 9/11 there was almost ulimited support for the US invasion of afghanistan.. However any friends that could have been made were LOST due to the war in Iraq.
| That's part of war, too, the afterthoughts become part of the reason. We need to focus on our plan, do it, get out.
Check this out on WWI: http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm
Quote:
"If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909." |